A Question for Creationists

[Subduction Zone]

if you can call evolutionist who walk in circles tracking their own rational as getting somewhere .. well have at it...
But truth is the only thing humans and monkeys have in common is we both have the same Designer and that is God of all creation and God did not design us the same God created everything and gave everything seed after its "own kind"
( Genesis 1:1-31 )

No, we share a common ancestor and we can show that.

There is no valid excuse for your claim of common design. That only works with an incompetent designer. Are you claiming that your god is incompetent? We know evolution is not perfect and we expect to find certain imperfections from it. Can you give a valid excuse for those imperfections showing up using a "designer"?

 

[Davian]

Sounds like evolutionists would make terrible trackers. They'd be too accepting that one footprint and the next, even though they are made by two different foots, were associated because of the gap between them.

Didn't David Attenborough cover that last month, different animals that travel in pairs, while hopping on opposite feet from its companion. Amazing stuff.

You tell 'em, AV.

 

[biggles53]

No, thanks -- before I do that, I'll just pull rank and say: GOD DID IT, as did Jacob.

Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.

Exactly.....when all else fails, invoke some magic.......a NOTHING solution to anything.....!

I'll repeat what I said at the outset.....you keep your cheap parlour tricks from antiquity. I'll take the hard work and application of reason which supplies us with the real 'miracles' of the natural world.....

 

[biggles53]

if you can call evolutionist who walk in circles tracking their own rational as getting somewhere .. well have at it...
But truth is the only thing humans and monkeys have in common is we both have the same Designer and that is God of all creation and God did not design us the same God created everything and gave everything seed after its "own kind"
( Genesis 1:1-31 )

Oh really...?

Then please explain why your god placed those markers for ancient ERV insertions in exactly the same locations in the genomes of both humans and chimps, humans and orangutans, humans and monkeys and humans and gorillas? Why did your god present the overwhelming impression of common ancestry if this were not the case...?

 

[USincognito]

Leet me sdhow you the error of your way. Going from the hippo to pakicetus only shows one fossil and to evolve into a different species take at least 10 intermediates.

Whales didn't evolve from hippos. They evolved from a cetartiodactyl common ancestor and hippos are the closest living relatives to whales. And how did you arrive at that precise number?

Drawing picture of different fossil some with only 1 similar trait does not prove anything. What they showed can be better explained as separate and distinct species.

YOu continue to neglect the most important thing you need to do; explain how pakicetus and indohyus lost their legs and developed fins. Also these are drawings. did the fossil for ambulocetus show it had webbed feet? Having 4 digets is found in several land animals.

You keep mentioning drawings, but there was 5 photos of fossil skeletons in that post. Are you just pretending they don't exist?

None of them had a blowhole until they became a whale. Can you explain, genetically of course, how they acquired that trait?

Untrue. Well, at least not really true. In the latter steps, the nose on these creatures is moving upward.

That's basically what a blowhole is - a nose.

Exactly. And if he'd actually look at the skulls represented in the cladegram, he'd notice the blowhole migrating on pakicetus, rodhocetus, dorudon and the dolphin.

 

[USincognito]

I am reminded of something Michael Shermer once said. It was a joke, but it contained a kernel of truth. When Creationists are presented with a gap for which they demand a transitional fossil, and that gap is filled by a transitional fossil, then the Creationist will claim that there are now two gaps.

It is amusing but complely false. Show me one intemediate fossil. What it was before it was an intemediate and what it became. Please add the biology that makes it possible.

Wow! Just wow. That's some amaing chutzpah there dude. You claim that Shermer's statement is false and then go on to write exactly what he was talking about! Let me walk you through it:

- Here's a transitional fossil. (gap filled)
- Oh yeah, well what's before it and after it? (now two gaps)

 

[USincognito]

You need to stop; calling someone dishonest unless your can prove they are

I did. And I would gladly discuss your further comments but you butchered the VBB tags so badly that I can't tell what's what in this post. If you clean it up (you can edit forever here) I'll respond to the rest of it.

 

[mzungu]

Debating with creationists is like telling the moth that the light is a flame!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is amusing but complely false. Show me one intemediate fossil. What it was before it was an intemediate and what it became. Please add the biology that makes it possible.

I show you one intermediate and then you'll say that there are now two gaps to fill.

 

[mzungu]

I show you one intermediate and then you'll say that there are now two gaps to fill.

Indoctrination will not allow creationists to accept any evidence no matter what. They are set in their ways. Unlike people who accept science and are willing to change what they accept; creationists remain in a static limbo. They are not here to debate but to proselytise and preach. It is like trying to warn a moth that the light is a flame!

