a challenge for creationists

[Jerry Smith]

Less bogus than asking for a fine grained transitional series with photos of each transition, but still fairly bogus.

If you believe all life was created at the same time, show us a fossil angiosperm in the Cambrian period. Angiosperms are the majority of vascular plants, so that should be easy.

 

[choccy]

I think the problem with this challenge will be that the fossil record was supposedly established during the flood. It doesn't really represent any timelines, other than that all the fossils are from pre-flood creatures. At least that's my understanding of the creationist position. It still doesn't explain why the fossil record is sorted the way it is though, and just the way we would expect if evolution was true.

Choccy

 

[Morat]

If it was established during a flood, finding an angiosperm, or even a dinosaur, in the Cambrian should be an unsurprising occurance.

 

[choccy]

I think the dinos could flee further away from the flood than less mobile creatures (yes, all of'em, every single one), at least that's what I've been told.

For plants? Hydrologic (is that a word?) sorting maybe? Should be easy to perform an experiment to test that hypothesis. Have any YEC's already done it?

Choccy

 

[Morat]

Yes. And their big, heavy, bloated bodies had magical properties which allowed them to float, gently above the waves.

While tiny little sponges sank like a rock.

 

[choccy]

Hmm, I'm starting to see why most YECs limit themself to evolution denial.

Choccy

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
A challenge for creationists:

If you believe all life was created at the same time, show us a fossil angiosperm in the Cambrian period. Angiosperms are the majority of vascular plants, so that should be easy.

Although your challenge is addressed to all creationists, it apparently assumes those challenged "believe all life was created at the same time"--which would probably be only the young earth creationists, since the YECies think that God created everything in only 144 hours of our time as measured looking back toward the initial time of creation. Other creationists accept the evidence of mainstream science.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by choccy
It still doesn't explain why the fossil record is sorted the way it is though, and just the way we would expect if evolution was true.

Choccy

Some people have speculated on the connection between the flood and the strata, etc. I doubt if you would entertain such speculations, however. Evolutionists only entertain bizarre speculation when it is done in the name of evolution.

 

[Athlon4all]

I am not a scientist, but I will say this that there is plenty of true evidence against evolution, a chief one being that Mutation's and Natural Selection both decrease genetic information, not increase like evolution claims.

In any case, even if there was all the "scientific" or "worldly" "evidence" for evolution, I wouldn't believe it because the word of God is truth, not man's opinion's and man's research.

But, true science evidence points to creation, not microbes-to-man evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Count me out of that generalization, Nick. I'll be glad to consider your speculation, no matter how bizarre. When all is said and done, if your speculation explains the geologic column as well as evolution does, and you do not have to resort to special pleading (i.e. "extra" miracles to move the plesiosaurs a few layers deeper than the dolphins), then I will give it two thumbs up. If the same hypothesis explains other readily observable features of nature (i.e. anatomical homology, biogeography, biochemical and genetic homology), again without special pleading, and does so as well as evolution, then you might get me to change sides! So go ahead - let's hear your speculation: that is, if you think it is up to critical examination...

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
I am not a scientist, but I will say this that there is plenty of true evidence against evolution, a chief one being that Mutation's and Natural Selection both decrease genetic information, not increase like evolution claims.

If you're not just parroting back to me unsupported facts from a Creationist website, then show me a reference to that.

In 1968, Motoo Kimura proved mathematically that natural selection increases genetic information.

Neutral theory of molecular evolution, Kimura, 1968

In any case, even if there was all the "scientific" or "worldly" "evidence" for evolution, I wouldn't believe it because the word of God is truth, not man's opinion's and man's research.

That's pretty much what I expect from a typical Creationist. No evidence can be shown to convince them anyway, but that doesn't stop them from yelling "Not enough evidence! Not enough evidence!"

But, true science evidence points to creation, not microbes-to-man evolution.

So true science is whatever agrees with your preconceptions. How scientific.,

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
I am not a scientist, but I will say this that there is plenty of true evidence against evolution, a chief one being that Mutation's and Natural Selection both decrease genetic information, not increase like evolution claims.

Athlon4All,

That exact topic was discussed in the following thread. Please read it. I'll answer any question you might have about the topic.

