So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[SkyWriting]

The biologists will shred the scientific errors of your post so I'm fine fielding the task of dealing with your errors from the scriptures.

What's great is how what you prophesy fails to come to pass.

Polite for - you don't know what your talking about.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hey, can anyone synopsise the video for those of us with poor connections please?

Yet another reason to not watch video.
A lot of garbage using a lot of bandwidth.
A parallel with porn.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that the Pre-Cambrian single celled life evolved into what we see in the Cambrian Explosion. What they call Darwin's Dilemma. The evidence points toward Creationism. The best explanation for the evidence is Creationism not Evolutionary theory. Evidence that is etched in stone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1nXb5uH8Q

Single cells are not that simple.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583745

 

[SkyWriting]

Let me try and translate this from Creationist to English.

1. The Creationist straw man is existing taxa giving rise to other existing taxa. Sometimes it's a generic saltational straw man like a dog giving birth to a cat. Sometimes it goes after a specific target like dinosaur evolution with something like a stegosaurus hatching a clutch of ostriches. ....

He's saying that animals trend to staying in their class as if there were limits to how far an animal will show variation. That's a valid observation and matches the Creation story as well.

 

[USincognito]

He's saying that animals trend to staying in their class as if there were limits to how far an animal will show variation. That's a valid observation and matches the Creation story as well.

No. That's not what he's saying. And if anyone should clarify what he's saying, it should be him not you.

Plus what you "interpreted" doesn't make any sense, especially in light of the point I was making - extant taxa don't give rise to extant (or extinct for that matter) taxa. Phylogenetic relationships are extablished working backwards through time, not forward and not "sideways".

 

[AnotherAtheist]

He's saying that animals trend to staying in their class as if there were limits to how far an animal will show variation. That's a valid observation and matches the Creation story as well.

Selective breeding shows that you can produce very different results from a single source species (including possibly some hybridisation). Look at the varieties of "dogs" they are. We call them all "dogs" because historically we know that they came from the same origin. but there is MUCH more variation in form of dogs than there are between a lot of species. If we found these creatures living naturally, we would have assigned them to different species. Because we know where they came from, we call them all "dogs".

Dogs, and other creatures that have been selectively bred, show how much an individual "kind" can vary, and it's a lot.

 

[SkyWriting]

Selective breeding shows that you can produce very different results from a single source species (including possibly some hybridisation). Look at the varieties of "dogs" they are. We call them all "dogs" because historically we know that they came from the same origin. but there is MUCH more variation in form of dogs than there are between a lot of species. If we found these creatures living naturally, we would have assigned them to different species. Because we know where they came from, we call them all "dogs".

Dogs, and other creatures that have been selectively bred, show how much an individual "kind" can vary, and it's a lot.

Such speedy variation is required for Creationists who accept both the Creation story as well as the Flood story. Many of them don't get that and mistakenly argue for a world without healthy variation of species and clear need for very quick evolution to explain the variety we see today.

They keep harping against evolution in total and ignoring the logical reasons for it to exist to fit the literal scriptures.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Did you look for any? Did you go to any source that isn't specifically out to sell you creationism and look for the evidence?

COMMENT: I sure did! And I found no factual evidence in support of evolution which alleges a linking of all biological life to a common ancestor. That was easy.

A problem and a question. You realize missing links are missing BY DEFINITION, right? Second, transitional fossils that you like?

COMMENT: You do realize that you are avoiding the question. And what about so-called transitional fossils in which I allegedly like?

That you like.

COMMENT: You cannot provide evidence that suffice most people in the world; let alone myself.

Originally Posted by OneThatGotAway

And I say the same to you: PLEASE stop pretending that you provided a MISSING LINK connecting these biological life forms; when you know that you have not provided any.
​

That you like.

COMMENT: You cannot provide evidence that suffice most people in the world; let alone myself. Face it, the evidence that evolutionists have provided does not scientifically support their hypotheses that all biological life forms originated from a common ancestor.

I'll believe your god's words when you accept lastwednesdayism.

Whether you believe God's words or not is not the issue here. The issue is the lack of integrity of evolutionist to admit that their proof of evolution has not been proven SCIENTIFICALLY.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

There is no evidence Solomon ever existed.

With that kind of thinking. None of our ancestors existed.

 

[Guy1]

COMMENT: I sure did! And I found no factual evidence in support of evolution which alleges a linking of all biological life to a common ancestor. That was easy.

Where did you look?

COMMENT: You do realize that you are avoiding the question.

No I'm arguing definitions.

And what about so-called transitional fossils in which I allegedly like?

Do you want transitional fossils, or transitional fossils that you like? I can do the former, though no guarantee that you'll like what I have to show you. You'll most likely dislike them and as such reject them.

COMMENT: You cannot provide evidence that suffice most people in the world; let alone myself.

Actually this Creation V. Evolution thing is mostly an American thing. Sure some people in other countries believe creationism in direct opposition to the scientific consensus, but they're far fewer in numbers than in the US.

Face it, the evidence that evolutionists have provided does not scientifically support their hypotheses that all biological life forms originated from a common ancestor.

