[_ Old Earth _] Can evolution and creation both be true?

[Dave Slayer]

Can evolution and creation both be true?

 

[John]

No. Christianity and evolution mix like oil and water.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is just part of God's creation. He does most things though nature in our world.

 

[kenmaynard]

Yes of course both creation and evolution can be true. I personally don't understand what the fuss is about. People say silly things like I didn't come from no monkey! Who says you did? Not evolution. Evolution simply states that the animal body that your soul aka (you) inhabits has a common ancestor with monkeys. The evidence that this is true is vast. Sure the theory is imperfect, but so is the theory of gravity. Our animal bodies share DNA with apes, chimps, even roaches and algae. Evidence certainly points to a single common ancestor for all plants and animals.

If you think that (you) are the animal body that is bound by this physical world I feel sorry for you. As you certainly don't understand, what you think you understand.

 

[Free]

Our animal bodies share DNA with apes, chimps, even roaches and algae.

It would still be error to conclude that this means we all share a common ancestor.

Micro evolution and creation are certainly compatible.

 

[Sparkey]

Yes of course both creation and evolution can be true. I personally don't understand what the fuss is about. People say silly things like I didn't come from no monkey! Who says you did? Not evolution. Evolution simply states that the animal body that your soul aka (you) inhabits has a common ancestor with monkeys. The evidence that this is true is vast. Sure the theory is imperfect, but so is the theory of gravity. Our animal bodies share DNA with apes, chimps, even roaches and algae. Evidence certainly points to a single common ancestor for all plants and animals.

If you think that (you) are the animal body that is bound by this physical world I feel sorry for you. As you certainly don't understand, what you think you understand.

Where is the boreoeutherian ancestor? Where did it live? Do you know? Maybe my question is too "silly" for you. If so, kindly say so. But please do no longer mock me. You will find me a very capable opponent should you wish one.

Sparrowhawke has entered the room and the "silly" belief in a boreueutherian ancestor that has no evidence what-so-ever is called into light. A demand is placed before all. Shall we, who find ourselves amongst your "silly folk", expect a reasonable reply within a reasonable timeframe? Don't dumb it down for my sake. I want to really understand just like you appear to.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume as you have that you do know of which you speak:

As you certainly don't understand, what you think you understand

Let us greet each other with mutual respect - but I am no fool -and would like to test your assertion of expertise before I respect your say about your self. For me? Okay, I'm fine with being a fool in your sight, a silly fool with a silly demand that you can find no reply to. I'm perfectly fine with it.

By the way -I'll need to have you cite your evidence or credentials of expertise for me to be able to accept your word for the statements you make henceforth. If you have a doctorate, say so. If not then quoting direct sources for your material (especially your statements in response to my challenge) will suffice.

Just in case you are wondering what the question is -- allow me to repeat:
Where is the boreoeutherian ancestor?

Thanks,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[kenmaynard]

Yes of course both creation and evolution can be true. I personally don't understand what the fuss is about. People say silly things like I didn't come from no monkey! Who says you did? Not evolution. Evolution simply states that the animal body that your soul aka (you) inhabits has a common ancestor with monkeys. The evidence that this is true is vast. Sure the theory is imperfect, but so is the theory of gravity. Our animal bodies share DNA with apes, chimps, even roaches and algae. Evidence certainly points to a single common ancestor for all plants and animals.

If you think that (you) are the animal body that is bound by this physical world I feel sorry for you. As you certainly don't understand, what you think you understand.

Where is the boreoeutherian ancestor? Where did it live? Do you know? Maybe my question is too "silly" for you. If so, kindly say so. But please do no longer mock me. You will find me a very capable opponent should you wish one.

Sparrowhawke has entered the room and the "silly" belief in a boreueutherian ancestor that has no evidence what-so-ever is called into light. A demand is placed before all. Shall we, who find ourselves amongst your "silly folk", expect a reasonable reply within a reasonable timeframe? Don't dumb it down for my sake. I want to really understand just like you appear to.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume as you have that you do know of which you speak:

As you certainly don't understand, what you think you understand

Let us greet each other with mutual respect - but I am no fool -and would like to test your assertion of expertise before I respect your say about your self. For me? Okay, I'm fine with being a fool in your sight, a silly fool with a silly demand that you can find no reply to. I'm perfectly fine with it.

