A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

lenpettis74 · Jun 1, 2011

@Metherion

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are correct in your statement of different species (I'm on the road, so I have no time to research now) that does nothing to prove macro evolution, it only demonstrates micro evolution which I don't think was ever in question. But the bigger point is, after 400 million years there are almost no discernible changes, does that mean we have to stretch the timeline of evolution even farther to prop up the lie? Or can we accept what we all know: Genesis was right

metherion · Jun 1, 2011

1) The discoverer's name was given to the genus, not to either of the actual species. That is indicative of a lot of difference. The "there was no difference between fossils and now" is flat out WRONG.

2) So what is the threshhold for micro to macro? Plese define that for us so the goalposts won't be moved. And while you are at it, would you also please give us some examples of what you WOULD accept as being macroevolution? In the interest of not lying by moving the goalposts.

3) And why would evolution be false if the coelacanth had not significantly changed over 400 million years? What if there was no real pressure to change? Remember, there has to be a pressure to select for a change if a change is going to spread through a population.

Metherion

lenpettis74 · Jun 1, 2011

@Meth - not moving the goal posts, the standard is clear. Evidence demonstrating the change from one species to another (macro) not small changes within a species (micro) such as a dog "evolving" into a slightly larger, more hairy dog. Please leave all pigs teeth out, no hoaxes, real evidence (don't bother, it doesn't exist).

If the fish was fully evolved, where are the fossil records from prior to it's complete evolution? Surely there is a 'pre-coelacanth' if evolution is true... or maybe Genesis is reliable and true after all....

metherion · Jun 1, 2011

@Meth - not moving the goal posts, the standard is clear. Evidence demonstrating the change from one species to another (macro) not small changes within a species (micro) such as a dog "evolving" into a slightly larger, more hairy dog. Please leave all pigs teeth out, no hoaxes, real evidence (don't bother, it doesn't exist).

Well, it certainly sounds like your mind is made up and you wouldn't change it or consider anything no matter WHAT the evidence. In that case, why bother talking about any evidence in the first place.

Also, you seem to be self-contradicting a bit. Now, all dogs are subspecies of Canis Lupus Familiarus, I do believe. So a dog that was not part of that species WOULD still be new species, something like Canis Lupus Differentus. That would both satisfy one part and fail to satisfy the other part. Are you wanting to show something becoming radically different? Would a fly to a new/different species of fly do it? Or would it have to be a fly becoming a wasp, or a fly becoming an earthworm?

In a previous post, I did post observed instances of speciation. I'll give the link again:
Observed Instances of Speciation

This involves such things as:
a plant with DOUBLE the number of chromosomes as its parent that could not interbreed with its parent, several hybrid plants that are fertile in and of themselves, a plant that became able to self-pollinate, all SORTS of things in houseflies (mating rituals, inability to crossbreed with ancestor populations...), various beetles and worms, and all sorts of things in bacteria (like the ability to digest nylon, which has been very recent, since nylon is very recent).

These show new species that cannot interbreed/fit the definition of different species. Thus, that meets your challenge.

As for your question about 'pre-coelacanth' fish, that would be easy. Coelacanth fossils are about 400 million years old. Which would mean any fossil BEFORE that is a pre-coelacanth fish, no?

And what do you mean 'complete evolution'?

And again, I have never said Genesis is false. You are reinforcing the false dichotomy with every post you end in 'Genesis is reliable and true'. It IS reliable and true. Just not as a science or history textbook.

Metherion

CTD · Jun 1, 2011

Christ's_Warrior said:
Is that right CTD?

