A Challenge To All Creationists

[Animore]

View attachment 15311

One-liner. Bravo. Seriously, though, you have not given a singe ounce of proof to your claims of there being a God, and not one ounce of scientifically verified evidence. Instead you've chosen to do metal gymnastics around the evidence. That is not debating, that is an insult.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes they did by definition of speciation

Let me say this very slowly---evolution requires a change of species. Salamanders remaining salamanders does not qualify as a change of species. lf you still don't get it, I can make it even slower.

No, same genus not species

The species is "canis." "Genus" refers to different types of canis---dog, wolf, fox etc., niy rhry are still all canis.

Yes it is as these species do not produce viable offspring with the previous species while those two breeds of dogs can.

Not if there is too much interbreeding.

That is because dogs are still the same species.

You just said they were not the same species.

All you have done is demonstrate you have no knowledge of taxonomy

All you have done is contradict yourself. Maybe it is you who has demonstrated your lack of knowledge of taxonomy. All you have said is irrelevant. None of it proves evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

One-liner. Bravo. Seriously, though, you have not given a singe ounce of proof to your claims of there being a God, and not one ounce of scientifically verified evidence. Instead you've chosen to do metal gymnastics around the evidence. That is not debating, that is an insult.

You have fallen back on the usual evo default position---When you can't make your point, accuse the one who rejects evolution is because of their religion. I have not brought in God, the Bible or Christianity. So why have you? This is a discussion about science, Try to stick to the subject.

 

[McBell]

This is a discussion about science, Try to stick to the subject.

Really?
A discussion about science?
If so, when you are you gonna get on topic?

 

[omega2xx]

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

Let me try and educate you---asking for evidence is not mental gymnastics. That is your excuse for not having any evidence to support your faith.

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.

You brought up Mendel, not me. I just showed where you are ignorant of what it proved. Do you not have the mental capacity to discuss a subject without being vulgar? You do not even understand what DNA does.

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

DUUH

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.

Try and stick with the subject. It IS NOT about variations in fossils. It is about not having any intermediate fossils that link an A to a B, in spite of having millions of fossils. If evolution was true, the great majority would be intermediates.

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

It hasn't been obvious so far.

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.

I quit reading them because they are ALWAYS these same old tired evo rhetoric and no evidence. You can prove me wrong by going to your favorite site, and cut and paste the evidence they presented. But you can't do that can you? You would give your eye teeth to prove me wrong. I have told you how, but you know you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

Really?
A discussion about science?
If so, when you are you gonna get on topic?

Really?
A discussion about science?
If so, when you are you gonna get on topic?

 

[omega2xx]

Yeah cavemen didn't believe that because 1. They were cavemen 2. They weren't around when it happened and 3. They had no concept of evolution.

What you don't understand is there has never been any cave men.

IT DOES NOT NEED A CREATOR.

What you still don't understand is it did not happen in the blink of an eye. It's a random mutation with natural selection taking care of the rest.

What you still doesn't understand is that time will not change the laws of genetics.

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks for confirming my statement that you do not have a clue as to what constitutes scientific evidence. Let me give you a clue---pictures are not evidence no matter how many you have.

I did not post pictures. I have just posted paragraphs of info along with pictures. Big difference.

Does anyone besides me see a contradiction here?

 

[Animore]

Does anyone besides me see a contradiction here?

Can anyone see the stupidity here?

 

[Skwim]

Just to interrupt for a minute. What a lot of creationists forget or purposely ignore in their attack on evolution is that the evolution of species is demanded for after Noah docked his boat.

Why?

Ah! A reasonable question. It is estimated that there are now

Eight million seven hundred thousand (give or take 1.3 million) is the latest estimated total number of species on Earth and the most precise calculation ever offered, according to a new study co-authored by a researcher with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Aug 24, 2011.
​

Creationists admit that nowhere near this number of species could have been taken aboard the ark. Therefore the question is, where did they come from? One creationist answer comes from Answers in Genesis.

