Final stumpers for Creationists

[truthinchrist]

I AM GAME FOR A laugh, let’s try this inflammatory thing.

Originally posted by Franc28
Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions... Evaded by Creationists
1. Is there any evidence for your hypothesis ?
(Creationists usually have evidence against Neo-Darwinism, but disproving Neo-Darwinism does not prove Creationism)

Plenty – see my website amongst other places.
Lemme see.
Hmm
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Ok.
How did he do it?
Well. Evolution tells us that the equations of our space time reality can be backed up to .05 seconds after the big bang, but no further – for at this point the entire universe was a singularity thus it is impossible to describe the conditions at that time.
So during that .05 seconds God created all matter, energy, time and the fabric of reality as we know it. So. Heavens created, earth created – earth being the physical reality we exist in.
Hmm. 15 billion years of History as the universe develops? Well, since God is in Heaven, perhaps a day passes whilst this boring bumping of one lump of matter into another is happening, suns exploding creating higher order matter, until he turns his attention to us once more as the earth is “formless and void”.
Evidence? Well then. Is there any evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old, or does it just appear such when queried. And who could know the difference?

1b. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? Has Creationism ever made a true prediction ?

“It is given once for man to die, and then the judgment”. I Guess that is a true prediction?!

2. Where is the physical evidence that evolutionary mechanisms cannot cross the barrier of "biblical kinds" ?
(Creationists routinely claim that "macroevolution" - a made-up term - cannot exist in evolution, while "microevolution" - another made-up term - can exist)

So we have one bunch of Creationists slagging off another bunch. Who cares?
Macro evolution can exist, Microevolution can exist.
BTW every single word in use in the English language is a made up term. 200 years ago the modern from of English did not even exist.
What does the Hebrew word mean, and once you have that, parse it through the language of the pastoral peoples of Palestine into modern English, Now. What is the question?
The statement is oxymoron, therefore there is no evidence.

2b. Where is your evidence of God ?
(Creationists also routinely claim the existence of a supernatural Creator as scientific fact, but without evidence)

If God is Supernatural as you claim, then the only evidence will be of a supernatural source. Since I have the Mind of God within me, and the Spirit of God filling me, bring that eye of yours over here and test my metaphysical spiritual Aura. What was the question?
If God designed the world so that it would be impossible to tell the difference, how do you think you are going to tell the difference? In the end, the proof of God is in the experience on a daily basis, beyond that there is no proof.
But: prove to me that you and this Cyber world is not a deranged figment of my imagination! Prove to me that I exist and I will show you God.

3. Explain why we have plentiful evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
(The mere existence of one transitional form, let alone the dozens that we have, disproves Creationism)

Show me the transitional form alongside the earlier and later forms. Now prove that the animal moved from one stage to the next. Or was it a different species living at the same time?
Then show me the transitional form of the human Knee! Then the human eye! What about the transitional form of the human respiration cycle – how did the genes get encoded… which came first the protein or the gene?

4. Explain why we observe a nested hierarchy of species which is true both at the phenotypical and molecular level.

lemme see. You observe a nested hierarchy of species in the environment. Seems pretty logical – now if I was creating a bunch of animals, I would design them so that they did not compete but coexisted in their environment. Hey, maybe I created everything? Perhaps the creatures that are on the top of the food chain are more complex than those lower down due to the mobility of their prey. After all you don’t need huge brains to chase down a blade of grass.

5. Explain phenotypical and molecular vestigial structures.

why? I don’t know what they are for. Do you? This is one argument against evolution. Why would we evolve a structure that we don’t need to survive? Especially since we appear to be the top of the food chain. Maybe the appendix or the tailbone are there because God has them too? We are created in His image after all.

6. Explain suboptimal anatomical functions.

tell me. What part of an anatomical function is suboptimal? You identify em, and I’ll explain em.

7. Explain protein and DNA redundancy.

Why? Explain redundancy in terms of survival of the fittest? Can’t be done.

how did i do?
well no doubt we will see.
with Love
Your Brother in Christ
David

 

[chickenman]

why? I don’t know what they are for. Do you? This is one argument against evolution. Why would we evolve a structure that we don’t need to survive? Especially since we appear to be the top of the food chain. Maybe the appendix or the tailbone are there because God has them too? We are created in His image after all.

it isn't an argument against evolution at all, its a result of evolutionary constraint, evolution builds upon what already exists - therefore, there are certain features which remain even though they are no longer needed

Why? Explain redundancy in terms of survival of the fittest? Can’t be done.

it certainly can, redundancy protects against deleterious changes

 

[Jerry Smith]

I believe what I believe because of observation of changed lives; People alive today, not observation of bones buried long ago.

I know this is a late reply to papakapp, but here you go: for deciding religious views evidence from "changed lives" may have substantial bearing - I agree.

I disagree that evidence from "changed lives" can tell you much about the history of life on Earth.

If one had only this to go by, then I would still have to conclude in favor evolution, as anti-evolutionism seems to change the lives of its proponents and victims only for the bad - forcing them to despise a scientific methodology in one case that they are fond of in others, forcing them to selectively ignore the majority of the data and scientific concensus in favor of (often absurd) rhetorical arguments and only isolated data points out of context in order to bolster their position. On the other hand, evolution-acceptance doesn't appear to have any harmful side-effects, and it is quite important to the work of many life scientists. The changed-life evidence (if it were applicable) would still seem to support the old earth with a long history of evolution.

In reality, the scientific method is a much better approach than comparing "changed lives" to "unchanged" lives for discovering facts about nature.

 

[DNAunion]

Explain phenotypic and molecular vestigial structures

TruthinChrist: why? I don’t know what they are for. Do you?

DNAunion: That's kind of the point - they really aren't used for anything any more (so to speak). Ostriches have feathered wings that are useless for flying. Whales and some larger snakes have "pelvic bones" which are not used for walking anymore. These and other now-vestigial structures had selective value in the past, under different conditions. Once conditions changes and they did not give the possessing organisms a selective advantage anymore, mutations that ruined the formerly functional structures were not rejected by natural selection and so were "allowed" to occur and accumulate, eventually leading to non-functional (or at least practically non-functional) remnants.

TruthinChrist: This [vestial structures] is one argument against evolution. Why would we evolve a structure that we don’t need to survive?

DNAunion: Organisms don't "evolve up" to vestigial structures, but "down to them". Their ancestores evolved something that benefited them, such as a feathered wing capable of producing flight. That was the "evolving up" part. Then (as I explained above) the functional structure "broke down" into a virtually useless remnant.

As an analogy, think about floppy drives. Why in the world would computers evolve floppy drives since their storage capabilities are laughable, their transfer rates are ridiculous, and no software comes on them? Because back when they did first arise, they were extremely valuable. Over time, they became less and less valuable and are virtually useless these days. Before long, they will be discarded.

 

[webboffin]

The bible didn't mention DNA but we are here. You think we are walking clay models that God breathed life into?
God is way smarter than any scientist and if in his good book said he created life then I believe him than some man in a white cloak over bubbling test tubes.
Now is science could turn their theories into PROOF then come back and try again. I will listen.

Franc28, so what is a phenotypical and molecular vestigial structure????


P.S. I am emulating the obnoxiousness of the thread starter here.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by webboffin
The bible didn't mention DNA but we are here. You think we are walking clay models that God breathed life into?
God is way smarter than any scientist and if in his good book said he created life then I believe him than some man in a white cloak over bubbling test tubes.
Now is science could turn their theories into PROOF then come back and try again. I will listen.

Franc28, so what is a phenotypical and molecular vestigial structure????


P.S. I am emulating the obnoxiousness of the thread starter here.

Franc28 is actually quite intelligent. Does intelligence equate to obnoxiousness?

The question he raised in day to day wording simply asks, why species have organs or body parts which did not develop fully. This oddity applies to small organisms as well. The idea behind this question is: If God created, why did he leave such and such behind.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by Hank
Franc28 is actually quite intelligent. Does intelligence equate to obnoxiousness?

The question he raised in day to day wording simply asks, why species have organs or body parts which did not develop fully. This oddity applies to small organisms as well. The idea behind this question is: If God created, why did he leave such and such behind.

Is cutting and pasting from websites fancy worded terminology he doesn't wish to enlarge on (maybe he don't know the definintion himself) then calling his thread provocatively "Final stumpers for creationist" a bit like trolling? At least stick to understandable terminology that most people can identify with.

And why didn't Franc28 just say it like you did?

 

[webboffin]

Good question. Get back to you on it.

on another thread

 

[JillLars]

Here's what I have to say about this...evolutionists can have all the evidence that they want to, we can divide things down as small as they go, and say how they work. Well, here's the big question, Why? Why do opposites attract, what causes scientific reactions to occur. I believe there is a purpose for everything that happens on this earth, including why electrons spin the way they do, and not just because of their charges, but why do they have charges in the first place. For every thing that action there is a reaction, and I think if you follow the reactions far enough back, God is the only possible action that there is. Hope that makes a little sense.

 

[webboffin]

I have just read Franc28's past threads and I decided not to waste more time with him as he only joined recently this month and all his few threads have been nothing more than winding up and jumping on Christians with nonsense and he seems to have a big chip on his shoulder about Christianity as a whole.
Suggest he finds another forum to use his bad manners on or he could tone down his approach and ask civil questions that are respectful to the community here whether he wants to be or not.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
God is way smarter than any scientist and if in his good book said he created life then I believe him than some man in a white cloak over bubbling test tubes.
Now is science could turn their theories into PROOF then come back and try again. I will listen.

Franc28, so what is a phenotypical and molecular vestigial structure????


P.S. I am emulating the obnoxiousness of the thread starter here.

The issue is not whether God created life, but how. Creationists say God zapped all species into existence in their present forms.  Evolution says God used descent with modification to get all the species on the planet.

As to Frank's question, let's take bird embryos. During their embryonic development, birds develop teeth, only to have them resorbed later in development.  Why did God do that? Any intelligent human simply would not have teeth develop at all. If God is so much smarter than humans, as you say, then that was a pretty dumb thing for God to do.

However, evolution explains it.  Since the ancestors of birds had teeth, but teeth add weight that interfere with flying, any individuals with smaller teeth or no teeth are going to have a selective advantage. Since natural selection can only add information, the solution was to add another step in development to get rid of the teeth.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JillLars
I believe there is a purpose for everything that happens on this earth, including why electrons spin the way they do, and not just because of their charges, but why do they have charges in the first place. For every thing that action there is a reaction, and I think if you follow the reactions far enough back, God is the only possible action that there is. Hope that makes a little sense.

You stated this properly: this is your belief.  That's fine.  As long as you don't try to pass off that belief as scientific knowledge or fact.  And you did state one of the questions for which a hypothesis of deity is appropriate: Why is there a universe at all?  One (of several) possible answers is: a deity created it for a purpose.

 

[webboffin]

Originally posted by lucaspa
The issue is not whether God created life, but how. Creationists say God zapped all species into existence in their present forms.  Evolution says God used descent with modification to get all the species on the planet.

As to Frank's question, let's take bird embryos. During their embryonic development, birds develop teeth, only to have them resorbed later in development.  Why did God do that? Any intelligent human simply would not have teeth develop at all. If God is so much smarter than humans, as you say, then that was a pretty dumb thing for God to do.

However, evolution explains it.  Since the ancestors of birds had teeth, but teeth add weight that interfere with flying, any individuals with smaller teeth or no teeth are going to have a selective advantage. Since natural selection can only add information, the solution was to add another step in development to get rid of the teeth.

I see your point lucaspa but when it is scientifically assumed that man is evolved from monkey I don't see how that fitted in with any of God's plans. A monkey is an animal and God gave souls to humans and he made us in his own image. Could I be interpreting the Bible wrong somewhere? Is there an alternative meaning to making man from his own image where it is not so literal???

Without too much scientific guessing responses.

If evolution was the way, why is it only us with the high intelligence, a spiritual need and with a complex social, political and language structure?

Why have not other breeds of primate evolved too with human like qualities?  Finally, do you consider yourself an animal with or without a soul?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin I see your point lucaspa but when it is scientifically assumed that man is evolved from monkey I don't see how that fitted in with any of God's plans.

Two things:

1. Apes and humans have a common ancestor.  Not "man evolved from monkey"

2. It's not an assumption. It's a supported hypothesis.  That it, it has a lot of data to lead to the conclusion that humans evolved from a non-human ancestor

A monkey is an animal and God gave souls to humans and he made us in his own image. Could I be interpreting the Bible wrong somewhere? Is there an alternative meaning to making man from his own image where it is not so literal???

I once had a Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar explain the "in the image" to me.  That phrase was a common one in ancient times. Communication was very slow, so a person would be appointed to be ambassodor for a king and to speak for him, even making binding treaties and alliances.  That person was "in the image" of the king.

Darwin addressed the "soul" problem in Descent of Man and other writing.  Since you believe that souls are placed by God, even into individual humans, what is the problem with God placing souls into a particular generation and thereafter in the hominid lineage?  Is placing the first souls into a population somewhere in the evolutionary lineage any different than placing a soul into you sometime during your embryological development?  

If evolution was the way, why is it only us with the high intelligence, a spiritual need and with a complex social, political and language structure?

We are not the only species with a high intelligence.  We are the only ones with this level of technology, but that is our adaptation: the ability to make tools to make other tools.  Other species also have complex social structures and culture: chimps and whales for instance. The language comes partly from a particular mutation in the FOXP2 gene. References for you to learn more are:

1.  N Williams, Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition. Science 275 (3 Jan): 29-30, 1997.
3.  G Vogel, DNA suggests cultural traits affect whale's evolution.Science 282: 1616, Nov. 27, 1998. Primary article is  H Whitehead,Cultural selection and genetic diversity in matrilineal whales.  Science282: 1708-1710, Nov. 27, 1998.  Mothers teach survival traits to youngsters. Culture affecting genetic evolution.  Only species besides human where this is demonstrated.
4.  Octoplay. Discover 19: 28, Nov. 1998.  Indications that octopi engage in "play" behavior.
5.  M Cartmill, The gift of gab. Discover 19: 56- 64, Nov. 1998. Summary of research into the evolution of language.  "the ability to create symbols ... is potentially present in any animal that can learn to interpret natural signs, such as a trail of footprints. Syntax, meanwhile, everges from the abstract thought required for a social life." So, language is an offshoot of intelligence.
31. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language.  Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo  Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002) 

Why have not other breeds of primate evolved too with human like qualities?  Finally, do you consider yourself an animal with or without a soul?

They have.  The differences between humans and the other great apes are ones of degree, not kind.  I have no idea whether I have a soul or not. There is no doubt that I, and all humans, are animals in the sense of classification. What else would we be, plants? Again, references for you to learn more about this:
8.  MD Hauser, Games primates play.  Discover 19: 48-57, Sept. 1998. Discusses behavior among primates.  Humans not so unique.
9.  E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999.
10. MD Hauser, Morals, apes, and us. Discover  21: 50-55, Feb. 2000.Summarizes some studies in monkeys to determine if they have "moral" behavior.  They do.
11. CD Frith and U Frith, Interacting minds -- a biological basis, Science 286:1692-1695, Nov. 26, 1999.  Describes studies locating ability to "mentalize" -- understand and manipulate other people's mental states. "These studies indicate that the ability to mentalize has evolved from a system for representing actions."
12. DS Woodruff and NG Jablonski and G Chaplin, Chimp cultural diversity. Science 285: 836-837, Aug. 6, 1999.  Social tolerance evolved among hominids.
12a. A Whiten C Boesch, The cultures of chimpanzees. Scientific American 284: 60-67, Jan. 2001. Another "unique" feature of humans turns out not to be unique.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
If evolution was the way, why is it only us with the high intelligence,

We're not the only species with a "high intelligence". Read that Time article Do Animals Think?  The chimps and orangutuans show at least the equal of intelligence and ingenuity in their attempts to break out of zoos as any human ever has in breaking out of prison.

Weboffin, I submit that one of the most painful things about science is that it makes humans less inherently special. First we're not the center of the universe, but set off on a little planet orbiting a very ordinary star in one galaxy out of billions. Then we are not specially zapped into existence by God, but evolve.  Now we don't even have some super intelligence or morals that are totally beyond anything any other species has.

But if you look at  Exodus, are the Hebrews special in and of themselves, or because God chooses to regard them as special?  After all, they are only slaves, which means they weren't very smart or strong, or they wouldn't be slaves in the first place. They aren't even very smart of loyal after God gets them out of Egypt.  After all those miracles, what do the Hebrews do as soon as Moses leaves? Build a graven image, that's what!

So, if humans are special in God's sight, then that is solely God's choice.  I think that it is human pride and arrogance that insists on thinking that we are special in and of ourselves. But it does keep you from having to thank God for considering you special, doesn't it?  Creationists make a big verbal deal about being "dependent" on God, but I don't think they really mean it.

 

[webboffin]

Chimps will still be tree swinging in another million years.
And some of your explainations are assumptive still but I want to get off this thread may go into detail on another if you wish

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by webboffin
Chimps will still be tree swinging in another million years.
And some of your explainations are assumptive still but I want to get off this thread may go into detail on another if you wish

LOL your right chimps will probably still be swinging from the trees million years from now. This is almost like "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys"

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by webboffin
Chimps will still be tree swinging in another million years.
And some of your explainations are assumptive still but I want to get off this thread may go into detail on another if you wish

Of course. Chimps make a good living swinging from trees.  And the niche of technology is already occupied by another species -- us.  So directional selection is going to keep chimps adapted for the way of life they already have.  Any movement toward a technological niche is going to get them competing with us. Since we already have that evolutionary head start, any chimp subpopulation going that way won't be able to compete and will go extinct.

What parts of the science are "assumptive"?

 

[kaotic]

What parts of the science are "assumptive"?

I would also want to know what parts of science are "assumptive".