Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[fortheloveofmike]

How are those bacteria resistant in the first place? If a drug was administered against a certain type of bacteria, shouldn't it have killed them all?

not if the certain type of bacteria had specific organisms that happened to be immune to them. not all pieces of bacteria are exactly the same.

And how do you get cross breeds? What's the mechanism at work here?

sex you dummy. the two different breeds have sex

Sure it is. Recombination of genetic material to produce a whole new species. What else would you call it?

yeah after they crossbreed two different types of plants. crossbreeding has nothing to do with evolution. thats where two different types of organisms in the same species reproduce together.

At some point in history, a retroviral DNA insertion took place. As the species reproduced, this DNA was passed down for generations, until we end up where we are today. Now, either it shows that the DNA came from a common ancestor between chimps and humans, or it shows that there is a mind-bogglingly unlikely conincidence in the DNA structures between chimps and humans (in other words, multiple retroviral insertions in both species in the same place in their respective genomes).

as much mind-bogglingly unlikely as the chance of the earth being the perfect distance from the sun? or the earth from the moon? or the right mixture of gasses in our atmosphere?
i would guess that all those happened for a reason. because God designed them that way. because God knew what he was doing when he created the earth, and because God has a specific plan and design for everything.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

about your whale legs. ive also heard of frogs with 3 heads, dogs with 5 legs, and snakes with 2 heads. does this mean that frogs mustve evolved from a 3 headed ancestor, or a dog from a 5 legged one? no. its just a rare, freak abnormality.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

not if the certain type of bacteria had specific organisms that happened to be immune to them. not all pieces of bacteria are exactly the same.

And why are not all bacteria in a population the same? What causes some of them to have this "immunity"?

sex you dummy. the two different breeds have sex

If you're going to resort to ad hominems, then I'm not going to waste my time discussing things with you.

But to go back to the question. What is specifically at work here than allows us to 'create' all the various dog breeds. What actually happens in the process? When animals reproduce, what is taking place (in terms of genetics)?

yeah after they crossbreed two different types of plants. crossbreeding has nothing to do with evolution. thats where two different types of organisms in the same species reproduce together.

No, I am referring to cases where two different species of plant hybridized to produce new species.

You can see a few examples in the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ under the section "5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.".

as much mind-bogglingly unlikely as the chance of the earth being the perfect distance from the sun? or the earth from the moon? or the right mixture of gasses in our atmosphere?

Non-sequitur.

i would guess that all those happened for a reason. because God designed them that way. because God knew what he was doing when he created the earth, and because God has a specific plan and design for everything.

That is pretty much the standard creationist response.

Doesn't make much sense for God to stick indentical retroviral DNA insertations in chimps and humans. Unless, of course, He's trying to trick us into thinking we share a common ancestor...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

about your whale legs. ive also heard of frogs with 3 heads, dogs with 5 legs, and snakes with 2 heads. does this mean that frogs mustve evolved from a 3 headed ancestor, or a dog from a 5 legged one? no. its just a rare, freak abnormality.

Why would whales have the genetics to produce legs (specifically, leg bones attached to their pelvis)? They certainly don't need them in the ocean.

 

[troodon]

i find it rather amusing that your "evidence" is merely a magazine article saying that these two species are transitional species.

I'm late, I know, I know. But here you go buddy:
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1997/whale.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/whale_evolution.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1200/19_156/57828404/p3/article.jhtml?term=
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

 

[Aaron11]

Even if a whale had legs, I doubt it could walk. Whales are clumsy. Plus, who would teach it how to walk?

 

[Aaron11]

No for real though, this is the problem with evolution that is most exposable:

Where did the first cell come from?

This is a problem because cells are so amazingly complex that it could not possibly have fallen together that way without some reason behind it.

 

[Megachihuahua]

thats exactly what i said a few pages back, but no. they all insist there is tons of evidence for it. they just keep it locked up in a safe somewhere for their personal pleasure, no one is allowed to see it.

LOL!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No for real though, this is the problem with evolution that is most exposable:

Where did the first cell come from?

This is a problem because cells are so amazingly complex that it could not possibly have fallen together that way without some reason behind it.

