Atavisms

[AV1611VET]

However, so far you have not brought anything to the table, other than stating that you don't need to defend your position.

Excuse me, Raithie, that's bologna.

Even science recognizes nothing as something; and I'll state this again:

There were no atavisms present when creation was finished.

And saying there were no atavisms is not the same thing as saying I don't need to defend my position.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

There were no atavisms present when creation was finished.

And saying there were no atavisms is not the same thing as saying I don't need to defend my position.

So as raithie asked:

If you're willing to explain to me how atavisms would fit in with your beliefs (why they're there etc.), I'm all ears.

Where do you fit them into your version of reality?

 

[Raithie]

Excuse me, Raithie, that's bologna.

Even science recognizes nothing as something; and I'll state this again:

There were no atavisms present when creation was finished.

And saying there were no atavisms is not the same thing as saying I don't need to defend my position.

That's the first time you've actually said something related, and it still doesn't answer the OP or what I've been asking in almost every reply. Atavisms, reversions to the ancestral type, are here today. If you reject evolution, why are they here today?

Some of the things you "offered"...
"Creationism has nothing to do with evolution and all its little peculiarities."
"I'm not obligated to accept any science that contradicts the Bible"

There. That's what you contributed prior to your post above, as well as some meandering about ID. Atleast now we're on topic.

So, if you believe that God designed us 6-10k years ago as we are today, why are there atavisms present today? They're quite distinct features and fall perfectly into evolutionary predictions. I'm interested in why you think they're here today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do you fit them into your version of reality?

I don't.

I never heard of them until I came here.

And since it's not my job to mess with atavisms -- I don't.

I'll let you guys fit these atavisms wherever you care to place them, and if they don't violate my Boolean standards or my Prime Directive, I'll probably accept your conclusion on them.

 

[Tomatoman]

Well, off the top of my head I can think of people born with hair all over their bodies, people with webbed toes, people with tails etc. A quick look at wiki adds extra nipples and enlarged ape-like canine teeth.

How do those fit in with your alternate version of reality, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do you fit them into your version of reality?

So now that I answer you honestly -- you reciprocate with this?

How do those fit in with your alternate version of reality, AV?

And you expect me to dignify this with an answer?

Take the science inquisition elsewhere, please.

 

[Tomatoman]

Your version of reality doesn't acknowledge atavisms, AV. I'd call that alternate, wouldn't you?

Take the science inquisition elsewhere, please.

Somewhere other than the creation-evolution forum? You don't like being skewered do you? You much prefer wriggling and dodging with semantic games. When all else fails you just blank the question.

And:

You still haven't answered the question.

How would you explain it if your child displayed a prominent atavistic trait?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your version of reality doesn't acknowledge atavisms, AV.

Why should it?

Any attempt to retrofit atavisms into the Creation Week should be denied by even a 5 year old.

You don't like being skewered do you?

I guarantee you, Tomatoman, I'm not the one who is looking ignorant here.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

I guarantee you, Tomatoman, I'm not the one who is looking ignorant here.

I'd be more impressed if you answered this question:

How would you explain it if your child displayed a prominent atavistic trait?

 

[Golden Yak]

Why should it?

Any attempt to retrofit atavisms into the Creation Week should be denied by even a 5 year old.

The OP is asking about atavisms in relation to creationism in general, not specifically the week of creation.

Essentially the question is 'if animals are descended from special creations that evolution cannot change significantly, why do some animals occasionally display atavisms, which seem to indicate a complex evolutionary history.'

 

[Raithie]

Silence. How unsurprising.

Sigh.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know some are just dying to pull me out of Genesis 1, so they can add some validity to this thread, so I'll stray out just a little.

But if it gets too hot, I'm retreating back to Genesis 1.

Essentially the question is 'if animals are descended from special creations that evolution cannot change significantly, why do some animals occasionally display atavisms, which seem to indicate a complex evolutionary history.'

Assuming these atavisms are what you guys are guessing they are, perhaps the gene pool was messed up by the fallen angels of Genesis 6 performing genetic engineering?

(And I don't wish to elaborate further with questions by those who automatically dismiss my point, designing questions to fail my point. I'd much rather stay within the confines of the Creation Week, since creationists were targeted in the OP.)

 

[Golden Yak]

Assuming these atavisms are what you guys are guessing they are, perhaps the gene pool was messed up by the fallen angels of Genesis 6 performing genetic engineering?

If atavisms are 'what we're guessing they are', then it obviously wouldn't be that.

Fallen angels using genetic engineering to unleash horrible mutants upon mankind sounds more interesting, though.

I'd much rather stay within the confines of the Creation Week, since creationists were targeted in the OP.)

The question has nothing to do with the story of creation. Regardless of whether atavisms did or did not occur during the Creation Week, they happen now, in the present day. The OP is asking creationists to explain them.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question has nothing to do with the story of creation. Regardless of whether atavisms did or did not occur during the Creation Week, they happen now, in the present day. The OP is asking creationists to explain them.

Ya -- and I'd like an auto mechanic to explain why currents drift clockwise in the N hemisphere and counterclockwise in the S hemisphere.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

1.3 MILLION posts from the triangle since June 2006?

Wow!

 

[AV1611VET]

1.3 MILLION posts from the triangle since June 2006?

Wow!

-- thank you.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

-- thank you.

(And it's 1.3 from the rectangle -- )

Yep, corrected it between post.

 

[theFijian]

Yep, corrected it between post.

I thought you maybe meant the Bermuda triangle, would certainly explain some of the weird goings on round here

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought you maybe meant the Bermuda triangle...

He did mean the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[theFijian]

He did mean the Bermuda Triangle.

Ah ok, the rectangle chat got me confused.