What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

xianghua said:

so a fish cant evolve into human too? but this what already happened according to evolution.

Click to expand...

According to evolution what happened is that fishes and humans have a common ancestor.

Paul James said:

But the fossil evidence that is purported to be millions of years old shows fossilised sea life that is exactly the same as we see still alive today, and this shows that these organisms have never evolved, so based on that evidence, evolution for all the different types of sea life observed in the fossil remains stopped millions of years ago. So if it stopped for those, then it must have stopped for everything.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Have you been swimming among ichtyosauri lately? Seen some living trilobites? What about the dorudon?

Authentic cave drawings that are supposed to show men living million of years ago show also domestic animals exactly the same as they are today, along with humans exactly the same, so we can conclude that domestic animal and human evolution ceased millions of years ago as well.

Click to expand...

Just for your information most cave paintings (Lascaux, Alta Mira etc) are dated 40.000 years old. The oldest one is in Caceres, Spain and is 64.000 years old. Not millions of years old.
Cave painting - Wikipedia

And to conclude that just because the animals depicted look vaguely the same there is no evolution, is making conclusion based on a very very limited data set. If you think data cave paintings overrule the findings of paleotology, genetics and other hard sciences, you're in for a big disapointment.

Also, when you call those who disagree with you liars, then you show intolerance, and this weakens and discredits your argument.

Click to expand...

i'll give you the credit of the doubt, but "professional creationists", like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort etc have all been found lying. Repeatedly.

xianghua said:

so a fish cant evolve into human too? but this what already happened according to evolution.

Click to expand...

But not a modern fish. You are proposing that modern creatures evolve into each other.

pitabread said:

No, humans didn't evolve from fish. They evolved from earlier primates.

Click to expand...

To be fair which ultimately evolved from fish. But of course not modern fish.

Subduction Zone said:

To be fair which ultimately evolved from fish. But of course not modern fish.

Click to expand...

Our esteemed colleague Xianghua is a devout Platonist. The distinction you are making is unimportant to him.

Subduction Zone said:

But not a modern fish. You are proposing that modern creatures evolve into each other.

Click to expand...

i never said anything about "modern".

pitabread said:

No, humans didn't evolve from fish. They evolved from earlier primates.

Click to expand...

and these earlier primates eventually evolved from a fish. not directly of course but their ancestor was a fish. so yes- fish evolved into human in many small steps.

Speedwell said:

According to evolution what happened is that fishes and humans have a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

that was a fish.

xianghua said:

i never said anything about "modern".

Click to expand...

No, you just thought you could get away with implying it. You lose.

xianghua said:

i never said anything about "modern".

Click to expand...

See above post.

xianghua said:

and these earlier primates eventually evolved from a fish. not directly of course but their ancestor was a fish. so yes- fish evolved into human in many small steps.

Click to expand...

xianghua said:

that was a fish.

Click to expand...

Now if you can get this right why do you have a problem with evolution?

pitabread said:

Not a modern fish. Ancestral fish from which tetrapods evolved (and eventually diversified into animals) are not the same as modern extant species of fish today.

Modern fish will not eventually evolve into humans.

When you claim that a dog can evolve into a cat (or vise-versa), you're effectively claiming that modern extant species can evolve into one another. That demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works. Modern extant species do not evolve into one another.

Click to expand...

Ironically it is the "odds argument" that creationists try to use against evolution that shows how the idea of a cat evolving into a dog is impossible. It does of course not prove that evolution is impossible, only their strawman version of evolution is refuted.

pitabread said:

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power

Click to expand...

Equivalent to be taken seriously, better to be considered viable.
At this point, creationists do not seem to have cared about even generating hypotheses, and the bland, lame 'hypotheses' if IDcreationism are pretty sad (amounting mostly to 'if structure or process X is complicated, then it could not have arisen naturally' malarkey)...

solid_core said:

I do not know of any Young Earth Creationism model, but progressive creationists like RTB try to postulate some models:

RTB claims to have a scientific model predicting an increase in astronomical evidence that Earth resides at the ideal location in the cosmos for both harboring advanced civilization and technology and making the universe observable.[6] Nontheistic models predict that astronomical discoveries will show that Earth is unremarkable for both habitability and observation.

The RTB model also predicts that as scientists continue to research the causes and effects of plate tectonics, their findings will reveal evidence for the fine-tuning required for long-lasting, stable plate-tectonic activity on a planet with a thin atmosphere.

The RTB model predicts that future anthropological and genetic research will increasingly confirm that humans are biologically distinct rather than descended from a hominid species. It predicts stronger evidence for humanity's genetic, anatomical, and behavioral uniqueness. It places the earliest hominids at 6.5 million years ago and the first humans at around fifty thousand years ago.

RTB also predicts that the flood of Noah was a local event. There is some evidence for a large flood in modern day Iraq around 2900 BC

Reasons to Believe - Wikipedia

But I just googled it, so I have no further info.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this equates to 'God did it'. To me, if it were the case that we are in a unique position in the cosmos for life, then this is no more a genuine theory than is 'the mud puddle resides in a hole just big enough for it to fit in' theory.

GodsGrace101 said:

I'm amazed at the amount of information in our DNA.
I'm amazed at how a cell functions.

How is information received if not by an intelligent being?

Click to expand...

How is it that you think that counts as a scientific model?

OldWiseGuy said:

The elegance and complexity of life is enough evidence of creation for me.

Click to expand...

Then you are just easily amused, not a scientific thinker at all.

Al Touthentop said:

We don't need to "win" an argument about the creation. We need to win souls for Christ.

Click to expand...

And you do that by...? Coughing up cash at your megachurch? Blaming disasters on the gays? Church attendance is down. Affiliation with a Christian religion is down.
Maybe all that blaming and money-grubbing and hypocrisy and condescension and the persecution complex stuff and such isn't working.

SeventyOne said:

You want a creationist to tell you an explanation that doesn't involve 'God making stuff'? Do you know what creationism is?

Click to expand...

That isn't what he wrote. But that is a good cop out.