Txgansta,

Haha, we'll just have to disagree on whether or not human beings will one day be sufficient creators.  It's an interesting (and scary) thought. 

Though I can't speak for you, I'd be willing to bet we'd both disagree with those who bring Christianity to the point of "anti-science."  There is no reason why Christianity should be forced to clash with science.  There is a lot of beauty in God's creation that science has unlocked that previous generations never knew existed.  Many of the early Christian Fathers of the church have wonderful interpretations of Genesis that in no way interfere with Genesis.  This more militant anti-evolution movements in our schools and in other areas of our society seems to be a much more modern phenomenon that does not stem from Biblical thought.

I once brought my youth group to a retreat and there was a elective breakout session called "The Bible and Science."  As a scientist and Christian myself, I figured I'd sneak in and see what the speaker had to say.  I assumed he would have been a Scientist himself and would speak to the impressionable young attendees about how they can be scientists and Christians without shame.  Unfortunately, he spent an hour indoctrinating them about how to fight back in their classes when evolution came up- because these young men and women were "too smart for that evolution stuff" and "they knew how it really happened."  There was not one relevant reference to scripture or open discussion about science. I was dumbfounded.  I wish I had spoken up, but I was just too unprepared for what was going to happen in that class.  I'm kind of ashamed I just let it happen.

In the end, if a Christian ignores their God-given senses and reasoning skills because they think it honors God, I believe they are clouded.  When a Christian embraces science, they will get a better picture of the beauty of this world of ours that God put here for us. 

bombchu link : The 6 forms of Evolution that you listed (stellar, chemical, cosmic, organic, macro, and micro) are not even in the scientific definition of Evolution. Those are terms made up by Kent Hovind to try to rope in things that have NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution, by scientific definition, is the differentiation and change of organisms. It has nothing to do with stars, galaxies, planets, solar systems, chemical fusion, etc. no matter how many times Mr. Hovind claims it does. So, in a sense, it is true that they don't exist, but because they are just Mr. Hovind's spin on the concept.

To anyone here who continues to use the term 'kind': Can you explain the criteria of what defines a kind? And by that, I do NOT mean give me a bunch of examples of what you define as 'kind'. What I am asking is for you to give me a criteria that you can apply to distinguish kinds. There seems to never be a person to be able to explain what the criteria for kind is. The only answer I get is Ray Comfort and Hovind's explanation of "It's simple. You have the domestic dogs and wolves as the canine kind, and you have domestic cats and tigers as the feline kind, and you have the human kind". All that does is give examples of what kinds are, but in no way explains what it is that makes something a 'kind'.

Next, I like how some here are trying to be scientific in 'disproving' evolution. Every scientific concept brought up in here isn't even how the process works. For example, this whole 'gaining genes' argument is a strawman. Nobody but the creationist side makes this claim of gaining/losing genes, so of course it is easy to tear that argument down. Then then people like Ham use this made up argument to say that evolutionists rely on this concept of gaining and losing genes, which isn't even true, because that isn't even how it happens in the first place. Any real research from PRIMARY sources will show you that. My suggestion to anyone who wishes to use science to argue Evolution is to not rely on articles and seminars from people who have no authority in the field.

As am still surprised I continue to hear this "unproven theory" argument. If your basis on not trusting a scientific concept because it is an unproven theory, you might as well never trust a single thing you read in a science test book. EVERYTHING in science is a theory. There is a difference between scientific theory and hypothesis. Please learn the difference. Gravity is a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory. Fluid mechanics a theory. Heleocentrism is a theory. All of which are unproven. I already know what the argument is going to be on this one though. "But we can observe gravity. You drop an object, it will fall down every time. It is proven". No, gravity itself is not proven. We can observe the effects of gravity, but we have never observed gravity itself. We have never discovered the cause of it, never been able to physically measure it, never been able to directly detect it. What we have done is collected observation of patterns, and developed a model with predictive power that has been consistent so far. That is what a theory is. An explanatory model of all the current collection of data that holds predictive power that has not failed. Much of the overwhelming evidence for Evolution was predicted before it was even discovered because the patterns that have created this model has a very high predictive power. Anytime that predictive power fails, the theory is updated to accommodate new information. Numerous fields have cross confirmed the predicted events. For example (and this is only one of many like it), people always claim this 'we have never observed it' argument. You don't have to. You don't have to see two people have sex to know who the biological parents are. Allele frequencies are extremely reliable, so much that it holds up as indisputable testimony in the court of law. Comparing the amount of allele frequencies shows exactly how closely to individuals are related. Nobody disputes that. So how is this a cross confirming tool? The first evolutionary family tree was created by phenotypic characteristics. This mapped how closely (and distant) related different organisms are. If this categorization of taxonomy were correct, then the prediction that geneology would have to match up with it. A family tree of organisms was/and still is collected to compare the allele frequencies of different organisms. The geneology family tree based on allele frequencies fits the phenotypic family tree perfectly. And even today, geneology still continues to match up with the phenotypic model of evolution. You are willing to accept geneology to tell you how related individuals are in any other case, but when it confirms genetic relation between different species, genus, family, order, class, kingdom, phylum, domain, then geneology suddenly is no longer reliable? Cherry picking at it's finest.

