A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[RickG]

And here is a link to the post where justlookinla agreed to learn what evidence is:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/#post65821185

He agreed to learn what evidence is before evidence was given to him. And that is only reasonable. A child may not know the difference between Monopoly money and real money. To him they are both pieces of paper. Money has no value to him until he learns what it is. In the same way evidence will have no value to justlookinla until he learns what is and what is not evidence.

Excellent analogy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh ho. I see my error. That little cross with a heart behind it means "donate blessings" and not christian.

I was wondering why some were overlooking scripture as if the words of Jesus's & Peter's testifying to a global flood does not mean anything to them.

Incidentally, people see what they want to see and ignore that which opposes their set beliefs, and that includes you, because evidence has been given that opposes & disproves evolution, and so there you are.

If you are not looking for the truth when your mind is made up, then all you are going to see is microevolution is macroevolution when given enough time which is an assumption that goes against the law of biogenesis.

I was talking to a certain individual in particular who hasn't presented any evidence.

 

[USincognito]

There's not even a molehill of evidence for the creationist view that all of life is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

As I said, in blue, in the very post you responded to:

Continuing to spam a made up definition for a made up phrase might make you feel better in your own mind, but won't change us here in the real world one bit. Continuing to spam mash-ups of falsehoods (there is literally mountains of evidence for evolution) with more of your made up definitions ("creationist view") simply make you look foolish.

Bolded for emphasis, though I doubt that will make a difference.

 

[USincognito]

No, let's see your "literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution". Again, the request is concerning the view that all of life we observe today is the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long ago.

Simply offer a bit of the "mountains of evidence" for the creation of all of life from a single life form only, completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms. You made the claim, now prove it.

The fact that you keep couching your request in terms that allow you to wriggle out of acknowledging the evidences as such demonstrates that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[USincognito]

Ok, as long as your "mountain of evidence" isn't based on guesses and suppositions, might be's, could be's, possibly's and maybe's. That's all the 'evidence' I've seen from Darwinist creationists.

More dishonesty and yet another example of him couching his phrasing so that he has an escape clause when presented with the evidence. A very dishonest tactic, but one sadly typical of Creationists... see Kent Hovind's bazillion dollar challenge.

 

[USincognito]

Actually, it has been established one way but not altogether.

The UnMuseum: Case of the Humanzee

Seriously? The Unmuseum? What, was Giorgio A. Tsoukalos* not availible?

Oliver was not a "humanzee". He was a regular P. troglodytes.
Technical note: Chromosomal and mtDNA analysis of Oliver - Ely - 1998 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

We performed standard chromosomal studies which demonstrated that Oliver had the diploid number expected for a chimpanzee (2N = 48) and that the banding patterns of his chromosomes were typical for a chimpanzee and different from both humans and bonobos. We also sequenced a 312 bp region of his mitochondrial DNA D-loop region. Results indicated a high sequence homology to the Central African variety of chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes troglodytes.​

*reference explained

 

[USincognito]

Thanks for sharing your research of information for the progress of the discussion; however, do note the emboldened portion of your quote for future reference as you read on.

Now please note the emboldened portion of your quote of what macroevolution actually is.

Now see how your recap opposes itself as per the definition of what macroevolution actually is as per your above quote.

What are you talking about? The first definition refers to the changes in genetic prevalence within a particular population. That is, in a population, mutations will cause one type of gene to be found more frequently over time within that population. The second definition refers to the changes in genetic prevalence in different populations. That is, as mutations build up within populations (micro) we will observe greater difference and differentiation of characteristics between populations (macro).

How the heck are those definitions supposed to oppose each other when they're perfectly complimentary?

 

[USincognito]

No, because in cows, you can create a different kind of cow by crossbreeding just as one can create a hybrid rose as the saying goes, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

No interbreeding can be proof of macroevolution when the results can still breed and with its former species too. It is hardly befitting the definition of macroevolution.

Bold for emphasis: Evolution doesn't occur through hybridization! Evolution occurs when just the opposite happens - when populations are separated long enough to build up enough mutations that they no longer can interbreed.

 

[USincognito]

Speculations on the fossil records given in an evolutionary viewpoint under the assumption that they are transitional are hardly tons of evidence.

Using magic words like "speculations" and "assumption" doesn't make the fossil evidence go away.

You do know that there are different number of chromosomes as well as different sizes and shapes of chromosomes in insects and larger animals and even in comparison of apes to humans, that they decry the evolution tree of life in its testimony of life becoming more complex over time?

This sentence is gibberish. Genomic size has nothing to do with "complexity". Complexity (and I prefer not to use that word, I use the more correct "derived" {as opposed to "basal"}) is determined by phenotype, not genotype.

From Bing Dictionary:

If you wish to be taken seriously, I'd avoid using dictionary definitions and use scientific ones instead.

So Darwinian creationism does exist...

Only in the minds of Creationists.

...& it takes as much faith, and even moreso when it goes against the laws of science; mainly the law of biogenesis & the 1st law of thermodynamics & the second law of thermodynamics when Time's arrow is pointing life as going downward as in breaking down; not building up as Evolutionary's time arrow suggests.

More gibberish.

 

[USincognito]

Are you ready to give a small shovel full of this "mountains of evidence" you claim you have for the Darwinist creationist view that all of life we observe today is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? Remember, that's the evidence you claim you have, don't attempt to change the focus from that particular creationist view.

