Atheism, Agnosticism, Belief.

[Theland]

Nine and a half minutes. Very interesting.
Presented by Dinesh D'Souza, featuring Neo de Grasses Tyson.

https://youtu.be/jYi7yHeKBEI

[pixie374]

Theland, I am still a little confused about your micro/macro ideas. Are you willing to explain again please?

[naomi24]

Theland. Look up the definition of crisis and stop being so dramatic. It doesn’t really matter if no one ever finds definitive answers. Hardly a crisis!

[Theland]

I think this is it.
Note how there is no progress in cross speciation.The bibles, ''kinds,'' remains unassailable.
This is real rationality.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-seek-to-update-evolution-20161122/

[Theland]

Pixie - yes of course.
Any organism, animal or vegetable, can undergo micro evolution.
Selective breeding in farm animals domestic animals are examples.
When the food supply, or environment changes, organisms can change to suit the new circumstances.
Darwin's finches - as the food supply changed, so finches underwent changes to their beaks, shorter and stronger, or longer and more adapted to probing food.
But they began and ended as finches.
Never a new species, which is macro evolution, which is impossible, and exists only in the minds of its adherents.

[Theland]

A house built on sand is in crisis when the sand shifts!
Or do you prefer the description of a housed of cards?

[naomi24]

Neither - because it is neither. Get a grip.

[Theland]

Really Naomi, you must be desperate at having nothing substantive to say.
At least think back over your comprehensive reading list and give us something meatier than simply saying, '' get a grip!''

[naomi24]

I didn’t simply say get a grip. You asked me a question and I answered it.

[pixie374]

Thanks, theland. There are two parts that confuse me... (well, at least!)

You say "never a new species". But it was humans who decided what "species" should mean. Basically, one kind of animal who couldn't interbreed with another. So, that can't be a surprise, that they don't, when it is our actual categorisation of it? Maybe we have just labelled things wrongly?

Also, with human evolution, neanderthals are classed as a different species from us, even though we did breed with them and continue their genes, until they died out. That has gone from one species to another.

Say it was possible for a cat to evolve into a dog, then we would have called them the same "species" in the first place. So that is technically right, by definition, but only because it's our definition.

[Theland]

What is never contradicted is the biblical term, '' kinds.''

[naomi24]

^Is that somehow meant to prove something?

[Theland]

'' To prove something?''
No. Just giving you the facts.
You make up your own mind.

[pixie374]

//What is never contradicted is the biblical term, '' kinds//

Well, i might contradict it! What is it actually supposed to mean? I don't see what it really has to do with evolution tbh, you are trying to use the Bible as proof of itself, which doesn't really work.

[Theland]

Pixie- '' kinds.''
All it means is that animals will breed the same animals.
Breeding a different kind of animal is impossible.

[naomi24]

Theland, so what? What does that have to do with the bible and your God specifically? Do you imagine that at the time the bible was written no one else in the world was aware of that? I really don't see what point you're trying to make. It sounds like barrel scraping to me.

[Theland]

What specifically do you want to know?

[pixie374]

It isn't impossible though, theland. We breed mules, hinnies, ligers... etc. And how about human evolution?

[naomi24]

I'd like to know what you're talking about.

//What is never contradicted is the biblical term, '' kinds.'' //

That there are 'kinds' of animals is not astonishingly insightful knowledge - and never was.

[pixie374]

We are asking the same thing, then...

[Theland]

Genesis 1:24 explains it.