The only ''missing links'' with feet are at the ''ends'' - an ape they think may be starting to be somewhat ''more humanlike'', or a ''primitive human''. None of the ones in the middle have feet. Think about it: if you find a candidate with feet, how much of a candidate could it be? It will obviously have hands or feet on its feet, and that's a dead giveaway. Why bother even pursuing the effort to pretend it's in between? Okay, now even supposing one wanted to believe the stuff, look at a hand and a foot. According to their own dogma, things have to be advantageous in order to replace what's already there. How is a thumb that's severely restricted in it's range of motion better than one that can grasp? Sure a foot's great, but a foot's a foot - not something in-between. If your great toe were split off to the side, there goes the important ball of the foot. The whole structure of the foot is well-engineered, and it's pretty obvious how non-useful any intermediate would be. They keep saying ''man came down from the trees'' but think about it. Mankind has never given up tree climbing. The loss of the hand on the foot makes it far more difficult, and their goddess of death is supposed to carefully examine each creature in minute detail for any weakness - she's supposed to scrutinize more closely than even the man who selectively breeds his stock. Here's a glaring deficiency, and she lets it slide? On what basis does she put aside her passion for killing?

CTD · Jun 1, 2011

metherion said:
Except:
1) Coelacanth is actually the term for the entire order.
2) There are actually two species of coelacanths (source: From the Cover: Two living species of coelacanths?) which means one or both (actually both) are different from the fossilized species found in that entire order.
3) The two new species were named as NEW SPECIES upon discovery, which means they were different from any species in that entire order.

You might want to check your claims a bit better, especially considering your accusations of lying.

Metherion

That stuff ain't so. It has long been a convention that fossils are always assigned a different species name than living creatures. With live specimens, one can compare the entire anatomy, even behaviour; with a fossil one may only have a few bones. Since they cannot be compared properly, it was decided to just give them different names as a matter of policy. By coincidence, the practice can appear deceptive in some contexts.

spiritual warrior · Jun 2, 2011

Dark_Lite said:
So "kind" is the "original group." That's about as non-specific as I've ever seen it. I've seen definitions of "kind" range from species up to genus. Maybe even higher. The definition changes as necessary.

So since kind is the "original group," how do we classify the following:
- Bacteria (all part of the "bacteria kind?")
- Viruses (not really living, but they are an important question)
- Spiders, insects, and other bugs (are they all part of the "bug kind"?)
- Mammoths (were they part of the "elephant kind"?)
- Mules, Ligers, or any other hybrid animal

After that, how about a clear-cut scientific definition for kind? If it's as obvious as you say it is, we should be able to describe all animals according to their kind and identify a precise definition for kind.

It can't be species, obviously. It also can't be delineated on basis of reproductive ability. Some species can reproduce with certain species, but not with others. Is it equal to family? Order? Genus? Maybe it just depends?

DL, its kind of hard to describe something today that no longer exists in its original form. how can we describe the original "kind" of elephant when we don't know how it originally looked? How can we describe the original wolf if we don't know how it looked like? The boundaries of the originals are blurred by all the variants, so the best we can say, scientifically or otherwise, is that we know what the original kind basically looked like from their descendants.

All dogs are dogs, they can't mate with cats and vice versa. You see all the different variants within both species...the size, colors, etc...but no dogs or cats with horns or wings, so we know what the basic kind is, and that is as far as it goes. And, actually, that's all we really need to know.

Dark_Lite · Jun 2, 2011

spiritual warrior said:
DL, its kind of hard to describe something today that no longer exists in its original form. how can we describe the original "kind" of elephant when we don't know how it originally looked? How can we describe the original wolf if we don't know how it looked like? The boundaries of the originals are blurred by all the variants, so the best we can say, scientifically or otherwise, is that we know what the original kind basically looked like from their descendants.

All dogs are dogs, they can't mate with cats and vice versa. You see all the different variants within both species...the size, colors, etc...but no dogs or cats with horns or wings, so we know what the basic kind is, and that is as far as it goes. And, actually, that's all we really need to know.

The only part of your post that was something close to an answer was "All dogs are dogs, they can't mate with cats and vice versa." So, that means kind is apparently delineated by the ability to mate with other organisms. So that means ring species are all of different kinds, but the same kind at the same time?

The alternative answer in your post was a convenient "we don't know." If you don't know, then how do you know what goes into what "kind?" How do you even know that kinds are valid, aside from a book saying so?

