What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Hans Blaster]

Yep. Creationism is a belief system based on the Biblical record, just the same as Evolution is a belief system based on what Darwin's Origin of the Species started.

I refer you to my previous answer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We could twist and turn with different word meanings and end up chasing our tails (pun enjoyed but unintended). The differences between lions, tigers, cougars, and domestic cats are genetic differences and not evolutionary, but they are all of the same "cat" family. We don't know which was the original animal with the complete genetic information to be able to have all its different descendants. It could have been the sabre toothed tiger, if it actually existed as the first "cat". But then, as you have classified different cats into different categories of cats, then it is valid to suppose that a number of different forms of cat were created in the first place, which enabled all the different breeds of cats to result. Then again, if it all started with just two sabre tooth tigers, male and female, then over time, because of the decay in the gene pool, mutations could have happened to produce different cat offspring.

Actually, we don't really know how all this happened, because no one was there to observe or examine the development. But we do have the present evidence that it did happen, because of multitude of different forms of "cat" throughout the world. But we don't have any present evidence that any four legged land animals evolved into blue whales, as is depicted on evolutionary artist impressions of that development. But we know that whales existed at the time of creation, because the Bible says so; therefore it is valid to theorise that Orca and the different types of dolphin could have been genetic mutations of the original whales.

But the development of many forms of CAT from an original feline *IS* evolution. Just like the development of various dogs (wolves, etc) from an original species of canine is evolution. And each of those originals developed from a common carnivore ancestor, and so on and so forth.

 

[Paul James]

I thought they showed wild animals like deer and bears. Examples please.

Same difference. There would be cave drawings showing wild animals - depending on where the cave drawings are. But the deer and bears haven't evolved into anything different either. They are still the same deer and bears we see today.

 

[Paul James]

But the development of many forms of CAT from an original feline *IS* evolution. Just like the development of various dogs (wolves, etc) from an original species of canine is evolution. And each of those originals developed from a common carnivore ancestor, and so on and so forth.

No proof that the development of cats and dogs are anything but genetic variations caused by mutations where genetic information has be deleted from one generation to another. No proof of a common carnivore ancestor either, and if there was, we would be seeing evidence of development in intermediate animal variations leading to separate cats and dogs.

 

[pitabread]

Oh? So it doesn't totally involve time and chance? Wouldn't that scupper the theory about apes evolving into humans through time and chance over millions of years?

Huh? I'm talking about mechanisms of evolution.

Evolution is the process by which biological organisms change over time. That process includes reproduction and genetic mutations.

Do you understand reproduction and genetic mutations entails in the context of a population of organisms?

 

[Paul James]

Huh? I'm talking about mechanisms of evolution.

Evolution is the process by which biological organisms change over time. That process includes reproduction and genetic mutations.

Do you understand reproduction and genetic mutations entails in the context of a population of organisms?

Well, the diagram that shows the development from ape to human is a principal one to show how the biological change over time occurred from ape to human. It is unclear how this change can occur because we can't replicate it by genetic engineering. It could not have been through reproduction, because that can't be replicated either, because there is no actual data that shoes that humans and apes can mate to produce either ape or human offspring.

And genetic theory states that genetic information cannot be added to produce higher organisms, and this would be essential for apes to develop into humans. Genetic mutation involves deletion of genetic information not the addition of it.

So, the theoretical transformation from ape to human cannot occur through reproduction and mutation. So, we are then at the fall-back position of evolution - time and chance - that by some magical process an ape-man appeared, and genetic information was added to slowly replace the ape genes with human genes over time.

Actually, it is more believable that an infinite, all powerful God got a bit of clay, formed a man, breathed life into it, and it became a living human being.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And genetic theory states that genetic information cannot be added to produce higher organisms, and this would be essential for apes to develop into humans. Genetic mutation involves deletion of genetic information not the addition of it.

[citation required]

 

[Hans Blaster]

Same difference. There would be cave drawings showing wild animals - depending on where the cave drawings are. But the deer and bears haven't evolved into anything different either. They are still the same deer and bears we see today.

Same difference? Same Difference! SAME DIFFERENCE! What you have said is that domestic animals and wild animals are the same. How is that so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is historical science, but not origin science. For a start, the present evidence is observable, and can be closely examined. If it is human hair, which is often the case, then it can be tested for DNA and if the offender is on the DNA register, he can be traced. If finger prints are found, they can be examined and compared with finger prints of people on record and if a match is found, the criminal can also be traced. There can be tyre tracks, foot prints, blood stains, witness sightings, and all sorts of evidence that can be examined, and tested for verification. Through the evidence at the scene, the crime can be replicated in the sense that the investigators can know what actually happened.

There are some cases that are not solved for many years, but another vital piece of evidence can be uncovered through a witness coming forward that would give the investigators a lead and finally to crack the case.

