Evolutionists' theory in detail

[Hollie]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

Micro-evolution is a fact.

Macro-evolution is false speculation with zero observational evidence.

Many beliefs about many gods are not based on convincing evidence but one Greek word used in defining faith in Hebrews 11:1 means 'convincing evidence."

See Romans 1:20 which involves all branches of scientific research.

Macro evolution is a misleading term. I believe you mean speciation and yes, speciation has been observed. That would remove it from false speculation.

Observed Instances of Speciation

What branch of thermodynamics is addressed in Romans 1:20?

No, I don't mean speciation. We believe many species evolved from relatively few 'kinds' (definition from the original Hebrew and ancient Greek) on Noah's ark. For example, all cats may have come 2 cats on Noah's ark - or perhaps a few more kinds of cats. Personally - I think all cats are related by descent - most can also interbreed which would normally mean they are of the same species - but finding an accurate definition of species is just as difficult as an accurate definition of "kind."

We do not believe humans came from apes or ape-like ancestors - we do believe extinct races have a common origin to current races- e.g. Neanderthals. We believe Acts 17:26 is accurate and that all races/nations/ethnos come from a common origin - this is proven in genetics. In fact, more recently genetic evidence confirms all races come from the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam.

On your other question - the 2nd law of thermodynamics (in fact all heat flow) is observed by the study of things made as Romans 1:20 invites us to do - which actually involves all branches of scientific study.

More specifically Job 38:33 refers to the laws which govern our universe - that would include the laws of thermodynamics.

The law of conservation of matter and energy tweaks the laws of thermodynamics. Heat flow is oversimplifying. One could assume that thermodynamics leads to zero energy - this is simply not true. The only way to remove energy from our universe is to convert it into matter according to E=Mc^2.

While this clearly happened during the origin of our universe, it is rare now. Usually it goes in the opposite direction - from matter to energy - this is what stars do!

Bottom line - the energy in our universe is currently increasing while the matter in our universe is decreasing.

Of course, that ignores dark matter and dark energy - I doubt these are constants but I am not aware of the current scientific evidence as to whether either dark energy or dark matter is increasing or decreasing in our universe or if it is constant. Isaiah 40:22,26 implies increasing - but this is because the Biblical model points to dark/invisible energy coming from outside our universe - i.e. that our universe is not actually a closed system - though this is neither proven nor disproven. Ordinary matter and energy do appear to be in a closed system in our universe. This, of course, assumes our universe is not interacting with another universe.

The origin of our universe does involve an open system since the singularity had a huge input of energy from outside the singularity.

Unless, of course, you believe in the mythical teaching that the vast amount of energy at the origin or our universe came from nothing!

What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By any definition, we would not expect to see biological evolution in time frames of months. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Further, the notion of Noah’s p,ensure cruise and a 6,000 year old planet is absurd. There’s no other way to define it.

Why would you think the universe started from nothing? That’s a description that is a part of the fundamentalist ministries but has nothing to do with the best evidence that science has proposed.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

Micro-evolution is a fact.

Macro-evolution is false speculation with zero observational evidence.

Many beliefs about many gods are not based on convincing evidence but one Greek word used in defining faith in Hebrews 11:1 means 'convincing evidence."

See Romans 1:20 which involves all branches of scientific research.

Evolution is a FACT
We evolved from simple creatures and became increasingly complex.

God is a theory

micro-evolution is a fact. You are espousing macro-evolution for which there is no observational evidence.

Can you post a specific example as to how life forms could become more complex?

For example, are we more intelligent than Neanderthals or Cro-magnon man? Actually the brain sizes of current human races vary more that fossilized extinct races - and on average Cro-magnon had a larger brain size.

Moreover, the question of whether brain size determines intelligence is questioned in this article:

Fact or Fiction: When It Comes to Intelligence, Does Brain Size Matter?

What does brain size say about a creature's mental abilities?

www.scientificamerican.com

Men generally have a larger brain size than women - does this mean men are more intelligent that women?

