A Challenge To All Creationists

[McBell]

.



MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.​

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

361 posts over 19 pages and STILL nothing...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As I replied earlier to another post, you're expecting to witness "monkey into man", or some comparable large-scale change in an organism. The fact is that by the very definitions of evolution that kind of change takes more time than any of us will ever have.

However, what do you think of bacteria that become resistant to our antibiotic attacks on them? This is a form of evolution, like it or not. It is "proof" for those willing to accept it. The bacteria have produced "beyond their kind". And it is something we can see within a lifetime because it is a more simple organism, and their reproduction rate is at a drastically higher frequency.

Or are you still stuck on requiring "monkey into man" as the base level of "proof" you require?

Yes, I've read enough of his posts by now to realize that's precisely his problem -- a complete inability to think beyond the here-and-now and immediate cause and effect. To imagine for himself a long, long chain of events, each minutely different from the last resulting in something very, very different after thousands and millions of repetitions is simply beyond his capacity.

I sincerely doubt that he could believe that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Colorado river, for the same reason. After all, look how wide the canyon is compared to the river -- it couldn't possibly ever have done that, even if you gave it 11 or more weeks!

 

[Skwim]

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.

Yes it is.

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.

AiG One of the most dishonest and misleading creationist sites on the net? Believe me it isn't worth anyone's effort.

HOWEVER, in as much as you evidently cherish their wisdom, how about telling us what you think of their conclusion and its implication: . . .

"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 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.

So what on earth do you think the definition means when it says

"speciation

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

Just where are these new and distinct species coming from?


.

​

 

[Skwim]

361 posts over 19 pages and STILL nothing...

Sad in a way, but certainly not unexpected. I was hoping for at least a halfhearted try.


.

 

[McBell]

Just where are these new and distinct species coming from?
.

well duh...
God poofed them into existence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

well duh...
God poofed them into existence.

Goodness, God's a poofter? Who the heck knew? Tee-hee.

 

[omega2xx]

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?

 

[omega2xx]

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.

​

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.

​

Your ignorance is beautiful. Simply beautiful.

​

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.

.​

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




.

 

[omega2xx]

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Damn.
That was easy.

DUUH. Post some evidence they mentioned. All they do is tell lies and damn lies. Better take you lunch, it will take you a long time and still will not find any.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Yes it is.



AiG One of the most dishonest and misleading creationist sites on the net? Believe me it isn't worth anyone's effort.

HOWEVER, in as much as you evidently cherish their wisdom, how about telling us what you think of their conclusion and its implication: . . .

"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."​

So what on earth do you think the definition means when it says

"speciation

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

Just where are these new and distinct species coming from?


.

​

You make a bold statement about the site but do not have anything to say to refute anything they say. Am I supposed to just take your word for it that the site sucks? Not hardly.

I don't have any problem with what you quoted from the site.

Speciation as defined above is not what Creationists accept as what has happened. Speciation as defined in your quote is what we believe.

There are so many problems with your definition of "speciation" that I highly doubt you would want me to question you about it. Best to just drop it and talk about something else.

 

[Skwim]

I don't have any problem with what you quoted from the site.

Good. Then you do believe in speciation, the evolution of one species into another.

Speciation as defined above is not what Creationists accept as what has happened.

Well, if you know this to be a fact you must have a resource that gives the acceptable creationist definition of "speciation." Please share. Thank you. .

Speciation as defined in your quote is what we believe.

What definition? Here's the quote broken into its three sentences . Please point out which of the three defines speciation.

A. Today, many biological families contain numerous species, implying that new species have arisen since the Flood.

B. Since Scripture never forbids speciation, nothing in the Bible suggests that the formation of new species within a kind is impossible.

C.Thus, speciation within kinds is perfectly compatible with Genesis and with the rest of Scripture.​

There are so many problems with your definition of "speciation" that I highly doubt you would want me to question you about it.

