A Challenge To All Creationists

[Ouroboros]

Most anti-evolutionist fall down at the beginning of the discussion. They can not define "species" or "kind" or whatever and thus the ensuing conversation is complete and utter Jabberwocky.

I think that might be at the core of the problem. They reject the idea of new species because they don't understand that life is continuous and the classification is based on a somewhat arbitrary system from how we see the world and divide attributes. In reality, there's only one "species," so to speak, which is biological life. The discontinuity we see is only because a branch on the tree is so much farther away from another one.

 

[Super Universe]

Angels came to the planet, assembled a DNA chain and placed it inside a protein shell, then they very gently placed it in a tidal pool.

The gentleness was not because the protein shell was so fragile, it was because they knew they were beginning something incredible.

 

[Sapiens]

Angels came to the planet, assembled a DNA chain and placed it inside a protein shell, then they very gently placed it in a tidal pool.

The gentleness was not because the protein shell was so fragile, it was because they knew they were beginning something incredible.

This happened where and when? Is there some evidence of this event?

 

[Super Universe]

This happened where and when? Is there some evidence of this event?

It happened on the earth in a tidal pool. The calendar hadn't been invented yet so what time reference do you wish me to use? You already know how long ago it happened on the earth.

Do you want a universal time reference? It would take me some time to work it out but you wouldn't understand it.

Is there some evidence of this event? Yes. It's called life. It's all over the planet. Perhaps you've encountered it once or twice?

 

[Sapiens]

It happened on the earth in a tidal pool. The calendar hadn't been invented yet so what time reference do you wish me to use? You already know how long ago it happened on the earth.

Do you want a universal time reference? It would take me some time to work it out but you wouldn't understand it.

Is there some evidence of this event? Yes. It's called life. It's all over the planet. Perhaps you've encountered it once or twice?

Yes, there is life, however as evidence of your singularly idiomatic view, it does not serve. Again you are a minority of one considering that evidence.

I suspect that I have witnessed a great deal more of the life on this planet than you can imagine.

As for a time reference ... I'd be happy with just something like: Oh, so-many-years ago.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

.



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

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit

 

[omega2xx]

No. I'm saying that the word means "the event or process which leads to a new species". It's not a wrong definition. That IS the definition.

If it does not lead to a new species, the definition is wrong.

Look it up instead of arguing that it's not. It has nothing to do with proving evolution or not. It's just a word that means exactly what it means, regardless if speciation can happen or not. The word's meaning doesn't mean what it stands for necessarily is true. Unicorn for instance is a word that means a horse with a single horn on its head. They don't exist, but the word still means what it means, same with speciation. It means what it means regardless of actual speciation is happening or not!

Would you try to teach a truth with a wrong definition of a word in the definition? That is absurd.

 

[omega2xx]

BTW: Nothing in science is "proven," and Evolution is as well "proven" as any other and better than most scientific theories.

BTW many things in science are proven: DNA is proven---that there is more than 1 blood is proven---what your blood type is can be proven---what type all blood types are can b e proven. Check what the Nob els prizes have been given form. It is NEVER on a theory.

That is the most foolish statement anyone can make about real science. It is a statement given to give the faithful of Darwin hope they have not believed in vain.

Since the TOE is still a theory, NOTHING in it has ever been proven and real science disproves the theory.

 

[metis]

A statement mad for ignorance. You ASSUME I have not done research because I reject what you accept by faith alone.

You have no real evidence they mutate. Hint: A virus remaining a virus is not evidence of evolution.

First of all, I'm pretty sure you haven't done the research because, if you had, you wouldn't be posting the distortions that you have been perpetually posting. It's either that you simply are trolling based on "confirmation bias". To illustrate the point, consider the complete absurdity of your last sentence. Even a high school biology student should know better.
It's amazing how you ignore the massive objective evidence for evolution, and yet you obviously believe in religious stories that cannot in any way be confirmed through objectively-derived evidence. If all humankind had your "driving curiosity" , we'd be still trying to figure out even today what are all those lights in the sky about?

 

[metis]

Check what the Nob els prizes have been given form. It is NEVER on a theory.

Maybe it's better to read this before making such absurd statements: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3381

The title of the article reads as such: "Foundational theories in topological physics garner Nobel Prize"

 

[metis]

Or maybe try this one that covers all the Nobel Prizes, including what they were for: All Nobel Prizes in Physics

 

[Shad]

If one can't do it, no number can.