The origin of life is not a problem for evolution because evolution does cover the origin of life.

Furthermore, current abiogenesis theories do not suppose that a cell just "fell together" by pure chance. There is a chemical process at work.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Even if a whale had legs, I doubt it could walk. Whales are clumsy. Plus, who would teach it how to walk?

Irrelevant. If a whale is a specially created creature (that is, they appeared on the Earth as whales and were not descended from earlier land mammals), then there is absolutely no reason for whales to grow legs. Why would whales possess genetic material for legs? Where did this DNA come from that caused some whales to grow them?

 

[Megachihuahua]

No for real though, this is the problem with evolution that is most exposable:

Where did the first cell come from?

This is a problem because cells are so amazingly complex that it could not possibly have fallen together that way without some reason behind it.

And, even assuming that the first cell somehow fell toghther, and evolution worked, the odds of getting this far in this amount of time is like rolling six on a die one billion times in a row.

 

[lucaspa]

No for real though, this is the problem with evolution that is most exposable:

Where did the first cell come from?

This is a problem because cells are so amazingly complex that it could not possibly have fallen together that way without some reason behind it.

First, the origin of the first cell is outside the boundaries of biological evolution. What you are doing is using evolution as atheism and then looking for god-of-the-gaps.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

See, Darwin had the first cell being directly created.

However, since then we have found chemistry that will yield the first cell:

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

[Pete Harcoff]

And, even assuming that the first cell somehow fell toghther, and evolution worked, the odds of getting this far in this amount of time is like rolling six on a die one billion times in a row.

The problem with most probability calculations and evolution is they presuppose a single specific outcome and a specific series of steps to get there. However, there is nothing to say that everything on Earth had to turn out exactly the way it did.

 

[lucaspa]

Exactly. This is the kind of behavior someone with a psychological problem engages in; in particular, this is a classic example of someone's denial mechanism going in to overdrive.

Creationism is not a scientific problem; creationism (in particular, young earth creationism) has been disproven a long time ago. It is a psychological problem.

The answer to creationism is to look at psychology textbooks and see what those books say about treating someone in denial.

- Sam

Hmmm. A novel approach. What DO the textbooks say?

 

[lucaspa]

And to your second statement, let me ask you if you can honestly say you don't have strong opinions about things of which you are ignorant? Honestly, now.

Honestly? No. After the first 2 months of graduate school you learn better.

Also, scientists are trained to withold judgement until the data is in. To have a strong opinion is to pass judgement before the data is in.

And I have said that I try and abstain from posting where I am not credible, but the issue here is that you would find things that I am convinced of being credible incredible--because of differing beliefs.

And what would those be? I suspect you are going to be surprised.

Would you rather this forum be only for scientists?

I'd rather you take the time to test your claims before posting them as fact. If you want to post your opinions as tentative, then all you have to do is use the appropriate qualifications to indicate the tentativeness.

But that doesn't mean you are always right, even in this forum (to which I believe you would conced.

Not "would conceed", but past tense -- have conceded. I have used the phrase "I stand corrected" more than once. It's a handy phrase.

 

[lucaspa]

Okay, I should of just used "burden" and left off the "of proof".

If a person makes a claim that X is true, and another person responds with that Y & Z show X to be false, then the burden is on the person claiming X is true to show that Y & Z do not show X to be false. If the person saying X is true is unwilling to do so, then they should not expect anyone else to think that X is true, in light of Y & Z.

Yes. I would not have used "burden", but you have the sequence.

For those listening, science has an old earth. That's "X". Two of the arguments advanced against an old earth is a decaying magnetic field and erosion of continents. Those are Y and Z. So it then becomes necessary to show why Y and Z are mistaken. Which has been done.

In reality, when you look thru the evolutionist respondents to creationism -- such as talkorigins -- creationist claims purporting to refute evolution are taken quite seriously and great effort is taken to test and refute the supposed refutations.

Unfortunately, Pete, what you are saying is that the same care is not often taken at creationist websites or here. Many Y and Zs are never addressed. This SHOULD indicate that the original X claim is wrong. But then we see it made again by the same people as tho Y and Z don't exist.