Scientists have plenty of evidence supporting evolution. So much so that it was promoted to theory a long time ago. I am in no way exaggerating when I say you're more likely to disprove gravity than you are evolution. At least gravity has actual phenomena it can't explain.

Whether you believe God's words or not is not the issue here. The issue is the lack of integrity of evolutionist to admit that their proof of evolution has not been proven SCIENTIFICALLY.

It's more a problem of your pride. I don't much mind that you don't believe what you're being told, but you act as though anything could change your mind and I think that's dishonest.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

The fact that you keep using the phrase "missing link" tells us all we need to know about your familiarity with the science behind evolution. The phrase is an anachronistic 19th Century reference to a single species connecting humans with our fellow apes. It's outdated and while perfectly good for selling pop science, should be avoided when one is trying to have a science based discussion.

COMMENT: Typical evolutionist argument: Avoid providing proof by questioning the opponents knowledge. How I use the word "missing link" is my prerogative; there is not one single application of this phrase as you put it.

What's a Missing Link?

by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
​

Now, as far as your lack of aweness regarding common ancestry goes, I'd suggest that you're in for a lot of reading - even if we provide you with Reader's Digest sources. I'd also say I hope you understand that the evidence for common ancestry extends beyond fossils into DNA and molecular evidences.

COMMENT: Wrong again about my knowledge and research! Creationism scientists like Dr. Morris have pioneered through all of evolutionists entanglement and double-talk for me. You see, I don't need to read about all of the mechanics of an airplane in order to ride one. Regardless of where you think the evidence lies; my point is that you do not have none.

As far as your first request, you appear to be asking for a tuna laying a clutch of seagulls. That's not how evolution works. It's a very complicated process that occured over many hundreds of millions of years.

COMMENT: Not even close. I think Dr. Morris hit it on the nail. My point is that evolution never work no matter what evidence is present today. I give you credit that the idea is complicated; but so is chaos and a bunch of apes typing a War And Peace novel with a typewriter.

But since you were asking for fish to birds, here's some resources.
Living fish and birds share a UrVertebrate common ancestor
Vertebrata
Living fish and birds share a common ancestor with a jaw

COMMENT:
"Stalling over Transitional Forms

by Frank Sherwin, M.A. *

Skeptics of Mr. Darwin's strange theory have for years used a truly remarkable book by evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It is titled,Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (1974).1 Sadly, this is now out of print. Dr. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist, is clearly no friend of the creationist. She was, however, intellectually honest enough to write this 604-page book documenting the many problems associated with alleged evolution of the vertebrates.
Darwinists were understandably quick to downplay Dr. Stahl's research. In recent years their only "valid" criticism is that the book is dated and anything found in its pages are now (thankfully) passé.
I beg to disagree. In 2001 Edwin H. Colbert and his coauthors published their fifth edition ofColbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates.2 Dr. Stahl's detailed research has held up all these years when compared with Colbert's more recent text."
Enjoy more reading from the REAL scientists (More To Follow)...

​

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

COMMENT: Typical evolutionist argument: Avoid providing proof by questioning the opponents knowledge. How I use the word "missing link" is my prerogative; there is not one single application of this phrase as you put it.

What's a Missing Link?

by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
​

COMMENT: Wrong again about my knowledge and research! Creationism scientists like Dr. Morris have pioneered through all of evolutionists entanglement and double-talk for me. You see, I don't need to read about all of the mechanics of an airplane in order to ride one. Regardless of where you think the evidence lies; my point is that you do not have none.



COMMENT: Not even close. I think Dr. Morris hit it on the nail. My point is that evolution never work no matter what evidence is present today. I give you credit that the idea is complicated; but so is chaos and a bunch of apes typing a War And Peace novel with a typewriter.

Dr. Morris is a geological engineer, not a biologist. Your appeal to his authority is extremely unfounded.

You suffer from "evolution ignorance", as evidenced by your post here. It's curable, however.

 

[USincognito]

COMMENT: Typical evolutionist argument:

You really need to invest in a sense of irony because what follows below is quite hilarious to even laymen with a modicum of familiarity with the Crevo debate.

Avoid providing proof by questioning the opponents knowledge.

Actually, after I noted the fact that you are using an anachronistic, 19th Century term and explained to you why it was an anachronistic, 19th Century term, I went on to give you plenty of evidence regarding common ancestry. And to be honest, I don't need to question your knowledge on this subject. The level to which you understand it it blatantly clear to anyone reading this exchange.

How I use the word "missing link" is my prerogative; there is not one single application of this phrase as you put it.

Sorry, but no. You're trying to engage in a scientific discussion. If one wishes to be taken seriously, one should use the appropriate contemporary terminology. You would be dismissed for your ignorance/anachronistic language if you were on a car forum and talking about horseless carriages.

John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Awesome. An opinion piece by engineer John Morris who has never done an honest days work in his life because he inherited his position as Creationist shill from his daddy. And really? This garbage is from 2006? Even Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati have moved on from some of this intellectual miasma.

Evolutionists often speak of missing links.

