Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Astrid]

No trick. The Chinese came from the Yellow river valley, and the Yangtze river valley.
Your "Sinites" are imaginary.

People tracing my ancestry to "noah" are in a class with those
trying to make native Americans into a lost tribe of Israel.

 

[Frank Robert]

It doesn't matter. A canine remains a canine. A feline remains a feline, etc.

I know that is what the cute creationist cartoons teach kids "no one has seen it happen" and I'd bet you have been taught. If you have any influence on AIG and DI please tell them to spend some of the millions they raise on actual scientific research.

There is plenty of evidence for speciation:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

My favorite is:

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible.

“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”
​

It's my favorite because I've enjoyed having my own living dinosaurs from a young age.

​

 

[Frank Robert]

You're still not explaining the difference between a designed object and - what else can I call it - a naturally occuring one. Apart from the 'gee, it certainly looks designed'.

Can you give me an example of some aspect of a living organism that hasn't been designed? There must be a lot because only 'some have to have been designed'.

Let me try.

If it looks designed its designed, and/or design is the only alternative.

 

[AV1611VET]

People tracing my ancestry to "noah" are in a class with those trying to make native Americans into a lost tribe of Israel.

Then correct me.

But don't do it with geography; do it with DNA.

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't know what the hullabaloo about the eye is all about, but for the record, God created man fully-mature ... this includes his eyes ... in 4004 BC.

It's cute that you have the exact year.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's cute that you have the exact year.

Actually I'm not sure, and I've admitted as such more than once.

But I employ Occam's Razor and use Ussher's dates, since the exact year is just a matter of a few degrees off -- if it is indeed off.

Saying Adam was created in 4004 BC or 4044 BC is just as effective a point, when arguing with someone who believes the universe was created in 13,700,000,000 BC.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which is also about 1000 years after the ancient peoples of China and Iran began brewing beer.

Without beer we would not be civilized.

How Beer Gave Us Civilization

 

[Astrid]

any and all posted facts are subject to being refuted, if your assertions are true it should be of no effort for you to do so. I understand that is much easier to attempt to dismiss information that challenges closely held beliefs or should I say non beliefs.

A detail here- science does not do " closely held
beliefs". That is for religion. Faith, belief despite
all is a highest virtue. In science, that is intellectual
dishonesty, anti science.

To say someone in science will dismiss challenges
to closely held beliefs is to say they are complete phonies,
enemies of science.
No doubt such exist, as do pedophile priests and othrrs
who use the church as cover for their crimes.

To suggest that these aberrant individuals represent
either church or science is itself immoral, being
as it is, a lie.

 

[Frank Robert]

Actually I'm not sure, and I've admitted as such more than once.

But I employ Occam's Razor and use Ussher's dates, since the exact year is just a matter of a few degrees off -- if it is indeed off.

Saying Adam was created in 4004 BC or 4044 BC is just as effective a point, when arguing with someone who believes the universe was created in 13,700,000,000 BC.

That's wrong, the universe was created 13,700,000,016 BC. Corrected it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Without beer we would not be civilized.

How Beer Gave Us Civilization

Spring Break in early academia?

 

[Astrid]

Without beer we would not be civilized.

How Beer Gave Us Civilization

You remember it well!

 

[Astrid]

I know that is what the cute creationist cartoons indoctrinate kids "no one has seen it happen" and I'd bet you have been indoctrinated. If you have any influence on AIG and DI please tell them to spend some of the millions they raise on actual scientific research.

There is plenty of evidence for speciation:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

My favorite is:

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible.

“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”
​

It's my favorite because I've enjoyed having my own living dinosaurs from a young age.

​

I think you are missing the point.
Cats are cats, dogs are dogs NOW, but they
trace to common ancestors who were neither
a "cat" nor a "dog".

As for what a few tens of millions of years might
do-
There are wolves on a Pacific coast island that
get their food from the ocean.
Should it be the case that the ability to go further,
swim faster, dive better proved a great advantage
and ten million years later those wolves now looked
an awful lot like sea lions, well, I suppose one could
SAY, "nope, still dogs".
If later still you had 1000 pound "dogs" that could stay at sea for
months, we'll, say they stayed dogs if you like.

Or say leopards and poodles are still the common ancestor of both.

In a sense that is correct.

 

[Speedwell]

all that talk but i still do not see any of my posts refuted. talking a big game does not win the game. insulting people by calling them ignorant does not benefit anyone.

You posts were not refuted because they were not on topic. If you have anything which addresses the OP, post it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you are missing the point.
Cats are cats, dogs are dogs NOW, but they trace to common ancestors who were neither
a "cat" nor a "dog".

The Bible teaches a common creator, not a common ancestor.

And you're right, He was neither a cat, nor a dog.

 

[dlamberth]

Saying Adam was created in 4004 BC or 4044 BC is just as effective a point, when arguing with someone who believes the universe was created in 13,700,000,000 BC.

The 13,700,000,000 BC may be a close approximation but it's a heck of lot closer to reality than is the 4044 BC date.

 

[AV1611VET]

The 13,700,000,000 BC may be a close approximation but it's a heck of lot closer to reality than is the 4044 BC date.

That's why I like to separate scientific reality from Biblical reality.

The two aren't compatible today.

Science: fetus
Bible: child in the womb

Science: prime cause
Bible: God

Science:
Bible: Moses

Science:
Bible: Exodus and wilderness wandering

Science: evolution
Bible: creation

Science: y-Adam & mtDNA Eve
Bible: Adam & Eve

Science: Neanderthals
Bible: Man

Science: ylem
Bible: ex nihilo

And so on and so forth.

 

[renniks]

I, unlike you, accept reality.

Ah, another one with nothing but insults. These threads seem to grow posters who stand and throw stones while contributing nothing to the conversation.

 

[renniks]

Sure it has. I've explained it at 3 times. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. What don't you understand?

That's not an explanation. That's an assertion.
Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information.
Red foxes in most parts of North America have bald foot pads. But, in some super cold areas, they grow hair that covers the footpad. This is natural selection. The information is built into their DNA so they can adapt to their environment. This information can't mutate a fox into a kangaroo or a bobcat. It's just variations within a species or kind.

 

[Astrid]

That's not an explanation. That's an assertion.
Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information.
Red foxes in most parts of North America have bald foot pads. But, in some super cold areas, they grow hair that covers the footpad. This is natural selection. The information is built into their DNA so they can adapt to their environment. This information can't mutate a fox into a kangaroo or a bobcat. It's just variations within a species or kind.

Natural selection is not random.

Mutations are random, according to
any reputable source.
Claims to the contrary are nothing but
assertions, with no substance.
Of course natural selection generates no new
genetic material. Nobody would claim it does.

 

[Speedwell]

That's not an explanation. That's an assertion.
Natural selection cannot generate brand new genetic information.

No, it cannot. Nor does the theory of evolution claim that it can.