What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Shemjaza]

Instead of just shooting down the source, why don't you just read the article from a fully recognised scientist. This is what I am saying - you will only accept articles by evolutionists who are biased toward their unproven theories, but will not read anything else that might show a different side to it. Would this show a closed mind that wants just to see one side of the story. This would lead me to believe that it won't matter what I might say, or use as a supporting citation, you would find an excuse to shoot it own every time. So I don't see any point in continuing this discussion because it is too one sided for me. I have provided intelligent, informative posts, and all you have done is to shoot each one down. So, have a good life.

I read the article... it doesn't actually respond to the crititism.

They assert that information can't be added and use the copied book as an analogy... but never actually explain "why" it doesn't work.

As I said before, given they have neither a method of measuring, nor a unit for counting information they don't have any ability to define "loss" or "gain" in the first place.

 

[Paul James]

Huh? I'm talking about mechanisms of evolution.

Evolution is the process by which biological organisms change over time. That process includes reproduction and genetic mutations.

Do you understand reproduction and genetic mutations entails in the context of a population of organisms?

No proof of it happening or that it ever did. No point in trying to prove it because all you could do was to give more guess-work speculation without any observable, examinable, testable, or replicable proof. Any belief-based response is not good enough for me.

 

[Shemjaza]

No proof of it happening or that it ever did. No point in trying to prove it because all you could do was to give more guess-work speculation without any observable, examinable, testable, or replicable proof. Any belief-based response is not good enough for me.

Haven't you repeatedly accepted that change and adaption have been observed to happen on a small scale?

 

[Jimmy D]

No proof that the development of cats and dogs are anything but genetic variations caused by mutations where genetic information has be deleted from one generation to another. No proof of a common carnivore ancestor either, and if there was, we would be seeing evidence of development in intermediate animal variations leading to separate cats and dogs.

Trivially wrong, if you had any understanding of the subject whatsoever you would know this.

I won’t explain your most grievous mistake as you have demonstrated that you will just hand wave away anything that contradicts your clueless pronouncements.

I will ask you to support your claims with evidence though, please cite the research that shows this deletion of genetic information. There are plenty of in-depth studies on the genomes of the animals you mention, I’ve discussed them before.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

LOL! Yes there can be exceptions. But those exceptions are easily detected. And not very common. Misapplied science does not refute science. And the man was still wrong. The global flood story does not predict that sort of deposition. He was dishonestly grasping at straws with the knowledge that the ignorant would swallow it whole.

I was mainly pointing out that there wouldn't be 'one uneven layer' from your earlier comment. In fact, rock layers would be more uneven if deposition took a long time because they would be exposed to erosion for longer. In any case, a global flood that lasts a year would leave lots of sediment.

 

[Paul James]

I was mainly pointing out that there wouldn't be 'one uneven layer' from your earlier comment. In fact, rock layers would be more uneven if deposition took a long time because they would be exposed to erosion for longer. In any case, a global flood that lasts a year would leave lots of sediment.

Very true! I never thought of that! Well done! In fact, if the fossil record layer was millions of years old, it would have eroded away and we would have no fossil layer today!

 

[Shemjaza]

I was mainly pointing out that there wouldn't be 'one uneven layer' from your earlier comment. In fact, rock layers would be more uneven if deposition took a long time because they would be exposed to erosion for longer. In any case, a global flood that lasts a year would leave lots of sediment.

Yes, but it wouldn't form layers of totally different material of rising and falling size and density.

Nor would it preserve delicate fossil structures like nests and tunnels.

(Also the energy released by the quantity of water would melt all the ice and kill everything that lived.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Instead of just shooting down the source, why don't you just read the article from a fully recognised scientist. This is what I am saying - you will only accept articles by evolutionists who are biased toward their unproven theories, but will not read anything else that might show a different side to it. Would this show a closed mind that wants just to see one side of the story. This would lead me to believe that it won't matter what I might say, or use as a supporting citation, you would find an excuse to shoot it own every time. So I don't see any point in continuing this discussion because it is too one sided for me. I have provided intelligent, informative posts, and all you have done is to shoot each one down. So, have a good life.

We did more than that. And tell me, why did the article start out with a lie if the author was a valid source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very true! I never thought of that! Well done! In fact, if the fossil record layer was millions of years old, it would have eroded away and we would have no fossil layer today!

Nope, that is ignorant nonsense. Why do you think it would have eroded away?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was mainly pointing out that there wouldn't be 'one uneven layer' from your earlier comment. In fact, rock layers would be more uneven if deposition took a long time because they would be exposed to erosion for longer. In any case, a global flood that lasts a year would leave lots of sediment.