By the way -I'll need to have you cite your evidence or credentials of expertise for me to be able to accept your word for the statements you make henceforth. If you have a doctorate, say so. If not then quoting direct sources for your material (especially your statements in response to my challenge) will suffice.

Just in case you are wondering what the question is -- allow me to repeat:
Where is the boreoeutherian ancestor?

Thanks,
~Sparrowhawke

Where is the boreotherian ancestor? It is dead and hurried, maybe one or more were fossilized maybe they weren't'. One day maybe one day we will find a fossil maybe one day we won't. Notice I didn't yell. Science doesn't pretend to have all the information. It is just a way of figuring out what happened.
Also if science is so wrong why does Shell oil pay geologists over a hundred thousand dollers a year to use their theories about the earth being billions of years old to find oi? If creationists were right wouldn't they be the ones hired? Obviously science works. We couldn't have this conversation on the internet if science were wrong and full of lies. There would be no internet.


If you want to see transitional species the horse is one where we have found a bunch.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution ... lution.htm

 

[Sparkey]

Where is the boreotherian ancestor? It is dead and hurried, maybe one or more were fossilized maybe they weren't'. One day maybe one day we will find a fossil maybe one day we won't. Notice I didn't yell. Science doesn't pretend to have all the information. It is just a way of figuring out what happened.

Also if science is so wrong why does Shell oil pay geologists over a hundred thousand dollers a year to use their theories about the earth being billions of years old to find oi? If creationists were right wouldn't they be the ones hired? Obviously science works. We couldn't have this conversation on the internet if science were wrong and full of lies. There would be no internet.

You've asked me to notice that you didn't yell? Okay. I guess you are correct to point out your good behavior because I will admit that my statements were designed to be provocative (as were you're initial statements). I also notice that you didn't apologize. You mentioned "silly arguments" and I called you on the stereo-type and you choose to ignore. The offense and sting that I felt from your remarks are still there between us.

But for the moment and while I await an apology, let us consider your most recent post. I've not accused "Science" of having all the answers. Let me assume for a single instance the voice of Religion and say, "There are many things that I don't know."

The reason that I say this is again to address the implication of your words. Saying, "Science does not have all the answers," to me, implies that I've said that Religion does. Wait!! Did I mis-quote you? Hmmmm.... what you actually said was, "Science does not pretend...."

I wonder if you can actually conceive of why I resent the tone of your words and statements. While you, or "science" (whom you pretend to speak for) might not have "all the answers (or all the information)" it is certain that you overestimate the ability of mankind to eventually collect all the information (given enough time) and also certain that the conclusions that you draw from this potentially infinite information are indicative of arrogance. The problem is not one of having insufficient information but really the problem is that God does exist. Science can not discover this fact. How could it?

Try in the future to make your statements and questions at least sensible for us, please? Citing Shell Oil as your authority is patently absurd. Even you must know this.

~Sparrowhawke

PS -- why don't you wait for me to make a statement before you presume to defeat me. I've known about the eohippus probably before you were born (I am now guilty of drawing a presumptuous conclusion) but I first learned of this in the 1970's. Declare me true or false in my assumption, youngster, please?

 

[kenmaynard]

Where is the boreotherian ancestor? It is dead and hurried, maybe one or more were fossilized maybe they weren't'. One day maybe one day we will find a fossil maybe one day we won't. Notice I didn't yell. Science doesn't pretend to have all the information. It is just a way of figuring out what happened.

Also if science is so wrong why does Shell oil pay geologists over a hundred thousand dollers a year to use their theories about the earth being billions of years old to find oi? If creationists were right wouldn't they be the ones hired? Obviously science works. We couldn't have this conversation on the internet if science were wrong and full of lies. There would be no internet.

You've asked me to notice that you didn't yell? Okay. I guess you are correct to point out your good behavior because I will admit that my statements were designed to be provocative (as were you're initial statements). I also notice that you didn't apologize. You mentioned "silly arguments" and I called you on the stereo-type and you choose to ignore. The offense and sting that I felt from your remarks are still there between us.

But for the moment and while I await an apology, let us consider your most recent post. I've not accused "Science" of having all the answers. Let me assume for a single instance the voice of Religion and say, "There are many things that I don't know."

The reason that I say this is again to address the implication of your words. Saying, "Science does not have all the answers," to me, implies that I've said that Religion does. Wait!! Did I mis-quote you? Hmmmm.... what you actually said was, "Science does not pretend...."