rcarter2 :

You're picking at the definitions far too much. "Kind's" as well as many other definitions in the Bible, is not supposed to a be a "lawyer strict" definition.

people always claim this 'we have never observed it' argument. You don't have to. You don't have to see two people have sex to know who the biological parents are.

Well, if you never had sex yourself, seen an animal have sex, you might not be sure what caused a human being to come into existence. I never say anyone have sex, when I was 10, so when I started to think about, I finally narrowed it down to the fact, that it was always a man and a woman staying together somehow, since, a child always had two parents. Either that, or a woman's body would spawn a child based on the man she spent a bunch of time with. Eventually, I began to suspect that kissing had a lot to do with it. Any two people who kissed, usually had a child. And then finally, after watching Denis the Menace, and several episodes of the 700 club. I figured that it came from two people sleeping together.

My next conclusion, was that was why I couldn't sleep in the same rooms as my sisters. I'm surprised by how close I got it.

Well, then we got a bunch of animals, and when I understood mating, I kindof put it all together. However, the mating part I didn't get until after I turned like 12, so. Until my body was old enough to at least experience these weird desires for a girl, I didn't see the full picture.

While you're argument has some merit. . . Sex was something so dynamically different from anything else I had been raised knowing about that it took me a long time to fill in the blanks. Also note what age I was before I finally got to the right conclusion.

However, I could find out about it, not only from my own bodily changes, but from watching animals do it. As for Evolution. . . . I don't see why we should believe it, at all. What evidence can I gather now that points to it happening in the past? I don't see any. I mean, if you want to claim a theory is scientific and that we should all believe it, there wouldn't be any problem, in presenting it in an easily understandable manner that even the common man can understand, right?

rcarter2 :

By "kind" I mean ontological distinct. I usually relate it to sexual reproduction. We can make a real distinction between what can reproduce together and what can't. We can also make a real distinction between deformation of individuals because their ontological form is damaged. For example, a dog with three legs isn't a new species. These real distinctions allows us to understand biological ontology.

Sword legion :

I totally figured everything out by 1st grade. I knew the anatomy. It's round hole, round peg. Pretty simple. I did think it was disgusting that people would want to get naked and look do that though. I figured people only did that to have children.

Sword legion : I think you were missing the point I was making about sex. I wasn't talking about figuring out that sex leads to kids. I was talking about knowing who the biological parents are. 2 people claim they are the biological parents of a kid, or 2 people claim they are siblings. With the objection to Evolution based on "We haven't seen such gradual changes" is no different than saying you completely reject the genetic relations between siblings or supposed parents and their child because we weren't there to see them have sex to conceive of the kids. We can use electrophoresis to map allele. We can tell exactly the genetic relation between people with such accuracy that it is considered indisputable. Using allele frequencies among different organisms, it shows that everything is genetically related and have common ancestry. Not only that, but as we continue to make the family tree based on allele frequencies, it continues to match perfectly with the family tree made by looking at phenotypic characteristics (taxonomy). That is just one example of two different fields that end up confirming each other. Why is it that allele frequencies are considered indisputable no matter how distantly related people are, yet allele frequencies is apparently irrelevant when it confirms something you don't agree with?

