A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

Unless you can give us a definition of "kind" then what you ask for is akin to me asking you how much does a male polka dot unicorn weigh!

"Kinds" can mate and produce offspring. Now give me your definition and tell why mine is not right.

Creationists have no idea what science is. They try to apply pseudo scientific methodology topped with a rich serving of superstitious beliefs in the hope of refuting the world's most sound scientific theory of all time; namely ToE.

That is really amusing. There are creationist much more intelligent than you are who reject evolution.

It is acutally evolution that is pseudo-science. They can't prove even one thing in the TOE.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"God said it, that settles it." - Christian Motto

Which goes back to the question I asked in the OP: Why aren't you interested in figuring out what's really happening? That motto shuts out and stifles inquiry.

 

[frogman2x]

"What can be said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Do you use that same criteria when evos speak?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which goes back to the question I asked in the OP: Why aren't you interested in figuring out what's really happening?

Do you know the difference between -ing and -ed?

God created the moon.

What's "really happening" is that some people are using scientific methodism to say it came from six other places.

That motto shuts out and stifles inquiry.

Inquiry into what? nothing? I agree.

It's certainly a time-saver, isn't it?

No muss, no fuss ... God did it, that settles it.

Spend our tax dollars elsewhere -- like on the poor.

 

[OllieFranz]

I am not talking about DNA. I am talking about how traits are gotten by the offspring.

??????

Traits come from genes, which are DNA

While our DNA is different, tells us that we are not related biologically but we are related by species---homo sapian.

You do know that DNA is the chemical name and "genes" is the biological/genetics name for the same molecular chains*, don't you? You seem to be claiming that traits come from genes, but not from DNA.

*There is "junk DNA" between many of the genes, and at the ends of the chromosomes, but that does not change the fact that genes are built of DNA codons.

 

[AV1611VET]

You do know that DNA is the chemical name and "genes" is the biological/genetics name for the same molecular chains*, don't you?

Interesting ... I didn't know that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you know the difference between -ing and -ed?

God created the moon.

What led you to that conclusion?

Inquiry into what? nothing? I agree.

Inquiry into reality.

It's certainly a time-saver, isn't it?

No muss, no fuss ... God did it, that settles it.

A time-save for the intellectually lazy perhaps. I, for one, am not satisfied with lame, vacuous pseudo-explanations.

Spend our tax dollars elsewhere -- like on the poor.

If you're attitude prevailed throughout history and up to the present day, I wager there would be a lot more poor and sick and frail. Scientific advances, many of them funded by tax dollars, have enabled strategies that have directly addressed those issues.

 

[mzungu]

Since matter cannot create itself out of nothing, it must have a Creator.

May FSM bless you with a thousand plates of spaghetti bolognese. Thank you for accepting his noodliness as the creator of the moon. FSM is the creator of all. All hail his pastaness

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you use that same criteria when evos speak?

Yes. That's why I can claim, with reasonable confidence, that evolution is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

What led you to that conclusion?

The Holy Ghost.

Inquiry into reality.

Reality from nothing? I agree.

A time-save for the intellectually lazy perhaps.

In the sense that scientists worked hard to come up with six different ways to say, "I think this is how it happened," I'll agree that we would seem "lazy" by comparison.

I, for one, am not satisfied with lame, vacuous pseudo-explanations.

Glad to hear it.

If you're attitude prevailed throughout history and up to the present day, I wager there would be a lot more poor and sick and frail. Scientific advances, many of them funded by tax dollars, have enabled strategies that have directly addressed those issues.

Any issue can be "addressed."

My autistic nephew can address an issue.

And he doesn't need to "enable strategies" with tax dollars to do so.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Holy Ghost.

Care to elaborate on that? What form does it take? A voice? A figure? How do you know that its communication with you imparts truthful information?

Reality from nothing? I agree.

What do you mean? You aren't being very clear.

In the sense that scientists worked hard to come up with six different ways to say, "I think this is how it happened," I'll agree that we would seem "lazy" by comparison.

Do you understand why you would be deemed lazy in this regard?

Any issue can be "addressed."

My autistic nephew can address an issue.

And he doesn't need to "enable strategies" with tax dollars to do so.

Any issue can be addressed. It's a matter of addressing the issue well. Scientific advances have allowed us to do that for many issues.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to elaborate on that?

He is the Third Person of the Godhead, for starters.

What form does it take?

"It" is a "He."

A voice? A figure?

In this case, an Author.

How do you know that its communication with you imparts truthful information?

My spirit bears witness.

What do you mean? You aren't being very clear.

Thank you for demonstrating what I've been saying here for years:

Until you guys learn to understand NOTHING, you'll never understand ANYTHING.

Someone (I can't remember who) even made it his signature.

