A Question for Creationists

[frogman2x]

I don't know how universes come into being. That I don't know does not mean the deity answer wins by default.

Actually it does if you really think about it withe an open mind. Nothing cannot become something on its own. It needs a Creator. The only possibiliy is that matter is eternal but hat seems very unlikely. Randomness cannot account for teh order we see in the universe.

Moreover, I'm not convinced that the deity answer qualifies as an explanation. It merely masks our ignorance by putting God into the gaps in our knowledge. Beyond that, it doesn't do any explanatory work.

Yes it does. It presents an omnipotent Creator. It really is the only logical eplanation.

How do you know that God is eternal?

Well think about this. If you have no matter, no energy and no eternal God, what is left? Once you have something, you can't say it created it self out of nothing. God really is the only explanaion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Duuh. That's the point. The mutation ALTERED the trait it would have gotten.

Yes, just as humans have been altered by evolution.

Not only that the mutation DID NOT cause the person to become something other than what it parents were and it will only produce what it is and the mutation may or may not be passed on.

Our common ancestor with chimps was a primate, and we are still primates. Our common ancestor with bears was a mammal, and we are still mammals. Our common ancestor with fish was a vertebrate, and we are still vertebrates. All evolution needs to do is alter what is already there, what Darwin called "descent with modification".

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheist also believe in the supernatural , for example Frankencell. I can't think of anything more supernatural than a mindless purposeless universe creating a mind.

That would be a natural process, not a supernatural one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wonderful. Now tell us all wher the matter that went bang came form.

It came from the energy present at the Big Bang. Matter is the condensation of energy.

After that tell us all where the energy for the BB came from.

We don't know. However, not knowing does not equate to "God did it".

You cn google until the cows come home and they will not answee eiher of those question. They may give the usual evo rhetoric but try to check it out.

I googled it and I couldn't find a single piece of evidence demonstrating that it came from a deity.

 

[frogman2x]

I'm guessing that either you are using "species" and "kind" as basically equivalent, and based on your definition of kind. In which case, you are saying common ancestry is only within a

Right.

But "all apes" -- or even just the great apes -- are not the same species, they are five or six separate species, and according to your definition of kind, they are just as many different kinds.

Right.

Actually, that is a good question. What is the difference between a plant and an animal, especially at the single-cell and undifferentiated colony level? Because of the difficulty of answering questions like these, we now recognize more kingdoms than just plant and animal. We have common ancestors with plants, but we are not descended from plants.

DNA refutes such an idea. How can we have a common ancesor with plants but did not dewscend for them?

I am not familiar with the exact definitions of the various kingdoms, especially the newer kingdoms. One of the posters who is a professional in the field might have a better answer to the first question. The answer to the second is that a mutation or insertion or ERV, or some other gene-altering event resulted in an organism that had not met the definition of a plant now meeting it.

That is speculation a its best. One problem evolutionist have is that protect the theory they must speculate because nothing they say is really a proven mechanism for evolution, so they make up things such as you just posted.

He has. We all have. But you dismiss it as not showing you exactly what you ask, or if it does, you claim that it is "above your pay grade."

No onle hs presented a mutaion, an example of naural selecltion or an ERV that is a mechanism for a species to evolve into a different species.

Yes, if the mutation occurs in the middle of a gene, and does not change the beginning or end, you still have the same gene, say a gene for eye color, but a new allele, and a new trait, say blue eyes instead of brown.

Right but the offspring comes out as the exacdt same species as it parents and only produces aftger its kind.


>>But if it affects the beginning or the end of the gene, you get a totally different new gene. It might affect the eyes, but it is equally likely to regulate the growth of horns.<<

See there you go having to make up something. No matter what you start with, it is a ALWAYS traced back to a gene from one or both parents. The mutation will not change the species.

But it was originally a mutation. That is why it is far more prevalent in Caucasians than in other races. It occurred after the races spread into Europe and Asia, and the people in Africa and Asia (and from Asia into the Americas, Polynesia, and Australia) only bred with Europeans occasionally, and blue-eyed Europeans even more rarely.

And those folks keep producing after their kind and their kids do the very same thing. A new species never come out.

It is not a question of a single mutation, otherwise the first mutant would die without issue. It is an accumulation of mutations. Despite the cliche, I doubt you could point out the one straw in a heap that was the one that made the heap heavy enough to break the camel's back.

Have as many as you like. Now name one in which these mutations occur and the species changed. That is the bottom line.

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA refutes such an idea. How can we have a common ancesor with plants but did not dewscend for them?

In the same way that we can share a common ancestor with our cousins while not being descendants of our cousins.

That is speculation a its best. One problem evolutionist have is that protect the theory they must speculate because nothing they say is really a proven mechanism for evolution, so they make up things such as you just posted.

I have already shown you direct observations of mutations happening, and their ability to produce new phenotypes.

No onle hs presented a mutaion, an example of naural selecltion or an ERV that is a mechanism for a species to evolve into a different species.

I have presented millions of them. They are the mutations that separate humans and chimps.

Right but the offspring comes out as the exacdt same species as it parents and only produces aftger its kind.

I have already show that mutations produce new phenotypes in offspring. I have also shown that different mutations in different populations result in the lack of interbreeding between populations, such as the mutations that separate the human and chimp populations.

See there you go having to make up something. No matter what you start with, it is a ALWAYS traced back to a gene from one or both parents. The mutation will not change the species.

Where did you show this? This is just a bare assertion on your part. You keep claiming that mutations won't do anything, and yet it is mutations that are responsible for humans and chimps having different traits and morphology.

 

[frogman2x]

Why can't DNA be used to evidence common ancestry between species?

Because each species has its own unique DNA. Plants hav DNA, are they one of our common ancesters.

Please present your evidence for this claim

I just did, now present you evidencne that it is evidence of common ancestery between different wspecies.

Yes, I have. I have presented studies that demonstrate that every child is born with mutations:

That is not worth quibbling over. Did any of the mutations cause an ape to produce a homo-saian?

I have shown that mutations are responsible for new traits in humans:

Actually you haven't. You have show where mutations alter the trait the offspring would have gotten without the mutation.

n altered trait is a new trait.

It is not. albino skin is not a new trait. It is an alterred trait.

There are changes caused by mutations, and I have cited them for you.

Of course that are but none, not one, has resulterd in th offsping being the exact same species as it parents.

Those are the differences between humans and chimps. Those are the mutations that have resulted in two different species.[/quote]

They are not.

 

[frogman2x]

That is a God of the Gaps fallacy.

I ask you for a better explantion but I guess you don't have one so you criticize one you can't refute.

That is the real argument from ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, as soon as you tell us where God came from.

God is self-existent.

 

[frogman2x]

Where did you show that matter had to create itself out of nothing in order for our universe to come about through natural means?

You are kidding right? How can it come about through natrual means when there is nothing natural out there.

f you don't have evidence for your claims, how can you say you are right? Your claims require just as much evidence as anyone else's.

I am saying that is the only logical explanation. If you have a better one, trot it out.

Then the energy that produced the matter in our universe is also eternal, problem solved.

Go pick up youreNb el prize but they might ask yu for the evidence. I have gotten tired of asking he evos for their evidence but they will insist, but I am sure you have some.

 

[Smidlee]

That would be a natural process, not a supernatural one.

All known "natural" living cells are very complex with machines like ATP syntheses. Matter and energy alone creating a genetic code from scratch would be a supernatural event. There is nothing natural about Frankencell .. the atheist creator.

 

[OllieFranz]

Have as many as you like. Now name one in which these mutations occur and the species changed. That is the bottom line.

Panthers

Also, the Greenish Warblers, the Arctic Gulls, and the salamanders we've discussed at length as examples of Ring Species. Two other Ring Species that we haven't discussed are the Song Sparrow in Califurnia, and the Christmas Candle plant in the Carribean.

 

[Doveaman]

Hilarious idea but I don't think any scripture supports that as there was no death before Adam sinned.

The Bible tells us that death entered into this present world through Adam. This does not mean there were no former worlds, or former ages, in which death occurred, including the age of the dinosaurs.

Death did occur in prehistoric worlds, but the Bible is only referring to the death that entered into this present world through Adam.

This present world began as described in Genesis 1, but the events of Genesis 1 began after the prehistoric worlds ended. We are now finding the fossils from those prehistoric worlds.

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.

 

[Doveaman]

Easy. Matter cannot create itself out of nothing.

Neither do creators spring out of nothing.

Okay, so we know matter came from the Creator. We just need to figure out where the Creator came from.

 

[biggles53]

DNA refutes such an idea. How can we have a common ancesor with plants but did not dewscend for them?

Good grief.....

You come to a fork in the road. One path leads to Destination A, the other to Destination B.

The fork is the common ancestor. Plants are Destination A, we are B.

Can't make it simpler.....

 

[Doveaman]

It does unless you have a better explanation as to how the universe came into being. If you don't likek the deity answer, present your own.

BIG BANG! Now get over it!

The deity caused the BIG BANG. Now get use to it.

 

[bhsmte]

The deity caused the BIG BANG. Now get use to it.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, evidence is lacking.

Another issue arises even when you assume a creator initiated the big bang. Who created the creator and who created whoever created the creator and you go on and on with an infinite regression.

And even if a creator initiated the big bang (which is a leap) it does nothing to prove this creator is a personal God, such as the one described in the bible.

 

[Doveaman]

That is a God of the Gaps fallacy.

It's not our fault that your theory is full of gaps that need to be filled. We are only trying to help.

 

[Doveaman]

Where did you show that matter had to create itself out of nothing in order for our universe to come about through natural means?

When you keep responding with questions it suggests you have no answers.

If you don't have evidence for your claims, how can you say you are right? Your claims require just as much evidence as anyone else's.

Cause and effect. We call the effect "matter" and we call the cause "God".

What do you call the cause?

Then the energy that produced the matter in our universe is also eternal, problem solved.

Yes, we call it God-energy.

 

[Doveaman]

How did you come to the conclusion that the universe came into being?

Because it still is coming into being.