• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Challenge To All Creationists

Animore

Active Member
You offe nothing in this post ut the same old, tiredless arguments which have been refuted. Without even clicking on the link, you're going going to prove I don't understand science by assuming, blindly, that there is no evidence? This makes no sense.

Typical evo talk? HA! I'm sorry but this is just..

sobad.gif


That's the only thing you've got? THAT'S IT? Seriously?

Since you're too lazy to even search up a few links, I'll give you proof:

Discovering DNA
One of the more remarkable things about On the Origin of Species is that Charles Darwin articulated his theory without knowing the exact mechanism by which variation occurs. It wouldn’t be until Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA in the 1950s that evolutionary biologists would finally have the answer.

The advent of genetics is the single most important thing to happen to the study of evolutionary biology since Darwin’s theory first appeared (with a respectful tip of the hat to Gregor Mendel and his discovery of the fundamental laws of inheritance). Because DNA is universal to all life, its presence strongly suggests that all creatures on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.

It also explains how the proliferation of genetic mutations (essentially copy errors), combined with the processes of natural selection, enables evolution to happen. Ultimately, DNA is the engine that drives evolution. It’s an elegant—sometimes brutal—process that doesn’t require a guiding hand. Natural selection is a wholly autonomous process, thus earning it the moniker of “God killer.”

Finding Transtional Fossils
Species come and go, but life goes on. This is the essential lesson of the extensive fossil record—one that dates back 3.8 billion years. What’s more, it’s a chain of continuity used by evolutionary biologists to study the various interconnected progressions made by species as they change over time. So-called “transitional fossils” — like the recent discovery of Pappochelys, a 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features — provide evidence for “missing links” between two different species by showing some of the traits of both, although this isn’t necessarily evidence of direct descent. Biologists use each discovery of such new species to fill in the evolutionary gaps.

View attachment 15285
The recent discovery of Pappochelys, a 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features, is helping scientists fill in an important evolutionary gap—while causing great consternation to creationists. (Credit: Rainer Schoch/Nature)



The presence of so many fossils demonstrates the ever-changing diversity of life since it first emerged. From life’s early beginnings as single-celled prokaryotic cells through to the Cambrian Explosion and the emergence of dinosaurs and mammals, it’s a story of continuous adaptation. Creationists like to believe that certain evolutionary steps are intractable, but as more and more transitional fossils are discovered, it’s clear that each evolutionary advance can be explained.

For example, some creationists argue that evolutionists cannot identify missing links between reptiles and birds. A post from Scientific American offers a compelling rebuttal:



Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Indeed, fortuitous mutations have fueled a trial-and-error process that have produced gradual but dramatic changes in species over the course of eons. Some evolutionary offshoots worked for a while, but changing circumstances—such as difficult environmental conditions or the introduction of a rival species—produced dead ends (e.g. wooly mammoths, sabre toothed tigers, and very likely, the panda bear). Other branches proved more resilient, allowing species to continue in novel directions (birds, as an offshoot of dinosaurs, are an excellent example). And yet some species, such as cyanobacteria, coelacanths, and crocodiles, have barely changed, showing that evolution doesn’t fix what ain’t broke.


Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
Typically, evolutionary biologists like to point out the differences in species as they branch away from common ancestors, but they also like to identify those characteristics that remain common to both. This serves the dual purpose of showing evolution-in-action, while also demonstrating the subtle ways in which speciation can occur.

For example, the form and structure (morphologies) of deer, moose, horses, and zebras are strikingly similar. Not surprisingly, they share a common ancestor. Similarly, seagulls and pelicans are similar in their appearance, behavior, and DNA. Again, they share a common ancestor, from which they deviated in relatively minor but important ways. Similarly, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were more alike than they were different, branching off from the evolutionary tree fairly recently in evolutionary history.

As Darwin pointed out 150 years ago, these common characteristics provide indisputable data points in favor of evolution, showing the ways in which species diverge when circumstances change.

Finding Vestigial Traits
One of the more compelling arguments in favor of evolution is the presence of vestigial traits—physical characteristics that are gradually working their way out of an organism’s genetic profile. Most of these traits are benign, but some can be harmful (which is why they’re often referred to as “evolutionary baggage”).

