A Question for Creationists

[Split Rock]

There is another problem with the whale series (and every other series of fossils) that Coyne fails to address: No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: "The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion."
ibid

In most cases we cannot know if a particular fossil species is directly ancestral to another. With whales, we just don't have enough intermediates to do that. Rather, we are seeing the twigs of a branch of a larger tree or bush. They are still transitionals, however. They also have the primitive features required and none of the derived features we do not expect. For example, they all have four legs and teeth. None have baleen, which is a highly derived feature of modern whales (Mysticeti).

"The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive".

Nonesense. The earliest whales certainly did not live like modern whales. They stayed close to shore and were more like gaters or otters in behavior.

You interpret data one way, others interpret it another way. Since whales are specifically mentioned on the fifth day of creation, I personally don't believed they evolved from anything.

No. You interpret the bible, and we interpret the data. That's fine, just don't bother asking us for the evidence, when it means nothing to you.

 

[KWCrazy]

If you are going to claim that scientists say this or that, then directly quote the scientists from their own publications, and supply the context.

Why should I, when people doing research articles do that for me? Personally, I think the following is pretty much a stand-along thought.
"The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion."

If you want to scour through the 37 page paper to look for context, here it is.

Also, show that these are scientific journals and that they are peer reviewed.

I refer to my previous post. "To think that either side would post interpretations of evidence from the opposing perspective is quite simply idiotic."

That's how things are done.

No, that's how you WANT things done; everything on YOUR terms.

From now on you may not cite any reference other than AnswersinGenesis or ICR.

What you don't do is quote someone else who makes claims on what scientists are saying.

Nobody does that. They post actual quotes with references. I don't have time to run down the references, so I only use quotes that are pretty much stand-alone commentary. You're pretty naive if you think someone is only going to debate you on your terms using only your sources.

You will notice that I quote real scientific, peer reviewed papers.

That's supposed to impress me? I quote the Scriptures; written by the Creator of the universe. You quote people who study rocks without the first clue of how those rocks came about. My source could stop the earth's rotation and spin it in the other without a single negative impact. Your source can't even create a simple life form under perfectly controlled conditions that could never exist in nature. Your sources routinely state things as fact that they cannot possibly know.

Sorry. Your sources don't have the same credibility.

 

[KWCrazy]

Nonesense. The earliest whales certainly did not live like modern whales. They stayed close to shore and were more like gaters or otters in behavior.

This statement shows why your theories cannot be trusted; you represent things which you presume to be correct as factual. You have no possible way of determining the migratory patterns of species you've never seen based on a collection of bones and the drawings of some obscure artist.

No. You interpret the bible, and we interpret the data.

I quote the Scriptures and I interpret data. We interpret data differently because we don't have the same core belief regarding origins. My life experiences had shown me that there is a far greater likelihood that the Scriptures are correct than that Darwinism is correct. You have no trouble pretending that you know things you don't. I defer to the infinite wisdom of the Creator.

 

[OllieFranz]

I ... I ... I ... I ... I = five I's.

Sound familiar?

Oooh! Oooh!

I think I know this one. There are a lot of silly superstitions about repeating a name or a phrase a certain number of times in one conversation. If I recall correctly, five "I's" is supposed to mean the speaker has been possesed, and not just by any demon, but by Satan himself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oooh! Oooh!

I think I know this one. There are a lot of silly superstitions about repeating a name or a phrase a certain number of times in one conversation. If I recall correctly, five "I's" is supposed to mean the speaker has been possesed, and not just by any demon, but by Satan himself.

What?

 

[Split Rock]

This statement shows why your theories cannot be trusted; you represent things which you presume to be correct as factual. You have no possible way of determining the migratory patterns of species you've never seen based on a collection of bones and the drawings of some obscure artist.

Its not presumption, its based on examination of the fossils.
You act like they are a bunch of random bones found in a pile, they are not.

I quote the Scriptures and I interpret data. We interpret data differently because we don't have the same core belief regarding origins. My life experiences had shown me that there is a far greater likelihood that the Scriptures are correct than that Darwinism is correct. You have no trouble pretending that you know things you don't. I defer to the infinite wisdom of the Creator.

Your life experiences have nothing to do with examining actual fossils... can we at least agree on that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, that is just what I wrote but you posted first.

1 ... 2 ... 3 ... you owe me a Coke!

 

[KWCrazy]

Its not presumption, its based on examination of the fossils.
You act like they are a bunch of random bones found in a pile, they are not.

Neither are they found along pre-set routes of migration. Lacking information on a digestive system you can only speculate about the diet from the teeth. The fact that it's extinct would indicated that something wasn't quite right in its adaptive abilities. Maybe its teeth were poorly suited to the available food sources. Maybe it couldn't swim. Maybe it got buried in the silt from a global flood and fossilized.

Your life experiences have nothing to do with examining actual fossils... can we at least agree on that?

Incorrect assumption. I've examined fossils. I just haven't done it for a living. I've handled human organs while in college, but I never did that for a living either. I've also had supernatural encounters; something which I DEFINITELY have never done for a living. The point you evolution proponents always try to make is that we don't understand what is being taught. Not true. We simply REJECT what is being taught because we have a higher truth from a perfect teacher.

