Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[Pete Harcoff]

Here are a few:
http://www.christianforums.com/t43227&highlight=transitional

NO! I beat Pete to it. Ha!

Darn you troodon! *shakes fist*

 

[Philostratus]

Philo: methinks you should do some actual research into the process of evolution, rather than limiting yourself to studying only creationist propaganda.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

or you could toss everyone you know into a lake, make them grow gills. we did come from fish, afterall, it should be pretty simple to go back.

 

[Philostratus]

fortheloveofmike: because you lack an understanding of evolution, does not mean you have falsified it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is a joke. The HUGE number of beneficial mutations required to change a 4-toed horse into a 1-toed horse, for instance, baffles the mind.

And how many would that be? Using vague qualifiers does not help your case.

Can you imagine the speciation issues one would run into between 4-toes and 3-toes, and so on? Do you understand the concept of a mule? Well, imagine thousands of mules suddenly popping up in a population group. If you want to get really creative, you can imagine them surviving.

I have no idea what you are describing here. What speciation issues? Why would there suddenly be thousands of mules popping up in a population group? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

But you have to get really creative.

Someone is sure getting creative here.

This doesn't even begin to touch on the problem of biogenesis. That's where evolution really falls apart, whereas macroevolution is simply an easy target for all its inconsistancy.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. And macroevolution is simply evolution between species. And that has already been observed.

If you don't believe me, we can engage in an experiment. Simply start setting everyone you meet on the street on fire. This should provoke a latent "fireproof" trait into manifesting itself, and thus humanity should evolve into being fireproof. That's how this works, right?

Actually, your satirical caricature is not that far off from natural selection. If a number of organisms were subjected to being lit on fire, those with, as you put it, a "fireproof trait" would go on to survive, while the rest would die off. Hence, all you'd be left over with would be "fireproof" species (but who is say what trait or combination of traits this "fireproofing" would consist of). Of course, you'd probably wipe out ample species in the process. And then in the distant future, people would be wondering why all the species are fireproof and declare that an intelligent creator must have made them all that way.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

how about this for a lack of understanding, philostratus: biogenesis states that every living being comes from another living being. now, life hasnt existed eternally according to evolution. and also, according to evolution there is no supernatural. so please can you explain to me where the first life came from? i dont think you can. this is where "science" (evolution) contradicts with REAL SCIENCE, and evolutionists become puzzled. some may try to argue this point, others like to shove it under the rug with all the other unexplainable points creationists come up with.

 

[Sophismata]

or you could toss everyone you know into a lake, make them grow gills. we did come from fish, afterall, it should be pretty simple to go back.

Philo: methinks you should do some actual research into the process of evolution, rather than limiting yourself to studying only creationist propaganda.

Quoted for emphasis.

"it should be pretty simple to go back." evolving from fish was hardly a simple process and similarly "going back", wouldn't be either. Lots of genetic engineering would be required or generations, after generations, after generations of crossbreeding those who are best fit to survive underwater because there is no evolutionary pressure to go back to the water inasmuch as human populations aren't that crowded yet.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

how about this for a lack of understanding, philostratus: biogenesis states that every living being comes from another living being. now, life hasnt existed eternally according to evolution. and also, according to evolution there is no supernatural. so please can you explain to me where the first life came from? i dont think you can. this is where "science" (evolution) contradicts with REAL SCIENCE, and evolutionists become puzzled. some may try to argue this point, others like to shove it under the rug with all the other unexplainable points creationists come up with.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

And lucaspa started up a thread on the very subject of the origin of life from non-life: http://www.christianforums.com/t49314

Isn't that nice?

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I have no idea what you are describing here. What speciation issues? Why would there suddenly be thousands of mules popping up in a population group? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Someone is sure getting creative here.

how do reptiles turn into birds? why would there suddenly be thousands of birds? do you have any idea what you are talking about?
someone sure is getting creative here.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

well for evolution to have taken place, obviously life had to have come into existence. im just asking you how that happened. i mean, for evolution to even have a chance, that has to be explained first and foremost.

 

[tailfeather]

it is obvious that a fish jumped out of the water, seeing as he was bored of swimming, and decided to be a lizard. Then whe he got tired of that he thought that being an ape would be cool, so he did it, and then got real smart, now theres humans! now even though this was simply a guess and there isn't any physical proof, we should believe it ,huh.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Quoted for emphasis.

"it should be pretty simple to go back." evolving from fish was hardly a simple process and similarly "going back", wouldn't be either. Lots of genetic engineering would be required or generations, after generations, after generations of crossbreeding those who are best fit to survive underwater because there is no evolutionary pressure to go back to the water inasmuch as human populations aren't that crowded yet.

we werent being serious. we were mocking evolutionists. sorry if you got confused.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

well for evolution to have taken place, obviously life had to have come into existence. im just asking you how that happened. i mean, for evolution to even have a chance, that has to be explained first and foremost.

It doesn't matter where life came from. It could have been zapped into existence by a diety, or painstakingly form over millions of years via chemical reactions.

As long as life exists and reproduces, evolution will occur.

And I pointed you to a thread in which that topic is being discussed.

 

[Philostratus]

Welcome to the boards, tailfeather!

Woefully poor descriptions of the evolutionary process do nothing to falsify it.

 

[Sophismata]

I think fortheloveofmike is a troll, not sure. If he's not, fortheloveofmike, for your own sake, please read up on evolutionary biology before you come here and start to ask questions like "how do reptiles turn into birds? why would there suddenly be thousands of birds?"

 

[tailfeather]

i set a couple people on fire, it doesnt work your right.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I think fortheloveofmike is a troll, not sure. If he's not, fortheloveofmike, for your own sake, please read up on evolutionary biology before you come here and start to ask questions like "how do reptiles turn into birds? why would there suddenly be thousands of birds?"

it was a joke, guy.

 

[tailfeather]

sophismata, you are retarded, its obvious that trolls have never existed

 

[troodon]

how do reptiles turn into birds?

Well, reptiles evolved into dinosaurs during the middle Triassic and theropod dinosaurs (arboreal or terrestrial, we know not) evolved into birds in the early to middle Jurassic. I can detail the scenarios if you like.

why would there suddenly be thousands of birds?

There weren't. We only know of 1 species of bird that predates the Cretaceous, we only have 3-4 from the early Cretaceous. We don't get a wide variety of birds until the Late Cretaceous. Nice job making stuff up there, though.

do you have any idea what you are talking about?

I assure you I do

it is obvious that a fish jumped out of the water, seeing as he was bored of swimming, and decided to be a lizard. Then whe he got tired of that he thought that being an ape would be cool, so he did it, and then got real smart, now theres humans! now even though this was simply a guess and there isn't any physical proof, we should believe it ,huh.

If you honestly believe that this is a description of evolution then I cringe to think what kind of education you have received

 

[Pete Harcoff]

For the newcomers:

Read Introduction to Evolutionary Biology over at talk.origins. At the very least, have a glance at the first three sections (What is Evolution?, Common Misconceptions about Evolution and Genetic Variation). That should help clear up some of the misconceptions people seem to be working with here.