Role Reversal

[AV1611VET]

Show me a lizard evolve into a bird and I will believe in macroevolution.

Technically there is no such thing as macroevolution, per se.

Macroevolution is a term that is used to denote animals that have no viable relationship to one another; i.e., they cannot get together and create offspring that can live for any length of time.

And as for your lizard-to-bird:

Tyrannosaurus Rex:

Archeopteryx:

Bird:

Between the Rex and the Pteryx, there were evolutionary steps that occurred; and between the Pteryx and the Eagle there were evolutionary steps that occurred.

Each step was exactly the same: a given amount of force being applied to DNA that altered the copying sequence; and there were no steps left out.

It's that simple.

 

[Split Rock]

Technically there is no such thing as macroevolution, per se.

Macroevolution is a term that is used to denote animals that have no viable relationship to one another; i.e., they cannot get together and create offspring that can live for any length of time.

And as for your lizard-to-bird:

Tyrannosaurus Rex:

Archeopteryx:

.

I'm always impressed by the imaginative "reconstructions" that evo-artists come up with when shown a few bone fragments.....

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm always impressed by the imaginative "reconstructions" that evo-artists come up with when shown a few bone fragments.....

This isn't amateur artwork, drawn in a closet.

These are professionally-sanctioned depictions, made by careful analyses of qualified archaeologists.

How many criminals are caught by this method?

Note: And with this, I'm finished here.

It was fun while it lasted, but playtime is over and I have serious work to do in other threads.

I hope no one took me seriously in this thread!

 

[Split Rock]

This isn't amateur artwork, drawn in a closet.

These are professionally-sanctioned depictions, made by careful analyses of qualified archaeologists.

How many criminals are caught by this method?

Note: And with this, I'm finished here.

It was fun while it lasted, but playtime is over and I have serious work to do in other threads.

I hope no one took me seriously in this thread!

Yeah, I was getting a bit blah on this myself... but what about the intent of the O.P.? Did you gain any insight, or was it just fun for a while?

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

It didn't pan out as best as I had hoped. I would have loved to see a few more creationists come in and duke it out. But I have to thank you two (split and AV) for trying this out. It was definitely fun to watch.

Here is my consensus while trying to participate as a creationist:

Creationists have some pretty convincing arguments (as far as people not properly educated in science go). However what I noticed was that Science typically will answer a question (such as why carbon was in diamonds) without making any directed comments towards creationists. In fact from what I could tell they didn't even know creationists were using it as an argument. What this tells me is that while creationists mostly use their research to try and disprove evolution and science, science doesn't do this. It is just doing what it always has been doing, improving upon itself.

If I was going to believe in creationism though I would undoubtedly have to board AV's ship of "embedded history". It does seem to make the most since (along with Omphalos) for creationism. But that still leaves the question of "why do it like this?"

I would be curious to know if either of you (AV, Split) took anything away from this?

The invitation is still open for any who wish to come and try this out though.

 

[Chesterton]

It didn't pan out as best as I had hoped. I would have loved to see a few more creationists come in and duke it out. But I have to thank you two (split and AV) for trying this out. It was definitely fun to watch.

It went better than I thought it would. Fun; kind of Twilight Zone-ish.

 

[Split Rock]

It didn't pan out as best as I had hoped. I would have loved to see a few more creationists come in and duke it out. But I have to thank you two (split and AV) for trying this out. It was definitely fun to watch.

Here is my consensus while trying to participate as a creationist:

Creationists have some pretty convincing arguments (as far as people not properly educated in science go). However what I noticed was that Science typically will answer a question (such as why carbon was in diamonds) without making any directed comments towards creationists. In fact from what I could tell they didn't even know creationists were using it as an argument. What this tells me is that while creationists mostly use their research to try and disprove evolution and science, science doesn't do this. It is just doing what it always has been doing, improving upon itself.

If I was going to believe in creationism though I would undoubtedly have to board AV's ship of "embedded history". It does seem to make the most since (along with Omphalos) for creationism. But that still leaves the question of "why do it like this?"

I would be curious to know if either of you (AV, Split) took anything away from this?

The invitation is still open for any who wish to come and try this out though.

For myself, it has reinforced my conclusion that it is much easier to use creationist arguments than to use evolutionist arguments, or more specifically, defend evolutionist arguments. It is easy to accept creationist arguments if you don't actually look at the physical evidence, since they are based on personal incredulity and incorrect assumptions about science. For example, the idea that paleontologists have nothing to work with other than "a few bone fragments" and make up imaginative reconstructions of animals that never existed.

 

[BananaSlug]

I cannot, in all good conscience, act like a creationist. Though I can post evidence of what we would find if the Biblical narrative is correct.

1. All cosmic formations are <6,000 lightyears away.
2. All geologic formations are <6,000 years old.
3. There should not be any genetic overlap between kinds.
4. There should not be any transitional fossils.
5. There should not be any human history older than 6,000 years.

Since we have evidence against the predictions, the only other argument for creationism is that God created everything to appear as if evolution was the cause for the vast variety of species on this planet. If I were a Christian, I could not accept this as an argument in support of Creationism, since it would go against what I would believe about God not being a deceiver. Then again, there are many times in the Bible where God sent a deceiving spirit...

 

[Doveaman]

Since we have evidence against the predictions, the only other argument for creationism is that God created everything to appear as if evolution was the cause for the vast variety of species on this planet.

Evolution was the cause for the vast variety of species on this planet. It doesn't just "appear" that way. God created it to be that way.

 

[BananaSlug]

Evolution was the cause for the vast variety of species on this planet. It doesn't just "appear" that way. God created it to be that way.

Then why couldn't God have created man by evolving him from ape?

 

[Doveaman]

Then why couldn't God have created man by evolving him from ape?

If that happened it would have happened before Genesis. What we see in Genesis is a man named Adam being formed from the dust of the earth. Perhaps Adam was a resurrected hominid with a few genetic modifications added. He then evolved into the various races we see today.

 

[Gracchus]

If that happened it would have happened before Genesis. What we see in Genesis is a man named Adam being formed from the dust of the earth. Perhaps Adam was a resurrected hominid with a few genetic modifications added. He then evolved into the various races we see today.

So, once again, God got it wrong and had to start over. He just has to keep tinkering.

 

[BananaSlug]

If that happened it would have happened before Genesis. What we see in Genesis is a man named Adam being formed from the dust of the earth. Perhaps Adam was a resurrected hominid with a few genetic modifications added. He then evolved into the various races we see today.

The problem with this is that the "hyper-evolution" of the species today from their prospective kinds is not supported by the Bible. If you allow this liberal extra-Biblical addition (just as with "embedded age" and "renewal creation") why not just say all of Genesis is an allegory? If you have to add stuff to your theology that is not supported by scripture or supported only by liberal interpretations of vague scripture, why not just say Genesis is an allegory for mankind's fall from grace?

 

[Doveaman]

The problem with this is that the "hyper-evolution" of the species today from their prospective kinds is not supported by the Bible.

What do you mean? Don&#8217;t you remember Moses' staff that instantly became a snake, or the plant that instantly grew up to give Jonah shade, or the donkey that instantly evolved human speech?

If you allow this liberal extra-Biblical addition (just as with "embedded age" and "renewal creation") why not just say all of Genesis is an allegory? If you have to add stuff to your theology that is not supported by scripture or supported only by liberal interpretations of vague scripture, why not just say Genesis is an allegory for mankind's fall from grace?

Because the theology and the scientific working together give us a more complete picture of reality. As scientists make new scientific discoveries we see how those new scientific discoveries fit nicely with the theological truths and actually help to confirm those truths. As we are often told, God has two books: Scripture and nature, and there is no conflict between the two. They compliment each other.

 

[Doveaman]

So, once again, God got it wrong and had to start over. He just has to keep tinkering.

Nope, it is we who get it wrong. God simply intervenes to make it right.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Just checking.
Doveaman did you recently come to accept evolution?
Banana slug, did you recently come to accept creationism?

Cause if the answer to those questions is "No" ..

http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/doing_it_wrong_skaters.jpg

 

[Doveaman]

Just checking.
Doveaman did you recently come to accept evolution?

If you mean bird evolving from dinosaur or man evolving from ape, I never did.

Did you recently come to accept your signature? because it's true.

"The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers" - 2 Cor 4:4

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If you mean bird evolving from dinosaur or man evolving from ape, I never did.

Did you recently come to accept your signature? because it's true.

"The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers" - 2 Cor 4:4

Yes that is the point, this is the role reversal thread. Your supposed to only argue for creationism if you are accept evolution. And you can only argue for evolution if your a creationist.

So since you are a creationist your not supposed to argue for creationism in this thread. And visa versa for banana slug.

 

[corvus_corax]

IR sad

'dat 'dis thread stopped a week ago.

Why do all teh fun threads suffer-

?
?

 

[AV1611VET]

I did my part!