If you're going to replace the current scientific understanding, it most certainly needs to be able to better explain the state of affairs better than the current scientific understanding. "Kinds" don't do that, and they can't do that. Why? Because they are non-scientific. A satisfactory definition cannot be found, simply because it isn't possible to do so.

brightmorningstar · Jun 2, 2011

Regarding the mating of dogs and cats, if we take the mule surely that is good evidence for there to be serious questions regarding the theory of evolution when it comes to taxonomical kingdoms.

If one takes the transition fossil Tiktaalic, is one assuming it 'knew' how to evolve to ichyostega and the tetrapods? ie. to be able to reproduce to be able to move around, eat and digest the food available? The timeline indicates thats what happened, the practicalites lend themselves to inteligent design.

Dark_Lite · Jun 2, 2011

brightmorningstar said:
Regarding the mating of dogs and cats, if we take the mule surely that is good evidence for there to be serious questions regarding the theory of evolution when it comes to taxonomical kingdoms.

Evolution actually explains why mules are possible. It also explains why cats and dogs can't mate. Creationism, on the other hand, has this nebulous idea of "kinds," which never has any scientific definition, much less any informal definition. The definition shifts as necessary in order to make it seem like there's an actual solid definition. The closest thing is baraminology, but even that shifts around all the time so as to make sure humans and primates don't fall into the same "kind." It's pseudoscience, just like the rest of creationism.

If one takes the transition fossil Tiktaalic, is one assuming it 'knew' how to evolve to ichyostega and the tetrapods? ie. to be able to reproduce to be able to move around, eat and digest the food available? The timeline indicates thats what happened, the practicalites lend themselves to inteligent design.

Populations don't "know" how to evolve. Mutations are random, and environmental pressures "select" the populations with the mutations that allow survival. For example, let's take a population of bacteria. They exist in a nice, temperate climate. Then all of the sudden their environment changes to lava (for whatever reason).

All of the bacteria that didn't have a mutation allowing them to live in lava or near lava would be destroyed. All that is left is the mutated bacteria that can survive. That is evolution. There is no "knowing," there is no intelligent design.

lenpettis74 · Jun 2, 2011

What does evolution lack? Evidence. There is no observable instance or evidence of life forming from non-life (except the creation account, but God is life, so that really doesn't count, does it?)

If we all evolved from a common ancestor, then the fossil evidence showing changes from one species to another should be ABUNDANT, but instead it is incredibly lacking; nay, non-existent.

All of the evidence points to a global flood, not billions of years of evolution. If anyone has seen tsunami, flash flood, or mudslide footage, it is so obvious that the effect of a global, cataclysmic flood explains how the landscape was formed and where the fossils came from that we currently have. The power of water is incredibly impressive and if a tsunami or flash flood can destroy entire populations, what could a global 40 day flood do?

Evidence from evolution time after time has been shown to be either wrong or erroneous. Java Man, for example, was proven to be an ape whose femur bone was found over 100 yards away about a year after it's skull was found. Lucy was shown to be an ape just over a couple hundred years old over 60 years ago, yet she still was taught in school when I was a kid in the 80's. So DON'T TELL ME SCIENCE IS NOT LYING ABOUT EVOLUTION! Not only do they lie on the front end, they perpetrate the lie after being proven liars.

Secular science is a sham on the theory of evolution, and should be discounted entirely until there is a level of repentance to demonstrate that they will take the evidence where it leads them; even if it leads them to God, not as an effort to disprove God so they can excuse their godless behaviors.

Below is the link to a video of the Evolution Messiah (Richard Dawkins) being owned by Wendy Wright. This is one part of a 7 part interview, in which she makes him look silly and reduces him to ad hock attacks on her character instead of debating the facts (common evolutionist tactic). It is good stuff, worth watching all seven parts:

YouTube - ‪Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7)‬&rlm;

coachboyd1982 · Jun 2, 2011

The two don't mix. Science is the study of the natural world around us. What we see, feel, touch, and can test in a lab. God is supernatural. You cannot see Him, touch Him, and definitely not test Him in a lab. Anyone who tries to mix the two in this nature will not succeed. Some things you just have to go on "FAITH".

