A Question for Creationists

[mzungu]

Good question.

If we came from apes, then why are apes still around?

(Or did our common ancestors die out long ago?)

That is a typical creationist fallacy. First of all we did not come from apes; we are apes. And all apes have a common ancestor. As for why apes are still around is like saying if Dogs came from wolves then why are wolves still around. As for your staring each other in the face; let me ask you this. If wolves were driven to extinction then would you still say the chihuaua and wolves stare each other in the face? Some dogs no longer can give natural birth without a caesarean section. Wolves cannot digest starch whereas dogs can. See what I mean?

AV you simply fail to grasp the fundamentals of how science works. ToE does not claim we come from apes; yet creationists keep insisting that ToE claims this.

 

[USincognito]

The closest my ancestors ever came to apes was feeding them on the ark. Again, I can't speak for yours.

Thomas Huxley anecdotally had a great riposte when Bishop Wilburforce offered a similarly childish comment.

By the way, Hitler was a social Darwinist. That's simply a historical fact.

No he wasn't nor is that a historical fact.

 

[USincognito]

Fallible men, Darwin, said the intermediate fossils would be found and all the evos said AMEN. Yete in over 100 years none have been found.

That last bit is false and even Creationist organizations admit there are transitional fossils.

They even had pictues drawn up to hsow the intgermediatge steps, but they for got one thing. The actual fossils that matched their claim.

Let me Google that for you....

The never eplain how a dog can geneticfally lose it legs for a million years and survive.

Whales didn't evolve from dogs, but from artiodactyls. And the genetics have been understood since 2006. The key is Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2.

 

[lasthero]

a fossil record that points to a global flood, and that shows absolutely no partially developed; partially evolved species?

This part of your rant particularly interests me, Crazy.

How, exactly, does the fossil record point to a global flood? Also, why do you think evolution proposes that we should see a partially developed creature? It doesn't. That's not the way it works, and no one ever said we should expect to see things like something that isn't a fully developed creature. Even transitionals like archeopteryx are full developed forms of what they are - if they weren't they wouldn't be functional.

 

[USincognito]

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica.

Perhaps you could cite real scientific articles instead of creationist propoganda? Have you heard of peer review? Do you know what a peer review journal is?

I'd be satisfied if he could simply explain, in his own words, why a whale jawbone found in antarctica would be a problem.

 

[USincognito]

How does it not?

All life forms are made from similar elements at a similar time using the same blueprint for life; perfectly suited for their environments? Symbiotic relationships that could have only been simultaneously created? A Cambrian Explosion that completely invalidates evolution and a fossil record that points to a global flood, and that shows absolutely no partially developed; partially evolved species? Irreducible complexity of organs and complex DNA even in the oldest species ever to exist? Sterility and death resulting from excessive deviance from the norm? Benevolent mutations a mere fantasy better suited for Marvel Comics than actual testable biology?

If evolution were introduced today, it would be laughed out of existence.

 

[USincognito]

"If we came from apes, then why are apes still around?"

If AV thinks science can take a hike, then why is he still around?

 

[lasthero]

Soft tissue doesn't survive fossilization.

That's not entirely accurate.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130910/ncomms3423/full/ncomms3423.html

It's rare, yes, but it can and does happen. Now, about the webbed feet.

In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils.

You're right, it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from the fossils. Which is why you won't find any scientific paper on Ambulocetus that makes any such claim.

Go ahead. Look. I did. You might find a few that suggest it did have webbed feet, but this isn't a terribly big leap of logic - many, many animals that spend a great deal of time around water have webbed feet. It's a very simple, common adaption, and since there's a great deal of evidence that ambulocetus was aquatic - for instance, its fossils are found in sediments that likely come from estuaries, and a high level of saltwater oxygen isotopes in its bones, likely meaning they spent a great deal of time near the shore and that they could drink saltwater.

So yeah, do we know, 100%, that they had webbed feet? No. But given that webbed feet is common among animals that spend a great deal of time near water and swimming, and that there's strong evidence that ambulocetus spent a great deal of time near the water and swimming, it's not a great leap of logic to think it, too, had webbed feet.

But it's a moot - getting fluffed up about the way the picture is drawn is ridiculous. Scientists don't draw pictures. Artists do. Artists might go off what scientists write when making their drawing, but just because the artist draws it with webbed feet doesn't mean that scientists definitively believe it had them.

 

[USincognito]

But it's a moot - getting fluffed up about the way the picture is drawn is ridiculous. Scientists don't draw pictures. Artists do. Artists might go off what scientists write when making their drawing, but just because the artist draws it with webbed feet doesn't mean that scientists definitively believe it had them.

If the best objection he can come up with is an artists rendering with webbed feet, then he's on very shakey footing indeed.

 

[biggles53]

Either God exists or He doesn't. Either way, the implications could be terrifying to many.

Only to those who feel they must cling to supernatural explanations for their reality...

Me...? I'll take the magnificence and wonder of the world which is continually revealed through reason and reality, as opposed to a cheap parlour trick from antiquity, every time....

 

[mzungu]

Only to those who feel they must cling to supernatural explanations for their reality...

Me...? I'll take the magnificence and wonder of the world which is continually revealed through reason and reality, as opposed to a cheap parlour trick from antiquity, every time....

Very well put.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only to those who feel they must cling to supernatural explanations for their reality...

Me...? I'll take the magnificence and wonder of the world which is continually revealed through reason and reality, as opposed to a cheap parlour trick from antiquity, every time....

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?

 

[KWCrazy]

BTW - isn't there a forum rule prohibiting such questioning in the first place?

No. You can't question the Christianity of a professed Christian. However, when one claims to have gone from a devout Christian to an atheist and uses that to try and say Christians are ignorant and unenlightened, then we have every right to question his veracity. Frankly, in my short time here I've seen that more times than I'd like to count. In fact, it seems to be a formula. I wonder if any of them are sincere or if they are being coached in how to mislead from another web site. Regardless, we aren't questioning their posted religion, but the obvious incongruity in how they went from a follower of God to one who proclaims there is no God.

 

[KWCrazy]

How, exactly, does the fossil record point to a global flood?

Fossils are caused by living creatures or very recently dead creature being encased in sediment under great pressure / time (they are a continuum; increase pressure, decrease time). A global flood would account for the fossil record including fossils in the peaks of mountains and in deserts.

Also, why do you think evolution proposes that we should see a partially developed creature?

All transitional species would be more vulnerable and more likely to die. We don't see any partially developed features, only fully formed creature with no apparent ancestor or descendant. They are arranged in a timeline based on where they look like they should fit according to the theory.

That's not the way it works, and no one ever said we should expect to see things like something that isn't a fully developed creature.

If they lived, they died. If they died, we should see at least one fossil. There are none.

Even transitionals like archeopteryx are full developed forms of what they are

Archeopteryx is a mosaic; like a platypus. It wasn't a transitional anything. It was a fully formed beast without known predecessor or ancestor.

 

[KWCrazy]

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?

It was made in China. We bought it from Wal*Mart.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, but you'd know there was a God; whether you thought He was just or not.
You might even change religions or become entirely non religious.
You can't tell me a God you once knew now doesn't exist. Either you never knew Him, or you're lying about him not existing.

Or I was mistaken in believing supernatural claims for which there was no good reason to believe.

Given the fact that you're on a Christian forum trying to undermine the faith of other Christians, I would say your back story is a sham designed to make us think you were "taken in" by religion but have now "found the truth." Otherwise, why would it be so important for you to seek commonality?

You began by being patronising, but this is just plain rude. I joined this forum years ago as a Christian. My first posts were made as a Christian. My first posts were about Christianity. Moreover, contrary to what you might think, my primary purpose in being here isn't to undermine the faith of Christians. I'm here for discussion with Christians and non-Christians alike.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Archaeopteryx, please understand that we are not trying to patronize you in anyway. The problem is this: you were active in the church, you read the Bible, you help leadership positions and even thought about becoming a priest or pastor. What you don't say is that you had a relationship with Jesus. You don't mention Him at all. You didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus and without that you are not born again.

Why would I need to explicitly state that? It is already implied. I believed I was having a personal relationship with a deity. I believed that deity was Jesus Christ.

Now I am not saying that this pertains to you, or that you are an evildoer that is not my place to say, but I can say that even those that have done all this were not born again. They didn't know Jesus. It sounds like to me you found the uncomfortable position of being a believer in a world where that is not a respectable place to be.

However, I don't know your story so I shouldn't make assumptions. I do know that from what you wrote, you didn't know Christ. Correct?

Depends on what sense you are using the word "know". Did I have knowledge about the existence and nature of deities? No. Did I have faith in Jesus Christ? Yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For me, I have already considered the issue as much as I could. I want to know what really happened MUCH MORE than you do. If you have some news, I am listening.

Ultimately, Ken Ham is likely to be right.

If Ken Ham is right then he is only "right" in the same sense that a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Either God exists or He doesn't. Either way, the implications could be terrifying to many.

Indeed. Imagine if that God were Allah. Terrifying implications for you.

 

[mzungu]

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?

I dare say a lot more than what the Bible says about it being wished into existence!