I wonder if you can actually conceive of why I resent the tone of your words and statements. While you, or "science" (whom you pretend to speak for) might not have "all the answers (or all the information)" it is certain that you overestimate the ability of mankind to eventually collect all the information (given enough time) and also certain that the conclusions that you draw from this potentially infinite information are indicative of arrogance. The problem is not one of having insufficient information but really the problem is that God does exist. Science can not discover this fact. How could it?

Try in the future to make your statements and questions at least sensible for us, please? Citing Shell Oil as your authority is patently absurd. Even you must know this.

~Sparrowhawke

PS -- why don't you wait for me to make a statement before you presume to defeat me. I've known about the eohippus probably before you were born (I am now guilty of drawing a presumptuous conclusion) but I first learned of this in the 1970's. Declare me true or false in my assumption, youngster, please?

I apologize if my tone upsets you. I am not trying to. My statement about the statement of "I didn't come from no Monkey" being silly is meant to convey that the prevailing attitude I encounter when I hear that statement is close minded.

Are people arrogant? Yes. Do I think humans can and will given enough time understand the universe? Yes.

Also, the fact that Shell, BP, Exxon etc. all employ Geologists to find oil is not preposterous. The scientist go by the theory that the earth is billions of years old. They successfully find oil. If they didn't successfully find oil with their theories they wouldn't get jobs. If the young earth theory was correct they would be the ones to find the oil, and get the jobs.

 

[Sparkey]

I apologize if my tone upsets you. I am not trying to. My statement about the statement of "I didn't come from no Monkey" being silly is meant to convey that the prevailing attitude I encounter when I hear that statement is close minded.

Are people arrogant? Yes. Do I think humans can and will given enough time understand the universe? Yes.

Also, the fact that Shell, BP, Exxon etc. all employ Geologists to find oil is not preposterous. The scientist go by the theory that the earth is billions of years old. They successfully find oil. If they didn't successfully find oil with their theories they wouldn't get jobs. If the young earth theory was correct they would be the ones to find the oil, and get the jobs.

I do appreciate your apology (and the quickness of it) -- further I appreciate the nature of a person who can do so. It is fully accepted and I will stand down from my tone as well. It only takes a moment.

Is there something that you'd like to discuss as friends? I very much enjoy talking about science mostly because to me it is observing what God had done - and I do understand that some people have blinders on for this. It's not my purpose to try to prove --or resist others who try to disprove-- His existence, so we should be able to have a good conversation here.

Thanks again for the apology, it makes all the difference.

Oil is an interesting subject to me. May I venture an idea for your consideration? What is oil? What events in the past make vast oil deposits possible. Of course you will immediately understand that as a believer I have been taught that oil is formed from decaying animal tissue and that to me this suggests a flood -- but put that aside (as I will) and consider how our vast oil supplies may have come into existence? Do you know geology and theory to shed light on the question?

I'll try to find out also (and won't try to push the point about the flood too much). What do you think? Would it be an acceptable enough topic? It does seem to be in the spirit of the OP - the question is "Can evolution and creation both be true?"

My official stance is: "hmmmmm, I dunno?"

I would suggest that to stay strictly on topic we would have to first agree to define terms.
You would get to say what "creation" is and I would get to say what "evolution" is -- and we can do a good job for each other and maybe this would keep it interesting and stimulating?

It's okay to keep your own beliefs as you consider the beliefs of others. Seems noble to me actually. Wanna try?

~Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

Lol

Looks like I prove my ignorance very quickly. The first thing I find is that oil is made from plants? From plankton?

I'll keep looking too. Doesn't mean that I won't enjoy this conversation only that I may be embarrassed -that's all.

~Sparrow

Second thing I find while searching seems to vindicate me at least partially saying that Science doesn't really know. The first looked like it was designed for elementary school children. So often I have to remember the source, you understand -I'm sure.

The following was written in 2005 and appeared in LiveScience online magazine:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html

Nature has been transmuting dead life into black gold for millions of years using little more than heat, pressure and time, scientists tell us.

But with gas prices spiking more than $1 per gallon in the United States this year and some experts predicting that the end of oil is near, scientists still don't know for sure where oil comes from, how long it took to make, or how much there is.