Dark_Lite · Jun 2, 2011

lenpettis74 said:
What does evolution lack? Evidence. There is no observable instance or evidence of life forming from non-life (except the creation account, but God is life, so that really doesn't count, does it?)

Nothing to do with evolution.

If we all evolved from a common ancestor, then the fossil evidence showing changes from one species to another should be ABUNDANT, but instead it is incredibly lacking; nay, non-existent.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of the evidence points to a global flood, not billions of years of evolution. If anyone has seen tsunami, flash flood, or mudslide footage, it is so obvious that the effect of a global, cataclysmic flood explains how the landscape was formed and where the fossils came from that we currently have. The power of water is incredibly impressive and if a tsunami or flash flood can destroy entire populations, what could a global 40 day flood do?

If it's "so obvious" then how about you substantiate your claims with evidence. But let's not forget that the rock strata don't agree with a global flood. Let's also not forget the historical records of the most ancient of civilizations (Egypt, etc) don't have records of floods. And no, legends don't count.

Evidence from evolution time after time has been shown to be either wrong or erroneous. Java Man, for example, was proven to be an ape whose femur bone was found over 100 yards away about a year after it's skull was found. Lucy was shown to be an ape just over a couple hundred years old over 60 years ago, yet she still was taught in school when I was a kid in the 80's. So DON'T TELL ME SCIENCE IS NOT LYING ABOUT EVOLUTION! Not only do they lie on the front end, they perpetrate the lie after being proven liars.

Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proven huh? Why is there nothing about it on Wikipedia? Please don't say conspiracy. Cite something. If we go to the Wikipedia sources, we find The Java Man skullcap. In that article, we find that the "controversy" is stated once by a "Trinkaus and Shipman" in 1992, but that such a claim is not found in many other sources. Furthermore, the supposed controversy is that the femur from a modern human.

It should finally be noted that all of this takes place within the scientific realm. Scientists are the ones who expose and discard hoaxes (of which Java Man is not). Creationists always seem to forget that little detail.

Secular science is a sham on the theory of evolution, and should be discounted entirely until there is a level of repentance to demonstrate that they will take the evidence where it leads them; even if it leads them to God, not as an effort to disprove God so they can excuse their godless behaviors.

The theory of evolution exists precisely because it is where the evidence lead. We find the exact opposite in creationist "ministries," where they make their members sign statements of faith that says all their "science" must support a creationist worldview. Creationists like to accuse scientists of shoehorning evidence into evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of such and plenty of evidence of the creationists themselves doing it.

Below is the link to a video of the Evolution Messiah (Richard Dawkins) being owned by Wendy Wright. This is one part of a 7 part interview, in which she makes him look silly and reduces him to ad hock attacks on her character instead of debating the facts (common evolutionist tactic). It is good stuff, worth watching all seven parts:

"Evolution Messiah?" Really? What the heck is an Evolution Messiah? Dawkins is an outspoken militant atheist. Evolution has as much relation to religion as atomic theory does. That is, it has zero relation. It describes the diversity of life on this planet. Nothing else.

Sum1sGruj · Jun 2, 2011

There are things about ToE that will keep it from ever falsifying militant creationism, and it is not even ridiculous like the old 'Satan put fossils there to trick us':

Of course DNA is going to be similar. There are only a number of ways a given species can be built adequately and of the same material to prosper in an Earthly condition.

Of course there are billions of fossils and fuels. A great flood can account exceedingly for both.

Of course God created life. How did it happen on it's own accord? (Saying that is not part of the science of evolution is not an answer)
In even the most sophisticated, controlled lab, the most simplest life form cannot be created. The have struggled for decades to even produce a make-shift protein. The odds of it happening in a violent, uncontrolled and natural setting are pretty much zero.
If the OT is the word of God, I say let ToE be proven before assuming anything in science.

Young Earth creationists seem to be taking a beating nowadays, and I really have no idea why should. Everything going against them is purely subjective and unproven. How this truth falls through the cracks is beyond me.

Dark_Lite · Jun 2, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Young Earth creationists seem to be taking a beating nowadays, and I really have no idea why should. Everything going against them is purely subjective and unproven. How this truth falls through the cracks is beyond me.

