Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because they have a lot more riding on this than YECs do.Why do some evolutionists display such an irrational dislike or hatred for anyone who might espouse a different view?
Can't say as I've heard many evolutionary creationists claim that our personal redemption hinges on the historical factuality of Genesis!Because they have a lot more riding on this than YECs do.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking The Evolution Challenge
""CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that all we see in the universe is a result of natural transformism (or even intermittent supernatural transformism). If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI.
The specific question on the table in regard to the $1,000 Challenge is this:
It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA. It is also a fact that in order to produce a fish, a bird, or an animal from an upward progression of biological material, the fish or bird or animal must somehow acquire the genetic material needed for its species. That being the case, can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed? If anyone can prove this process to us by the known facts of science, consider yourself the winner of $1,000 from CAI!
A poor analogy, gravity is a constant, yet according to you the 'fact' of evolution is only relative to the current evidence of the moment, and could possibly change with new evidence.
Horse EvolutionIf Evolution were true wouldnt we have an enormous amount of transitionary fossils?
Your missing something arent you?
"Houston we have a problem"
There are lots of transitional fossils. To fully understand just how many there are requires a lot of reading. Something that can be a problem when dealing with this topic is that if someone doesn't want to recognize what a transitional form is, they will never accept that they are. For example, if fossil A is found 300 meters down in the strata, and fossil E is found 40 meters down in the strata, i could say that E evolved from A, to which I would be asked to provide transitional fossils. So after much searching I find fossil C, which is 160 meters down and shows characteristics of both A and E. Follow me so far? Now someone could say, "But now you have two gaps, prove that A evolved into C, and that C evolved into E. So i search and search and eventually find fossil D, 100 meters down. It is a perfect example of characteristics between C and E. But someone could still say, "now you have 3 gaps, A to C, C to D, and D to E."I would like to see a layout of actual fossils that demonstrate the progression of one species to another. It would also be nice to know about the different ones and how they were dated.
This wasn't written by a biologist, that's for sure. Fish and birds have the same 4 base codons. Those build proteins, and it's the proteins that build the animal. There's nothing different about the basic building blocks of the different animals.It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA.
The nylon bug can eat nylon using genetic information that wasn't there before, obviously, because nylon hasn't existed very long. There are also many other bacteria and small bugs, and even animals that have developed resistances or even the ability to digest man made material. There was certainly no genetic code for that prior to the invention of those man made materials. Of course, if i submitted that to this false challenge you propose, i would be told that those species developed their new information from pre-existing information that has simply been altered or duplicated then altered. The irony of course, that is exaclty what evolution is, and that is exactly how we get all of lifes organisms from common descent, through mutation, gene duplication etc, all of which have been observed in nature in the present time....can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed?
The theory of gravity is no more constant than the theory of evolution. The Theory of gravity has and does change.A poor analogy, gravity is a constant, yet according to you the 'fact' of evolution is only relative to the current evidence of the moment, and could possibly change with new evidence.
The reason we care is that we find Creationism damaging to Christianity and human reason. It's like taking a step back into the Dark Ages. As for harshness, you'll find Creationists far more likely to claim Theistic evolutionists aren't even Christian because they don't take Genesis literally.As I said elswhere, I'm on the fence as so to speak, I can't seem to pigeonhole myself strictly into YEC or TE, and I'm quite new to this debate, but so far I've encountered far more harshness from evolutionists towards creationists than the other way around. Why do some evolutionists display such an irrational dislike or hatred for anyone who might espouse a different view? So a person wants to believe Scripture above all else, who cares. Perhaps they might even add some kind of beneficial contribution. Personally I'll look at any good evidence, regardless whether it is from or about YEC or TE. I'm just trying to see both sides.
As I said elswhere, I'm on the fence as so to speak, I can't seem to pigeonhole myself strictly into YEC or TE, and I'm quite new to this debate, but so far I've encountered far more harshness from evolutionists towards creationists than the other way around. Why do some evolutionists display such an irrational dislike or hatred for anyone who might espouse a different view? So a person wants to believe Scripture above all else, who cares. Perhaps they might even add some kind of beneficial contribution. Personally I'll look at any good evidence, regardless whether it is from or about YEC or TE. I'm just trying to see both sides.
[/quote]The reason we care is that we find Creationism damaging to Christianity and human reason. It's like taking a step back into the Dark Ages. As for harshness, you'll find Creationists far more likely to claim Theistic evolutionists aren't even Christian because they don't take Genesis literally.
+
Sorry, I got busy and didn't have a chance to fully review all the links. I'm not dismissing anything at this point. Since the thread is getting so long and hard to follow, I'll just PM you with my opinion/questions if you don't mind. Then if you want to start a new thread or something, that focuses on the evidence, that would be good. BTW, thanks for taking the time to post the links.So i posted the transitional fossils that some of you were asking to see (jeffweeder and keyarch). Now what? No response? I hate chat forums some times because I don't know what ppls reactions are to certain posts if they just disengage from the conversation. Keyarch, you wanted to see examples of transitional forms, does that mean that showing you some will mean you'll accept evolution? Now that I've shown you those transitions have you changed your mind at all? If not, why even ask in the first place if you are just going to dismiss the evidence?
Nice try, but no evolution is not fact. It is only an interpretation of some data. Not to mention the ToE changes (some evolutionists admit this). Not all scientist conclude that evolution is fact.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking The Evolution Challenge
""CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that all we see in the universe is a result of natural transformism (or even intermittent supernatural transformism). If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI.
The specific question on the table in regard to the $1,000 Challenge is this:
It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA. It is also a fact that in order to produce a fish, a bird, or an animal from an upward progression of biological material, the fish or bird or animal must somehow acquire the genetic material needed for its species. That being the case, can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed? If anyone can prove this process to us by the known facts of science, consider yourself the winner of $1,000 from CAI!
You can submit your "proofs" regarding the above question to our e-mail address cairomeo@aol.com. We will then offer a response. Both your "proof" and our response will be posted on the CAI Science Page on our website. If you do not want your actual name listed, we will change your name, but your contents will be posted. If you do not want either your name or your contents posted, then you are not eligible for a reply from CAI nor the $1,000 reward. CAI will be the sole judge of whether you have successfully proven your case. But since CAI is built on its reputation of honesty and truthfulness, rest assured that if you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money.
Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Darwin, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.
The $1,000 Challenge will go on indefinitely. If you're up for the challenge, take your best shot!
Robert Sungenis Ph.D
Catholic Apologetics International
May 7, 2002""
+
Ok, I click on the links, and all I see is stories that are written by people who already accept evolution and write about the history as if it is fact without much real support other than more of the same.So i posted the transitional fossils that some of you were asking to see..
You might expect similarities from a common designer, though you would expect them to be modular. A transitional between bird and dinosaur might have feathers like both, but it legs structure would be transitional between bird and cheetah. A designer should pick the best from his whole range of designs. While you might expect a similarities from a designer (in a chimeral modular sort of way), we would not expect that from a Creationist designer.But I expect similarities also due to a common designer (I know you've heard that one a million times).
Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker said:What is Creation Science, 1982 revised 1987, p.221
The Creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other type at all. Consequently the Creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.
Remember it is YEC that claims any form of transitional would be a freak horribly damaged by unworkable halfway forms. It is evolution that says at every stage of the transition these creatures will be well adapted to their environment. Just what we find in the fossil record. It is YEC that claimed a jaw halfway between reptile and mammal simply would not work, yet the creatures we find in the fossil record with jaws that are ¼, ½, ¾ of the way between reptile and mammal all seem perfectly adapted and fully functional.There are just so many systems, body plans, mechanisms and so forth that need to change from one kind to another (say fish to reptile to bird) that you can't just look at one similar bone structure and expect that all the other things just happened. Each stage would have to be strong enough to survive for quite a while until the next little beneficial thing happened, that a perfectly species would have to get to a failing state before becoming something that works again.
Those in-between stages are what I have not seen. The freaks if you will. They may not have been pretty, but they must have been around in any snapshot of time (and now for that matter). At whatever point you look at these creatures along the evolutionary tree, they appear to be fully functional and formed, and yes, may look like other creatures but are perfect in their own species.
Anyway, I'm still not looking for bias stories written by people claim to be experts and therefore what they write must be fact. I'm looking for pictures of fossils that are in some kind of clearly transitional form. I just don't see everything changing at the same pace in sync with every other change to the point where you wouldn't notice that it was a freak.
But I expect similarities also due to a common designer (I know you've heard that one a million times).
There are just so many systems, body plans, mechanisms and so forth that need to change from one kind to another (say fish to reptile to bird) that you can't just look at one similar bone structure and expect that all the other things just happened. Each stage would have to be strong enough to survive for quite a while until the next little beneficial thing happened, that a perfectly species would have to get to a failing state before becoming something that works again.
Those in-between stages are what I have not seen. The freaks if you will.
It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA. It is also a fact that in order to produce a fish, a bird, or an animal from an upward progression of biological material, the fish or bird or animal must somehow acquire the genetic material needed for its species. That being the case, can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed? If anyone can prove this process to us by the known facts of science, consider yourself the winner of $1,000 from CAI!
But I expect similarities also due to a common designer (I know you've heard that one a million times).
Each stage would have to be strong enough to survive for quite a while until the next little beneficial thing happened, that a perfectly species would have to get to a failing state before becoming something that works again.
Those in-between stages are what I have not seen. The freaks if you will. They may not have been pretty, but they must have been around in any snapshot of time (and now for that matter).
Actually, I've never really given much thought to this. But have you ever seen any design exhibition? ... You'd be surprised at how different their designs are. (Why, it's almost as if people want to be creative! Who would have thought that?) And even where they are similar, it would be pretty difficult to try to arrange their designs into a sort of evolutionary timeline.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?