Evolution/Creation on Trial

[pat34lee]

Because they don't. Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. No human designs fall into a nested hierarchy.

Humans also do not create. They build or design, using forms already in nature. As for heirarchies, explain the duck-billed platypus or spiny anteater. Where do giants fit in, since nearly every animal has gone through a giant stage, including man?

Also, it makes zero sense from a design standpoint. If you have designed the mammalian middle ear with these three little tiny bones that works really well, why wouldn't you use it elsewhere? Why would a designer be limited to using this middle ear only in species that also had the ability to produce milk? How does that make sense?

If the mammalians are the higher life forms, why bother with creating lower forms? Because variety was the purpose. This world and universe were created to be explored and to remind us just who created it.

We don't assume any direct relatedness. Rather, the theory of evolution makes predictions about mixtures of physical features in fossils. It predicts that if we find fossils that have human features in them that they should also have less derived ape features. This is exactly what we find. We find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. We DON'T find mixtures of features that the theory of evolution predicts we shouldn't see, such as fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

Sorry, but that is not quite true. You either have ape features or human features, because you have one or the other. Most 'hybrid' skulls have been proven fakes over the years. Others are human only in the eyes of the wishful.

 

[pat34lee]

Supposed problems:

So as you can see, none of those are problems.

Of the supposed solutions, how many were verified from origin to today? None. Just so stories.

Speaking of light speed, it is only constant in a vacuum. Space is not even close to a perfect vacuum.

 

[bhsmte]

Many who call themselves Christians don't believe the bible. How they can claim to believe God and think he's a liar is beyond me.



Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of common design? Everything was designed to fill a notch in a single ecosystem; earth.



Ad hominem, poisoning the well. Deal with the facts, not the guy writing them. If you can't, concede the point.

Probably because those Christians you mentioned, know man wrote the bible, not God.

 

[pat34lee]

Does this DNA sequence have a secret code?
Who wrote the code? Who is it written to? What does it mean?

SETI would be thrilled if they got any seemingly non-random pattern from space. Here, we have a base-4 code more complex than any computer program built in to all life forms, including the tiniest and least complex, and scientists delude themselves into thinking it is purely accidental, made by random forces. We are incapable of creating anything as complex as a living cell, and they continue to promote the idea that there are any simple life forms.

 

[paulm50]

I'm amused when people dogmatically claim they know what happen 100+ million years ago .

Common sense vs nonsense.

It misses so many obvious points it's comical. It then presupposes that what did happen didn't. And never offers an alternative.

If Creation is right, a god like being lived on Earth constantly changing and morphing the creatures here. Over the course of billions of years. Even this clip proves Creation wrong, that was based on the 6 day story. They had to change that in the face of overwhelming evidence. Now the clip shows 100s of millions of years. And still supposes jumps, not gradual adaptation.

I'm amused when people dogmatically claim they know what happen 100+ million years ago. With zero evidence they're right and a lot of evidence they're wrong.

Now prove Creation, in all the steps over 500 million years. Making it easy for you.

 

[paulm50]

Probably because those Christians you mentioned, know man wrote the bible, not God.

Both the OT and NT were written for political purposes in a time of need. Like when the Cardinals claim they spent a lot of time praying and elected the right Pope guided by god. We know it was a political decision.

 

[The Cadet]

Here is why evolutionist are afraid of the results produce by ENCODE.
Here is a quote from Dan Graur:
"If the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA as implied by the ENCODE project, then a long,undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, then all DNA, or as much as possible, is expected to exhibit function. If ENCODE is right, then Evolution is wrong."

The best evidence against evolution comes from evolutionist.

As usual, when a creationist quotes someone, the best solution is to check the source.


The "problem" usually resolves itself. Graur may be right that the 2012 results of ENCODE would be a problem for evolution. It almost certainly would be a problem for much of our understanding of genetics. 80% functional genome? That's an insanely high number, completely out of line with all of the rest of nature and with much of what we understand in genetics. Of course, the problem here is that Graur's presentation, where he made that quote, is tearing down ENCODE. He (like a great many other scientists) thinks that ENCODE's 2012 result is a load of crap. From a mere five slides later (slide 21) in the presentation:

How did ENCODE reach the conclusion that 80% of the human genome is functional, when the evidence for selection constraint is ~5%?

•  Equating hype with science.  
  
• Wrong experimental systems.  
• Inappropriate statistical analyses.
  
• A peculiar definition of function. 
  
• A peculiar definition of junk.  
  
• A lack of evolutionary perspective.  
  
• A lack of objectivity about the study organism.  
  
• Ignorance of everything that came before ENCODE.

In fact, in slide 126, he goes so far as to say that it is impossible that ENCODE's results are accurate due to effective population sizes.

Grauer's statements are not particularly impressive given how widely ENCODE 2012 has been criticized. You should watch the whole presentation, rather than just taking individual snippets from it that seem to support your view. You might learn something.

Let's test that theory with the evolutionists.

...And then not a single cite actually refutes my argument (because it can't, because it's a very basic principle of information theory). I don't think you understood what I was saying.

 

[lasthero]

As for heirarchies, explain the duck-billed platypus or spiny anteater.

What's to explain? Nothing about either of these creatures violates the hierarchy. They might have some features that superficially LOOK like those found in other creatures, but there's a difference between looking like something and actually being like something

 

[paulm50]

Finding a few flaws in Evolution, doesn't prove Creation.