Just as full-blown characteristics don’t appear overnight—such as flight in birds, or an elephant’s long and dextrous trunk—traits that are no longer required for an organism’s day-to-day survival take a long time to disappear. These characteristics fade away because there’s no pressure for the gene or genes in question to retain them, resulting in faded or lingering traits that bear a weak resemblance to their original form.

In humans, classic examples include the appendix, wisdom teeth, the coccyx (or tailbone), and tonsils. Certain behaviors can also be considered vestigial, such as the Palmar Grasp Reflex and our instinctive aversions to bugs and snakes.

Finding Imperfect Characteristics
Because our current physiological form is derived from those of our ancestors, we can hardly be considered an ideal species; there are many inherent design flaws in the human body. The throat (pharynx), for instance, serves as a conduit for both food and air. In males, the urethra both helps move urine from the bladder and transports sperm to the penis. Then there is our inability to biosynthesize vitamin C, the extremely narrow birth canal (in women), and our over-loaded lower backs.

Deliberate conscious design, evolution doesn’t care about perfection. Adaptations simply need to be good enough. What’s more, evolution cannot start from scratch; each species has to be crafted from its previous form, which can often lead to awkward or problematic characteristics.

Would you like me to go on?

@omega2xx
 

interminable

منتظر
I realize this was two days ago, but I realize no one has made a response to your comment.

The fallacy in this is that we know who made these tools, and devices. We can go check the records for these vehicles, to see who made what, and when it happened. We have video footage of such creations. Do we have video footage for the creation of life and organic structures? Do we have records of a Creator God doing such things, besides a thousands-of-years old collection of scriptures, written by ancient scribes? Yet, we have fossil records, etc. to support evolution and the idea of abiogenesis.

Also, I think you're forgetting that proteins, DNA, etc. at its current state right now is the result of millions and millions of years of evolutionary process. It wasn't just a snapping of fingers and POOF! Complex organic material!
Do u have any video footage of how evolution created gender?

Unfortunately even unbelievers accept causality but the first cause should be everything except god in their views.

Everything except god can be a creator of this world.
Seems divine religions aren't fixed with their passions so they have to deny the truth.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It is not an opinion,

Adam is a religious view thus it is an opinion. All you have done is tack Adam on to observations, nothing more.



Yes it has but it was also observed that the specie did not change---the salamanders remained salamanders, and the gulls remained gulls.

Speciation has been observed in flowers and fruit flies.


Why not. Many universal claims are true.

By the very definition of inductive reasoning. I already told you that you are oblivious to the topics you bring up. Your question only hammers my point home.



If the same thing happens a gazzillion times the same way, you are able to say it a scientific fact that it has always happened that way. If you have never seen an A become a B, you can say, that is only a guess that it can happen.

Observation based conclusions not a guess.





Inductive reasoning is not evidence. if you think it is, it is you who doesn't understand science.



Ive never claimed it was evidence, strawman. I was explaining to you something you claim to know which is science. Yet here you are asking why a universal can not be made from inductive conclusions. Hilarious



Give me the example you have in mind where speciation resulted in a new species.

Tragopogon, Rhagoletis pomonella and Stephanomeria malheurensis are just 3 examples from over 100 observations of speciation.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Your ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.


At this point, all you are doing is repeating your bold empty choir sermons.
I stopped taking you seriously on the topic of evolution over 250 posts ago.[/QUOTE]
You offe nothing in this post ut the same old, tiredless arguments which have been refuted. Without even clicking on the link, you're going going to prove I don't understand science by assuming, blindly, that there is no evidence? This makes no sense.


Yak, yak, yak. The produce the evidence for just one thing the TO preaches.

Typical evo talk? HA! I'm sorry but this is just..

sobad.gif


That's the only thing you've got? THAT'S IT? Seriously?

What I have is better that 2 folks gabbing with no evdience.

Since you're too lazy to even search up a few links, I'll give you proof:

And you're to lazy to cut and paste the evidence in the links you offer.

Discovering DNA
One of the more remarkable things about On the Origin of Species is that Charles Darwin articulated his theory without knowing the exact mechanism by which variation occurs. It wouldn’t be until Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA in the 1950s that evolutionary biologists would finally have the answer.

The advent of genetics is the single most important thing to happen to the study of evolutionary biology since Darwin’s theory first appeared (with a respectful tip of the hat to Gregor Mendel and his discovery of the fundamental laws of inheritance). Because DNA is universal to all life, its presence strongly suggests that all creatures on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.

It also explains how the proliferation of genetic mutations (essentially copy errors), combined with the processes of natural selection, enables evolution to happen. Ultimately, DNA is the engine that drives evolution. It’s an elegant—sometimes brutal—process that doesn’t require a guiding hand. Natural selection is a wholly autonomous process, thus earning it the moniker of “God killer.”

You don't even understand DNA. DNA does not support evolution. If anything it supports "after their kind." You also don't understand that Mendel's experiments also support "after their kind." The peas remained peas. Do you really not KNOW that evolution preaches a change of species? The changes were not the result of mutations, they were the result of dominant and recessives genes in the gene pool. You also donopt understands that natural selection has NEVER resulted in a change of species. That is just more evo unscientifcic mumbo jumbo.

Finding Transtional Fossils
Species come and go, but life goes on. This is the essential lesson of the extensive fossil record—one that dates back 3.8 billion years. What’s more, it’s a chain of continuity used by evolutionary biologists to study the various interconnected progressions made by species as they change over time. So-called “transitional fossils” — like the recent discovery of Pappochelys, a 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features — provide evidence for “missing links” between two different species by showing some of the traits of both, although this isn’t necessarily evidence of direct descent. Biologists use each discovery of such new species to fill in the evolutionary gaps.

Even 2 of you best fossile "experts", Gould and Mayr says this: "New species usually appear in the fossil records suddenly NOT CONNECTED with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. IOW thee ae not transitional fossils,

View attachment 15285
The recent discovery of Pappochelys, a 240-million-year-old reptile with a set of emerging turtle-like features, is helping scientists fill in an important evolutionary gap—while causing great consternation to creationists. (Credit: Rainer Schoch/Nature)


When those "turtle-like features keep developing what that reptile has always had, the consternation will be with those who have predicted it is the missing link. Evolution needs much more than a missing link. The who chain is misssing.

The presence of so many fossils demonstrates the ever-changing diversity of life since it first emerged. From life’s early beginnings as single-celled prokaryotic cells through to the Cambrian Explosion and the emergence of dinosaurs and mammals, it’s a story of continuous adaptation. Creationists like to believe that certain evolutionary steps are intractable, but as more and more transitional fossils are discovered, it’s clear that each evolutionary advance can be explained.

What is sad and deceitful is calling separate and distinct species, transitional.

For example, some creationists argue that evolutionists cannot identify missing links between reptiles and birds. A post from Scientific American offers a compelling rebuttal:

Even without reading the article I will say with confidence they did not provided one iota of scientic evidence. Go back and cut and paste the evidence they provided and prove me wrong.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

YAWN

Indeed, fortuitous mutations have fueled a trial-and-error process that have produced gradual but dramatic changes in species over the course of eons. Some evolutionary offshoots worked for a while, but changing circumstances—such as difficult environmental conditions or the introduction of a rival species—produced dead ends (e.g. wooly mammoths, sabre toothed tigers, and very likely, the panda bear). Other branches proved more resilient, allowing species to continue in novel directions (birds, as an offshoot of dinosaurs, are an excellent example). And yet some species, such as cyanobacteria, coelacanths, and crocodiles, have barely changed, showing that evolution doesn’t fix what ain’t broke.

Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to provide one example, just one, where a mutation was the mechanism for a change of species.



Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
Typically, evolutionary biologists like to point out the differences in species as they branch away from common ancestors, but they also like to identify those characteristics that remain common to both. This serves the dual purpose of showing evolution-in-action, while also demonstrating the subtle ways in which speciation can occur.

For example, the form and structure (morphologies) of deer, moose, horses, and zebras are strikingly similar. Not surprisingly, they share a common ancestor. Similarly, seagulls and pelicans are similar in their appearance, behavior, and DNA. Again, they share a common ancestor, from which they deviated in relatively minor but important ways. Similarly, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were more alike than they were different, branching off from the evolutionary tree fairly recently in evolutionary history.

As Darwin pointed out 150 years ago, these common characteristics provide indisputable data points in favor of evolution, showing the ways in which species diverge when circumstances change.

Finding Vestigial Traits
One of the more compelling arguments in favor of evolution is the presence of vestigial traits—physical characteristics that are gradually working their way out of an organism’s genetic profile. Most of these traits are benign, but some can be harmful (which is why they’re often referred to as “evolutionary baggage”).

