Replies

But YEC says that there is a built in limit to variation. Evolution says there isn't.

If evolution by definition entails no limits on what matter can or cannot do I reckon it is no more scientific than Joe Christian who comes along and says "God did it."

There is no way to define a *kind* scientifically, as it has no real world meaning.

The language of biology categorizes life in to kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The real world meaning of "kind" might be gathered from the biblical texts if you care to take a look. Hint: Trees and humans are not of the same kind.

I didn't say construed, I said is.

Fine. God is the Creator of all life. Therefore all life is of common descent.

Why would hominid evolution be in written records when writing is a recent human invention?

Why should I consider something as "scientific" if it has no human records to attest to the accuracy of its assertions?

But the evidence for [a 4.5 billion year old earth] is overwhelming.

BS. You're just a parrot. You don't even know for sure the earth rotates, let alone how old it is. Moreover, you haven't taken time to study time and compare it with quantum mechanics. The evidence in that regard points to an intersection between time and eternity which in turn, is reason to believe anything goes when it comes to history.

Why is your assertion any better?

Because it is based upon a source outside of myself, namely a text which has enjoyed wide acceptance for thousands of years and attests quite pointedly to God's involvement in creation, and preservation of this creation. All you have for a source is your own opinion and the opinion of those who happen to agree with you.

"If evolution by definition entails no limits on what matter can or cannot do I reckon it is no more scientific than Joe Christian who comes along and says "God did it.""

I never even implied that evolution says there are "no limits on what matter can or cannot do". Nothing I posted can even hinted at such a thing. I said there is no limit on how much a population can diverge from the parent species. Stop inventing silly strawmen and putting words in my mouth I never said.

"The real world meaning of "kind" might be gathered from the biblical texts if you care to take a look. Hint: Trees and humans are not of the same kind."

*Kind* as applied to biological populations is a made up word with no scientific meaning. The Bible doesn't say what constitutes a kind, which is why no two creationists have the same definition of kind. It can mean anything.

Not so with species. The biological species concept automatically excludes populations that cannot interbreed.

" Fine. God is the Creator of all life. Therefore all life is of common descent."

If you're just going to reinvent the meanings of words it is useless even attempting to talk to you. You live in your own little fantasy world.
Since you don't accept common descent as understood by everybody else but you, you do not accept evolutionary theory.

" Why should I consider something as "scientific" if it has no human records to attest to the accuracy of its assertions?"

Because there are many, many more lines of evidence than written records? In fact, written records are almost NEVER used in science. Physical data is much more reliable. By your logic, forensic methods to solve a murder cannot be scientific unless the murderer left a confession note at the scene.

" BS. You're just a parrot."

Check that temper. :) And no, I am not just a parrot, unlike you I actually check what the data is.

" You don't even know for sure the earth rotates, let alone how old it is."

Sure I do. Perhaps YOU don't, but that's your problem.

"Moreover, you haven't taken time to study time and compare it with quantum mechanics. The evidence in that regard points to an intersection between time and eternity which in turn, is reason to believe anything goes when it comes to history."

Please explain, in detail, how quantum mechanics says this. Remember, if it is true, then your favorite book has to be subject to it as well.

"Because it is based upon a source outside of myself, namely a text which has enjoyed wide acceptance for thousands of years and attests quite pointedly to God's involvement in creation, and preservation of this creation."

You mean hearsay evidence?
The evidence I have is also outside myself, and is from multiple lines of evidence and has been tested and verified by the most precise physical examinations.

" All you have for a source is your own opinion and the opinion of those who happen to agree with you."

And tons of physical evidence. You have hearsay.

Again, I repeat, you are not a theistic evolutionist, as you reject the most basic claims of evolution.