The following shows human brain size (on average) is smaller than Cro-magnon man:

Cro Magnon skull shows that our brains have shrunk

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new replica of an early modern human brain has provided further evidence for the theory that the human brain has been shrinking. The skull belonged to an elderly Cro Magnon man, whose skeleton is called Cro Magnon 1. The entire skeleton was discovered in 1868 in the Cro Magnon...

phys.org

Excerpt:

"Although scientists don’t know for sure why our overall brains are shrinking, some researchers hypothesize that our brains are becoming more efficient as they grow smaller. Having a large brain comes at a cost, so smaller brains have an advantage since they enable the body to use the extra energy for other purposes."

Of course, scientists disagree on this - especially in peer reviewed journals. The article also notes:

"Since our food has become easier to eat, we don’t need such large skulls or jaws."

I might add that large Jaws are dangerous, as the movie Jaws2 probably confirms (I haven't watched it).

I hope you all don't mind my sense of humor. As I love ice cream, which is easier to eat.....

There is ample evidence for macro evolution even though you are incorrectly using the term.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or...

www.talkorigins.org

You continue to use macro evolution when you mean speciation.


Can you provide some sources to support dinosaurs being herded onto Noah’s Ark?

 

[BreezeWood]

Can you post a specific example as to how life forms could become more complex?

that is readily dismissed by the disbelievers ...

Evolutionary history

Before 2005, fossil findings indicated that grasses evolved around 55 million years ago. Recent findings of grass-like phytoliths in Cretaceous dinosaur coprolites have pushed this date back to 66 million years ago.

not one blade of grass from 66 million years ago to the present day or for all eternity will ever be identical to another ...

the fact is life is a suspension where all succeeding generations from the "original" are dissimilar to an n'th degree that insures the complexity remains, renewed or collectively is altered, passed down by succeeding generations by the same mechanism as its initial origin.

 

[DGS49]

We have never observed one species "evolving" into another species. In fact, it doesn't happen and has never happened. The writer of the linked article basically proposes: "If you let me re-define 'species," then we can find examples of species evolving into other species."

This is EXACTLY the same logic that says, "If you let me re-define GENDER, then gender is a choice, not a biological fact." In layman's terms it is called, "Bullshit Logic," or more accurately, "an absence of logic."

Evolution is a wonderful THEORY; it is not a fact. A theory is an explanation of something that cannot be observed or empirically tested. Evolution seems to explain the multiplicity of species on earth. It is the BEST EXPLANATION ever devised, but it is not perfect or without holes. Until we invent a time machine, it will remain a theory.

"Consensus" is not science. It is statistics. Even if every biologist in the world believes utterly in Evolution (which is not the case) that still does not "settle the case." For most Leftists Evolution is a form of religion, in which they have more faith than the most ardent Bible thumper has in the Good Book. Which is why when confronted with someone who disagrees, their first reaction is to slander the "heretic."

 

[Newtonian]

all cats may have come 2 cats on Noah's ark - or perhaps a few more kinds of cats. Personally - I think all cats are related by descent - most can also interbreed which would normally mean they are of the same species

What is your explanation for the fossil record showing something very different? Cats, for example, are never found in older rock layers where we find dinosaurs. If all the animals we see today are descended from those on Noah's arc and Noah took every 'kind' of animal on board, what happened to the dinosaurs?

The Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. How does the fossil record show something different than I posted about cats?

 

[Newtonian]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

Micro-evolution is a fact.

Macro-evolution is false speculation with zero observational evidence.

Many beliefs about many gods are not based on convincing evidence but one Greek word used in defining faith in Hebrews 11:1 means 'convincing evidence."

See Romans 1:20 which involves all branches of scientific research.

Macro evolution is a misleading term. I believe you mean speciation and yes, speciation has been observed. That would remove it from false speculation.

Observed Instances of Speciation

What branch of thermodynamics is addressed in Romans 1:20?

No, I don't mean speciation. We believe many species evolved from relatively few 'kinds' (definition from the original Hebrew and ancient Greek) on Noah's ark. For example, all cats may have come 2 cats on Noah's ark - or perhaps a few more kinds of cats. Personally - I think all cats are related by descent - most can also interbreed which would normally mean they are of the same species - but finding an accurate definition of species is just as difficult as an accurate definition of "kind."