First off, many contacts are irregular between layers. There is a name for it in geology. They are called "unconformities". And not all erosion creates rough layers. In some areas erosion is very very slow and produces flat surfaces. But those are also unconformities because one can see a jump in time.

And why would a flood produce "a lot of sediment"? How much is "a lot"? Of course it is not the sediment that refutes the flood, it is the sorting of the sediment. Creationists cannot explain that. Or how the flood dried up several times all around the world, and then went back to flooding. Actual the flood story makes for many jokes based on reality. Tell us how plant pollen is sorted by the flood? It cannot be by density or size.

 

[Jimmy D]

Very true! I never thought of that! Well done! In fact, if the fossil record layer was millions of years old, it would have eroded away and we would have no fossil layer today!

Do you know how long the process of fossilisation takes?

 

[Speedwell]

So Evolutionists come up with the theory about how the universe originated, and they fit the evidence into their theory, and either ignore or explain away any evidence that doesn't fit. Creationists view the evidence and allows the evidence itself to prove that the Bible is an accurate historical record of what actually happened.

If you are going to make a potentially slanderous statement like that you are going to have to back it up. Real, concrete examples of evidence ignored or explained away, plus a good, verifiable motive for coming up with the theory first and looking for the evidence afterwards. Otherwise your statement can be written off as a self-serving falsehood.

 

[Speedwell]

Yep. Creationism is a belief system based on the Biblical record, just the same as Evolution is a belief system based on what Darwin's Origin of the Species started.

The difference is that the theory of evolution would be changed or abandoned if new evidence compelled it, while no amount of evidence would ever change creationist beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know how long the process of fossilisation takes?

Well fossilization can vary in how long it takes. But the sediments themselves took many millions of years to deposit. Actually hundreds of millions of years. As they get buried deeper and deeper the pressure goes way up and the temperature also rises a bit. The sediments tend to get well cemented by then so when plate tectonics causes some sort of uplift, such as when two plate collide. They are no longer loose sediment but rather hard rock. That does not appear to happen in a year.

 

[xianghua]

Exactly! Now you're getting it.

so we can ask the same about cars. since most cars have no wings (like airplanes) thus according to your criteria they arent the result of design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so we can ask the same about cars. since most cars have no wings (like airplanes) thus according to your criteria they arent the result of design.

We all new ideas that it could not last. When you go back to old failed arguments you only admit to being wrong again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference is that the theory of evolution would be changed or abandoned if new evidence compelled it, while no amount of evidence would ever change creationist beliefs.

And this reminds me of the moment in the Ham/Nye debate when Ken lost. When Ken was asked what it would take to change his mind he claimed nothing could. Bill said just one piece of evidence could do it.

 

[pitabread]

No proof of it happening or that it ever did. No point in trying to prove it because all you could do was to give more guess-work speculation without any observable, examinable, testable, or replicable proof. Any belief-based response is not good enough for me.

Evolution is an observable process. Or do you think we don't observe that organisms reproduce or that genetic mutations occur in organisms?

 

[pitabread]

Well, the diagram that shows the development from ape to human is a principal one to show how the biological change over time occurred from ape to human. It is unclear how this change can occur because we can't replicate it by genetic engineering. It could not have been through reproduction, because that can't be replicated either, because there is no actual data that shoes that humans and apes can mate to produce either ape or human offspring.

First, I'm not sure why you would think we have to genetically engineer a human or produce offspring from humans and other apes. That has nothing to do with demonstrating that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

And genetic theory states that genetic information cannot be added to produce higher organisms, and this would be essential for apes to develop into humans. Genetic mutation involves deletion of genetic information not the addition of it.

There is no "genetic theory" that says that.

So, the theoretical transformation from ape to human cannot occur through reproduction and mutation. So, we are then at the fall-back position of evolution - time and chance - that by some magical process an ape-man appeared, and genetic information was added to slowly replace the ape genes with human genes over time.

There's no magical process. The process of evolution that we observe today is the same process that has been evolving life over billions of years.

Actually, it is more believable that an infinite, all powerful God got a bit of clay, formed a man, breathed life into it, and it became a living human being.

If you want to argue that God can breath life into clay and turn that into a human, then explain how such a process works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is an observable process. Or do you think we don't observe that organisms reproduce or that genetic mutations occur in organisms?

That has already been No True Sdotsmanned by him as "not real evolution" .