Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[nuttypiglet]

Just to be clear--if they were found to be genuine, or the same fossils had been found outside of China, would that be enough to convince you that birds evolved from reptiles? Is your only hangup where the fossils were found?

Well that would depend on where they were found outside China. You don't have Chinese in any Country except China, and you don't have importers in any other Country working for the Chinese?
Now if you found some out in a desert or the middle of the Amazon Jungle, then I would think it unlikely that fraudsters are involved.

 

[JWGU]

Well that would depend on where they were found outside China. You don't have Chinese in any Country except China, and you don't have importers in any other Country working for the Chinese?
Now if you found some out in a desert or the middle of the Amazon Jungle, then I would think it unlikely that fraudsters are involved.

Sure, but I wasn't asking about what would convince you that the evidence was real, but whether if it were real it would convince you that birds evolved from reptiles. Am I correct in surmising from that post that this is the case? In case you're wondering--no, I'm not leading you into a trap. I'm just curious if we've actually arrived at the crux of your disagreement--the point where you'd say, "yes, if this were provided, I would definitely change my viewpoint and be convinced."

 

[frogman2x]

Just to be clear--if they were found to be genuine, or the same fossils had been found outside of China, would that be enough to convince you that birds evolved from reptiles? Is your only hangup where the fossils were found?

They probably were genuine but they were separate and distinct species. As 2 of your popes(Gould and Mayr) said, "Where ever we look at the living biota...discontinuuites are overwhelmingly frequent...The disconinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. Mayr also says the fossil record is woefully inadequate("Ernst Mayr, What evolution is, p 189 and 69).

The only thing more laughable in the ToE, than bird evolution is whale evolution. However I am sre you can produce the biological evidence as how a dog-like animal lost its legs, tail and nose and they became fins, a flapper and a blowhole. Gringrich sure didn't explain how it could happen. He just said it did and all the evo acceted it by fatih alone and jumped on his bandwagon.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

It is not an analogy. It is the same science. The very same DNA mapping that IDs a suspect (or exonerates him) is used in paternity tests and in genealogy research. And it is in exactly the same way you can use DNA to discover that you are directly descended from Ghengis Kahn (which a surprisingly high number of people with some Asian ancestry are), that we discover that we share most of our DNA, including specific mutations and viral insertions in exactly the same locations, with chimps and bonobos. And only slightly less with gorillas, etc.

You are missing the point. With only a couple of excptions, all living things have DNA. It is the DIFFERENCES that give us a common ancestor. Dog DNA is different than cat DNA and both are different than human DNA. Human DNA is different than ape DNA.

Can you show where and how the DNA changed so we all have our own unique DNA?

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

But everyone else considers archeaopteryx to be a transitional fossil, as well as these.

(A few) transitional fossils

So what's the problem?

The main problem is that most evolutionists recognize there are no transitional fossils.

"The know fossil record fails to documnt a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a morphologic transition...---Stephen M. Stanly, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p39.

If evolution was true, the great majority, at least 80%, would be transitional. Even if you can prove a handful are transional, that still would not support evolution.

kermit

 

[JWGU]

They probably were genuine but they were separate and distinct species. As 2 of your popes(Gould and Mayr) said, "Where ever we look at the living biota...discontinuuites are overwhelmingly frequent...The disconinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. Mayr also says the fossil record is woefully inadequate("Ernst Mayr, What evolution is, p 189 and 69).

Two things to note here--firstly, the question I was asking was personally directed at nutty. Based on your pattern of argument I do not think there are any circumstances under which you would accept the theory of evolution--if there were, you would have done so long ago. If there are, please let me know what they are, but I suspect the answer is something reductive along the lines of "evos would have to show me ACTUAL PROOF" or "I would need to witness kinds turning into kinds" neither of which are really saying anything, after which you will debate the second option by saying that it is evolutionists who can't agree on the definition of a species, even though the fact that we can't do something in general doesn't mean we can't do something in a specific case has been pointed out to you in the past. If you think I've mischaracterized your hypothetical response, tell me how; if not, perhaps the predictability of your response is because your answers are invariant regardless of evidence, which is what led me to the conclusion that you cannot be convinced in the first place.

The second is this strange notion that creationists seem to have that evolution "is just a religion" or can be reduced to religious terms or something, which is nonsense. Case in point, I had only the vaguest idea who either of those people are until I looked them up just now. I certainly don't uncritically accept everything a handful of people say.

Finally, I think pretty much everyone agrees that the fossil record is inadequate, for a wide variety of reasons. But of course evolution does not solely rely on the fossil record--though it helps in specific cases like this. The big weaknesses with the fossil record are not that it doesn't yield good data, just that the data are incomplete--"there are discontinuities in the fossil record" doesn't mean we should reject all fossils outright.

