Originally posted by RJHindsApology accepted. Just don't use that argument again!
To Penguin:
I'm sorry if I misrepresented Darwin by stating he had doubts
about the evolutionary theory which did not even exist when
he wrote this book. But he did admit how absurd it was to
think the process of natural selection could result in the human
eye. He must of had some doubt in natural selection to point
this out. It was my understandi ...[text shortened]... evolution is based on. If I am
wrong, please educate me on its meaning and origin.
RJHinds
Evolutionary theory did exist when he wrote his book, otherwise he could not have written his book since the book explained the theory.
He didn't have doubts about natural selection, he was stating an argument that he expected to be bought against his theory, before explaining how the argument was invalid. I see you have gathered this a few posts below the one I am replying to.
The theory's full title is "Evolution Through Natural Selection", so natural selection is the mechanism that the theory put forward in order to explain the fact of evolution.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by AgergIt's just a hunch of mine but I suspect your thoughts on this matter are shackled by the belief in a 6000 year old earth
It's just a hunch of mine but I suspect your thoughts on this matter are shackled by the belief in a 6000 year old earth, and that "one type of animal could turn into another type of animal by natural selection" sounds absurd because you have no way to conceive that trillions upon trillions of creatures have been playing, and mostly failing at the game ...[text shortened]... es in short intervals of time but about small incremental changes over long periods of time.
Spot on! From his subsequent posts, it is clear that he is another Young Earth Creationist and no amount of evidence will persuade him to critically appraise his views.
Watch, astounded, as he fails to define what a 'kind' is.
--- Penguin.
To Twhitehead:
The definition of "kind" the Holy Bible uses in Genesis
is "a natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind,
the rodent kind, the canine kind, etc. (see Webster's
dictionary).
The dog is a domesticated canine. The wolf, coyote,
jackal, fox, and the dogs you mentioned are of the
canine kind. I'm surprised you did not know this.
To deny God had anything to do with creation and it
all came about as a chance accident is unacceptable
in any science (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) to
Christians.
I call it junk science when the scientific method is not
followed completely to get real proof of the facts.
The junk scientist is happy to call something a fact
because he is too lazy to put in the work required to
get the real proof that a theory he wants everyone to
believe in is fact and not theory.
I do care about the truth. I would not put any effort
into defending something I knew was a lie.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHinds"To deny God had anything to do with creation and it
To Twhitehead:
The definition of "kind" the Holy Bible uses in Genesis
is "a natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind,
the rodent kind, the canine kind, etc. (see Webster's
dictionary).
The dog is a domesticated canine. The wolf, coyote,
jackal, fox, and the dogs you mentioned are of the
canine kind. I'm surprised you did not know th ...[text shortened]... e truth. I would not put any effort
into defending something I knew was a lie.
RJHinds
all came about as a chance accident is unacceptable
in any science (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) to
Christians. "
To deny (or affirm) that God had anything to do with creation is unacceptable in any science, and not just to Christians. Science is silent on the metaphysical, except to say that the methodology of science is naturalism, not supernaturalism. This doesn't require anyone including scientists to make a metaphysical commitment to naturalism, and many scientists are theists.
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, I take back my assertion that you would fail to define a 'kind'.
To Twhitehead:
The definition of "kind" the Holy Bible uses in Genesis
is "a natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind,
the rodent kind, the canine kind, etc. (see Webster's
dictionary).
The dog is a domesticated canine. The wolf, coyote,
jackal, fox, and the dogs you mentioned are of the
canine kind. I'm surprised you did not know th ...[text shortened]... e truth. I would not put any effort
into defending something I knew was a lie.
RJHinds
So all birds evolved from a common ancestor: Kiwis, emus, vultures, penguins, hummingbirds?
But mammals did not, they evolved from one level lower:
- all canines: wolves, coyotes, pekinese, Japanese Tosas, hyenas?
- all equines: Amercan mustangs, British shire horses, zebras, mules, shetland ponies?
- all felines: domestic cats, puma, tigers, lions etc
- ...
What about fish? is that a Kind or is that lot further broken down?
Arthropods are presumably several kinds: insects, arachnids, etc?
I understand that you may not have answers for all of this but I am just wondering what your gut feeling is.
So are we to understand that all the different species of bird evolved from one ancestor in less than 6000 years?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is a little bit of a problem with that particular definition. It includes several different levels. For example 'mammal kind' is a parent of 'rodent kind', or even 'sausage dog kind'. So when you make a claim about 'kinds' are you referring to any possible 'natural group', or a particular type of 'natural group'.
The definition of "kind" the Holy Bible uses in Genesis
is "a natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind,
the rodent kind, the canine kind, etc. (see Webster's
dictionary).
The dog is a domesticated canine. The wolf, coyote,
jackal, fox, and the dogs you mentioned are of the
canine kind. I'm surprised you did not know this.
I am surprised you thought I would know this. As far as I know, you only just now invented the 'canine kind' category.
So how does one know whether or not two species are of the same 'kind'? Is there a reliable way, or must one consult the Bible for an exhaustive list?
I call it junk science when the scientific method is not
followed completely to get real proof of the facts.
So how do you know that the scientific method was not followed when it comes to evolution? Do you actually know this from direct knowledge, or do you conclude it from the fact that the results contradict the Bible and you trust the scientific method?
Originally posted by twhiteheadCommenting on this quote:
There is a little bit of a problem with that particular definition. It includes several different levels. For example 'mammal kind' is a parent of 'rodent kind', or even 'sausage dog kind'. So when you make a claim about 'kinds' are you referring to any possible 'natural group', or a particular type of 'natural group'.
[b]The dog is a domesticated can ...[text shortened]... fact that the results contradict the Bible and you trust the scientific method?
"So how does one know whether or not two species are of the same 'kind'? Is there a reliable way, or must one consult the Bible for an exhaustive list?"
There isn't going to be a list. There is a response that is a sort of 'No True Scotsman' fallacy that can be made by the anti-evolution side by the 'kind" approach. and it depends on belief while not having a list, which is to say it depends on faith and ignorance. It is this: Demonstration of any successful (as defined by science) evolutionary transition from one organism to another will be dismissed by 'Well, they must be of the same kind (faith) and we just didn't know it (ignorance)."
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
To Penguin:
You forced me to do a little research on Charles Darwin
and the Theory of Evolution. I realy did not know much
about the man. I had always been told he began the
theory of evolution. I was given that information on
Darwin by a fellow Christian, who apparently was
misinformed. I have not read "origin of the Species"
myself; but I thought from what I had heard that the book
was about evolution. But he was concerned with why there
were so many different species of a kind of animal. His
theory was that it was due to natural selection which I
thought was the same as evolution. But natural selection
is really the same thing as I call adaptation. The encyclopedia
stated that the modern theory of evolution was put forward
by a Russian investigator in 1923. I believe that Charles Darwin
was a great man now and I certainly will no longer use that
quote on Darwin again; and I will now defend him to my
Christian brothers. I certainly will not knowingly put forth a
lie to defend the truth.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae
To Twhitehead:
The definition of "kind" the Holy Bible uses in Genesis
is "a natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind,
the rodent kind, the canine kind, etc. (see Webster's
dictionary).
The dog is a domesticated canine. The wolf, coyote,
jackal, fox, and the dogs you mentioned are of the
canine kind. I'm surprised you did not know th ...[text shortened]... e truth. I would not put any effort
into defending something I knew was a lie.
RJHinds
Canines and Felines come from the same ancestor, the Carnivorans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorans
Originally posted by RJHindsQuote: ". I certainly will not knowingly put forth a lie to defend the truth."
To Penguin:
You forced me to do a little research on Charles Darwin
and the Theory of Evolution. I realy did not know much
about the man. I had always been told he began the
theory of evolution. I was given that information on
Darwin by a fellow Christian, who apparently was
misinformed. I have not read "origin of the Species"
myself; but I t ...[text shortened]... ian brothers. I certainly will not knowingly put forth a
lie to defend the truth.
RJHinds
Not in question. In question is how we identify reliable sources of those things we take to be underlying truths, that lead us to put forth statements we later have to take back. What has led you to do this?
Originally posted by RJHindsI have read Darwin's book and can confirm that it is about evolution. Not some crippled form that only make minor alterations but an over-riding mechanism that produced all current life from a common ancestor billions of years ago.
To Penguin:
You forced me to do a little research on Charles Darwin
and the Theory of Evolution. I realy did not know much
about the man. I had always been told he began the
theory of evolution. I was given that information on
Darwin by a fellow Christian, who apparently was
misinformed. I have not read "origin of the Species"
myself; but I t ...[text shortened]... ian brothers. I certainly will not knowingly put forth a
lie to defend the truth.
RJHinds
I would really like to know where you got you info from for your research. Who was this Russian guy?
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinWhere does Darwins book actually state that, for I have a copy in front of me at the moment, a Wordsworth classics of modern literature and the greatest irony is, i cannot find any reference to any origin of any species, certainly not some 'common ancestor', billions (nice round figure that, plucked from where?) of years old. If you can provide chapter and page number i will look it up.
I have read Darwin's book and can confirm that it is about evolution. Not some crippled form that only make minor alterations but an over-riding mechanism that produced all current life from a common ancestor billions of years ago.
I would really like to know where you got you info from for your research. Who was this Russian guy?
--- Penguin
To Penguin:
It looks like I'm going to have to go to the library and
get his book and read it myself to see if what you said
is true. If so, I may not be able to defend him after all.
Although he had some good ideas he went to far if he
said all life came from a common ancestor billions of
years ago.
I don't have the encyclopedia at home with me that I
looked up the theory of evolution. But I will look it up
again to get that Russian investigators name. The
encyclopedia did not say much about him. It mentioned
his name and a brief statement on his theory he proposed
in 1923 that is accepted as the modern theory of evolution.
I would guess he was an atheist because Russia was under
communism at that time and most Russian were considered
atheist then. And it is hard for me to believe a Christian
would propose such a theory.
RJHinds
To robbie carrobie:
I found Darwin's work on the internet and the following is one of the paragraphs
in the last chapter. I was unable to find anything about billions of years.
"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
He seems to be confused about species of animals and plants and what the
Holy Bible refers to as kind of creatures and plants. He gives me the
impression that Bible creationist were teaching that all species were
created. If they were then they did not understand the Holy Bible.
The Holy Bible says that plants and creatures reproduce after their own
kind, not species. My understanding is that spicies fall under the kind.
For example: Under the canine kind, we have the wolves, foxes, and
the many species of dogs. Am I wrong?
Anyway, It appears Charles Darwin did go to far in his conclusions.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsBut it then seems you would agree that a God-directed evolution, from kind to kind, and a human-directed evolution, from kind to kind, would not be different in that respect -- neither one would be by chance. I'm not asking you to admit that either occurs, just whether they both do not involve chance. I think you just admitted that.
To JS357:
Your right! But that is much different than natural
selection and evolution, where it happens by chance.
RJHinds
You see, I do not believe science rules out God-directed evolution. Science only says, look for the natural explanations. God might have set up a world that those natural explanations explain. God is saying, here's how I do it, I use DNA changes, etc.
It's like the story about the man on a roof in a flood. He said to the men who arrived on a boat, no, go away, God will save me. He said the same thing to the men in a helicopter. When he got to heaven, St. Peter said, why are you here? God sent a boat, and then He even sent a helicopter!