God used Evolution to create man

[selfinflikted]

Not even close, Skippy.

Yea. Not even.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Please give an observed instance of this kind of described evolution. Like a reptile turning into a bird and the steps that requires...

Seeings as you're using wikipedia, here is another quote, from the article on Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx (/ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ AR-kee-OP-tər-iks), sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

Checkmate.

 

[EternalDragon]

Seeings as you're using wikipedia, here is another quote, from the article on Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx (/ˌɑrkiːˈɒptərɨks/ AR-kee-OP-tər-iks), sometimes referred to by its German name Urvogel ("original bird" or "first bird"), is a genus of early bird that is transitional between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.

Checkmate.

Yet no one has seen the so called transition. Checkmate to your checkmate.

 

[RichardParker]

Yet no one has seen the so called transition. Checkmate to your checkmate.

Millions of people have seen those transitions.
And you could be one of the lucky ones... if you would just bother to do a little bit of research (maybe away from the creationist pages, because they certainly wouldn't show you...)

 

[RichardParker]

I think you misunderstood me. All you gave are examples of characteristic variation within a species...

Ahm... no.
These are actual speciation events.
Please go and read the references I've provided.

The Wiki, on evolution, states that species just appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It states that plants and fungi first appeared, then insects, then amphibians, then amniotes and birds, then mammals and then humans.

Yeeeees...
But these are different events.
The cambrian explosion doesn't adress anything with birds or amphibians or so on. I hope you are not dihonestly trying to just mash these things together...
After all, we don't find any birds in the cambrian. No ambhibians. No land-animals in general. No vascular plants.
Also: "Just appeared suddenly"...?
Well... yeah, over the time of around 20 to 50 million years! Plenty of time for evolution!
The cambrian explosion actually matches perfectly with evolution.
I haven't heard a creationist explanation for it yet, though.

Please give an observed instance of this kind of described evolution. Like a reptile turning into a bird and the steps that requires. And if the changes are too slight to observe then please state that we can't observe it and stop saying we have.

You asked for changes from one species to another. I've given you plenty of examples of it.
If you are going to just be dishonest and move the goal postes... well, that's not my problem.
If you are not interessted in speciation, then don't ask me for examples of one species turning into another one, which is what you've originally asked for!

 

[EternalDragon]

Ahm... no.
These are actual speciation events.
Please go and read the references I've provided.

Yes. Producing variety. Not producing birds from dinosaurs, or men from apes, etc.

Yeeeees...
But these are different events.
The cambrian explosion doesn't adress anything with birds or amphibians or so on. I hope you are not dihonestly trying to just mash these things together...
After all, we don't find any birds in the cambrian. No ambhibians. No land-animals in general. No vascular plants.
Also: "Just appeared suddenly"...?
Well... yeah, over the time of around 20 to 50 million years! Plenty of time for evolution!
The cambrian explosion actually matches perfectly with evolution.
I haven't heard a creationist explanation for it yet, though.

LOL. That is because it is a buried ecological area, not a buried millions of years old layer in time.

They do all just appear there. Nothing before.

You asked for changes from one species to another. I've given you plenty of examples of it.
If you are going to just be dishonest and move the goal postes... well, that's not my problem.
If you are not interessted in speciation, then don't ask me for examples of one species turning into another one, which is what you've originally asked for!

No. You have given me examples of birds producing a variety of birds and so on. If anything, it is evidence of how we got a variety of a specific animal or insect. Not evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[EternalDragon]

Millions of people have seen those transitions.
And you could be one of the lucky ones... if you would just bother to do a little bit of research (maybe away from the creationist pages, because they certainly wouldn't show you...)

You mean seen the fossil or seen the process of the dino actually turning into a bird? That would be a fairy tale come to life I would suspect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well... yeah, over the time of around 20 to 50 million years! Plenty of time for evolution!

I've read sources that even put the upper margin at 80 million years.

I haven't heard a creationist explanation for it yet, though.

Off course you have.... "god-dun-it".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not producing birds from dinosaurs, or men from apes, etc.

Birds ARE dinosaurs.
Humans ARE apes.