"In our previous articles, we observed that Noah took a few thousand animals on board the Ark about 4,500 years ago. Of the kinds that stepped off the Ark, most went extinct. In mammals, for example, around 70% of the kinds are now extinct. But approximately 30% survived.

Today, many biological families contain numerous species, implying that new species have arisen since the Flood. Since Scripture never forbids speciation, nothing in the Bible suggests that the formation of new species within a kind is impossible. Thus, speciation within kinds is perfectly compatible with Genesis and with the rest of Scripture."
​

And from godandscience.org / Evidence for God

"Young-earth creationists say no reputable creationist denies the fact of speciation.48 They also say examples of rapid adaptation-even to the extent of producing new species-abound.49
​

And like it or not, speciation is biological evolution.

spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/
noun
Biology
noun: speciation; plural noun: speciations

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

.​

 

[Shad]

Let me say this very slowly---evolution requires a change of species. Salamanders remaining salamanders does not qualify as a change of species. lf you still don't get it, I can make it even slower.

I provided a examples in change of species. You ignored these examples and create a strawman based on salamanders

The species is "canis." "Genus" refers to different types of canis---dog, wolf, fox etc., niy rhry are still all canis.

Which my examples fit as it is a new species within the same genus....

Not if there is too much interbreeding.

No as inbreeding does not determine viable offspring.

You just said they were not the same species.

No I didn't you just didn't read my comment and made up one in your head instead.

All you have done is contradict yourself.

No I haven't as you are making up statements I never made.

Maybe it is you who has demonstrated your lack of knowledge of taxonomy.

Nope try again

All you have said is irrelevant.

Hardly. At the very least I have established that you lack a education in the topic while I have at least a basic education in the subject.

None of it proves evolution.

Actually the evidence I provided supports TOE quiet well

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Do you have any video footage of a god ever doing anything? Do you have video footage of a god existing?

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

Accepting causaility leaves your god argument with a huge problem because it does not follow the same rules that you're forcing upon everything else...

If I used your logic in reverse, you would call me out on the hypocrisy of what I was saying, wouldn't you?

 

[omega2xx]

Ah! A reasonable question. It is estimated that there are now

Eight million seven hundred thousand (give or take 1.3 million) is the latest estimated total number of species on Earth and the most precise calculation ever offered, according to a new study co-authored by a researcher with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Aug 24, 2011.
​

Creationists admit that nowhere near this number of species could have been taken aboard the ark. Therefore the question is, where did they come from? One creationist answer comes from Answers in Genesis.

I doubt if there are even half that many. Also, the species that lived in the water were not in the ark. The only way that number could be even close to accurate is if they say a beagle and a boxer are different species. However it is really irrelevant---the laws of genetics keeps every species unable to produce a kid other than what the gene pool of the parents have---no gene for bones, no kids with bones.

"In our previous articles, we observed that Noah took a few thousand animals on board the Ark about 4,500 years ago. Of the kinds that stepped off the Ark, most went extinct. In mammals, for example, around 70% of the kinds are now extinct. But approximately 30% survived.[

As usual, evo rhetoric with no evidence.

]Today, many biological families contain numerous species, implying that new species have arisen since the Flood. Since Scripture never forbids speciation, nothing in the Bible suggests that the formation of new species within a kind is impossible. Thus, speciation within kinds is perfectly compatible with Genesis and with the rest of Scripture.

"

Biological families are only variations of the same species, like wolves and poodles are in the same species but divided for classification purposes. Also speciation does not change the species---the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. One study group classified them as a sub-species.
​

And from godandscience.org / Evidence for God

"Young-earth creationists say no reputable creationist denies the fact of speciation.48 They also say examples of rapid adaptation-even to the extent of producing new species-abound.49​

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speciation.html#n49


What is missing here" evidencne EVIDENCE. It is amusing that you like to quote what people say, but NEVER provide the supporting evidence.[/QUOTE]
​

And like it or not, speciation is biological evolution.

spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/
noun
Biology
noun: speciation; plural noun: speciations

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

.​

[/QUOTE]

Like it or not, speciation does not change the species. If they can no longer mate and produce kids, they simply become extinct, but the the species lives on in those who can.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What you still doesn't understand is that time will not change the laws of genetics.

