Re: 'Kinds' in Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2010, 05:31 AM
 
Re: 'Kinds' in Evolution
The following is a copy of a topic from our
'Quran Miracles Debunked' facebook community discussions board.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Quran-Mira...7882645130

and from our Quran Miracles Debunked - youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheIslammiracle

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question to us : How do you deal with the Argument from Christians that say
'Animals only ever change within their own kinds' ?



Answer:
It's a pretty common anti-Evolution argument posed by Evangelicals that makes absolutely no sense.
The mainstream version of this argument concludes that Micro-Evolution takes place but not Macro-Evolution, this is absurd as their isn't actually any difference between the two.
Micro Evolution = Small changes over a short period of time
Macro Evolution = Large changes over a long period of time
Conclusion = Micro Evolution over a long period of time = Macro Evolution.

Secondly, if animals are only every generating variations of themselves, then these people must then account for the absolute lack of fossil evidence for the majority of species during the Cambrian Explosion era (for example) or in fact, the lack of most of todays animals in a prehistoric setting, such as Rabbits and Chickens in the Triassic era.

Thirdly, the word 'kinds' is purposely used as it has no defined standard, leaving the idea of 'kinds' to be interchangeable/adapted to suit the theists argument, but even when left to their own devices their argument still fails, here's why...



(Key)
1 = Velociraptor
2 = Archeopterxy
3 = Caudipteryx
4= Dromornis
5= Modern Chicken




A theist can argue that:
1 is just a 'kind' of 2
2 is just a 'kind' of 3
3 is just a 'kind' of 4
4 is just a 'kind' of 5

But what a theist CANNOT DO is then say that a (1)Velociraptor is just a 'kind' of (5)modern chicken!
Why? Because they are entirely different species and this reality is unavoidable, this is because small changes over short periods of time add up to large changes over long periods of time, so if you accept Micro-Evolution then you accept Macro Evolution by default, thus Evolution in its entirety.

It's near-impossible to not be aware of this and even though I hate to admit it, Theists generally aren't THAT moronic, so we have to wonder how 'Authentic' they're really being when they reject Evolution.
Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 01:03 AM
RE: 'Kinds' in Evolution
(11-11-2010 05:31 AM)TheIslammiracle Wrote:  It's near-impossible to not be aware of this and even though I hate to admit it, Theists generally aren't THAT moronic, so we have to wonder how 'Authentic' they're really being when they reject Evolution.

Some theists are that moronic and some are programmed (indoctrinated) from an early age and either will not or cannot change their beliefs no matter how much evidence, or proof, is presented to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 10:02 PM
 
RE: Re: 'Kinds' in Evolution
An inerrant interpretation of the book of Genesis requires that when it says god made each animals after its own kind, then that is exactly what it meant, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. To doubt the truth of even such an ambiguous statement as translated in the KJV, would lead to doubting other much more substantial statements of faith and morals, so that is not a possibility. Faith wins; end of the argument.

Many creationists admit that micro-evolution exists; the evidence is irrefutable in a scientific sense, and besides if micro-evolution didn't work then Noah obviously must have birthed all of the current 2 million species of animals in the ark. Micro-evolution must be true, because even Noah isn't magic enough to allow that to happen. So he only took, some thousands of prototypical animals, and micro-evolution since then has done the rest. Many creationists hold that micro-evolution is merely adaptation, unaware that adaptation also does not see a difference between micro- and macro-evolution.

Thus the fine dichotomy exists between the the horns of a dilemma of Genesis' own making. Micro-evo is OK because Noah needs it; macro-evo is not, because god created kinds. While some biologists do note the difference (the terms were invented by a Russian Entomologist, Yuri Filipchenko in 1927) it is one of convenience only, not of function. For more, see the wiki article on "macroevolution".
Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2011, 08:57 AM
RE: 'Kinds' in Evolution
(11-11-2010 05:31 AM)TheIslammiracle Wrote:  Question to us : How do you deal with the Argument from Christians that say
'Animals only ever change within their own kinds' ?

My response is that there is no scientific definition of 'kind', that it is a Biblical word. It is just another red herring in the argument or misunderstanding of evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: