What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Paul James]

If you are going to make a potentially slanderous statement like that you are going to have to back it up. Real, concrete examples of evidence ignored or explained away, plus a good, verifiable motive for coming up with the theory first and looking for the evidence afterwards. Otherwise your statement can be written off as a self-serving falsehood.

Inferring that I am being slanderous and posting self-serving falsehood is tending toward personal flaming, and could bring a very quick end to our conversation. Instead of just shooting me down and demanding that I justify my comments, why not just come up with your answers to them based on what you believe. I don't have to prove anything to you at all, because I don't answer to you or need your permission to express my views.

If you don't have any answers to my views, then admit it to yourself (I don't need to know), and do what I do - go and read up appropriate information to "top up" your knowledge so you can give intelligent answers (and it is not necessary for me to agree to them to be intelligent answers).

 

[Paul James]

The difference is that the theory of evolution would be changed or abandoned if new evidence compelled it, while no amount of evidence would ever change creationist beliefs.

That is because the evidence more strongly supports creation over evolution.

 

[Paul James]

Evolution is an observable process. Or do you think we don't observe that organisms reproduce or that genetic mutations occur in organisms?

Reproduction and mutation in the same organism can be observed and examined. No doubt about that. But no one has ever been able to observe or examine the evolution of one organism to a totally different type of organism, such as a dinosaur to a bird, or a fish to a land animal. Any set of photographs showing the gradual transformation of one organism to another totally different one doesn't exist. All we have are artists' impression about how they might have transformed and these are presented as scientific fact; but these artists' impressions are not scientific facts at all. They are imaginary pictures from the artist's imagination.

For example, we don't know what dinosaurs look like. All we have are skeletons. Pictures of dinosaurs are merely artists' impressions of what they might have looked like. But there are no actual photographs to actual show it. There are cave drawings that show humans hunting dinosaurs, but evolutionists have rejected them as being fakes.

Previously, another member spent two whole days repeatedly asking for definite proof that one organism has transformed to another totally different one through evolution, and did not receive one answer, but he got a lot of personal accusation, insults and abuse instead.

 

[Paul James]

First, I'm not sure why you would think we have to genetically engineer a human or produce offspring from humans and other apes. That has nothing to do with demonstrating that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

Well, it could never have happened through time and chance because there is no objective proof that it did.

There is no "genetic theory" that says that.

There is, and that has been presented here on different threads, but instead of reading the actual articles, people have just rubbished the source or flamed the member providing the article. This shows that evolutionists will want to consider only those theories that suit their belief system.

There's no magical process. The process of evolution that we observe today is the same process that has been evolving life over billions of years.

It is magic until objective, observable proof can be presented to show otherwise.

If you want to argue that God can breath life into clay and turn that into a human, then explain how such a process works.

I can't do that because it is not permitted to preach Christianity on this forum.

 

[pitabread]

Reproduction and mutation in the same organism can be observed and examined. No doubt about that.

Reproduction isn't in the "same organism" though. Reproduction results in a new organism.

But no one has ever been able to observe or examine the evolution of one organism to a totally different type of organism, such as a dinosaur to a bird, or a fish to a land animal.

Again, organisms don't evolve from one organism into a totally different type of organism. All living things are bound by their inheritance and will bear hallmarks of that inheritance. That is exactly what we observe in living things which is why we can conclude that living organisms share common ancestry.

Dinosaurs and birds aren't totally different types of organisms. Neither are fish or land animals.

Previously, another member spent two whole days repeatedly asking for definite proof that one organism has transformed to another totally different one through evolution, and did not receive one answer, but he got a lot of personal accusation, insults and abuse instead.

I can't speak for other members, but I can say that that sounds like a strawman construction of evolution. So naturally there is not going to be any "proof" of something that isn't

 

[pitabread]

Well, it could never have happened through time and chance because there is no objective proof that it did.

There is ample evidence that humans share common ancestry with other primates.

There is

No, there really isn't.

Look, I'm well familiar with the "no new information" creationist argument including the direct source of that argument (which, funny enough most creationists aren't familiar with).

I can safely tell you right now, there is nothing in the study of genetics that supports the "no new information" argument.

It is magic until objective, observable proof can be presented to show otherwise.

The process of evolution we observe today is the same process that has evolved living organisms for billions of years. If think that an observable process is magic, then I don't know what to tell you.

I can't do that because it is not permitted to preach Christianity on this forum.

If you mean just blindly quoting the Bible, then no this is not the forum for it.

But if you can explain how a living organism can be created from a clay statue, then by all means, have at it.

If you can't, then you can't.

 

[MIDutch]

If you don't have any answers to my views, then admit it to yourself (I don't need to know) ...

Science has answers for most every question every creationist has ever asked.

It is not science's fault if creationists would rather remain willfully ignorant.

You will note that no one outside of creationist circles (no matter how devout they are in whatever religion the profess, including the vast majority of Christians) takes anything creationists say (or ask) seriously.

 

[NxNW]

There are cave drawings that show humans hunting dinosaurs

No there aren't.

 

[Paul James]

There is ample evidence that humans share common ancestry with other primates.

Look, I'm well familiar with the "no new information" creationist argument including the direct source of that argument (which, funny enough most creationists aren't familiar with).

I can safely tell you right now, there is nothing in the study of genetics that supports the "no new information" argument.

The process of evolution we observe today is the same process that has evolved living organisms for billions of years. If think that an observable process is magic, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you mean just blindly quoting the Bible, then no this is not the forum for it.

But if you can explain how a living organism can be created from a clay statue, then by all means, have at it.

If you can't, then you can't.

Let me know when you can find a lab report that shows that evolution has been replicated by a process other than reproduction or mutation.

 

[Paul James]

Science has answers for most every question every creationist has ever asked.

It is not science's fault if creationists would rather remain willfully ignorant.

You will note that no one outside of creationist circles (no matter how devout they are in whatever religion the profess, including the vast majority of Christians) takes anything creationists say (or ask) seriously.

Got any stats to show that?

 

[Paul James]

No there aren't.

Yes there are.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes there are.

You brought it up. I have asked you before to provide evidence for your assertions, your failure to do so is very telling.

 

[Jimmy D]

That is because the evidence more strongly supports creation over evolution.

But the scientific community disagrees, maybe you aren’t familiar with why that is.

Can I suggest that you have a read through this...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I don’t expect you to accept it, but at least learn a little bit of what you’re attempting to argue against.

 

[Jimmy D]

That is because the evidence more strongly supports creation over evolution.

Here is an informative article written by a forum member ( and a specialist in the field, and a Christian for that matter) that describes a part of the genetic evidence for common ancestry.

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes there are.

The last poster who claimed this just had an image search to a faked image on a tabloid web page with conspiracies and mermaid stories... but still they had "no doubt" it was still true.

There was also a claim about "million year old" cave paintings of domestic animals, without evidence.

If these supposed paintings actually existed I'd have thought there'd be some evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me know when you can find a lab report that shows that evolution has been replicated by a process other than reproduction or mutation.

well that was one giant non sequitur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got any stats to show that?

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there are.

Then show them.

 

[bTbRo]

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.

Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.

*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)

God created evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

God created evolution.

Although I obviously wouldn’t entirely agree with it, I respect your viewpoint.