On the dangers of arguing via quote (YEC-style)

[DogmaHunter]

Lack of transitional forms.

Been to a natural history museum lately?

Plenty of transitionals - most of which were even found by prediction.

Last few hundred years.

You're confused. These fossils were found in the last few hundred years. And lots of them.

Evolution's a religion, so the news is not published in such a way. Instead, each new, mysterious missing-link is celebrated for a few years, before its thrown on the garbage heap and a new one is invented.
Because religion is not science.

LOL!!!
I'm sure the editors of biological journals as well as the many biologists etc that publish in those papers, as well as the many universities around the world, would be happy to hear that.

You people are amazing.

Common design is the reason for commonalities between organisms.

Yey, another one that misses the point.

It's not about mere "commonalities". It's about the pattern thereof, in multiple independent lines of evidence.

Easier to explain than common descent

You mean "declare" or "assert". Yes, I'm sure it is much easier to just assert things as opposed to putting in the hard work of comparing and mapping the anatomy, genetics and geographic distribution of millions of species, to find out that they all fall into the same hierarchical pattern consistent with a family tree.

"creationism" is not an explanation. It's an assertion. That is not in evidence.
Evolution, is an explanation. A very usefull one, that can be used to predict new data and which actually explains the data collected.

, as you don't have a mechanism for change that can explain generation of information.

Reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.

As I said:

 

[Skreeper]

Lack of transitional forms.
Last few hundred years.
Evolution's a religion, so the news is not published in such a way. Instead, each new, mysterious missing-link is celebrated for a few years, before its thrown on the garbage heap and a new one is invented.
Because religion is not science.

Common design is the reason for commonalities between organisms. Easier to explain than common descent, as you don't have a mechanism for change that can explain generation of information.

It's hardly surprising that a flat earther is also rejecting evolution.

I am really sorry that your poor education system failed you so much.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It's hardly surprising that a flat earther is also rejecting evolution.

I am really sorry that your poor education system failed you so much.

Genetic logical fallacy. Nice try, though.

 

[tas8831]

Genetic logical fallacy. Nice try, though.

Looks more like a conclusion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Show me a definition I am ignoring.... But let's talk about species definition, or would you rather ignore that one????

I'm surprised that a creationist would bring it up. It's a major embarrassment for them. You see, as Darwin pointed out, descent with modification (what we call evolution) dictates that there should be no easy and all-inclusive definition of "species." Because of constant evolution and change over time, we would expect to see quarter-species, and half-species, and so on.

Which is exactly what we see. On the other hand, if creationism were true, we'd see nice neat boundaries and "species" would be easy to define.

It's something creationists don't normally like to talk about. Kudos for bringing it up.

 

[The Barbarian]

You have totally misrepresented what evolution claims - your post is a giant strawman.

That's a particular blatant and egregious post. However, just as it would be wrong to think all Christians behave like that, it would be wrong to think all creationists are like that.

There are unfortunately too many who misrepresent science, but there are many who merely disagree with what science actually says. Some of them are my friends.

Just saying.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the other hand, if creationism were true, we'd see nice neat boundaries and "species" would be easy to define.

Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

So the fact that thorns & thistles exists, academia claims the creation week is a myth?

Do you really think academia is qualified to say: "If creationism were true, we'd see X"?

Are you prepared to admit that, if creationism were true, women would have children without pain? men wouldn't sweat? thorns & thistles wouldn't exist? we wouldn't die?

It seriously bothers me that an academian would attempt to tell us what they would see if creationism were true.

Especially since academia is now in the hands of the Prince of this World and is more myopic than a blind man in a dark cave during a total solar eclipse.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
On the other hand, if creationism were true, we'd see nice neat boundaries and "species" would be easy to define.

Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

So the fact that thorns & thistles exists, academia claims the creation week is a myth?

The fact that we don't have nice neat boundaries between taxa demonstrates that YE creation is an error.

Do you really think academia is qualified to say: "If creationism were true, we'd see X"?

Any person with a bit of common sense would know that the lack of clear boundaries between species and higher taxa would demonstate that fact.

Are you prepared to admit that, if creationism were true, women would have children without pain?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

It seriously bothers me that an academian would attempt to tell us what they would see if creationism were true.

In this case, you were irritated that a Christian told you what we would see if creationism were true.

Especially since YE creationism is now in the hands of the Prince of this World and is more myopic than a blind man in a dark cave during a total solar eclipse.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the other hand, if creationism were true, we'd see nice neat boundaries and "species" would be easy to define.

May I have an example please?

 

[The Barbarian]

May I have an example please?

Sure. Leopard frogs. Leopard frogs from Minnesota cannot reproduce with Leopard frogs from Louisiana. Such matings can be done, but there are never viable offspring. Are they one species, or two?

Let me know what you think and then we can come to a conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. Leopard frogs. Leopard frogs from Minnesota cannot reproduce with Leopard frogs from Louisiana. Such matings can be done, but there are never viable offspring. Are they one species, or two?

Let me know what you think and then we can come to a conclusion.

Now show me Leopard frogs in Genesis 1, where you implied we should see them.

And while you're at it, show me Minnesota and show me Louisiana in Genesis 1 as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that in-between species demonstrate that YE creationism can't be true)

(Barbarian asked for an example)

Barbarian asks:
Sure. Leopard frogs. Leopard frogs from Minnesota cannot reproduce with Leopard frogs from Louisiana. Such matings can be done, but there are never viable offspring. Are they one species, or two?

Let me know what you think and then we can come to a conclusion.

(Sound of goal posts being suddenly repositioned)

Now show me Leopard frogs in Genesis 1, where you implied we should see them.

C'mon. You can do a better diversion than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

C'mon. You can do a better diversion than that.

Are you telling me you don't understand what I'm saying?

Here's what you said:

On the other hand, if creationism were true, we'd see nice neat boundaries and "species" would be easy to define.

If creationism was true ... which it is ... I would assume you would see ... if you could go back there ... well-defined kinds roaming the earth.

Including satyrs, unicorns, dragons, cows, horses, frogs, birds, dinosaurs, and the like.

Keep in mind, these incipients would be the "first generation" kinds upon the earth.

For example, you would see a coyote, but [possibly] no domestic dogs.

One or two generations later -- long past the creation week in 4004 BC -- you just might see setters, pointers, hounds, spaniels, and the like (unless they were artifically-bred crossbreeds; they wouldn't be there).

 

[Strathos]

So you claim that super rapid evolution happened in 1 or 2 generations...

 

[AV1611VET]

So you claim that super rapid evolution happened in 1 or 2 generations...

By academia's standards ... yes.

These animals were blessed with the purest genes and fecundity.

 

[Strathos]

By academia's standards ... yes.

These animals were blessed with the purest genes and fecundity.

Evolution doesn't work like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution doesn't work like that.

Show me evolution in Genesis 1 -- cosmic or otherwise.

 

[Strathos]

Show me evolution in Genesis 1 -- cosmic or otherwise.

You're the one claiming that animals evolved super rapidly after they were created.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're the one claiming that animals evolved super rapidly after they were created.

Only as a point to address this doosey of a comment:

On the other hand, if creationism were true, we'd see nice neat boundaries and "species" would be easy to define.

I didn't mean for it to become the primary bone of contention.

 

[Strathos]

Only as a point to address this doosey of a comment:

I didn't mean for it to become the primary bone of contention.

It's a pretty hypocritical claim, though. Evolution can't happen gradually over millions of years, but it can happen practically overnight?