Lie. Typical dishonesty on your part. SZ never agreed to your straw man "requirements".

 

[USincognito]

You keep making the same claims, that's trolling too, isn't it?

No, it isn't. You might want to learn what trolling is after you learn what evidence is.

 

[Tellastory]

You're posing very good points.

As it is on God to cause the increase, I am glad you see them, brother, however, it should be pointed out how even athiestic evolutionists can oppose themselves and do not even know it. Example below.

Wrong. You may disagree with how the evidence is interpreted, but then the onus is upon you to show that that interpretation is wrong. I get tired of creationists claiming "there is no evidence for evolution" when it is of course the other way around. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, there is no scientific evidence for creation. And the second is largely the fault of creation "scientists".

What!? Of course I am willing to follow this. In fact the theory of evolution follows these guidelines to a T.

To a T he says. What is quoted next from him disproves macro evolution.

Again, simply wrong. By the way, evolution believes that kind always will generate the same kind. It seems that you do not even understand the theory that you are trying to argue against. In evolution it is sometime called the Law of Clades. It is rather obvious that the descendants of a species will always be in the same clade:


Clade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet somehow, after a series of microevolution, at some point in time, which is not observed nor proven, macroevolution occurs, but the law of Clade which is not all that different from the law of biogenesis says no macroevolution is even possible.

You have failed to show that anything is impossible. You have only demonstrated your ignorance of very basic science. It is your claim that so called "macro-evolution" is impossible. We can show that it happened with several lines of evidence. You have not presented anything except for your babbling that illustrates a complete misunderstanding of science.

And so as you see, my brother, justlookinla, our opposer, Subduction Zone, proved macroevolution is impossible all by himself. I cannot see how he can compromise the two contrary quotes he has made, and more than likely, he will not see them as contrary at all. It really is on God to open their eyes to the truth. but if they are not seeking it with their minds made up, then they will not be able to discern the hypocrisies in evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As it is on God to cause the increase, I am glad you see them, brother, however, it should be pointed out how even athiestic evolutionists can oppose themselves and do not even know it. Example below.



To a T he says. What is quoted next from him disproves macro evolution.



And yet somehow, after a series of microevolution, at some point in time, which is not observed nor proven, macroevolution occurs, but the law of Clade which is not all that different from the law of biogenesis says no macroevolution is even possible.



And so as you see, my brother, justlookinla, our opposer, Subduction Zone, proved macroevolution is impossible all by himself. I cannot see how he can compromise the two contrary quotes he has made, and more than likely, he will not see them as contrary at all. It really is on God to open their eyes to the truth. but if they are not seeking it with their minds made up, then they will not be able to discern the hypocrisies in evolution.

Oh my!! Breaking the Ninth Commandment. You do realize that you just lied about me, don't you? Or perhaps even worse you are committing the sin of arguing a topic that you do not understand. I did not make any contrary quotes.

 

[sfs]

And yet somehow, after a series of microevolution, at some point in time, which is not observed nor proven, macroevolution occurs, but the law of Clade which is not all that different from the law of biogenesis says no macroevolution is even possible.

You do realize that all of life forms a single clade, don't you? Nothing he said in any way suggests that macroevolution can't occur.

And so as you see, my brother, justlookinla, our opposer, Subduction Zone, proved macroevolution is impossible all by himself. I cannot see how he can compromise the two contrary quotes he has made, and more than likely, he will not see them as contrary at all. It really is on God to open their eyes to the truth. but if they are not seeking it with their minds made up, then they will not be able to discern the hypocrisies in evolution.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[lasthero]

What in the name of all that is good and righteous is the 'law of clade'?

 

[USincognito]

What in the name of all that is good and righteous is the 'law of clade'?

It's Tellastory's misapprehension of what Subduction Zone was referring to - that beings are members of X clade because they share a common ancestor with other members of X clade, the same for Y clade, Z clade, etc. I've never heard of The Law of Clades before, but SZ did qualify his comment by noting this concept is sometimes referred to as such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's Tellastory's misapprehension of what Subduction Zone was referring to - that beings are members of X clade because they share a common ancestor with other members of X clade, the same for Y clade, Z clade, etc. I've never heard of The Law of Clades before, but SZ did qualify his comment by noting this concept is sometimes referred to as such.

I believe that Aron Ra has mentioned the "Law of Clades". It is not a widely used term, but it describes something that is fairly obvious to any biologist. Once a species can be defined as being in a clade all of its progeny will belong in the same clade. Also species cannot evolve from one clade to another. In other words dogs cannot evolve to be cats and vice versa. The offspring of a dog will always be a dog. And that is why we know that humans, snakes, and salamanders all belong to the clade of bony fishes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words the theory of evolution supports the idea of a kind only giving rise to other animals of the same kind. The biological definition of kind or clade is works. I have yet to see a creationist come up with a working definition of "kind". They cannot mention any tests to see if two species are of the same kind or not that is consistent. The biological definition of clade is consistent.

 

[RickG]

In other words the theory of evolution supports the idea of a kind only giving rise to other animals of the same kind. The biological definition of kind or clade is works. I have yet to see a creationist come up with a working definition of "kind". They cannot mention any tests to see if two species are of the same kind or not that is consistent. The biological definition of clade is consistent.

Well, there are all kinds of dogs. Maybe they mean breed.

 

[justlookinla]

Ok, back and as I expected nothing as far as evidence that all life we observe today is solely and completely by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I can honestly say that I was expecting as much.