Do you understand why you would be deemed lazy in this regard?

Indeed I do.

If my wife said she left work via the east exit, I could take the lazy approach and believe her, or I could go view the security tapes.

Any issue can be addressed. It's a matter of addressing the issue well. Scientific advances have allowed us to do that for many issues.

Given that each issue has at least two theories behind it, I'd say you guys have a pretty impressive backlog of theories to work on.

Take the moon for example.

You now have five theories that are in the COLD CASE files, and one theory that was just advanced last month.

 

[lasthero]

I told you wlhy,

No, you didn't.

I didn't count them but in your whale chart there was about 10 steps from hippo to whale.

You didn't count them...but you say there were about ten steps.

What is wrong with you?

You have yet to produce any BIOLOGICAL evidence to show how indohyus and pakicetus lost their legs.

The evidence I've presented is biological in nature, therefore it is biological evidence. That you don't like it is irrelevant - it is what you asked for.

Not only can you not explaain HOW, you have no eplanation as to WHY this should happen. The ones with legs were surviving quite well because they had legs.

They survived better without the legs. They were better swimmers without them. It's a simple concept. Not having legs was advantage underwater.

Land, dog-like animals need their legs to survive

Not if they spend most of their time in the water. Which, by all indications, they did.

Another thing you can't explain is why did the hippo and the whale survive but everything inbetween did not?

They did survive. They became modern day whales.

No you are not making us things. You are accepting by faith alone what others have made up. It is necessary for evolution to survive to have an explanation as to how whales came into existence.

Not really. Even if we didn't know how whales came about, there would still be mountains of other things to support evolution.

But is this really how you act when presented with conclusions you don't like? No refutation, just a bald assertion that people are making things up? If that's your ultimate fallback, then there's little point in us discussing this - no matter what I present, no matter how exhaustive it is, you can just claim it's made up and dismiss it.

Of course some sea mammals might be able to drink sea water but I doubt that any of them that do not live in the water most of the time(sea turtles for example)would survive doing it for an extended time.

I never said they could. In fact, I explicitly said they avoid doing when at all possible, and prefer to drink fresh water. But, nonetheless, they do ingest salt water, if for no other reason than because they spend so much time submerged in it. It's inevitable. So a creature that spends a lot of time in saltwater is going to have a high content for it in their bones, and if we find bones with a high content of saltwater, it's safe to say that the creature the bones came from spent a good deal of time in saltwater. It's a logical conclusion.

There is no evidence that pakicetus spent much time in the sea and it is very unlikely it would ever drink sea water and live.

Okay. What other reason would they have such a high content of saltwater in their bones, then?

You are right, but how an offspring receives the traits it has is not one of them.

Judging from other posts, you don't even seem to understand that DNA are genes. So I'd say it IS one of them.

 

[bhsmte]

"God said it, that settles it." - Christian Motto

For accuracy sake, a small change should be made to your statement:

"Man says that God said it, that settles it"

 

[AV1611VET]

For accuracy sake, a small change should be made to your statement:

"Man says that God said it, that settles it"

Nope.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Uh huh. Like I said; "man says".

 

[Doveaman]

Both of those would be a (strange) version of theistic evolution rather than Old Earth Creationism. OEC can sometimes allow for evolution, but it explicitly rejects human descent from preexisting organisms, regardless of the mechanism. Once you cross that line, you join us in the realm of the theistic evolutionists.

I don't agree.

The Bible tells us that Adam was formed from the dust of the earth.

“The first man was of the dust of the earth” - (1 Cor 15:47).

At the resurrection, all humans who would have died and decomposed into dust are then formed (resurrected) from the dust of the earth.

“Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” – (Dan 12:2).

Apes also decompose into dust when they die:

“Man's fate is like that of the animals…All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.” - (Eccl 3:19- 20).

The first man was formed from the dust of the earth because he was resurrected from the decomposed remains (dust) of an ape.

This idea is consistent with both the DNA evidence and Scripture.

 

[Doveaman]

Thanks for giving ne a good laugh. Did you rule out they came from another planet?

Yes. The Bible tells us they came from the "dust of the earth".

 

[lasthero]

Almost forgot this, froggy.

Mutation.

No, it's an atavism. An evolutionary throwback, and it happens far more often than you think. For instance, chickens still have the gene for making teeth and express these on rare occasions.

 

[EternalDragon]

The first man was formed from the dust of the earth because he was resurrected from the decomposed remains (dust) of an ape.

This idea is consistent with both the DNA evidence and Scripture.

Hilarious idea but I don't think any scripture supports that as there was no death before Adam sinned. You are onto the right idea though. The same materials and design were used for man as humans and apes share a very similar body plan. So in a sense you are correct.