Not since the 19th Century "evolutionists" (whatever they are) don't. The proper term is transitional fossil. That inherently means their not missing as we've been unearthing them since the 1840s.

They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both.

Oh the irony. I chastize OTGA for using "missing link" to refer to all transitional fossils and explain to him that it's an anachronistic, 19th Century term for the single species that connects apes and man. He gets all upset and says he'll use any term he pleases and then quotes John Morris saying the exact same thing that I did.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing.

Again, I can't believe Morris is shoveling this garbage down Creationist throats in 2006. There are literally hundreds of transitional fossils that have been discovered and we don't even have to rely on fossils since, say, 1990 or so. The genomes of numerous extant beings have been sequenced and the only explanation for the results is common ancestry.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore.

Wait a minute there Morris. How did you start this pile of garbage again?

Evolutionists often speak of missing links.

So, which is it? "Evolutionists" (whatever they are) often speak of missing links or they don't mention them much anymore?

With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium"

Oh brother. This is even more ironic. Creationists claim to want fossils that represent transitionals between taxa higher than species, and then act like PE is a problem since it explains why we predominantly find transitional fossils representing beings from taxa higher than species. It's like arguing with a schizophrenic sometimes.

Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian

Really? Since you felt so confident to quote Morris claiming this, would you care to provide a reference or source for this claim?

cont.

 

[Norman321]

To this very day, King Solomon was the wisest man on earth, thanks to God's providing him with wisdom and knowledge.

Solomon was a man though. He did not have the mind of Christ. Today we can have the mind of Christ.

 

[Norman321]

There is no evidence Solomon ever existed.

Solomon was a real person. He wrote books in the Bible. He built the first temple in Jerusalem. Although as a city Jerusalem may go back 1000 years before Solomon. Also Solomon had a lot of horses and chariots. They have found what they call Solomon's stables. No one else was that rich back then to own a stable with that many chariots and horses.

Solomon lived around 1000BC. There are people like Imhotep in Egypt that could go back as far as 2700BC and people consider him to be a real person.

 

[USincognito]

COMMENT: Wrong again about my knowledge and research!

Based on what I've seen over the last few days, I'm going to stand by my assertion. You don't know anything about evolution, evolutionary theory or the evidences for evolution and have just been parroting Creationist talking points, PRATTs and fantasies that make you feel better.

Creationism scientists like Dr. Morris have pioneered through all of evolutionists entanglement and double-talk for me.

Ugh, more irony. Seriously, did you actually read Morris' screed you quoted above and not notice how he opens with claiming that "evolutionists" (whatever they are) "often speak of missing links" and then a few short sentences later says "Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links any more". Seriously...

You see, I don't need to read about all of the mechanics of an airplane in order to ride one. Regardless of where you think the evidence lies; my point is that you do not have none.

Well, according to the garbage you've been posting to this thread, one doesn't need to know the mechanics of an airplane to fly or even build one.

COMMENT: Not even close. I think Dr. Morris hit it on the nail. My point is that evolution never work no matter what evidence is present today. I give you credit that the idea is complicated; but so is chaos and a bunch of apes typing a War And Peace novel with a typewriter.

What?

{snip poor command of the quote function}

COMMENT:
"Stalling over Transitional Forms

by Frank Sherwin, M.A. *

Bahahahah! Frank Sherwin, Creationist shill and former teacher at Creationist Pensecola Christian College?
Frank Sherwin - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Spoiler: prediction for my comments on Sherwin

(prediction for those reading this thread - I provided OTGA with at least 10 links to the Tree of Life Web Project showing how birds evolved from "fish". All of them had numerous citations for books and papers. OGTA responds with a poorly snipped quote of my evidence and a throwaway quote from a Creationist shill. Anyone want to bet that he'll ignore the fact that I provided literally hundres of references and myopically focus on the fact that I dismissed Sherwin by calling him, rightfully, a Creationist shill?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Solomon was a real person. He wrote books in the Bible. He built the first temple in Jerusalem. Although as a city Jerusalem may go back 1000 years before Solomon. Also Solomon had a lot of horses and chariots. They have found what they call Solomon's stables. No one else was that rich back then to own a stable with that many chariots and horses.

Solomon lived around 1000BC. There are people like Imhotep in Egypt that could go back as far as 2700BC and people consider him to be a real person.

The historicity of Imhotep is far more concrete than Solomon.

 

[Norman321]

Creationist shill and former teacher at Creationist Pensecola Christian College?

So creationists are coming out of the woodwork everywhere?

 

[Norman321]

The historicity of Imhotep is far more concrete than Solomon.

Really? Why is that? How much more history of Imhotep do you have, compared to Solomon?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Really? Why is that? How much more history of Imhotep do you have, compared to Solomon?

There are contemporary descriptions of and archaeological evidence for Imhotep and we know quite a lot about Ancient Egypt in general.

Imhotep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solomon's extrabiblical evidence is minimal. It's possible that a Solomon-esque patriarch existed, but few scholars believe Israel was anything more than a city-state during the supposed reigns of David or Solomon.

Solomon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia