A Question for Creationists

[Loudmouth]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Loudmouth]

That answer which is not uncommon, makes me chuckle. Something staying the same is evidence of evolution.

Please show us where it states in the theory of evolution that all lineages must be changing at all times.

 

[frogman2x]

A pantherine. The snow leopard and the clouded leopard are still pantherines. But I was actuall going in the opposite direction. What was once a single kind, panther, is now four different kinds lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars.

Why are they not 4 varietis of the same kind>

And panthers remain panthers, except that there are now four kinds of panther, whereas before there was only one.

Is their DNA the same?

You are still stuck on the "cats don't give birth to puppies" strawman. No evolutionist claims that they do.

I am not stuck on it. I just use it to show how absurd it is the believe a mutation ,or several can be a mechanism for evolution. Which came first the dog or the cat? If you accept common decent, they are both on the tree somewhere.

 

[frogman2x]

Please show us where it states in the theory of evolution that all lineages must be changing at all times.

That is not what you said. The said they remain the same. How can you have evolutions if they emain the same?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why are they not 4 varietis of the same kind>

Why aren't humans and chimps varieties of the same kind?

Is their DNA the same?

Even the DNA of two individuals within the same species are not the same.

I am not stuck on it. I just use it to show how absurd it is the believe a mutation ,or several can be a mechanism for evolution.[/qutoe]

How is it absurd? Every human is born with mutations, and it is mutations that cause humans and chimps to be different.

Which came first the dog or the cat?

Neither. They share a common ancestor that is part of the Carnivora kind that was neither a dog or a cat. However, both dogs and cats remain in the Carnivora kind. It is no different than chihuahuas and great danes sharing a common ancestor that was niether a chihuahua or a great dane. Oh, and by the way, the DNA of two chihuahuas will be different.

 

[EternalDragon]

We found them.

We have both the fossil and genetic evidence.

You have a handful of skulls from apes to humans and some similarities in DNA which you then call "evidence". Nothing new from the early Darwinian era.

 

[EternalDragon]

Why would matter need to come from nothing in order for our universe to have a natural origin?

Also, where did you show that life can not come about by itself? This is just an empty assertion on your part.



All of the matter in our universe came from the condensation of energy, not nothing.

So then if you insist that God has to have a beginning, could not God have come from a condensation of energy and then created more things? I am responding to the other post where someone asked who created God. But I am also asking you the same.

I assert that you have no evidence whatsoever that anything came from "the condensation of energy". Nor that it could have the foresight to design complex structures and biological life. That is the reverse of what we observe.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have a handful of skulls from apes to humans and some similarities in DNA which you then call "evidence".

We have fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. That makes them transitional.

We have 200,000 ERV's shared by humans and chimps.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

​

We have the evidence. You can run away from it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is on our side.

 

[Loudmouth]

So then if you insist that God has to have a beginning, could not God have come from a condensation of energy and then created more things?

Do you have any evidence that he did?

I assert that you have no evidence whatsoever that anything came from "the condensation of energy".

You have never seen this equation?

E=mc^2

Guess what the E and the m stand for? That's right. Energy and mass. If you increase energy you get mass. When an atom bomb goes off some of that mass is turned into energy. When they add energy to particles in a particle accelerator you get extra mass. This is an observed mechanism in physics.

Nor that it could have the foresight to design complex structures and biological life. That is the reverse of what we observe.

Why would it need foresight?

 

[Smidlee]

What were you expecting? Cats giving birth to dogs and crocodiles being born to kangaroos? That's not how evolution works.

That's right. Scientist has done everything under the sun to fruit flies and they continue to resist evolution. I guess this means fruit flies are creationist.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/edsumm/e100930-09.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's right. Scientist has done everything under the sun to fruit flies and they continue to resist evolution. I guess this means fruit flies are creationist.

You don't understand evolution. It doesn't postulate that, in order for fruit flies to evolve, one generation or member of the species must give rise to something entirely different, like a mammal. You don't escape your ancestry. If you did, then the nested hierarchies of taxonomy would prove useless because a mammal could suddenly, inexplicably, "evolve" into something other than a mammal. Creationists expect to see a crocoduck; that's their idea of "evolution", but it's a misconception.

 

[Smidlee]

You don't understand evolution. It doesn't postulate that, in order for fruit flies to evolve, one generation or member of the species must give rise to something entirely different, like a mammal. You don't escape your ancestry. If you did, then the nested hierarchies of taxonomy would prove useless because a mammal could suddenly, inexplicably, "evolve" into something other than a mammal. Creationists expect to see a crocoduck; that's their idea of "evolution", but it's a misconception.