A so-called fossil fuel, petroleum is believed by most scientists to be the transformed remains of long dead organisms. The majority of petroleum is thought to come from the fossils of plants and tiny marine organisms. Larger animals might contribute to the mix as well.

"Even some of the dinosaurs may have gotten involved in some of this," says William Thomas, a geologists at the University of Kentucky. "[Although] I think it would be quite rare and a very small and insignificant contribution."

But another theory holds that more oil was in Earth from the beginning than what's been produced by dead animals, but that we've yet to tap it.

 

[kenmaynard]

I apologize if my tone upsets you. I am not trying to. My statement about the statement of "I didn't come from no Monkey" being silly is meant to convey that the prevailing attitude I encounter when I hear that statement is close minded.

Are people arrogant? Yes. Do I think humans can and will given enough time understand the universe? Yes.

Also, the fact that Shell, BP, Exxon etc. all employ Geologists to find oil is not preposterous. The scientist go by the theory that the earth is billions of years old. They successfully find oil. If they didn't successfully find oil with their theories they wouldn't get jobs. If the young earth theory was correct they would be the ones to find the oil, and get the jobs.

I do appreciate your apology (and the quickness of it) -- further I appreciate the nature of a person who can do so. It is fully accepted and I will stand down from my tone as well. It only takes a moment.

Is there something that you'd like to discuss as friends? I very much enjoy talking about science mostly because to me it is observing what God had done - and I do understand that some people have blinders on for this. It's not my purpose to try to prove --or resist others who try to disprove-- His existence, so we should be able to have a good conversation here.

Thanks again for the apology, it makes all the difference.

Oil is an interesting subject to me. May I venture an idea for your consideration? What is oil? What events in the past make vast oil deposits possible. Of course you will immediately understand that as a believer I have been taught that oil is formed from decaying animal tissue and that to me this suggests a flood -- but put that aside (as I will) and consider how our vast oil supplies may have come into existence? Do you know geology and theory to shed light on the question?

I'll try to find out also (and won't try to push the point about the flood too much). What do you think? Would it be an acceptable enough topic? It does seem to be in the spirit of the OP - the question is "Can evolution and creation both be true?"

My official stance is: "hmmmmm, I dunno?"

I would suggest that to stay strictly on topic we would have to first agree to define terms.
You would get to say what "creation" is and I would get to say what "evolution" is -- and we can do a good job for each other and maybe this would keep it interesting and stimulating?

It's okay to keep your own beliefs as you consider the beliefs of others. Seems noble to me actually. Wanna try?

~Sparrow

Sure I'll try. As for me defining your position and you defining my position I'm not so sure that is the best path to a good dialog. As we can set the definition to fail automatically. For example If you were to say evolution says God doesn't exist and Zebras can turn into turtles. Those would make evolution seem needlessly silly and not good for discussion.

 

[Sparkey]

It's okay to keep your own beliefs as you consider the beliefs of others. Seems noble to me actually. Wanna try?

~Sparrow

Sure I'll try. As for me defining your position and you defining my position I'm not so sure that is the best path to a good dialog. As we can set the definition to fail automatically. For example If you were to say evolution says God doesn't exist and Zebras can turn into turtles. Those would make evolution seem needlessly silly and not good for discussion.

It would involve trust, yes. For me to define evolution I would attempt by saying it [Evolution] is the prevailing theory accepted by most all leading scientists today. It is arrived at by careful study of our environment and predicts continuing advancement of not only the human race but of all life. The fundamental belief of the evolutionist is one of hope. Study and classification of both plant and animal kingdoms offer many convincing arguments for evolution.

There are multiple "schools of thought" about evolution too. Some scientists adhere to "micro-evolution" thereby reserving their thoughts about speciation to a later point in time when we have collected sufficient evidence for certain proof of the broader aspects of evolutionary theory.

(the above is just a stab at it -- impromptu -- not practices nor rehearsed and just off the top of my little head - but I'm kinda proud of it too).

Wanna try to define "creationism" in the same spirit? I suspect you've bumped into enough of them to do a good job if you try. Also feel free to improve my attempt as you see fit, yes?

~Sparrow

(PS - I edited my post above)

 

[kenmaynard]

It's okay to keep your own beliefs as you consider the beliefs of others. Seems noble to me actually. Wanna try?