Just as full-blown characteristics don’t appear overnight—such as flight in birds, or an elephant’s long and dextrous trunk—traits that are no longer required for an organism’s day-to-day survival take a long time to disappear. These characteristics fade away because there’s no pressure for the gene or genes in question to retain them, resulting in faded or lingering traits that bear a weak resemblance to their original form.

In humans, classic examples include the appendix, wisdom teeth, the coccyx (or tailbone), and tonsils. Certain behaviors can also be considered vestigial, such as the Palmar Grasp Reflex and our instinctive aversions to bugs and snakes.

Finding Imperfect Characteristics
Because our current physiological form is derived from those of our ancestors, we can hardly be considered an ideal species; there are many inherent design flaws in the human body. The throat (pharynx), for instance, serves as a conduit for both food and air. In males, the urethra both helps move urine from the bladder and transports sperm to the penis. Then there is our inability to biosynthesize vitamin C, the extremely narrow birth canal (in women), and our over-loaded lower backs.

Deliberate conscious design, evolution doesn’t care about perfection. Adaptations simply need to be good enough. What’s more, evolution cannot start from scratch; each species has to be crafted from its previous form, which can often lead to awkward or problematic characteristics.

Would you like me to go on?

Only if you include the evident for what you say. Otherwise it is just the usual evo blather.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
no need.
He won't read what you already presented.
Not only is it to long, but contains far to many words with more than four letters.

Well why don't you read his link and cut and paste the evidence the presented?

Since evidence is more than 4 letters, if you don't understand it , I do, and I might be able to explain it to even you.

I predict mes will try, will not find any evidence, will not respond and his blather will be exposed.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Do u have any video footage of how evolution created gender?

Unfortunately even unbelievers accept causality but the first cause should be everything except god in their views.

Everything except god can be a creator of this world.
Seems divine religions aren't fixed with their passions so they have to deny the truth.


What can create this world other than God, not god?

What truth are we denying?
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Adam is a religious view thus it is an opinion. All you have done is tack Adam on to observations, nothing more.





Speciation has been observed in flowers and fruit flies.




By the very definition of inductive reasoning. I already told you that you are oblivious to the topics you bring up. Your question only hammers my point home.





Observation based conclusions not a guess.








Ive never claimed it was evidence, strawman. I was explaining to you something you claim to know which is science. Yet here you are asking why a universal can not be made from inductive conclusions. Hilarious





Tragopogon, Rhagoletis pomonella and Stephanomeria malheurensis are just 3 examples from over 100 observations of speciation.

None of them became a different species. They have some variation, but are still the same species. It is no different than breeding a poodle and a bulldog. Teh offspring will be different, but it will still be a dog. and will still produce only dogs.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
What caused the law of genetics to changed? Time certainly can't do that. It is a necessary invention of evolutionists. Different varieties of dogs mate all the tgime. The Pomeranian and the mastiff can't mate because of size, not genetics.

Give me the science that says it can go farther.

It surprise me that intelligent people are willing to accept something that is supposed to based on scienece but never have any evidence to support the guesses.

Time. That is the key. We don't have enough of it ourselves, but some day, I can assure you, our progeny will bear witness... and not to the "coming of God", "The Rapture", or any such nonsense.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Time. That is the key. We don't have enough of it ourselves, but some day, I can assure you, our progeny will bear witness... and not to the "coming of God", "The Rapture", or any such nonsense.

Explain how time changes the proven facts of genetics.

Explain what it is that our progeny will bear witness to.


Explain how you know the rapture is nonsense
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Explain how time changes the proven facts of genetics.

Explain what it is that our progeny will bear witness to.


Explain how you know the rapture is nonsense
I "know" as surely as you "know" your God exists - probably more so. Which is good enough for me.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I quit reading links a long time ago. They are all rhetoric, with no evidence. I said since you have no knowledge of what value infinity is, any formula that uses one, it unreliable.



The fact that you don't have the intellect to understand what I say, points to you having a literacy problem. It is amusing that those with a 2 digit IQ, think insulting someone is a sign of their intellect. Well they are right about that.



If it so well verified, post one, just one example of something in the TOE that has been proved. l Scientifically of course. You can't do it. If you think cosmologist have proved the origin of the universe, you are severely, science challenged.