Evolutionist believe in Boobzilla; a reptile grew boobs and long hair and became hot blooded.
Nobody understands evolution because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolutionist believe in Boobzilla; a reptile grew boobs and long hair and became hot blooded.
Nobody understands evolution because it doesn't make any sense.

LOL! This is the funniest thing I have seen here in a while! Yeah, its clear that you don't understand evolution, and from my experience with you, you couldn't care less. If I thought "evolutionists believed in Boobzilla" it wouldn't make any sense to me either.

 

[EternalDragon]

We have fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. That makes them transitional.

We have 200,000 ERV's shared by humans and chimps.

Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

​

We have the evidence. You can run away from it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence is on our side.

Those are inferences of the data and mistaking full ape fossils to hybrid human/ape fossils. Not evidence.

I am not running away from anything. Just disagreeing with it. Like that is some sort of taboo or something.....

 

[EternalDragon]

Do you have any evidence that he did?

Do you have any evidence that everything we see did?

 

[OllieFranz]

Why are they not 4 varietis of the same kind>

You tell me. You are the one who said that a horse and a donkey are two different kinds. Lions and tigers are in exactly the same relationship: They can be bred, but most of the offspring are infertile.

Is their DNA the same?

Almost. The difference is not much more than the difference between a siberian tiger and a bengal tiger.

I am not stuck on it. I just use it to show how absurd it is the believe a mutation ,or several can be a mechanism for evolution.

A pair of chihuahuas will never produce a Great Dane, or vice versa. Their genes have divurged too much, and breeding is more or less physically impossible. Is it absurd to suppose that they descend from the same original first domesticated dog?

A pair of European Herring Gulls will never produce a European Black-backed Gull, or vice versa. There genes have divurged too much, and breeding is genetically impossible. But European Herring Gulls can freely interbreed with American Herring Gulls, which can feely interbreed with Siberian Herring Gulls, which, in turn, can interbreed with Berula's Gull, Hueglin's Gull, and the Siberian Black-backed Gull. And the Siberian and European black-backed gulls can interbreed. Is it absurd to suppose that all these gulls descend from a common ancestor breed?

A pair of Eastern Greenish Warblers will never produce a Westrn Greenish Warbler, or vice versa. Their genes have divurged too much, and breeding is genetically impossible. And there is no unbroken chain of interbreeding as there is with the gulls. But there was such an unbroken chain recorded fifty years ago. Is it absurd to suppose that all these Warblers descend from an original warbler breed?

A pair of Albert's Squirrels will never produce a Kaibab squirrel, or vice versa. Their genes have divurged too much, and breeding is genetically impossible. There is no extant chain of interbredding. And no documented history of interbreeding. Hoever, the Alberts are widespread in Arizona, and their habitat includes the Grand Canyon, especially the South Rim. During the last Ice Age, the North Rim became isolated, and it is now the home of the Kaibab. Is it really all that absurd to suppose that both species of squirrel descend from the same ancestral breed?

So I ask, "If it is not absurd to suppose that chihuahuas and Great Danes are descended from the same ancestral breed, the why would it be absurd to suppose that Kaibab squirrels and Albert's squirrels descend from the same ancestral breed?

Which came first the dog or the cat? If you accept common decent, they are both on the tree somewhere.

It is a tree, not a pole. Trees have these things called branches.

 

[Doveaman]

Simply stating it is super natural and can not be detected is what believers have always explained things about the world and universe we didn't yet understand.

But we do detect the supernatural. It is detected using the theological method, not the scientific method.

100 years ago, the super natural got credit for just about everything, but since that time, science has closed many of those gaps and I hate to tell you, the gaps will continue to close.

Actually, the supernatural/God is still credited. Science is simply discovering the natural methods God is using to power the universe.

The ancients knew God did it. They just didn’t always know how He did it.

How exactly can theology prove anything?

Science studies the natural to find answers about the universe. Theology studies the supernatural to find answers about God.

You don't believe in the theology of other Gods correct, why not?

Because in my personal experience I have only encountered one God, not many. If there are other Gods out there I haven't met any.

 

[Doveaman]

Could you expand on that?
How is it that you think that it's still coming into being?
I don't perceive it that way.

Would it be a universe without galaxies (stars, planets, moons, rocks, dust, ect.)?

Galaxies are still coming into being and added to the universe, so the universe is still being formed.

 

[Doveaman]

If you can argue logically that a god has no "cause",

That’s not my argument. If God has a cause, I simply can’t imagine what it could be.

it can be just as logically argued that matter/energy has no cause.

Even if matter/energy has no cause, it is being generated from somewhere. God is the generator. He set the universe in motion.

 

[Doveaman]

Ok then, matter was always here, it is eternal. Easy, isn't it?

Isn’t matter formed from energy?