~Sparrow

Sure I'll try. As for me defining your position and you defining my position I'm not so sure that is the best path to a good dialog. As we can set the definition to fail automatically. For example If you were to say evolution says God doesn't exist and Zebras can turn into turtles. Those would make evolution seem needlessly silly and not good for discussion.

It would involve trust, yes. For me to define evolution I would attempt by saying it [Evolution] is the prevailing theory accepted by most all leading scientists today. It is arrived at by careful study of our environment and predicts continuing advancement of not only the human race but of all life. The fundamental belief of the evolutionist is one of hope. Study and classification of both plant and animal kingdoms offer many convincing arguments for evolution.

There are multiple "schools of thought" about evolution too. Some scientists adhere to "micro-evolution" thereby reserving their thoughts about speciation to a later point in time when we have collected sufficient evidence for certain proof of the broader aspects of evolutionary theory.

(the above is just a stab at it -- impromptu -- not practices nor rehearsed and just off the top of my little head - but I'm kinda proud of it too).

Wanna try to define "creationism" in the same spirit? I suspect you've bumped into enough of them to do a good job if you try. Also feel free to improve my attempt as you see fit, yes?

~Sparrow

(PS - I edited my post above)

Well creationism is pretty hard to define.

Creationism is the belief that the complexity of the universe, especially life, could not have come about random means. That the universe had a beginning, and that beginning was caused by an intelligent being who is the origin of all things.

 

[Sparkey]

Might we both then take a bow?

I like your definition well enough. Very well enough!
Thank you.

~Sparrow

INITIAL DEFINITIONS:

[Evolution] is the prevailing theory accepted by most all leading scientists today. It is arrived at by careful study of our environment and predicts continuing advancement of not only the human race but of all life. The fundamental belief of the evolutionist is one of hope. Study and classification of both plant and animal kingdoms offer many convincing arguments for evolution.

There are multiple "schools of thought" about evolution too. Some scientists adhere to "micro-evolution" thereby reserving their thoughts about speciation to a later point in time when we have collected sufficient evidence for certain proof of the broader aspects of evolutionary theory.

Creationism is the belief that the complexity of the universe, especially life, could not have come about random means. That the universe had a beginning, and that beginning was caused by an intelligent being who is the origin of all things.

I'm not trying to "write things in stone" here. It's okay to remain flexible in our definition but I do think this is an acceptable start.

We don't have to speak about oil formation -- but I am curious to learn it and certainly do not declare myself to be an expert in geology. It seems to be a semi-neutral study and perhaps it can be mutually beneficial? Am open to other suggestions (like the horse - but I've heard that one before) too.

~Sparrow

 

[kenmaynard]

So given the two definitions. Do you think it is impossible that The universe was created, and that evolution is true? Or more specifically that all life on earth is related and comes from a common ancestor?

 

[Sparkey]

It's an honest question you ask here. Thank you.
You've asked my opinion and I will try to give it as honestly as you have asked it.

My thought? Part of me wants to say, "I don't really know." This is because I don't like arguments and I see so much bickering about it and I really don't want to stir up a "hornet's nest" about opinions. So, having said that and simply expressing my opinion I boldly declare that I don't think God is a liar.

As far as the "common ancestor" question - I recently went searching for an article that speculated based on the information gleaned from studies of the genomes of various animals that suggested the analogy of a TREE - with a single source was not the best. Having a single source for the "common ancestor" has been criticized somewhat and the idea may be changing from a single organism (the tree analogy) to one with at least 3 "primary sources" <---- more of a "bush" analogy where multiple populations were in flux and change all at once. I tried to find it but fail (so far). I will continue to search for it so I can bring it to you (it was not on any creationist site - I like reading the science article raw... lol, good stuff there).

The idea of a single protoorganism as the "common ancestor" of all life then to me seems to be a "let's wait and see" type of thing. My suggestion is that we (I'm including myself in the field of "scientists") will know more about it in less than 5 short years.

Still and to attempt to answer your question forthrightly? The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. My opinion allows a great degree of interpretation of the Scripture but there are limits also. When the Lord says that certain animals reproduce "after their kind" the words themselves establish boundaries. So there is a limit to how far I can stretch in my attempt to reconcile Science and what I consider Truth.

Fair enough? I try not to be close minded but my primary belief that "God is not a liar" also implies "God is not a deceiver," well, that is -- not to His children. But he does openly declare that He enjoys (actually says He delights) in making those who consider themselves wise in their own sight to be seen as foolish. This applies universally too - so I have to be careful about how smart I think I am.