For about the first ten years I debated people in forums, all my arguments were completely scientific. The reason I shifted focus was that all those arguments have been made. For every piece of evidence there are at least two interpretations of what it means and a dozen or more websites discussing those interpretations. Nothing is ever proved or disproved. As AV says, that's by design. Evolution will continue to grow in popularity until most of the world is deceived. This will happen prior to the return of Christ. Nothing said or done here will make any difference. The only thing is, you're here trying to win people away from God and I'm here trying to show them that the ultimate truth of the universe lies not in the rocks; but in the Creator of the rocks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1 ... 2 ... 3 ... you owe me a Coke!

 

[KWCrazy]

1 ... 2 ... 3 ... you owe me a Coke!

The historic penalty for losing or violating a jinx is a pinch or punch in the arm.

Perhaps a more common penalty is that the loser owes the winner (that is, the person who called jinx) "a Coke" (cola beverage). Victory is often announced when the jinxed person speaks out of turn and the winner yells enthusiastically, "You owe me a Coke!" Also when the jinxer yells out jinx and counts to ten before the jinxed person can say anything then also the jinxed person owes the jinxer a coke.

In some variations, the "jinxee" can only be freed from jinx upon purchasing the "jinxer" a coke (this rule is honored when the "jinxer" enforces this stipulation).

In the case of what is known as a "false jinx," that is, where a person who calls "jinx" on a second party incorrectly, and only if the second party whom "jinx" was called on does not interrupt the jinxer's counting (in such variation), then a "false jinx penalty" is then imposed on the "jinxer," on which then constitutes a normal penalty then being imposed.

Just so you know.

 

[juvenissun]

This question probably applies to a subset of Creationists, more so than all Creationists. Specifically, it applies to those who say that no amount of evidence could ever prompt them to reconsider their beliefs. This idea was captured well by Ken Ham: "The Bible says it. That settles it."

Why don't you want to know what is really happening?

For me, I have already considered the issue as much as I could. I want to know what really happened MUCH MORE than you do. If you have some news, I am listening.

Ultimately, Ken Ham is likely to be right.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ultimately, Ken Ham is likely to be right.

Either God exists or He doesn't. Either way, the implications could be terrifying to many.

 

[EternalDragon]

I find it incredibly patronising when Christians assume that I must not have been a "real Christian" at any point in time because, if I was, I would still be a Christian today. I prayed, I read the Bible, I was involved with the Church, I held leadership positions, I even gave serious consideration to the idea of becoming a priest or pastor. And yet I somehow wasn't Christian enough?

My personal speculation is that Christians only say this to reassure themselves that they are Christian enough to never lose their faith.

I am guessing this was a Catholic church? If so, I am sorry to hear that you had those experiences. Maybe you could give Jesus a second look?

 

[AV1611VET]

The historic penalty for losing or violating a jinx is a pinch or punch in the arm.

Perhaps a more common penalty is that the loser owes the winner (that is, the person who called jinx) "a Coke" (cola beverage). Victory is often announced when the jinxed person speaks out of turn and the winner yells enthusiastically, "You owe me a Coke!" Also when the jinxer yells out jinx and counts to ten before the jinxed person can say anything then also the jinxed person owes the jinxer a coke.

In some variations, the "jinxee" can only be freed from jinx upon purchasing the "jinxer" a coke (this rule is honored when the "jinxer" enforces this stipulation).

In the case of what is known as a "false jinx," that is, where a person who calls "jinx" on a second party incorrectly, and only if the second party whom "jinx" was called on does not interrupt the jinxer's counting (in such variation), then a "false jinx penalty" is then imposed on the "jinxer," on which then constitutes a normal penalty then being imposed.

Just so you know.

Wow! LOL

I didn't know it came with an instruction booklet!

My sister just used to go: 1-2-3 ... then yell, "You owe me a Coke!" and pop me one!

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you are not using the same evidence as scientists are. Scientists use genetics and fossil evidence to determine if humans share a common ancestor with apes. You ignore this evidence.

I am not ignoring evidence. I am disagreeing with the conclusions to the evidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am not ignoring evidence. I am disagreeing with the conclusions to the evidence.

That's what they can't get. They see a common ancestor. We see a common Creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what they can't get. They see a common ancestor. We see a common Creator.

Yup.

 

[bhsmte]

That's what they can't get. They see a common ancestor. We see a common Creator.

How does the evidence point to a common creator?

 

[KWCrazy]

How does the evidence point to a common creator?

How does it not?

All life forms are made from similar elements at a similar time using the same blueprint for life; perfectly suited for their environments? Symbiotic relationships that could have only been simultaneously created? A Cambrian Explosion that completely invalidates evolution and a fossil record that points to a global flood, and that shows absolutely no partially developed; partially evolved species? Irreducible complexity of organs and complex DNA even in the oldest species ever to exist? Sterility and death resulting from excessive deviance from the norm? Benevolent mutations a mere fantasy better suited for Marvel Comics than actual testable biology?

If evolution were introduced today, it would be laughed out of existence.

 

[OllieFranz]

I ... I ... I ... I ... I = five I's.

Sound familiar?

Is Jesus in there anywhere?

Oooh! Oooh!

I think I know this one. There are a lot of silly superstitions about repeating a name or a phrase a certain number of times in one conversation. If I recall correctly, five "I's" is supposed to mean the speaker has been possesed, and not just by any demon, but by Satan himself.

What?

OK, I found it.
www.biblerelatedministries.org/5Iwills.pdf

AV's reference was incomplete, because the post he was commenting on did not use the entire phrase "I will" five times. The idea that five "I will"s identifies the speaker as Satan apparently comes from Isaiah 14, where Lucifer makes five "I will" statements in describing his plans to ascend to God's throne.