Try coming up with a definition that includes all dinosaurs, but excludes birds.
Try coming up with a definition that includes all apes, but excludes humans.

You'ld be the first to succeed in doing that.

LOL. That is because it is a buried ecological area, not a buried millions of years old layer in time.

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

They do all just appear there. Nothing before.

This is false.
Sure, it was a period of "accelerated" evolution. And there's good explanation of what triggered that acceleration as well. But to state that there was nothing before is a just as false as it gets.

No. You have given me examples of birds producing a variety of birds and so on

You realise that "bird" is not a species, right?

You realise that a penguin, an ostrich, a turkey and an eagle are all "birds" but all of them distinct species within the brid group, right?

Because it sounds like you don't.

Also, just for the fun of it: bats aren't birds.

If anything, it is evidence of how we got a variety of a specific animal or insect. Not evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

 

[RichardParker]

Yes. Producing variety. Not producing birds from dinosaurs, or men from apes, etc.

Producing NEW SPECIES. Which is what you've asked for!
Give me a definition for what kind of change you are ACTUALLY looking for! Not examples, a definition.
After all, bird to dinosaur will never be directly observed ever again, since that has already happen, and we don't get the exact evolutionary path twice (we have the fossil record to prove these things, together with genetics though).
So tell me: If the kind of change you are requesting isn't from one species to another... what ARE you asking for (definition. Not examples)?

LOL. That is because it is a buried ecological area, not a buried millions of years old layer in time.

Ahm...
What?
This makes no sense!
Elaborate please.
And if you don't mind, also present the evidence that supports your model. How did you test that?

They do all just appear there. Nothing before.

That's outrageously wrong!
Even INSIDE the cambrian we can see a progression, so your claim that they "just appeared" doesn't even make sense for the cambrian itself...
But we actually have other life-forms in earlier rocks, so that's ALSO an extremly wrong statement.

Also:
Ok, let's just say, god poofed all the beings in the cambrian into exsitence. There, right out of nothing (the evidence doesn't support it, but whatever, I'll play along):
Now what? In that case we STILL had a progression, radiating FROM the cambrian through all the other layers, just as evolutin predicts.

Not only does the cambrian NOT contradict evolutin...
It actually confirms it.
And as I've said: There is no creationist model to confirms it.

No. You have given me examples of birds producing a variety of birds and so on. If anything, it is evidence of how we got a variety of a specific animal or insect. Not evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

Ahm...
I'm starting to wonder if you know what evolution actually is.
Because what you are now saying is "What you've given me is an example of a color with the light-wave-lenght of 430nm. But I didn't ask for that, I want to have an example of the color blue!"
Just replacing the labels really doesn't change anything.

 

[EternalDragon]

Birds ARE dinosaurs.
Humans ARE apes.

Try coming up with a definition that includes all dinosaurs, but excludes birds.
Try coming up with a definition that includes all apes, but excludes humans.

You'ld be the first to succeed in doing that.

I think we just have two similar belief systems here that both center on believing something in a book. Because I know you sure did not ever see an ape turn into a human or a dinosaur turn into a bird. You only believe it on faith.

 

[RichardParker]

I think we just have two similar belief systems here that both center on believing something in a book. Because I know you sure did not ever see an ape turn into a human or a dinosaur turn into a bird. You only believe it on faith.

No, you miss the point.
This is NOT a matter of "world view". Or "opinion". Or whatever.
It's a matter of fact.
Birds ARE dinosaurs, because the definition for dinosaurs describes birds as well. It's simply a fact... and even if you didn't believe in f.e. evolution, birds would STILL be dinosaurs.
The same with humans. Humans ARE apes. Simply because they have all the defining characteristics apes have.
This isn't a matter of evolution or so, this is just a matter of what things are and what they are not.

Let's ignore evolution for the moment. Let's go with your idea, that evolution didn't happen, and f.e. chmipanzees and humans aren't related, ok? I'll grant you that here.

The why are humans and chimps both apes? Evolution simply EXPLAINS that, but it doesn't define that fact.

 

[lasthero]

No. You have given me examples of birds producing a variety of birds and so on.