We do not believe humans came from apes or ape-like ancestors - we do believe extinct races have a common origin to current races- e.g. Neanderthals. We believe Acts 17:26 is accurate and that all races/nations/ethnos come from a common origin - this is proven in genetics. In fact, more recently genetic evidence confirms all races come from the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam.

On your other question - the 2nd law of thermodynamics (in fact all heat flow) is observed by the study of things made as Romans 1:20 invites us to do - which actually involves all branches of scientific study.

More specifically Job 38:33 refers to the laws which govern our universe - that would include the laws of thermodynamics.

The law of conservation of matter and energy tweaks the laws of thermodynamics. Heat flow is oversimplifying. One could assume that thermodynamics leads to zero energy - this is simply not true. The only way to remove energy from our universe is to convert it into matter according to E=Mc^2.

While this clearly happened during the origin of our universe, it is rare now. Usually it goes in the opposite direction - from matter to energy - this is what stars do!

Bottom line - the energy in our universe is currently increasing while the matter in our universe is decreasing.

Of course, that ignores dark matter and dark energy - I doubt these are constants but I am not aware of the current scientific evidence as to whether either dark energy or dark matter is increasing or decreasing in our universe or if it is constant. Isaiah 40:22,26 implies increasing - but this is because the Biblical model points to dark/invisible energy coming from outside our universe - i.e. that our universe is not actually a closed system - though this is neither proven nor disproven. Ordinary matter and energy do appear to be in a closed system in our universe. This, of course, assumes our universe is not interacting with another universe.

The origin of our universe does involve an open system since the singularity had a huge input of energy from outside the singularity.

Unless, of course, you believe in the mythical teaching that the vast amount of energy at the origin or our universe came from nothing!

What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By any definition, we would not expect to see biological evolution in time frames of months. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Further, the notion of Noah’s p,ensure cruise and a 6,000 year old planet is absurd. There’s no other way to define it.

Why would you think the universe started from nothing? That’s a description that is a part of the fundamentalist ministries but has nothing to do with the best evidence that science has proposed.

I absolutely do not believe the universe came from nothing. I posted that this belief is contrary to the law of conservation of matter and energy.

We are not creationists - we believe in the Biblical account of creation.

I also posted that it is just as difficult to get an exact definition of species as it is to get an exact definition of "kind." The Bible repeats this though:

Genesis 1:24
Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures* according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals* and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.”+ And it was so.

Simply: Cats give birth to cats not dogs. If you plant a carrot seed you will not get a tomato plant.

Going further than this requires scientific study of descent - but remember that homology does not prove descent - otherwise we came from pigs since pig skin in most similar to human skin (compare heart valves). Or we came from mice since mouse blood is closest to human blood. And what animal has the closest eye to humans?

Of course, study of the Hebrew word translated "kind" helps.

NW ref. has this footnote:

Genesis 1 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

 

[Hollie]

We have never observed one species "evolving" into another species. In fact, it doesn't happen and has never happened. The writer of the linked article basically proposes: "If you let me re-define 'species," then we can find examples of species evolving into other species."

This is EXACTLY the same logic that says, "If you let me re-define GENDER, then gender is a choice, not a biological fact." In layman's terms it is called, "Bullshit Logic," or more accurately, "an absence of logic."

Evolution is a wonderful THEORY; it is not a fact. A theory is an explanation of something that cannot be observed or empirically tested. Evolution seems to explain the multiplicity of species on earth. It is the BEST EXPLANATION ever devised, but it is not perfect or without holes. Until we invent a time machine, it will remain a theory.

"Consensus" is not science. It is statistics. Even if every biologist in the world believes utterly in Evolution (which is not the case) that still does not "settle the case." For most Leftists Evolution is a form of religion, in which they have more faith than the most ardent Bible thumper has in the Good Book. Which is why when confronted with someone who disagrees, their first reaction is to slander the "heretic."

So.... basically you’re claiming that facts don’t matter.

Super!

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

Micro-evolution is a fact.

Macro-evolution is false speculation with zero observational evidence.