According to the Creation theory, none of the flaws, or the species/elements that have the flaw. Should even exist. There was no experimentation, no trial and error, no evolution. It was all created once by a a creator.

The problem for Creationists, is that's so illogical with 21st Century knowledge. They can't offer it, so have to go find flaws in the other sides proof. Therebye, confirming the proof exists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It misses so many obvious points it's comical. It then presupposes that what did happen didn't. And never offers an alternative.

It misses what points? I assume you mean evolution...evolution happened it allowed for life to adapt and change to its environment. The alternative is not an alternative, you seem to be under the false assumption that if evolution happened God doesn't exist and if God existed evolution would not have happened.

If Creation is right, a god like being lived on Earth constantly changing and morphing the creatures here. Over the course of billions of years. Even this clip proves Creation wrong, that was based on the 6 day story. They had to change that in the face of overwhelming evidence. Now the clip shows 100s of millions of years. And still supposes jumps, not gradual adaptation.

How can you know that Creation is wrong when you don't understand what that even means. It doesn't mean that a "god" like being lived on Earth constantly changing and morphing the creatures here. I believe we are going to find that life on this planet is engineered for change and in fact, that concept has support by Scientific experiments done already.

In TOE life jumps and is not the gradual adaptation that Darwin proposed. Even Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't supply explanation for how fast some things had to evolve.

I'm amused when people dogmatically claim they know what happen 100+ million years ago. With zero evidence they're right and a lot of evidence they're wrong.

Now prove Creation, in all the steps over 500 million years. Making it easy for you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Both the OT and NT were written for political purposes in a time of need. Like when the Cardinals claim they spent a lot of time praying and elected the right Pope guided by god. We know it was a political decision.

Would you like to back that up with some evidence that the OT and NT were written for political purposes in a time of need?

 

[The Cadet]

In TOE life jumps and is not the gradual adaptation that Darwin proposed. Even Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't supply explanation for how fast some things had to evolve.

Care to provide any examples, so we know what you're talking about?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Finding a few flaws in Evolution, doesn't prove Creation.

According to the Creation theory, none of the flaws, or the species/elements that have the flaw. Should even exist. There was no experimentation, no trial and error, no evolution. It was all created once by a a creator.

False. The Genesis Narrative even states that life forms (kinds) came before the Kinds being presented in the Narrative.

The problem for Creationists, is that's so illogical with 21st Century knowledge. They can't offer it, so have to go find flaws in the other sides proof. Therebye, confirming the proof exists.

The proof is in all those things that materialists like to claim are illusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Care to provide any examples, so we know what you're talking about?

The whale for one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What's to explain? Nothing about either of these creatures violates the hierarchy. They might have some features that superficially LOOK like those found in other creatures, but there's a difference between looking like something and actually being like something

You do realize that their genetic makeup is just as strange as their "superficial" looks right?

 

[The Cadet]

The whale for one.

The whale had at a bare minimum 55 million years to evolve from entirely land-based (hippo-like) mammals. No peer-reviewed science publication has ever made the case that this is somehow "not enough time" for this change to happen. I understand this is a common claim among the intelligent design community, but it is not backed up by any published science.

 

[paulm50]

It misses what points? I assume you mean evolution...evolution happened it allowed for life to adapt and change to its environment. The alternative is not an alternative, you seem to be under the false assumption that if evolution happened God doesn't exist and if God existed evolution would not have happened.

Quite the opposite, I'm ready to accept a god and creation. If you can prove it with even a little bit of evidence, not by disproving parts of evolution.

Maybe a god kicked it all off, maybe a god came back, or lived here and spent his time tweaking species that lived on Earth. One thing's for sure. It has nothing to do with the bible.

How can you know that Creation is wrong when you don't understand what that even means. It doesn't mean that a "god" like being lived on Earth constantly changing and morphing the creatures here. I believe we are going to find that life on this planet is engineered for change and in fact, that concept has support by Scientific experiments done already.

You believe we are going to find. When we do, the books will be re written.

As we are finding more proof of evolution, it's more than likely less will believe in Creation. So if a god didn't kick it off, didn't spend a billion years constantly updating the life on Earth. How is it that life on Earth keeps changing without evolution fitting nature?

In TOE life jumps and is not the gradual adaptation that Darwin proposed. Even Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't supply explanation for how fast some things had to evolve.

Wrong. The jumps you propose is because of the scarcity of the older fossil. As we get to the last million years, the gaps are shorter, last 500,000 closer still.

 

[paulm50]

Would you like to back that up with some evidence that the OT and NT were written for political purposes in a time of need?

The Jews compiled the OT while in Bondage in Babylon. Constantine was compiling the NT at a time of the old gods falling in popularity, the new Christian religion was very spilt and he needed to bring it together.

Research the History, then read on and see how both have been used as a political tool ever since. You do the research, only on History sites, and see why the need was there.

The compilers were all top priests, they need to retain power.

 

[Loudmouth]

But when are you first going to go back and correct all the mistakes in classification so we may discuss the evidence?

That would require you to demonstrate that there has been a mistake. Where has anyone shown that these are not transitional fossils?

Where have you ever shown that they were produced by "breed mates"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) according to the empirical evidence is not what they want to discuss.

We will discuss it when you can produce the evidence for the transitional fossils under question.