As for the comment that I am picking at the definition of kind too much, I disagree. If this was strictly applied to the Bible, then I would agree, it doesn't need to be 'lawyer strict'. But you, yourself, claim that evolution is not scientific. And almost every person who makes that claim uses the term kind as a dispute against it scientifically. In science, definitions are supposed to be strict. There is no room for fluctuation. So if you are going to use the term kind as a scientific argument, then you have to have a strict definition of it. But what I end up seeing time and time again is not only a wide variation of definitions in the term, but individual people will just change their definition when they realize that their definition works against them. It is a shifting goalpost argument. In that case, kinds has no business as a scientific argument. Terminology is very important.

I am not saying that you have to agree with evolution. If you disagree with it on religious grounds, I respect that. I admit that I don't respect the opinion itself, but I respect you as a person for having that opinion, and I would never want to take that away from you. Never is my goal to tell someone they have no right to their religious belief. Just be honest about it. In order for evolution to be false and the creationist argument to be true, then we all got here and the world got here in a purely supernatural manner, and every evidence that points to evolution was put there in ways that violate virtually every natural mechanisms we have ever observed. But to say it is not scientific is showing ignorance in many scientific concepts. There is no scientific evidence that indicates Evolution is wrong. Pure and simple. I see time and time again people try to get scientific with their oppositions against it. Every time, it is recycled arguments from people like Hovind, Hovind Jr., Ham, Comfort, Cameron, TD Lewis, etc. Literally EVERY one of their arguments have been shown to be based on unconfirmed evidence, individual personal testimony, strawman arguments where they make a claim that the scientific community claims something that they don't actually claim, or strawman arguments where they make claims of scientific processes that are severely inaccurate and show a high lack of understanding of what they are saying (or they know very well what they are saying, and know that most of their listeners are not going to take the time to check their rarely cited sources or research to see if what they are saying is actually correct). Fact of the matter is, accept the Christian creation view for what it is. Only possible through a series of directly supernatural happenings, and the only evidence for any of it happening is limited to the Bible. There is currently no tangible evidence that contradicts evolution.

As for your last statement, the answer is no. In an ideal world, yes. It would be fantastic if everything could be so simple to explained in a way that any common man could understand. But if any scientific concept were that simple, there would be no point in it requiring countless hours, undivided attention, and years of dedication to research, practice, and work to earn a doctorate in that field. These are not simple things. You have to do work to understand. The problem is that we live in a time where if you can't get it instantly, it isn't worth everyone's attention. You ask what evidence there is now. Just like in solving a crime, the evidence is what has been left behind. The evidence itself is not assumption. In science, there is only ONE assumption, and that is uniformitarianism. That is the assumption that the mechanisms and processes that happen now happened in the past. The geologic processes that form new formations today were happening the same way when the world was first formed. But before anyone says that because that is an assumption, evolution has no merit, every single accepted theory in science is based on that assumption now. But back to the common man point. This is not simple because the theory is supported by a plethora of very different fields, each one requiring lifetime dedication to TRULY understand. Seriously, fluid mechanics has more gaps in it than evolutionary theory does. We have less evidence and understanding for the theory of gravity than evolution. Evolutionary theory has more predictive power than the theories directly applied to create the computer you are using right now. All of those theories have shown to have less predictive power than evolutionary theory does, but almost nobody disputes those other ones simply on the basis that they don't have any contradictions to their religion. But to say that evolutionary theory is unscientific is simply pure ignorance. It is, without a doubt, has one of the highest amount of predictive power out of any scientific theory out there.
The problem I see is that people constantly say they want to see the evidence, but their research only spans as far as what they find on Answers in Genesis, Ham, Hovind, Hovind Jr, Baugh, Comfort, Cameron, to find out what to say against evolution. And the thing is, none of them have ANY credentials in any scientific field, yet they are always the go to sources. Almost every argument I hear stems from them. Do you go to a mechanic as a source for information on medicine? Same thing.

PS- I am happy that things are being kept civil between you and I so far (and I have noticed that in the past too. For example, when that doomhammer user picked a rude approach with you a while back). Just want to clarify that when I speak of ignorance, I am not meaning that specifically in a negative context. I think when it comes to scientific theory in general, ignorance is a trait of anyone who has not spent their lifetime to the field in which the theory originates.There are fields I know I have had and often still show ignorance over. Medicine is definitely one of those fields for me. So don't take what I said there as an insult. It's human.