Many beliefs about many gods are not based on convincing evidence but one Greek word used in defining faith in Hebrews 11:1 means 'convincing evidence."

See Romans 1:20 which involves all branches of scientific research.

Macro evolution is a misleading term. I believe you mean speciation and yes, speciation has been observed. That would remove it from false speculation.

Observed Instances of Speciation

What branch of thermodynamics is addressed in Romans 1:20?

No, I don't mean speciation. We believe many species evolved from relatively few 'kinds' (definition from the original Hebrew and ancient Greek) on Noah's ark. For example, all cats may have come 2 cats on Noah's ark - or perhaps a few more kinds of cats. Personally - I think all cats are related by descent - most can also interbreed which would normally mean they are of the same species - but finding an accurate definition of species is just as difficult as an accurate definition of "kind."

We do not believe humans came from apes or ape-like ancestors - we do believe extinct races have a common origin to current races- e.g. Neanderthals. We believe Acts 17:26 is accurate and that all races/nations/ethnos come from a common origin - this is proven in genetics. In fact, more recently genetic evidence confirms all races come from the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam.

On your other question - the 2nd law of thermodynamics (in fact all heat flow) is observed by the study of things made as Romans 1:20 invites us to do - which actually involves all branches of scientific study.

More specifically Job 38:33 refers to the laws which govern our universe - that would include the laws of thermodynamics.

The law of conservation of matter and energy tweaks the laws of thermodynamics. Heat flow is oversimplifying. One could assume that thermodynamics leads to zero energy - this is simply not true. The only way to remove energy from our universe is to convert it into matter according to E=Mc^2.

While this clearly happened during the origin of our universe, it is rare now. Usually it goes in the opposite direction - from matter to energy - this is what stars do!

Bottom line - the energy in our universe is currently increasing while the matter in our universe is decreasing.

Of course, that ignores dark matter and dark energy - I doubt these are constants but I am not aware of the current scientific evidence as to whether either dark energy or dark matter is increasing or decreasing in our universe or if it is constant. Isaiah 40:22,26 implies increasing - but this is because the Biblical model points to dark/invisible energy coming from outside our universe - i.e. that our universe is not actually a closed system - though this is neither proven nor disproven. Ordinary matter and energy do appear to be in a closed system in our universe. This, of course, assumes our universe is not interacting with another universe.

The origin of our universe does involve an open system since the singularity had a huge input of energy from outside the singularity.

Unless, of course, you believe in the mythical teaching that the vast amount of energy at the origin or our universe came from nothing!

What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By any definition, we would not expect to see biological evolution in time frames of months. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Further, the notion of Noah’s p,ensure cruise and a 6,000 year old planet is absurd. There’s no other way to define it.

Why would you think the universe started from nothing? That’s a description that is a part of the fundamentalist ministries but has nothing to do with the best evidence that science has proposed.

I absolutely do not believe the universe came from nothing. I posted that this belief is contrary to the law of conservation of matter and energy.

We are not creationists - we believe in the Biblical account of creation.

I also posted that it is just as difficult to get an exact definition of species as it is to get an exact definition of "kind." The Bible repeats this though:

Genesis 1:24
Then God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures* according to their kinds, domestic animals and creeping animals* and wild animals of the earth according to their kinds.”+ And it was so.

Simply: Cats give birth to cats not dogs. If you plant a carrot seed you will not get a tomato plant.

Going further than this requires scientific study of descent - but remember that homology does not prove descent - otherwise we came from pigs since pig skin in most similar to human skin (compare heart valves). Or we came from mice since mouse blood is closest to human blood. And what animal has the closest eye to humans?

Of course, study of the Hebrew word translated "kind" helps.

NW ref. has this footnote:

Genesis 1 — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

I think you showed that “kind” really is a term used at a point in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood.

On the other hand, there is undeniable evidence that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Religionists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept evolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.

You posted:
“Genesis 1:24
Then God said:”

Please identify how religionists know the gods said that. As I am aware, none of the writers of any of the Bibles ever had an audience with any of the gods so there was no dictation as to “the gods said .....”. As I am aware, the gods never delivered any of the Bibles in final form or with their narrative.

