By the way, there are different definitions of evolution.  Do all scientists agree on what evolution is?  Which view is correct? 

Response to comment [from a Catholic]:  [Linnaeus]

"...[A]mong living things, groups of features within other groups of characteristics can be observed. These so called “nested patterns” (see ReMine, 1993; Wise, 1998) can extend beyond baraminic categories; so phenetic and cladistic methods may continue to be useful along with discontinuity systematics.

For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may appear to be a preposterous proposal. However, this admittedly bold scheme should not be thought of as a departure from reality..."  Full text:  What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology—classification of created organisms

Do the relationships in phylogenetic trees ever change?  Since using different characteristics gives different phylogenetic trees, how do you know which one is right?

 

[Definitions of evolution (punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinism, Darwinism etc.) Which is right?] "Biologists say "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

 

Do all scientists agree on their definition of evolution?  

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "[C]hange in allele frequency in a population over time is evolution."

 

I look forward to discussing (the lack of) transitional fossils for plant groups.  But, we tend to get off topic in these threads.  Maybe you should start a plant thread and talk about symbiotic relationships, sexual reproduction, the birds and the bees...:o all that? :idunno:

 

Hope you'll stick around for flood-talk, too.  We can believe the Bible from the first verse.

 

Response comment [from a Catholic]:  [Convergent evolution]

"[I]ncreased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution...

Many analogous structures are assumed to exist due to convergent evolution, which is defined as the separate evolution of similar structures because of similar environmental demands.17 Convergent evolution also is used to explain similar structures that have formed from different embryo structures or precursors.

Many examples of homology are actually better explained by analogy, and the resemblance that exists is often due to similarity of function and/or design constraints. The forelimbs of humans, whales and birds are similar because they serve similar functions and have similar design constraints. The conclusion that two homologous bones are similar because they are putatively ‘derived from the same ancestral bones’ (as Barr claims) is not based on direct evidence but instead on a priori conclusions demanded by macroevolution..." Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? By Jerry Bergman.

Sidebar: Bergman, the author, is the former atheist we were discussing who called evolution the doorway to atheism, fyi.

"Fortunately, there are ways of knowing things beyond the reach of science."

Would science advance if supernatural creation was accepted as a possibility for how the universe and life began?

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "It's not that "I'd like to" that is where the scientific theory starts."

Do you think there should be a distinction between experimental science and historical science? 

"God created all life, through evolution."

Is that what he said he did? Ex 20:11; 31:17.

"Use scripture to interpret scripture...."

Use scripture to interpret Ex 20:11; 31:17, Mt 19:4. 

"Even in an evolutionary context, human beings are created by God and have been male and female since the beginning..."

Were our ancestors some type of monkey?

"Obviously the Bible tells us that humans are important and special beings."

Was man made in the image and likeness of God?  Ge 1:26,27; 1Co 11:7, Ge 1:26; Jas 3:9.

Response to comment [from a Catholic]:  [Plants] "...[M]ost of us have seen those scams before..."

Plant scams. Do you think creation scientists are out to scam you? Ps 139:6.

"...and you make a very easy target if you can't defend them."

Target? I learn as we go along. What type of evidence would you accept as evidence against evolution?

"[C]reation scientists" often lie.

You believe that.  I do not. 

“Would you like some examples?”

Does it come from talkorigins.org?

“Most of us will be willing to give you the benefit of a doubt the first few times.   After that, if you post something, we'll expect you know whether it's a lie or the truth, and hold you accountable.”

I’m figuring it out as we go along.  If I get some of it wrong—bill me.

[Acceptable types of evidence] “Rabbit in Cambrian deposits.”

You sound like Elmer Fudd.  Ok Doc’, I just so happen to be reading up on something similar now. 

“[N]o more excuses that you didn't know it was a lie.”

You believe creation scientist lie.  I do not.  Same empirical data, different interpretations.

Response to comment [from a “Christian”]:  “There's no logical difference between the near past and the distant past.”

2 Pe 3:4.  Your problem is not knowing the past. :dizzy:

“We are ‘some type of hominid’” ~ Alate One

:doh: You know I have to link that to your page don’t you?

We are God's special creation (Ge 1:26-27).

See:

 What's Wrong with Animal Rights (right click, open) by Adrian Rogers

Response to comment [from a Catholic]:  [Do you think there should be a distinction between experimental science and historical science?] “Evolutionary theory is based on experiments as well as observation.”

“Naturalistic science will usually retort that examination of present materials and processes enables us to extrapolate backwards so as to determine what must have occurred. But here again, forsaking his own basic methods, the scientist is speculating (not observing) on the course of historical development; he assumes (but cannot show experimentally) that not only is nature uniform now but always has been, that processes seen today have always worked as they do now. (The “theistic evolutionist” likewise assumes that today’s processes must be basically similar to God’s creative activities. This, in effect, is to say that creation was “immature,” that God did not finish his creative work at a point in the past.) To pretend to answer questions about origins by extrapolating the observable present into the unobservable past is to reason in a circle; it is to forsake the proper descriptive role of science and to make it an arbitrary determiner of the past instead…” Full text:  Revelation, Speculation, and Science by Dr. Greg Bahnsen

"(Barbarian notes that evolution is demonstrated by observation of evidence of the past as well as by present experimentation)"

 

Serpentdove notes that Barbarian's note is incorrect.

Past giving ya some trouble?
 

Were naturalists there? No. Were creationists there? No. God was Ge 1:1. We can trust him.  

 

"...God is not a creationist..."

 

Ge 1:1.

 

Response to comment [from an agnostic]:  "[I]s that all you're going to say about AO's post? Do you disagree with something he said?"

Of course I disagree.  We have been over this in numerous threads.  Do you have a specific comment or concern? 

Dr. Patterson submits that artists draw feathers on dinosaurs in unsuspecting children's textbooks when none are found on the actual fossils.  Alate_One rejects this.  We disagree. 

Do you believe that the theory of evolution and creation should be taught in schools? 

Sickle-cell anemia does not prove evolution