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll take the hard work and application of reason which supplies us with the real 'miracles' of the natural world.....

And what does "hard work and application of reason" tell you, as to how Jacob was able to predict his flocks ahead of time?

You're thinking like Laban thought.

"Huh! Go ahead, Jacob, let's see you take my species of cattle and make a new one!"

 

[Theodor1]

That only works with an incompetent designer.

What evidence do you have that the God who created the universe is "incompetent"?

Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? KJV

 

[frogman2x]

And what does the magnificence and wonder of the world which is continually revealed through reason and reality tell you about how we got our moon?

He must have reasoned that in reality it must have created itslef out of nothing. What could be more wonderous than that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He must have reasoned that in reality it must have created itslef out of nothing. What could be more wonderous than that?

Needless to say, that is a strawman.

 

[frogman2x]

We are not saying that they are ancestral. We are saying that they are transitional. Transitional means that a fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa.

That description is meaningless. Many different species have features of other specis that even you wuld not say are related,

It does not require that the fossil be directly ancestral to any living species.

It certainly does. Where di you et such an idea?

ven Darwin spoke of using fossils of "collateral descendants", or side branches that are not directly ancestral to living species.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. He acknowledged the fossil record was a problem but he wsais the intermediate fossil would be found in time. He was wrong.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--"Origin of Species"

All of thatg is the usual evo rehtoric. Until you can show, biologically of course. how an offsprng can acquire a trait for which the parents did not the gene for You are wandering in the dark, just making up stuff you hope will sound scientific.

More importantly, evolution predicts which transitionals we should see, and which we should NOT see. For example, the theory predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features. It also predicts that we should NOT see fossils with a mixture of mammal and avian features. Every fossil has fallen in line with the predictions that evolution makes which is why it is so widely accepted amongst biologists.

Since there are no transiional fossils, there goes that theory.

You know, God could plant fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes. Does that mean that we should free everyone who has been convicted based on forensic evidence?

God does not plant anything. He created DNA and that is all that is needed.

We do know that. We can determine that they are transitional by the mixture of features. For example, Australopithecines do have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

Then why is DNA able to disstinguish betwee all life forms. Many species have a mixture of features. We have a head, eyes, ears and hair, are we related too dogs?

What makes you reject those features? What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern whales and a terrestrial mammal?

You can't offer one fossil and say it is transitional. You need several and each one must not ony have a slight variation, you must say how the species acquired the new feature from pareents that did not have the gene for.

So you are saying that, according to evolution, a fully formed blue whale suddenly popped out of a dog sized mammal? Or do you think that it makes way more sense that during the transition from terrestrial mammal to fully aquatic lifestyles that those transitions lived at the meeting place of water and land?



It is the DNA shared by whales and other terrestrial mammals, and the nested hierarchy that all mammals fall into. That is the evidence that demonstrates evolution.

 

[frogman2x]

You have yet to show two species that do not belong to the same kind.

Are dogs and cats the same kind?

For example, genetic evidence demonstrates that humans and other apes belong to the same kind.

It seems you evos are always reluctiant to produce the evidence for wht you say. Makes me wonder why. What genetic evidence do you have that apes and humans belong to t he same kind??

DNA, which is evol worst enemy, will show they ar not the same kind. Not being able to mate and reproduce will confirm what DNA has verified.

 

[Smidlee]

Are dogs and cats the same kind?



It seems you evos are always reluctiant to produce the evidence for wht you say. Makes me wonder why. What genetic evidence do you have that apes and humans belong to t he same kind??

DNA, which is evol worst enemy, will show they ar not the same kind. Not being able to mate and reproduce will confirm what DNA has verified.

While the DNA between human and chimps are similar how the DNA is read makes the bigger differences. How the DNA is read is what makes a brain cell different from a skin cell. IIRC we share only 35% of the same proteins of chimps.

 

[lasthero]

That description is meaningless. Many different species have features of other specis that even you wuld not say are related,

Perhaps, but we're not just talking about features between species here, but features between entirely different clades. For instance, you'll never find a fish with a neck or a tetrapod with gills, but titaalik has these, and features that show a mixture of amphibian and fish traits, like its ear region. It's exactly what we would expect to find if amphibians evolved from fish - a creature with traits from both, as well as traits that show a mixture of both.

 

[lasthero]

IIRC we share only 35% of the same proteins of chimps.

I can find neither hide nor hair for this claim. Any idea where you heard it from?

 

[frogman2x]

Needless to say, that is a strawman.

IOW, you have no explanation for how the moon came into being, so you try to make it a strawmen.