In as much as "speciation" is a term conceived by science, its correct definition is at the discretion of science. If they want to define "speciation" as X then that's what "speciation" means. That creationists need to redefine it as Y is fine, but don't expect anyone to buy into it. It would be like atheists redefining "Christian salvation" as vacationing on a tropical isle, and expecting Christians to pay any attention to it. So any problems that arise with the scientific definition of "speciation" lie entirely with those who reject it.

Best to just drop it and talk about something else.

Of course, when the going gets tough the weak cut bait and run. We understand.


.

 

[Big_TJ]

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!

As I Micheal Shermer once said " If we never went to a computer plant and see how computers are made, then many persons would believe that there are little people running around in the screen and writing things on it, and that belief could be viewed as rational." Rusra02 equating innate objects with biological objects is just pathetic nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, but I did give you a link. And you know the chances are pretty slim so just stop saying, "show me the math." You going to show me the math that proves what I posted wrong? Then kindly shut up about it.

I wonder what the chances are for the existence of the very specific god you believe in.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sure it can. If you allow for a Creator... otherwise you've got to have some form of abiogenesis take place for evolution to happen. Sorry, but that's a Catch-22 I won't let you out of.

So if you are a diehard atheist you've got to accept the impossibility of life from non-life at some point in time. It's just that simple. And good luck with that, it requires more faith than any religion I've ever heard of.

(The rest of your post was ignored on purpose, by the way.)

What's a "diehard atheist?"

 

[Reggie Miller]

Good. Then you do believe in speciation, the evolution of one species into another.

Well, if you know this to be a fact you must have a resource that gives the acceptable creationist definition of "speciation." Please share. Thank you. .

What definition? Here's the quote broken into its three sentences . Please point out which of the three defines speciation.

A. Today, many biological families contain numerous species, implying that new species have arisen since the Flood.

B. Since Scripture never forbids speciation, nothing in the Bible suggests that the formation of new species within a kind is impossible.

C.Thus, speciation within kinds is perfectly compatible with Genesis and with the rest of Scripture.​

In as much as "speciation" is a term conceived by science, its correct definition is at the discretion of science. If they want to define "speciation" as X then that's what "speciation" means. That creationists need to redefine it as Y is fine, but don't expect anyone to buy into it. It would be like atheists redefining "Christian salvation" as vacationing on a tropical isle, and expecting Christians to pay any attention to it. So any problems that arise with the scientific definition of "speciation" lie entirely with those who reject it.

Of course, when the going gets tough the weak cut bait and run. We understand.


.

Okay, you asked for it.

1. What species was first among organisms?
2. What species did Man evolve from, go back at least to the single celled organisms. I dare you.
3. What species is Man evolving into now? Will Man go back to ape-like characteristics or will he develop a larger skull or what?
4. Please post your evolutionary tree, starting with organism #1.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I wonder what the chances are for the existence of the very specific god you believe in.

100%

 

[Reggie Miller]

What's a "diehard atheist?"

You really don't know?
A diehard atheist is an atheist that is absolutely sure that no god of any kind exists or ever has existed or ever will exist.

 

[Skwim]

Okay, you asked for it.

1. What species was first among organisms?
2. What species did Man evolve from, go back at least to the single celled organisms. I dare you.
3. What species is Man evolving into now? Will Man go back to ape-like characteristics or will he develop a larger skull or what?
4. Please post your evolutionary tree, starting with organism #1.

Not what I asked at all, and creating straw men to distract me and others from my requests ain't going to work.

I ASKED:

1) ". . . if you know this [Speciation as defined above is not what Creationists accept as what has happened.] to be a fact you must have a resource that gives the acceptable creationist definition of "speciation." Please share. Thank you.

2) "What definition?"

3) "Please point out which of the three defines speciation."
​

One of my points being, why should I answer any of your questions before you answer mine? Of course we both know the reason, don't we.



.

 

[SkepticThinker]

100%

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really don't know?
A diehard atheist is an atheist that is absolutely sure that no god of any kind exists or ever has existed or ever will exist.

Oh, you mean a strong atheist. You must realize that all nonbelievers are not strong atheists.

What do you call people who make bold assertions and knowledge claims without backing them up?