The only thing more laughable in the ToE, than bird evolution is whale evolution. However I am sre you can produce the biological evidence as how a dog-like animal lost its legs, tail and nose and they became fins, a flapper and a blowhole. Gringrich sure didn't explain how it could happen. He just said it did and all the evo acceted it by fatih alone and jumped on his bandwagon.

Things that do not count as biological evidence of whale evolution:
* DNA evidence ("circumstantial", not evidence against a designer)
* Fossils of transitional species (it wasn't just Gingerich, but since fossils don't propose a mechanism they are obviously invalid, not evidence against a designer)
* Numerous shared traits with mammals but not fish or other marine life ("Only evols think that proves something." Not evidence against a designer)
* Clear inefficiencies in design were it natural marine life, such as lack of gills (...not sure what the "design" argument for this is, but I'm sure there is something. Not evidence against a designer, I suppose, though I might not call the design intelligent for designing ocean life that can't breathe underwater).
* Throwback phenotypes ("not a leg"--I have an interesting experiment I'll run at some point to see if we can abolish this argument, but it requires some preprocessing to eliminate loopholes, could have some other explanation, not evidence against a designer)

This is quite an insurmountable standard of evidence you have built up. It seems virtually impenetrable since you demand that we see direct evidence for the development of major newly expressed traits, but such changes usually only occur over "evolutionary time" (since you don't accept evolution, pretend I said "many generations")--and then, when we find organisms with rapid enough generation time that they do occur (as in the e coli experiment I mentioned earlier, which developed what certain creationists would probably call an "irreducibly complex" new trait under laboratory conditions), you simply ignore the results or claim that they cannot result in speciation, as though there is something magical about speciation that the forces of evolution "know" about.

kermit

Indeed.

 

[Split Rock]

The only thing more laughable in the ToE, than bird evolution is whale evolution. However I am sre you can produce the biological evidence as how a dog-like animal lost its legs, tail and nose and they became fins, a flapper and a blowhole. Gringrich sure didn't explain how it could happen. He just said it did and all the evo acceted it by fatih alone and jumped on his bandwagon.

kermit

Wow. You asked for transitionals and you got them. How do you respond? "Oh well, so and so said he found them and you all accepted it by faith." The fossils are real and have been described in the scientific literature. He is not the only one who has found them either. Maybe you can use creationism to explain these fossil species and why they are only found in Eocene rocks. Or explain why whale DNA is closer to hippos and cows than it is to seals and fish who live in the water.

The main problem is that most evolutionists recognize there are no transitional fossils.

"The know fossil record fails to documnt a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a morphologic transition...---Stephen M. Stanly, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p39.

If evolution was true, the great majority, at least 80%, would be transitional. Even if you can prove a handful are transional, that still would not support evolution.

kermit

ohhhhhh.. a quote mine. How original. Love the "...." at the end of the sentence fragment you provided as your argument. The last sentence is good too. You cannot explain even a handfull of transitionals if your god made everything the way it is now.

 

[madaz]

You are missing the point. With only a couple of excptions, all living things have DNA. It is the DIFFERENCES that give us a common ancestor. Dog DNA is different than cat DNA and both are different than human DNA. Human DNA is different than ape DNA.

Can you show where and how the DNA changed so we all have our own unique DNA?

kermit

Each organism that decends down the tree has DNA that resembles its closest ancestor.

For example, dog, cat, ape and human DNA are all almost completely identical because we (as mammals) all belong to the same family.

If we compare cat DNA with say starfish, cucumber or mushroom DNA there is less resemblance because cats are more distantly related.

The technique used to determine how close each organism is genetically related is the same as determining if your wife's child is yours or your best friends.

 

[lasthero]

Are you not the slightest bit worried about fossils that are found in China? after all, they have fooled science before.

Nutty, if you're talking about Archeoraptor, we've been over this before - it DIDN'T 'fool science'. Archeoraptor was a hoax that National Geographic fell for - National Geographic is a popular magazine, but it's not a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists were skeptical about Archeoraptor from the beginning, and the paper on it was rejected from actual scientific journals not once, but twice. Scientists were eventually the ones who exposed it for what it was.

Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, that's not a good example for what you're talking about. Anything else?

 

[lasthero]

The main problem is that most evolutionists recognize there are no transitional fossils.

"The know fossil record fails to documnt a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a morphologic transition...---Stephen M. Stanly, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p39.

If evolution was true, the great majority, at least 80%, would be transitional. Even if you can prove a handful are transional, that still would not support evolution.

kermit

Let's look at the entire quote, shall we?

Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very ecent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.

Well, what do you know - he's arguing for something completely different than your snippet would have led someone to believe. Congratulations - you've quote mined!

Also, why do you say 80% should be transitional if evolution is true? From what orifice does that number come from?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Nutty, if you're talking about Archeoraptor, we've been over this before - it DIDN'T 'fool science'. Archeoraptor was a hoax that National Geographic fell for - National Geographic is a popular magazine, but it's not a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists were skeptical about Archeoraptor from the beginning, and the paper on it was never rejected from actual scientific journals not once, but twice. Scientists were eventually the ones who exposed it for what it was.

Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, that's not a good example for what you're talking about. Anything else?

Oh I see, so it wasn't an expert who was sold the fossil. Experts didn't examine the authenticity of the fossil before publication? Was it just a journalist who bought the fossil?

 

[lasthero]

Experts didn't examine the authenticity of the fossil before publication?

They did. Read the link.

 

[lasthero]

Also, it's a little silly - and maybe even a tad racist - to say that, because one fraud came out of China (and not even a successful fraud) that all findings found in China are suspect, even those from people who weren't connected with this incident in the least, simply because they, too, come from China. Scientists were dubious about archeoraptor from the start, and whenever it was subjected to real scrutiny, its true nature became readily apparent. There's no reason to think any of the other fossils found in China would have any easier of a time getting through.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Your video is a blatant strawman. Nothing in evolution or abiogenesis or any science whatsoever proposes that life should arise from peanut butter or any such compound.

Well, why not? It just goes to show u how rediculous the theory of evolution is! It says something dosn't arise from nothing, but where did that something come from from which something evolved???? Here we have a BIG, FAT, BLACK hole that their thoughts seem to fall into.....NO ANSWERS!

Oh, and ur quote at the bottom regarding "no God...it's in the bible" is incomplete.... Oh my, how ironic....just like the false theory....

Psalms 14:1 "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.' They r corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good."

 

[lasthero]

Well, why not? It just goes to show u how rediculous the theory of evolution is!

It's talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.

It says something dosn't arise from nothing,

No, it says something doesn't arise from peanut butter, which no one ever argued, so...

but where did that something come from from which something evolved????

Wasn't peanut butter, I'll tell you that much.

Oh, and ur quote at the bottom regarding "no God...it's in the bible" is incomplete....

That's the joke, brain trust.

 

[Sasquatchit]

If creationism is a fairy tale, what other fairy tale has generated so much debate and gotten so much attention in the academic world?

Any specific answers?

This one (evolution) doesn't count ...

]

Isn't the theory of evolution the BIGGEST fairy tale being told today?

Isn't this the biggest lie that they've been trying to cram down our throats since this lie began?

Apparently, there is a verse in the bible telling us that there r no monkey men.

Ecc. 7:29 "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes."

Discussion over and out!

 

[JWGU]

Isn't the theory of evolution the BIGGEST fairy tale being told today?

Isn't this the biggest lie that they've been trying to cram down our throats since this lie began?

Apparently, there is a verse in the bible telling us that there r no monkey men.

Ecc. 7:29 "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes."

Discussion over and out!

A riddle for board members: what do you call a discussion with only one participant?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Also, it's a little silly - and maybe even a tad racist - to say that, because one fraud came out of China (and not even a successful fraud) that all findings found in China are suspect, even those from people who weren't connected with this incident in the least, simply because they, too, come from China. Scientists were dubious about archeoraptor from the start, and whenever it was subjected to real scrutiny, its true nature became readily apparent. There's no reason to think any of the other fossils found in China would have any easier of a time getting through.

No it isn't silly at all. That fossil was sent for the best minds in the business to examine and authenticate it BEFORE publication was made. It was given the most detailed examination possible. It fooled the best scientists even after examining the fossil for THREE MONTHS. Of course, when it was eventually found to be a hoax, those scientists started to change their story. They even removed the rock around some bones to see the thickness of them. What they found was a lower half of dinosaur and upper half of bird. No matter how you dress this up, they were fooled. They are human and prone to being misled and this is why the so called evidence for dino to bird is taken lightly. Even some experts still don't believe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ecc. 7:29 "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes."

I use that verse often.

Here's one of them:

Simians seem to fascinate the scientifically-inclined.

Solomon, a scientist, was fascinated with them and probably had them imported to study the philosophy of [prescient] evolution.

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

The difference with Solomon and modern-day scientists though, is Solomon had divine wisdom and concluded that [prescient] evolution was nothing more than an invention of man:

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Centuries later, Charles Dagon would write a book called The Preservation of Favoured Races, which would then be used by scientists to tout evolution as a "discovery", rather than an "invention."

 

[lasthero]

That fossil was sent for the best minds in the business to examine and authenticate it BEFORE publication was made

And they rejected it. Also 'the best minds in the business' is a stretch at best and an outright lie at worst.

Read the link.

It fooled the best scientists even after examining the fossil for THREE MONTHS.

No, it didn't.

Seriously. Read the link. It was rejected by two scientific journals, and every scientist that spent any time giving it even a cursory examination noticed that things were off about it. The scientific community never accepted it, and in the end, not only was the final nail in its coffin put in by a scientist, but a CHINESE scientist, at that.