Is 'bird' a kind, ED?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet no one has seen the so called transition.

"The" transition? Why would there be only one?

Also, why isn't Archaeopteryx a transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think we just have two similar belief systems here that both center on believing something in a book. Because I know you sure did not ever see an ape turn into a human or a dinosaur turn into a bird. You only believe it on faith.

Are you unaware of the hominid transitionals that have a mixture of characteristics between ancestral ape and modern humans?

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yet no one has seen the so called transition. Checkmate to your checkmate.

Go to a science museum, chances are if the museum is of any repute it will have some transitional fossils. Maybe not for humans, but for some modern creature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think we just have two similar belief systems here that both center on believing something in a book. Because I know you sure did not ever see an ape turn into a human or a dinosaur turn into a bird. You only believe it on faith.

No ED. As has been explained to you countless times, common ancestry of for example chimps and humans is a genetic fact.

There's only one of us who believes a book on faith.
The other simply accepts the evidence of genetics, fossils (and their location in the geological column), comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, observed speciation, observed natural selection, observed genetic mutations, countless breeding experiments, etc etc etc etc..........etc.

Denial: not just a rivier in Egypt.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IPlease give an observed instance of this kind of described evolution. Like a reptile turning into a bird and the steps that requires.

I have an honest question for you....
Considering that evolution itself states that the process is slow and gradual and the changes required for turning a reptile-like creature into a bird-type creature takes million and millions of years...

Do you really consider it reasonable to then demand an observation of that process in support of that theory? Do you consider it reasonable to demand an observed example of this, knowing that humans haven't even existed for a fraction of the time required for such a thing to happen?


And do you consider it reasonable to then simply IGNORE all the supporting evidence that CAN be verified and tested?

Like for instance the MANY predictions it makes concerning the genetics of say humans and chimps? And the location of where fossils should and shouldn't be found? Distribution of species? Nested hierarchies?



Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you make such obviously dishonest requests? Do you think it helps your credibility by engaging in such dishonest practices?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have an honest question for you....
Considering that evolution itself states that the process is slow and gradual and the changes required for turning a reptile-like creature into a bird-type creature takes million and millions of years...

Do you really consider it reasonable to then demand an observation of that process in support of that theory? Do you consider it reasonable to demand an observed example of this, knowing that humans haven't even existed for a fraction of the time required for such a thing to happen?


And do you consider it reasonable to then simply IGNORE all the supporting evidence that CAN be verified and tested?

Like for instance the MANY predictions it makes concerning the genetics of say humans and chimps? And the location of where fossils should and shouldn't be found? Distribution of species? Nested hierarchies?



Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you make such obviously dishonest requests? Do you think it helps your credibility by engaging in such dishonest practices?

Yeah, when creationists ask to observe something that takes longer than they could ever possibly live, I view it as equivalent to an atheist such as myself demanding that they make god appear to me and do a dance. Both requests are exceedingly ridiculous and impossible to oblige; I can't control evolution any more than you can control the deity you worship for convenience.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah, when creationists ask to observe something that takes longer than they could ever possibly live, I view it as equivalent to an atheist such as myself demanding that they make god appear to me and do a dance. Both requests are exceedingly ridiculous and impossible to oblige; I can't control evolution any more than you can control the deity you worship for convenience.

Exactly.

But I'm truelly wondering what he hopes to accomplish with such requests...
I mean, even if he doesn't accept evolution for whatever reason... he should at least be able to realise that to point out that we humans can't observe a process in person that takes millions of years, is as dishonest as it gets.

I can't for the life of me imagine that he actually believes that he is making any kind of valid point.

I consider this, in some way, to be even more "out there" then Kirk Cameron who asks for a crockoduck. A crockoduck request at least can be excused away by pointing to extreme ignorance of how evolution works in practice. But there's nobody here, not even die hard creationists, who do not know that according to the theory, evolution as a process takes a really long time to bring about such big changes.

So I'm left with only being able to conclude that he makes a dishonest and juvenile request on purpose.

I believe that in Christian jargon, this is called "bearing false witness". If not, it's borderlining it at least.