Comment on Hannahlovespainting's profile
comments.deviantart.com/18/227…
Sorry for not answering your post directly, but I decided to stop posting on that ugly forum.
I just want to say that your arguments will fall on deaf ears for one single reason:
Denial.
And the worship of "chance":
"Anything can happen, given enough time and tries - even if we will never actually observe it for a fact."
This excuse is un-disprovable (as much as it is un-provable as well) - and therefore fits the anti-theistic doctrine super effectively.
Also, we DO observe evolution on the "species" level - except that the term "species" itself is hazy and INEFFECTIVE in cases like some hybrids that EXCESS it.
Meaning, while "species" is DEFINED as "the barrier of interbreeding" - there are FACTUAL examples that IGNORE this limit.
And yet, you will NEVER see any anti-theistic pro-evolutionist pointing out the INEFFECTIVENESS of "species" - instead, they will continuously claim that it IS "effective" (or "the best we have").
On the other hand, "Noah's KINDS" is a good (though undefined) "taxonomy" to cover up also inter-species hybrids, because it clearly speaks of a bigger group than "species" - yet separates each of them into a different "stand-alone taxa", fully capable of branching out into ALL the existing "species" that belong to it.
In fact, the Flood PROVES "evolution" - just a one working in a DIFFERENT WAY altogether.
it's NOT "gaining NEW material over time" - but the exact opposite mechanism of "selectively sifting SOME of the PREPROGRAMMED data into a separate so-called species".
The former implies that tigers and lions are separate NEW data files from the "proto-cat" (each having a separate NEW "patch").
The latter implies that tigers and lions are instead SELECTIONS out of the OLD PREEXISTING data pool of that "proto-cat" (similarly to how two sides of an apple SUM UP to be the FULL apple, as opposed to two unrelated RANDOM numbers being generated independently).
I'm not sure I explained this clearly enough, though.
Sorry for not answering your post directly, but I decided to stop posting on that ugly forum.
I just want to say that your arguments will fall on deaf ears for one single reason:
Denial.
And the worship of "chance":
"Anything can happen, given enough time and tries - even if we will never actually observe it for a fact."
This excuse is un-disprovable (as much as it is un-provable as well) - and therefore fits the anti-theistic doctrine super effectively.
Also, we DO observe evolution on the "species" level - except that the term "species" itself is hazy and INEFFECTIVE in cases like some hybrids that EXCESS it.
Meaning, while "species" is DEFINED as "the barrier of interbreeding" - there are FACTUAL examples that IGNORE this limit.
And yet, you will NEVER see any anti-theistic pro-evolutionist pointing out the INEFFECTIVENESS of "species" - instead, they will continuously claim that it IS "effective" (or "the best we have").
On the other hand, "Noah's KINDS" is a good (though undefined) "taxonomy" to cover up also inter-species hybrids, because it clearly speaks of a bigger group than "species" - yet separates each of them into a different "stand-alone taxa", fully capable of branching out into ALL the existing "species" that belong to it.
In fact, the Flood PROVES "evolution" - just a one working in a DIFFERENT WAY altogether.
it's NOT "gaining NEW material over time" - but the exact opposite mechanism of "selectively sifting SOME of the PREPROGRAMMED data into a separate so-called species".
The former implies that tigers and lions are separate NEW data files from the "proto-cat" (each having a separate NEW "patch").
The latter implies that tigers and lions are instead SELECTIONS out of the OLD PREEXISTING data pool of that "proto-cat" (similarly to how two sides of an apple SUM UP to be the FULL apple, as opposed to two unrelated RANDOM numbers being generated independently).
I'm not sure I explained this clearly enough, though.
Honestly, when I read this, it made no sense to me. I'm still trying to figure out why you think the flood is evidence for evolution. If the genetic data was "prepogrammed" then where did it come from? How could you have elements turn into molecules, and then suddenly get all the variations and data that's necessary for species to "branch out"? Data doesn't just come from nowhere. Besides, data usually gets corrupted the more you use it. I agree that it was preprogrammed by God, but that doesn't mean that animals evolved after the flood. Tigers still stayed tigers, lions still stayed lions. As far as I know, lions and tigers can technically breed but ligers cannot. Mules can't breed for the same reason either. Kinds are still kinds. Orange trees don't produce apples. Kinds reproduce after kinds. It's just how things are. If evolution really happened, then there couldn't have been a global flood, because it would have destroyed all the layers of rock that supposedly happened over millions of years.
You are referring to the atheistic context of evolution, which is "it must have happened over millions of years" - whereas I'm pointing out, how it seems to me that the observable evolution (it does exist) is rather a sign of a pre-programmed "variation pool", as opposed to the atheistic "mutation accumulation over time".
In other words, I see evolution as a sequence of events defined as "rolling a many-sided yet unchanging die" and "writing down the results as so-called new species", as opposed to "continuously adding new sides to the ever-growing die".
The major parameter in this case is exactly "inter-breeding".
While ligers and the like can't breed themselves - they are still results of inter-SPECIES breeding, which clearly destroys the concept of "species" as "the barrier of breeding" itself.
And if we go into plant life, there are loads of NEW artificial species that are literally mashed together hybrids of various "species" - which is again a "self-contradiction" in regards to the atheistic view on evolution being based on "non-interbreeding species".
In other words, I see evolution as a sequence of events defined as "rolling a many-sided yet unchanging die" and "writing down the results as so-called new species", as opposed to "continuously adding new sides to the ever-growing die".
The major parameter in this case is exactly "inter-breeding".
While ligers and the like can't breed themselves - they are still results of inter-SPECIES breeding, which clearly destroys the concept of "species" as "the barrier of breeding" itself.
And if we go into plant life, there are loads of NEW artificial species that are literally mashed together hybrids of various "species" - which is again a "self-contradiction" in regards to the atheistic view on evolution being based on "non-interbreeding species".