The cure for evo headaches is to insist your evangelist provide evidence for their guesses.
I've seen enough of this nonsense, but I might be willing to discuss things with you if you do your homework. You pretend to know science, but you really are clueless as to how we work. Maybe take a humble-pill and realize that there is plenty of information scientists have made available that could help you understand, but you might have to abandon at least some your fairy tales though. Tough choice, right?

BTW, you also might seek out a denomination and church that puts a strong emphasis on honesty.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Well why don't you read his link and cut and paste the evidence the presented?

Since evidence is more than 4 letters, if you don't understand it , I do, and I might be able to explain it to even you.

I predict mes will try, will not find any evidence, will not respond and his blather will be exposed.
You have already been presented with evidence.
You ignore it.
Thus the reason no one takes you seriously.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
You have already been presented with evidence.
You ignore it.
Thus the reason no one takes you seriously.
Absolutely. Obviously engaging people in conversation calls for some discretion; one doesn't feed trolls, recalcitrants, or those who post to just to hear themselves talk. And sometimes a discussion goes so awry that it's better to simply walk away from it, or, in extreme cases, put the poster on "ignore." There are three I ignore.


.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Absolutely. Obviously engaging people in conversation calls for some discretion; one doesn't feed trolls, recalcitrants, or those who post to just to hear themselves talk. And sometimes a discussion goes so awry that it's better to simply walk away from it, or, in extreme cases, put the poster on "ignore." There are three I ignore.


.
I have no idea why he keeps engaging me.
I have already flat out told him he is nothing more to me than a play thing when I am bored.
 

Animore

Active Member
Your ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.


At this point, all you are doing is repeating your bold empty choir sermons.
I stopped taking you seriously on the topic of evolution over 250 posts ago.



Yak, yak, yak. The produce the evidence for just one thing the TO preaches.



What I have is better that 2 folks gabbing with no evdience.



And you're to lazy to cut and paste the evidence in the links you offer.



You don't even understand DNA. DNA does not support evolution. If anything it supports "after their kind." You also don't understand that Mendel's experiments also support "after their kind." The peas remained peas. Do you really not KNOW that evolution preaches a change of species? The changes were not the result of mutations, they were the result of dominant and recessives genes in the gene pool. You also donopt understands that natural selection has NEVER resulted in a change of species. That is just more evo unscientifcic mumbo jumbo.



Even 2 of you best fossile "experts", Gould and Mayr says this: "New species usually appear in the fossil records suddenly NOT CONNECTED with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. IOW thee ae not transitional fossils,



When those "turtle-like features keep developing what that reptile has always had, the consternation will be with those who have predicted it is the missing link. Evolution needs much more than a missing link. The who chain is misssing.



What is sad and deceitful is calling separate and distinct species, transitional.



Even without reading the article I will say with confidence they did not provided one iota of scientic evidence. Go back and cut and paste the evidence they provided and prove me wrong.



YAWN



Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to provide one example, just one, where a mutation was the mechanism for a change of species.





Only if you include the evident for what you say. Otherwise it is just the usual evo blather.[/QUOTE]


I just love how you're doing mental gymnastics around everything. It's both sad and funny.

1. DNA STRONGLY SUPPORTS evolution, actually. Do you even understand the basic concept of genetic modification? And here you go rambling on about bull**** with peas.


A LIVING THING IS NOT THE SAME AS A NON-LIVING THING.

2. Dude, of course there are going to be fossils that don't fit within the evolutionary scale! This is not proof, this is a statement of an already-known fact that no-one debates about.

3. Ugh. No one is calling anything wrongly here. We know the damn difference.


And there you go AGAIN. You do not want to read the article because you do not want to be wrong. You waste everyone's time debating here. We've thrown at you countless types of evidence, and you're still whining about no evidence. If you're not going to read what we give you, then there is no use debating us. I' say it frankly, you're lazy. At least try to take in the information we give you.
 

Animore

Active Member
Do u have any video footage of how evolution created gender?

Unfortunately even unbelievers accept causality but the first cause should be everything except god in their views.

Everything except god can be a creator of this world.
Seems divine religions aren't fixed with their passions so they have to deny the truth.

No one said to have had that specifically. Obviously not because with our current technology, it's nearly impossible. Do you have any evidence of Allah creating the world? No, because that was, at least allegedly, 6,000 years ago. The way you phrased your sentence is the same way as the Biblical account. Obviously, however, there are ways this happens:

https://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.php

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/05/gender-evolution/

If you can set aside your desire for footage, I think this will help quite nicely.
 
Top