So, from your opinion, where do dinosaurs fit in your ideas of how life produces "after its kind"? I don't believe that dinosaurs would be able to reproduce with any given modern species. And yet, don't you have to admit that dinosaurs did exist? How do new "kinds" come about, in your estimation?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Just to interrupt for a minute. What a lot of creationists forget or purposely ignore in their attack on evolution is that the evolution of species is demanded for after Noah docked his boat.


.

That's much, much different than claiming:

1. Abiogenesis happened.
2. People evolved from ape-like creatures.
3. Everything evolved from a single life form.
4. One kind of life slowly evolved into many completely different others over millions of years.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's much, much different than claiming:

1. Abiogenesis happened.
2. People evolved from ape-like creatures.
3. Everything evolved from a single life form.
4. One kind of life slowly evolved into many completely different others over millions of years.

The exact same biological process would be responsible for repopulating the planet with the current 8.7 million different species that currently inhabit the Earth.

Your position claims that it happened within the last 6,000 years - meaning it would be a super-charged version of the very thing that you say is impossible.

Which position do you want to hold - that evolution happens over a long period of time, or that evolution happens at an incredibly fast rate? Remember, please, that neither of those support your contrary position that evolution does not happen.

 

[Skwim]

I doubt if there are even half that many. Also, the species that lived in the water were not in the ark. The only way that number could be even close to accurate is if they say a beagle and a boxer are different species. However it is really irrelevant---the laws of genetics keeps every species unable to produce a kid other than what the gene pool of the parents have---no gene for bones, no kids with bones.

Your doubts are, of course, meaningless. And why weren't any of the species living in the seas not on the ark? It's a scientific fact that, except for a few exceptions, saltwater fish can't live in freshwater---and vice versa. Nor can either live in just slightly salty water. So, what happened to them? And other saltwater life can't live in freshwater as well. The Bible doesn't say because obviously the people who wrote it (god?) were unaware of this simple scientific fact and simply figured all sea life could live wherever. And, of course, no mention is ever made of all the non-animal life that would have needed to have been brought aboard the ark, plants, fungi, microbes etc.

​

As usual, evo rhetoric with no evidence.

Evidently you're not aware that the source of the comment, Answers in Genesis. It's one of the most strident creationists organizations in the country.

​

Biological families are only variations of the same species, like wolves and poodles are in the same species but divided for classification purposes. Also speciation does not change the species---the salamanders remained salamanders and the gulls remained gulls. One study group classified them as a sub-species.

Your ignorance is beautiful. Simply beautiful.

​

What is missing here" evidencne EVIDENCE. It is amusing that you like to quote what people say, but NEVER provide the supporting evidence.

And from ANOTHER pro-creationist organization no less. Boy, if you keep shooting down your friends all you'll have left is your enemies.

​

And like it or not, speciation is biological evolution.

spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/
noun
Biology
noun: speciation; plural noun: speciations

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

.​

Like it or not, speciation does not change the species. If they can no longer mate and produce kids, they simply become extinct, but the the species lives on in those who can.

Again, your ignorance blossoms like a spring garden: Thank you for the pleasure of letting us watch it grow.


.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Evidently you're not aware that the source of the comment, Answers in Genesis, is one of the most strident creationists organizations in the country.

Tobad you can't find anything they say on that site and refute it with hard evidence. I challenge you to try.

 

[Reggie Miller]

And like it or not, speciation is biological evolution.

Yes, it is. However it is not talking about one creature evolving into a completely different kind of creature. Only micro-evolution or very small changes among like species.

 

[McBell]

Tobad you can't find anything they say on that site and refute it with hard evidence. I challenge you to try.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Damn.
That was easy.