Why should anyone unquestioningly accept your claim, “the gods said”

 

[Hollie]

"It just happened."

“The gawds did it.” That answers everything you need to know.

 

[alang1216]

all cats may have come 2 cats on Noah's ark - or perhaps a few more kinds of cats. Personally - I think all cats are related by descent - most can also interbreed which would normally mean they are of the same species

What is your explanation for the fossil record showing something very different? Cats, for example, are never found in older rock layers where we find dinosaurs. If all the animals we see today are descended from those on Noah's arc and Noah took every 'kind' of animal on board, what happened to the dinosaurs?

The Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. How does the fossil record show something different than I posted about cats?

At the time of the dinos there were no cats of any kind on the earth. Now there are. Where did they come from?

 

[jwoodie]

"It just happened."

“The gawds did it.” That answers everything you need to know.

Same thing.

 

[jwoodie]

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

Setting aside personal religious or secular beliefs, the biblical account of the Earth's formation is remarkably accurate from a chronological viewpoint. However, a literal interpretation (of an English translation!) of the Bible regarding human Creation should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the current theory of Evolution.

The physical similarity of humans to other mammals precludes the idea that we were uniquely created from dust. On the other hand, humans possess unique mental/spiritual qualities which can't be explained by random mutations.

I think an appropriate area of inquiry should be the potential effects of interventional events (e.g., sunspots, asteroids, floods, etc.) on human development. Could not this be done separate and apart from Deistic beliefs about their purpose?

 

[alang1216]

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

Setting aside personal religious or secular beliefs, the biblical account of the Earth's formation is remarkably accurate from a chronological viewpoint. However, a literal interpretation (of an English translation!) of the Bible regarding human Creation should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the current theory of Evolution.

The physical similarity of humans to other mammals precludes the idea that we were uniquely created from dust. On the other hand, humans possess unique mental/spiritual qualities which can't be explained by random mutations.

I think an appropriate area of inquiry should be the potential effects of interventional events (e.g., sunspots, asteroids, floods, etc.) on human development. Could not this be done separate and apart from Deistic beliefs about their purpose?

Are humans so different from chimps? Certainly less different than chimps and goldfish, IMHO. Were 'interventional events' required?

 

[Newtonian]

"It just happened."

“The gawds did it.” That answers everything you need to know.

Goddidit is not an answer. How God did it involves all branches of scientific study in harmony with Romans 1:20.

Also, you missed the simple fact that all forms of life reproduce their own kind. I gave two examples - do you agree with those examples?

And I posted that we believe in speciation - I suggest you read what I posted more carefully.

 

[Newtonian]

l

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

Setting aside personal religious or secular beliefs, the biblical account of the Earth's formation is remarkably accurate from a chronological viewpoint. However, a literal interpretation (of an English translation!) of the Bible regarding human Creation should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the current theory of Evolution.

The physical similarity of humans to other mammals precludes the idea that we were uniquely created from dust. On the other hand, humans possess unique mental/spiritual qualities which can't be explained by random mutations.

I think an appropriate area of inquiry should be the potential effects of interventional events (e.g., sunspots, asteroids, floods, etc.) on human development. Could not this be done separate and apart from Deistic beliefs about their purpose?

Are humans so different from chimps? Certainly less different than chimps and goldfish, IMHO. Were 'interventional events' required?

When it comes to blood, humans are closer to mice. Why do you suppose scientists often test mice before testing humans?

One aspect of this is discussed here:

Of Mice and Not Men: Differences between Mouse and Human Immunology

Mice are the experimental tool of choice for the majority of immunologists and the study of their immune responses has yielded tremendous insight into the workings of the human immune system. However, as 65 million years of evolution might suggest, there are significant differences. Here we...

www.jimmunol.org

 

[alang1216]

l

The fallacious principal argument for the theory of "Evolution" is that it is not "Creationism." This is deceptive tactic is designed to place the burden of proof on those asking legitimate questions about this theory.