But origin science is not a true science in the same manner as historical science, because there is no observation, no examination, no test, and no replication of the evolutionary process. With forensic science, the case is reconstructed through the evidence and not evidence proving a preconceived premise. And when there have been cases where there has been a preconceived premise, and a person is convicted of a crime, it has been subsequently discovered through further evidence that the preconceived premise was wrong and a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Evolution, as well as creationism, looks at the same evidence. Creationism draws conclusions from the available evidence. Evolution fits the evidence into its own preconceived premise. That is the big difference between how the two interpret the available present evidence.

So Evolutionists come up with the theory about how the universe originated, and they fit the evidence into their theory, and either ignore or explain away any evidence that doesn't fit. Creationists view the evidence and allows the evidence itself to prove that the Bible is an accurate historical record of what actually happened.

Creationists do not get to redefine what science is just because they are wrong.

You have tipped your hand. You are getting your nonsense from a site that cannot be used in a scientific debate. To even work at AiG one must swear not to follow the scientific method. What they do is not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep. Creationism is a belief system based on the Biblical record, just the same as Evolution is a belief system based on what Darwin's Origin of the Species started.

Now that is a falsehood, and this has been explained to you once already. What excuse do you have for this not being a lie?

Creationism is a belief system that is based upon pseudoscience. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that is evidence based. It is not a belief system.

In fact Ken Ham proved the above in the moment when he lost the debate to Bill Nye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bible-believing Creationists are actually historians who accept the Bible as just as valid as any other history.

That has to be one of the funniest things ever posted here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same difference. There would be cave drawings showing wild animals - depending on where the cave drawings are. But the deer and bears haven't evolved into anything different either. They are still the same deer and bears we see today.

That was because it was only ten or twenty thousand years ago. Evolution takes a bit longer than that.

 

[Paul James]

[citation required]

Evidence of New Genetic Information?

 

[Paul James]

Same difference? Same Difference! SAME DIFFERENCE! What you have said is that domestic animals and wild animals are the same. How is that so?

It doesn't matter. None have evolved into anything different than what the were, and there is no evidence of any developmental stages. Evolution should work the same for all animals, not just some.

Instead of just trying to shoot down what I am saying, how about contributing some substantive data to prove your case?

 

[Shemjaza]

Evidence of New Genetic Information?

They respond to the question, but don't actually explain why mutations don't add information. And most importantly they don't define an objective measure or unit of information. (This is the biggest problem that intelligent design fans appear to have).

I'll give an example of why their response is false.

cat
catcat
fatcat
fatcatcat
fatcathat

There you go. Little changes to existing content that lead to a statement with more information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence of New Genetic Information?

Joke site. To even work there one must swear not to use the scientific method.

Do you have a real soruce?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They respond to the question, but don't actually explain why mutations don't add information. And most importantly they don't define an objective measure or unit of information. (This is the biggest problem that intelligent design fans appear to have).

I'll give an example of why their response is false.

cat
catcat
fatcat
fatcatcat
fatcathat

There you go. Little changes to existing content that lead to a statement with more information.

Yep, they just assert. There is no substance. I have claimed many times that AiG is a lying site. The very first sentence in that article is a lie:

"Can duplication and mutations cause new information to “arise” in the genome? Dr. Georgia Purdom accepts this challenge posted to creationists."

In the sciences when one takes on a challenge one does not publish on a pseudoscience site. One publishes in a well respected professional journal if one is a scientist. Where did she publish this in a well respected professional journal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reading it even further it is amazing how much she got wrong. She claimed that scientists have not shown that new information can arise this way when it has been show with at least one example that I know of. The evolutionary development of venom in snakes has been shown to arise from gene duplication of genes that produce saliva. Google search time.

EDIT: It is late so I cheated and went to Wikipedia:

Evolution of snake venom - Wikipedia

EDIT 2: And looking back since this is a complex problem, it was not just gene duplication, Wikipedia may be a better source since it gives an overview of many articles while individual articles can only touch on a point or two at a time.

For example this one which argues specifically what genes were duplicated and other processes that accompanied it:

Restriction and Recruitment—Gene Duplication and the Origin and Evolution of Snake Venom Toxins

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evidence of New Genetic Information?

AIG. Give me a break! No professional liars, please.

 

[Paul James]

AIG. Give me a break! No professional liars, please.

Instead of just shooting down the source, why don't you just read the article from a fully recognised scientist. This is what I am saying - you will only accept articles by evolutionists who are biased toward their unproven theories, but will not read anything else that might show a different side to it. Would this show a closed mind that wants just to see one side of the story. This would lead me to believe that it won't matter what I might say, or use as a supporting citation, you would find an excuse to shoot it own every time. So I don't see any point in continuing this discussion because it is too one sided for me. I have provided intelligent, informative posts, and all you have done is to shoot each one down. So, have a good life.