No new Information

In any case, even if there was all the "scientific" or "worldly" "evidence" for evolution, I wouldn't believe it because the word of God is truth, not man's opinion's and man's research.

Don't you mean that your interpretation of an english version of the word of God is truth? So basically you have man's interpretation of a translation versus man's study and testing of emperical evidence. I don't see why your side is so obviously compelling, even to believers.

 

[Athlon4all]

Don't you mean that your interpretation of an english version of the word of God is truth? So basically you have man's interpretation of a translation versus man's study and testing of emperical evidence. I don't see why your side is so obviously compelling, even to believers.

I doubt the translation changes the meaning of Genesis 1 that radically

I refuse to get into a scientific debate because I do not have the knowledge.

blader, I take it as a compliment that I am a typical "creationist", and are you not that different? Evolution no matter what anybody says, is just as much a "belief system" as creation is. I doubt the majority of evolutionist's will ever be convinced by any true scientific evidence either. Only the Power of God and the Holy Spirit can spare you from the devil's grasp.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I doubt the translation changes the meaning of Genesis 1 that radically

Perhaps the interpretation does, then.

I doubt the majority of evolutionist's will ever be convinced by any true scientific evidence either.

Of course we will. That's how we were convinced of evolution in the first place. If there were scientific evidence that showed that evolution didn't happen, then we would be convinced by that too. Unfortunately, science isn't equipped to provide evidence of supernatural creation, so we cannot be convinced by scientific evidence that that occurred. Some of us believe (by faith) that it did. Some of us do not share that faith.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Athlon4all:
I doubt the translation changes the meaning of Genesis 1 that radically

Athlon, so that we can better understand what your interpretation of your translation is of the meaning of Genesis 1, please go to this thread, read the different interpretations presented, and then please respond either on that thread, this thread, or on both as to which theory or interpretation is closest to your own belief. If none of them accurately represent your interpretation, please distinguish yours from those presented on that thread. Thank you.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Count me out of that generalization, Nick. I'll be glad to consider your speculation, no matter how bizarre. ... if you think it is up to critical examination...

Your idea of critical examination is to call someone a liar when they fail to update a site in a way that makes you happy and then plead ignorance when the NAS does the same thing. Condiering how incredibly disingenuous an invitation would be coming from a person like that, don't hold your breath.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sinai
Athlon, so that we can better understand what your interpretation of your translation is of the meaning of Genesis 1, please go to this thread, read the different interpretations presented, and then please respond either on that thread, this thread, or on both as to which theory or interpretation is closest to your own belief. If none of them accurately represent your interpretation, please distinguish yours from those presented on that thread. Thank you.

And then write a 2,000 word essay on why you believe what you believe based on Genesis 1:11, after which you must draw a chart reconciling the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. When you're done with that, please explain the entire theory of biogenesis in Hebrew, but not modern Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew. Then come and check back with Sinai, and I'm sure he'll have a few more assignments for you.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader
So true science is whatever agrees with your preconceptions. How scientific.,

Oh, I see!

Unscientific == morally bad

Scientific == morally good

This gives me an idea...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Your idea of critical examination is to call someone a liar when they fail to update a site in a way that makes you happy and then plead ignorance when the NAS does the same thing. Condiering how incredibly disingenuous an invitation would be coming from a person like that, don't hold your breath.

You make my continued efforts at courtesy very difficult indeed. Please, for Pete's sake, go back and read the various threads, note the dishonesty not just in leaving their web page uncorrected, but in making false claims recently about the absense of a pelvis. Please note that you haven't even shown probable reason to suspect the NAS information is inaccurate.

Then, after you have noticed these things and see how your statements above do not accurately reflect the reality of my actions, statements, or attitude, and when you realize that there is no sense in which you can expect to not get a fair hearing from me - then decide if your speculation is up to critical examination, and on that basis decide whether you want to share it.

Please.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I suppose I will just wait until the next time I reply to one of your posts & once again you will make this accusation against me, and once again I will defend myself from it in a thread that you won't respond to, either to acknowledge that the accusation was without foundation, or to defend the accusation.

Such is life.