YECism is the geocentrism/flat earthism of the modern age. Like all other beliefs that are incompatible with reality, it will eventually fade away and die (again). The evidence is not subjective in this matter. YECism was falsified over a hundred years ago. The rock strata, starlight, evolution, radiometric dating, all testify against YECism.

CTD · Jun 2, 2011

coachboyd1982 said:
The two don't mix. Science is the study of the natural world around us. What we see, feel, touch, and can test in a lab. God is supernatural. You cannot see Him, touch Him, and definitely not test Him in a lab. Anyone who tries to mix the two in this nature will not succeed. Some things you just have to go on ''FAITH''.

Do tell...

What if God agreed? What if God subjected Himself to testing? All that'd be left would be to deny reports of the tests, huh?

As a non-scoffer, I eschew blind ''FAITH'' and prefer real faith.

CTD · Jun 2, 2011

Dark_Lite said:
Nothing to do with evolution.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it's "so obvious" then how about you substantiate your claims with evidence. But let's not forget that the rock strata don't agree with a global flood. Let's also not forget the historical records of the most ancient of civilizations (Egypt, etc) don't have records of floods. And no, legends don't count.

Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proven huh? Why is there nothing about it on Wikipedia? Please don't say conspiracy. Cite something.

Conspiracies are secret. Wiki makes no secret of their dogmatic support for evolutionism, atheism, and all things mainstream. You yourself pointed out their reliance on talkdeceptions. If wiki's the source of the truth, there is no God, and the ''religion'' you profess is obviously false. Even elsewhere it'd be a joke, but trying to paint them as authorities here???

CTD · Jun 2, 2011

From time to time, honest contributors post accurate information on wiki. It can be found by clicking the ''history'' tab at the top of an article and reviewing the changes that have been made over time. It's time-consuming, but the place actually does have value if you can't find better resources via a search. Here's what the article said at one time, before the watchdogs got to it: Java Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sum1sGruj · Jun 2, 2011

Dark_Lite said:
YECism is the geocentrism/flat earthism of the modern age. Like all other beliefs that are incompatible with reality, it will eventually fade away and die (again). The evidence is not subjective in this matter. YECism was falsified over a hundred years ago. The rock strata, starlight, evolution, radiometric dating, all testify against YECism.

Assuming the initial condition of something is subjective.
The fact of the matter is, YEC has only been neglected in light of scientific hypothesis. It has never been proven wrong.

Dating methods are something YEC's should have never been threatened by. The practicality of God creating everything with a starting age of numero uno makes no sense.
A good punchline I like to put up with this is:

The pearly gates did not wait a billion years for clams and oysters to produce it.

So really, none of those things testify much of anything except an alternative to a godly reality. It's really just that simple. Scientists are not going to hypothesize on a creationism, and that is because creationism is not science. That is used against creationists, but in vain. Why should it be science to be correct? All science has done is flatter itself as being above because it can point to something and say it's there.

The simple fact of the matter is that evolution caught on because it is either that or nothing in secular belief and I feel that theists have simply become overly nervous about it, wanting to give and take a little from scripture to avoid any possible humiliation.
Of course that is no offense toward evolution theists, but deep down you want the scriptures to be true. And this is a key logic to rationalize what a lot of creationists in the media beat around but never really say

Deaver · Jun 2, 2011

coachboyd1982 said:
The two don't mix.

The Bible was not written as a science textbook. But, when the Bible does reveal truths related to science, the Bible can be trusted. Indeed, the Bible demonstrates scientific knowledge and concepts far before mankind had developed the technological base for such knowledge.

From The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.

"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible."

BOTH science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world.

"I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion," says Francis Collins, a molecular biologist. He continues: "When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, 'Wow, only God knew before.' It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me."

A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

Junior Member

Veteran

Junior Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Chewbacha

brightmorningstar

Guest

Chewbacha

Junior Member

Christian Teacher/Coach

Chewbacha

Well-Known Member

Chewbacha

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A follower of Christ

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency