Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Johnv]

These so called new species...

Interesting that there is so much resistance to the idea that speciation is documented. According to Answers In Genesis, the argument "no new species have been observed" is an argument that creationists should abandon, because it has been documented, and because speciation is permitted in the Genesis account.

If Answers In Genesis(an organization that staunghly supports a literal view of creation) supports speciation as fact, why is there som much resistance here?

 

[Revmitchell]

Interesting that there is so much resistance to the idea that speciation is documented. According to Answers In Genesis, the argument "no new species have been observed" is an argument that creationists should abandon, because it has been documented, and because speciation is permitted in the Genesis account.

If Answers In Genesis(an organization that staunghly supports a literal view of creation) supports speciation as fact, why is there som much resistance here?

Are we talking about sub-speciation or trans-speciation?

 

[Johnv]

Are we talking about sub-speciation or trans-speciation?

Please define, so we're all talking about the same thing.

 

[Revmitchell]

Please define, so we're all talking about the same thing.

"subspeciation” (variation within kind)

“transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)

 

[Johnv]

"subspeciation” (variation within kind)

“transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)

Those aren't correct definitions. "kind" referrs to Genus, not species. There's no disagreement among anyone that geniation has not been observed (although there is currently observation work being done at that level).

Subspeciation referrs to a subdivision of a species. Most creationists have, at least for the last 40 or so years, acknowlege that subspeciation exists, and there isn't any particular debate on that. For example, the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica).

Transspeciation referrs to changes in a species resulting in another new species species. For example, the tiger (Panthera tigris) and lion (Panthera leo). AIG acknowleges that a change from one species to another has been observed in several documented cases, and recommends that the "speciation has nto been observed" be abandoned by those supporting a creationist view.

 

[Revmitchell]

Those aren't correct definitions.

They are correct.

"kind" referrs to Genus, not species. There's no disagreement among anyone that geniation has not been observed (although there is currently observation work being done at that level).

If you disagree then you want to go over to AIG and argue with them as well.

Subspeciation referrs to a subdivision of a species. Most creationists have, at least for the last 40 or so years, acknowlege that subspeciation exists, and there isn't any particular debate on that. For example, the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica).

Ok?

Transspeciation referrs to changes in a species resulting in another new species species. For example, the tiger (Panthera tigris) and lion (Panthera leo). AIG acknowleges that a change from one species to another has been observed in several documented cases, and recommends that the "speciation has nto been observed" be abandoned by those supporting a creationist view.

I believe we are saying the same thing but talking past each other because of terminology.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

 

[Johnv]

If you disagree then you want to go over to AIG and argue with them as well.

Actually, it's you who disagrees with them. I don't. They are correct when they state that speciation has been documented.

I believe we are saying the same thing but talking past each other because of terminology.

I can clarify that. According to the standard taxonomic structure(Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species ), speciation (the changing of one species to another) has been repeatedly documented. Geniation (the changing of one genus to another) has not.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Johnv "speciation (the changing of one species to another) has been repeatedly documented." Oh yea? See this guys answer to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

 

[Revmitchell]

Actually, it's you who disagrees with them. I don't. They are correct when they state that speciation has been documented.

All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others).

 

[annsni]

I think you're putting God in a box because he has to act in accordance with your interpretation of scriptures rather than what is.

Huh?? Is it putting God in a box when we say that Jesus is the only way to heaven - because He said so?

Is it putting God in a box when we say that salvation is from God only - because He said so??

That is a most ridiculous statement.

 

[annsni]

Then answer my question. How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22? It's a reasonable question.

There is no disrespect in that statement.

Yes there is. I asked a valid question: How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22 when God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever". Rather than tell me what you think the passage refers to, you make a brash comment of "that's what satan said". This is a good example of why the creation/evolution topic should generally be avoided: It gets inflused with emotion over respectful logical discussion. Look, I have no problem with your position on the topic. But is it so much to ask to remain civil, respectful, and thoughtful in the discussion?

I'm the first person that with God, all things are possible. I should at least acknowlege to you my frustration with well-intended Christians who insist that evolution is impossible with God.

It's a concept bounced around in the other threads that the number "1000" in REvelation is representative of something else, much like the seven-headed beast, ten horns, etc, is representative of somethign else. I dont' necessarily subscribe to it. I was just responding to you having barought it up. It's a topic better left for a different thread.

I don't understand the issue with Genesis 3:22. God said that if they will eat the fruit, they will die. They ate it. God said that Adam will return to dust. Then He prevented them from reaching the tree of life where they would be able to live forever. End of story.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Huh?? Is it putting God in a box when we say that Jesus is the only way to heaven - because He said so?

Is it putting God in a box when we say that salvation is from God only - because He said so??

1+1=2 Jesus is the only way. Simple logic.

 

[Revmitchell]

Then answer my question. How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22? It's a reasonable question.

I don't understand the issue with Genesis 3:22. God said that if they will eat the fruit, they will die. They ate it. God said that Adam will return to dust. Then He prevented them from reaching the tree of life where they would be able to live forever. End of story.

Yea I saw no issue either so there was nothing to reconcile.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Huh?? Is it putting God in a box when we say that Jesus is the only way to heaven - because He said so?

Is it putting God in a box when we say that salvation is from God only - because He said so??

That is a most ridiculous statement.

You're statement is taken entirely out of context. We're discussing whether Genesis creation account is a literally (as a science text) or not. My statement was that account is only to be taken one way with out giving God defferance to mean what he does was limiting God. Nothing about salvation. Non-sequitur.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1+1=2 Jesus is the only way. Simple logic.

Again a non sequitur. Nothing to do with the topic. Nothing to do with the statement quoted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then answer my question. How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22? It's a reasonable question.


I don't understand the issue with Genesis 3:22. God said that if they will eat the fruit, they will die. They ate it. God said that Adam will return to dust. Then He prevented them from reaching the tree of life where they would be able to live forever. End of story.

Its ok to admit you don't understand. :laugh: which again goes to show that I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090727/sc_livescience/oldestanimalfossilsfoundinlakesnotoceans

thought that might be interesting for this discussion.

 

[billwald]

I don't know of any abiogenesis hypothesis that requires a saline environment. It would have taken the oceans a long time to become saline. If abiogeneses occurred in water why should an "ocean" size body be required?

 

[annsni]

You're statement is taken entirely out of context. We're discussing whether Genesis creation account is a literally (as a science text) or not. My statement was that account is only to be taken one way with out giving God defferance to mean what he does was limiting God. Nothing about salvation. Non-sequitur.

No it's not. Genesis is a narrative. It tells us just what happened.

You're choosing to make a narrative something that it's not.

Genesis is not a science text but it is not one bit contradictory to the truth of science.

Saying that taking God at His word is limiting God is ridiculous - and it can absolutely be applied to everything else that God has told us in the Scriptures.