 

[lucaspa]

Yep. Never seem to answer my questions about why it's stupid, just change the subject.
Example:
I: Feathers are made of thousands of tiny hooks and there are four kinds and occasonally a fifth, but scales are smooth, and are there for armor.

Before the crash I had a thread on this. There is an article in the March 2003 issue of Scientific American that discusses in detail the evolution of feathers from scales. It deals with all the issues you raised. RO Prum and AH Brush, Which came first, the feather or the bird? Scientific American, March 20003, 84-92

There is also this paper: Science 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41 Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosis and scale formation. From the Abstract: " Expression of dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigital apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformed into feathers. "

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, Genesis chapter 2 is not a different account of creation. It is a more detailed account of day six of creation. Chapter 1 is an overview of the whole of creation, chapter 2 gives details surrounding the creation of the garden, the first man, and his activities on day six.

This is the common rebuttal, but I submit it doesn't stand examination.

In Genesis 1, all the birds and animals are created one or two days BEFORE people. In Genesis 2, Adam is created first, THEN all the animals and birds (to be a helpmeet for him), and then Eve. Different stories.

Divorce does occur even with Christians like everybody else, but there are special circumstances for divorce, when adultery is involved. If there are no circumstances as such then it brings a curse with it, just like any other covenant breaking.

Then your logic of disregarding one part of the Bible means disregarding all of it doesn't hold. Mark 10 doesn't make exceptions as I recall.

The point remains, Alessandro, is that the principle of all-or-nothing regarding taking the Bible isn't used even by those professing it. It's a flawed position.

 

[lucaspa]

Anyway, the latest thing I've learned is that God sends Evolution to the unrighteous as their strong delusion (II Thess 2:11). Now, if my Father sends a strong delusion, why would I think that I can remove it?

Kenneth, have you read the whole chapter?

Chapter 2 starts with "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to be with him: I beg you brothers, not to be so easily confused in your thinking or upset by the claim that the Day of the Lord has come."

So Paul is NOT talking about evolution, but about the conditions that have to be present for the Day of the Lord to come.

Now, to get closer to the verse, let's go to verse 5: "Don't you remember? I told you all this while I was with you. Yet there is something which keeps this from happening now, and you know what it is. At the proper time, then, the Wicked One will appear."

Now to verse 9: "The Wicked One will come with the power of Satan and perform all kinds of false miracles and wonders, and use every kind of wicked deceit on those who will perish. They will perish because they did not welcome and love the truth so as to be saved. And so God sends the power of error to work in them so they believe what is false."

Not referring to evolution, but a "Wicked One" that will perform false miracles and wonders. That doesn't fit evolution. It fits what the Jewish people thought of as Satan.

The "delusion" you have been fed, Kenneth, is that the verse refers to evolution.

Notice when we say that creationISM has been shown to be false. I submit that the verse refers to the professional creationists that they continue to believe what is false -- creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

God doesn't say evolution is or isn't the delusion. Think about it, though - believing in evolution is the foundation of unbelief in God. Can you think of a stronger delusion causing unbelievers to not believe?

Yes. Creationism. Kenneth, evolution ALLOWS atheisms, but it doesn't COMPEL it. Even creationists see this. Philip Johnson writes:
"The blind watchmaker thesis makes it *possible* to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a creator who works through natural selection." Phillip Johnson Reason in the Balance, pg. 73

What creationism requires is that we reject God's Creation. It also demands that you accept the basic statement of faith of atheism: that what is "natural" is without God.

By saying that evolution is atheism, creationists drive people away from Christianity. Forced to accept evidence they can see or falsified claims of creationists, people are going to choose what they can see. Everyone does. But creationists say to do this means you can't be Christian. So people are driven out of Christianity by creationism.

As if God only gave us a Bible rough draft and needs our finishing touches to correct His mistakes.

God also gave us a SECOND BOOK: Creation. Why do Biblical literalists turn their back on that and decide to worship their literal interpretation of the Bible?

The Bible is to teach us the WHO and WHY of creation. Creation itself teaches us the HOW.