Txgangsta : if kind relates to being able to sexually reproduce, then you couldn't be more wrong that we have never seen that. What you explained is exactly what the definition of species is. If creatures cannot mate and produce a fertile offspring, they are different species. We have directly observed many different species develop into new species. We have seen it in species of beetles, frogs, salamanders, urchins, fish, just to name a few. Ring species is a very common form. If you definition of kinds is being able to reproduce together, then we have seen new kinds form MANY times.

rcarter2 :

And I accept evolution =)

Txgangsta : Ah. I guess I should have specified my question more then. Haha. I guess I should have specified that I wanted a definition of kinds from someone who rejects evolution, and says we only see changes in kinds. But that should teach me to make sure I go back and check the earlier posts of people who respond to my question so I can avoid making assumptions. Facepalm on my end.

rcarter2 :

Genetically, and some concepts being spoken about here, I have not heard about, and as of getting older in life, I kindof learned something. There's too much garbage that you can debate about, it's just not worth researching, and "learning" about. Not when there's money to be made. In fact, I almost made a thread about why I quite debating on this site. (aside from the dislike system).

Life begins to make you think more practically. And now the more I look at things, the more I just need a straightforward answer- that I can trust.

The government is not a body that I would trust. The fact that the education system is supported by it, doesn't help it either.

While, "It's too complicated to explain" Does work for some things, like the overused term- Rocket scientists. Rocket science doesn't have a practical application to everyday living.

Evolution is a theory, that I suppose is even less practical, unless you want to credit it with biology, or something. All I know is this. Big people, with bigger brains than you and I look at data, propagate an idea, and when their answer is. "It's not something I can just explain here and now." and the answer doesn't hold any practicality, I see no reason to even check it out.

Roofing, my day job, is something I understand. I get how a roof works, and it actually is slightly more complicated than one might think, though roofing is a simpler science than some jobs.

Then you have membrane roofing. . . yeesh. All the regulations. Welding. You have to be careful not to penetrate the stuff.


What I hate the most is when people use the whole. "You don't understand what we understand, we're the scientists here, so this is science, and this is what you are. This is what happened for a fact." Also, we, as people who do not have all that time to devote to a theory that may have a lot, or very little to do practically with our lives, are not going to just believe something because we are told so.

If I'm going to believe something, I want to understand it, or at least hear it from someone I can trust, without seeing obvious errors in the idea.

And that's the big put off from people who work an universities, or teach a "theory" in that way.

"You can't understand this because you don't have the time to understand this, but it's a fact." And then on top of it, what makes it a fact, is the fact that other scientists are agreeing with them, or that it was "peer reviewed."

Why should we have any faith in these people?

This isn't just scientists.

This criticism is aimed at politicians, doctors, anyone who claims to be an "expert" and just expects us to let them be our brain for them.


I don't mean to use and extreme example and say that it's the same extreme. But when Nazi Germany, and Japan fought in world war II, they used "science" to convert the public. They believed that they were the elite races. Japan in particular even saying that their body odor didn't stink as much as Americans.


When human beings let other, higher ups become their minds for them, they can be controlled. Look at how much the Democrat and Republican party controls the U.S. in terms of politics. Do either of the parties stand for freedom?

You and I only get two candidates to vote for. And the media determines who gets attention. Most people will take the coverage that's given to them as well. Rather than seek out various candidates websites on their own.

There are scientists who believe in a young Earth, and I've bet you got dirt on them. I bet I could find dirt on anyone if I wanted to though anyways. And some dirt is true, other dirt is not. Some is out-right made up and it's ridiculous.

But in the end, that's the thing. I don't see a reason to hold weight on what anyone says like that. If they won't try to explain it then maybe I shouldn't even listen to them.

You see the potential situation here? Sheep need a shepherd, but some shepherds want more that wool.

On a side note, yes, I do like mature, civil debates. But all debates I find pretty much a waste of time. Especially on the internet, where, well, IRL, it's a bit harder to lie than on here. That goes for everyone. Also, "facts" can be gathered with the tap of a few keys, and then destroyed, and then found. And then anywhere along the lines, anything can be come up with, and lied about online. Pictures outright faked, ect.


In life, if I'm going to believe something, and it's testable, I'll test it out on my own. If it passes the test, I'm gonna go with it. If not, why do I need to hang onto a lie? As for religious beliefs, don't respect me for believing something religiously. Religious is not a license to ignorance, as grace is not license to sin. I believe what I believe because it makes sense. And that's the only reasons. Beliefs change over time, as new facts are gathered in life, but I would like to think that I was always on the same path. The only time I wouldn't be, is if I didn't care about what truth is. Or, if I were one to lie to myself because it makes me comfortable, but a false comfort is a false comfort. It drives a person to insanity. I've sortof become apathetic to what other people believe cause ultimately if they're wrong they'll destroy themselves. But I don't like the thought of them destroying others through influence.

I'm surprised you remember doomhammer, and then not surprised at all. I know you've said a lot of things here, and said. "it confirms this" but, you, like me, are a guy I don't know. And I haven't seen a reason I should take your word for it. Simply put, you've got to simplify things a lot before down to earth people will understand them. That's what I do with all my Sonic theories and stuff. Basically, I decipher what suggested for them. You'll probably reference several sources I do not trust, and wouldn't care to look into as I'm tired of "scientists" telling a bunch of lies in the first place. Particularly with the environment.

I wouldn't call people ignorant who focus on one profession in life, and not care about the others. The problem is finding people you can trust who understand the things in life that you don't. This is true in a teamwork aspect as well, as I've found in PC game making. I make music, 2D sprites, He programs, ect. I don't know anything about programming, but even though I'm in charge, I just trust him to tell me what we can and can't accomplish, and he trust my skills ect. Especially in the writing aspect.

In life we can look at one skill and go. "Wow that looks so hard, I could never do that." But find the same person thinking the same thing about skills that we have.

I like it.

And thank you for your words, I appreciate them.

Sword legion : Gotta say that I respect the attitude behind what you say. I do agree that if it is not something that is going to be practical in your every day life, then it isn't worth researching. I have no issue with that. Especially as a teacher, I know full well that not all of my students are going to care about what I am teaching, and many are just doing it because they need the science credit to graduate. At the same time, the main situation where I do have an issue is when someone isn't willing to dedicate years of research on a scientific field, and just claim that the field is unscientific when they have really no authority on the matter. I tend to see that is a bit disrespectful. Kind of like if I were to try to tell you that the way you do roofing is wrong, when the peak of my roofing experience was helping a friend who knew what he was doing and following his step by step directions on the simpler parts.

You might (or might not since I am sure my activity is not on your priority list ) that I rarely post much on this topic anymore. Mainly because it is somewhat clear that nobody is ever going to change their position because of some online arguments. I was a strong disbeliever in this field even when I decided to add biology on the field. I added it because I love learning about nature in all environments. My mind changed very slowly as I started taking classes that didn't even discuss evolution, and I started to see how a vast amount of mechanisms from multiple fields apply to the theory just as they apply in other areas. It wasn't some single discussion that was some sort of revolution for me, but I do remember when I decided that I couldn't in good consciousness continue to deny it.

But, that is my personal experience. Unless a science field is a passion, there is no reason to study it. You are right on that, no question.

Government is corrupt, Republican Party, Democrat Party, Independent Party alike. If they are politicians, I don't trust them. Nuff said on that one

As for doomhammer, that one just struck me because I was just kind of shocked in the manner of which you addressed him compared to the spats we have had in the past. If it weren't for that, I likely wouldn't have even remembered it. He wasn't attacking, but was pretty snide and a bit condescending, and you replied in politeness. Respected that.

Lastly, as for the ignorant part. You mentioned that you wouldn't call someone ignorant for focusing on a profession, I agree. That was the main reason I wanted to try to clarify that I wasn't using the term ignorance as a negative thing. There is no way around it, if you are not extremely familiar on a topic, there is a level of ignorance in that. I was using the term by the core definition, which is just lack of knowledge of information. So unless you are omniscient, it is impossible to not have ignorance, and it is impossible to not form opinions and ways of thinking based on ignorance. It is unavoidable human nature.

Anyway, catch you later.