Still embarrassed by the bold remark that I made about oil. I thought that coal was derived by plant life and that oil (raw petroleum) was derived by decay of animal life. I really shouldn't be so dogmatic in my beliefs, especially my scientific beliefs, ya know?

~Sparrow

PS - our definitions carry forward from the previous page:
INITIAL DEFINITIONS:

[Evolution] is the prevailing theory accepted by most all leading scientists today. It is arrived at by careful study of our environment and predicts continuing advancement of not only the human race but of all life. The fundamental belief of the evolutionist is one of hope. Study and classification of both plant and animal kingdoms offer many convincing arguments for evolution.

There are multiple "schools of thought" about evolution too. Some scientists adhere to "micro-evolution" thereby reserving their thoughts about speciation to a later point in time when we have collected sufficient evidence for certain proof of the broader aspects of evolutionary theory.

Creationism is the belief that the complexity of the universe, especially life, could not have come about random means. That the universe had a beginning, and that beginning was caused by an intelligent being who is the origin of all things.

 

[Barbarian]

When the Lord says that certain animals reproduce "after their kind" the words themselves establish boundaries.

Where does the Lord say that certain animals "reproduce after their own kind?"

It's not in Genesis. Perhaps you were thinking of this:

Gensis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind.

It says animals were created according to each kind. But it doesn't say that they reproduce according to their kind. This is consistent with the observation that new kinds evolve from old kinds. After all, God used pre-existing things to produce life in the first place.

 

[Sparkey]

When the Lord says that certain animals reproduce "after their kind" the words themselves establish boundaries.

Where does the Lord say that certain animals "reproduce after their own kind?"

It's not in Genesis. Perhaps you were thinking of this:

Gensis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind.

It says animals were created according to each kind. But it doesn't say that they reproduce according to their kind. This is consistent with the observation that new kinds evolve from old kinds. After all, God used pre-existing things to produce life in the first place.

Greetings, Barbarian.

It may well be that you have a word that can correct me. I was indeed thinking this about Genesis but will not insist that my understanding is true and certainly will not attempt to equate my understanding with the Word of God.

When you say that what I meant can not be found in Genesis ---

"Where does the Lord say that certain animals "reproduce after their own kind?" ---It's not in Genesis."

Then go on to say, "perhaps you were thinking of this:" ---> then you quote Genesis - I get understandably confused. Try speaking plain and without mystery, okay?

Are you trying to say that certain parts of the acts of Creation are not created ex nihlio (from out of nothing)? You'll get no argument from me there. If you are saying that there are no boundaries set by God between species and that like does not produce like? Well, pardon me but I can not take your word for that. Also I would ask you to respect the thread theme - we are speaking here about the possibility of both evolution and creation being both true and I'm not above running to the moderators if anybody tries to derail the thread. Certainly you are free to open a different thread to discuss a different subject.

Cordially,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

When you say that what I meant can not be found in Genesis ---

The Barbarian wrote:"Where does the Lord say that certain animals "reproduce after their own kind?" ---It's not in Genesis."

Then go on to say, "perhaps you were thinking of this:" ---> then you quote Genesis - I get understandably confused. Try speaking plain and without mystery, okay?

Sure. The Bible says that organisms were created in different kinds, but it doesn't say that they reproduce according to kind.

Are you trying to say that certain parts of the acts of Creation are not created ex nihlio (from out of nothing)?

So God says. My point, though, was that "created according to kind" is not "reproduces according to kind."

You'll get no argument from me there. If you are saying that there are no boundaries set by God between species and that like does not produce like?

Most creationists now admit speciation is a fact. They can hardly deny it, since it has been directly observed. The Institute for Creation Research endorsed a creationist tract (Noah's Ark; A Feasibility Study by J. Woodmorappe) that says new species, genera, and families evolve. Woodmorappe confirmed to me his argument in an email exchange.

Well, pardon me but I can not take your word for that. Also I would ask you to respect the thread theme - we are speaking here about the possibility of both evolution and creation being both true

In this case, they are the same thing, which is why the distinction between "created" and "reproduces" is so important.

and I'm not above running to the moderators if anybody tries to derail the thread. Certainly you are free to open a different thread to discuss a different subject.

As you see, it's important and relevant to the topic.