Setting aside personal religious or secular beliefs, the biblical account of the Earth's formation is remarkably accurate from a chronological viewpoint. However, a literal interpretation (of an English translation!) of the Bible regarding human Creation should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the current theory of Evolution.

The physical similarity of humans to other mammals precludes the idea that we were uniquely created from dust. On the other hand, humans possess unique mental/spiritual qualities which can't be explained by random mutations.

I think an appropriate area of inquiry should be the potential effects of interventional events (e.g., sunspots, asteroids, floods, etc.) on human development. Could not this be done separate and apart from Deistic beliefs about their purpose?

Are humans so different from chimps? Certainly less different than chimps and goldfish, IMHO. Were 'interventional events' required?

When it comes to blood, humans are closer to mice. Why do you suppose scientists often test mice before testing humans?

One aspect of this is discussed here:

Of Mice and Not Men: Differences between Mouse and Human Immunology

Mice are the experimental tool of choice for the majority of immunologists and the study of their immune responses has yielded tremendous insight into the workings of the human immune system. However, as 65 million years of evolution might suggest, there are significant differences. Here we...

www.jimmunol.org

Are mice used because they are closer to us than chimps or because no one complains when they are ill treated? They are certainly more convenient to work with, small, easy to keep, short lives and reproductive cycles and we have breed some strains to be more 'human' like in their reactions to drugs.

 

[BreezeWood]

all cats may have come 2 cats on Noah's ark - or perhaps a few more kinds of cats. Personally - I think all cats are related by descent - most can also interbreed which would normally mean they are of the same species

What is your explanation for the fossil record showing something very different? Cats, for example, are never found in older rock layers where we find dinosaurs. If all the animals we see today are descended from those on Noah's arc and Noah took every 'kind' of animal on board, what happened to the dinosaurs?

The Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. How does the fossil record show something different than I posted about cats?

At the time of the dinos there were no cats of any kind on the earth. Now there are. Where did they come from?

At the time of the dinos there were no cats of any kind on the earth. Now there are. Where did they come from?

.
yours is a good question however ...

42 million years ago

The saber-toothed cats, both living and extinct, have been found almost worldwide from the Eocene epoch to the end of the Pleistocene epoch 42 million years ago (mya) – 11,000 years ago (kya).

42 million years I would guess predates noah, certainly more than 6k ...

where the desert religionists are wrong is their rigid depiction of their books than correcting them as in some way that would prove their beliefs are invalid rather than "fine tuning" the actual intent their books initially were written for - an understanding of the metaphysical that can not be physically corresponded with (as they claim) but most certainly does have a spiritual connection.

the parable of noah is a key moment for the establishment of religion, the religion of antiquity the desert religions have all abandoned rather for them to use disrespectfully as a self fulfilling fairy tale void of its actual meaning - and particularly, no the Almighty did not extend the punishment exacted on humanity to the undeserving living wildlife only those forgerist religions would wrongfully incorporate in their false religions for nefarious reasons.

and is a typical example why the desert religions are undeserving a stamp of authenticity.

 

[jwoodie]

Why don't you people stop justifying your personal opinions by attacking the opinions of others? Both popular Evolution and literal Creationism contain many unanswered questions. I suspect that the real reason for Man's unique existence lies somewhere in between them.

 

[cnm]

So where did cats come from?

 

[Hollie]

"It just happened."

“The gawds did it.” That answers everything you need to know.

Goddidit is not an answer. How God did it involves all branches of scientific study in harmony with Romans 1:20.

Also, you missed the simple fact that all forms of life reproduce their own kind. I gave two examples - do you agree with those examples?

And I posted that we believe in speciation - I suggest you read what I posted more carefully.

Goddidit is the answer to everything. That’s why the fundamentalist ministries have a statement of faith. I didn’t see a comprehensive description of how the godsdidit (how they did anything), in Romans.

The term “kind” is one used by creationists but really is a meaningless slogan. No one expects one existing species to give birth to a completely different one. That’s ridiculous. The “kinds” alleged by creationism simply do not exist in the evolutionary model; there is no line between one family and another that a transitional form needs to straddle.

I’m not sure you understand speciation. I earlier gave you examples.