False. You setup a fallacious argument only to arrive at a single point which is irrelevant.

You say something like that because you can't proved even one example a mutation causing a change of species. You are just blowing smoke.

No I say that as that is not how evolution and mutation mechanics are taught. Like I said you have no idea what you are talking about, make demands based on your ignorance then call it a day.

Name the process and without eve knowing what you have in mind, it will not be evidence of evolution.

Then my answer is pointless as you are claiming you have knowledge of which mechanics work or not all while being obvious that natural selection is not speciation. Hilarious.
Try again son.

You have already stated your bias openly as you will dismiss any evidence for evolution thus your participation in this thread is pointless.

It doesn't matter.

It does matter as it exposes your ignorance of a topic at hand.

You can't do either one. If you could, you would have already done it.

I have already provided examples of speciation pages ago. You ignored these as your bias prevents you from accepting it. And your ignorance which causes you to confuse the terms and their meaning.

Quit beating around the bush.

I pointed out another of your mistakes. If you can not ask a question properly since you have no idea what the terms you are using means your question is irrelevant.

Take either one and post the evidence.

I provided examples pages ago. Go back and read my posts.

Actually it come out the same which exposes the flaw in you thinking.

This is hilarious coming from someone that thinks natural selection is speciation.

What flaw? demonstrate it do not claim it.

I have never said one will produce a new species.

Yes you did as you were demanding evidence of one mutation producing a new species.

I say no amount will produce a newe species.

Then you previous question was nothing but a strawman to arrive at the above conclusion. Too bad there is evidence which I posted of new species emerging. Go back and read my posts.

Why do you just beat around the bush?

I don't. I just openly mock your vast ignorance of the topic at hand. Besides I provided examples in previous posts. So the question is are you capable of reading on your own without being spoon fed knowledge like a child?

It always seem that way to those who are ignorant of the subject.

Hilarious coming from the one that confused natural selection with speciation.... What son?

Your ignorance is sad and pathetic.

Put forward by the person that thinks natural selection is speciation, Hilarious son.

That is why you continue to blow smoke and think opinions are evidence.

No I have provided examples before, you either didn't look up these examples of dismissed them automatically.

Your indoctrination is complete.

Coming from the Biblical literialist this is hilarious. Try again son

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

The term "species" is malleable. The pigeon-holing of living things into one or another specific has more to do with human classification systems than biological reality. Humans have attempted to categorise according to "like" and "unlike" examples of things since at least the time of Aristotle and although such systems are useful for our purposes they're not necessarily a feature of the natural world (or at least not in such simplistic terms). Most of the work in classifying into species took place prior to modern genetics, and even now - with that genetic knowledge - it isn't used to thoroughly define our definitions. If anything, genetics shows that rigorous black-and-white categories like "species" aren't an especially strong idea. So any argument along the lines of 'speciation causes things to become different species, which means they can't reproduce, which means they'll go extinct, which means that evolution can't be true!!!' is really in the formal category of 'Not Even Wrong', because it tries to apply a thoroughly man-made concept to something that just happens naturally.

That isn't to say that the definition doesn't have a use. Indeed, it's the usefulness of categories and classification that led to the term being developed. But when you use them, remember that natural behaviour doesn't have to conform to the categories we develop.

 

[Ouroboros]

If it does not lead to a new species, the definition is wrong.

Has nothing to do with the definition. The definition is just the definition.

Would you try to teach a truth with a wrong definition of a word in the definition? That is absurd.

No, what's absurd is that you think that the definition of speciation somehow is suppose to teach the truth of evolution. You got it all backwards.

 

[Ouroboros]

Check what the Nob els prizes have been given form. It is NEVER on a theory.

5 Theories in Economics: 5 Nobel Prize-Winning Economic Theories You Should Know About

Theory of phase transision in physics: The Nobel Prize in Physics 1982

Here's a list of awards in physics, several regarding "theory": All Nobel Prizes in Physics

Let's get this clear. You don't know what a scientific theory is or what it means. You don't know what evolution is or means. You don't know what speciation is or means. You don't know what "nothing" means. You don't know a lot of things, but you have plenty of opinions.

And still, you haven't given any evidence for creationism for this thread, which was what this thread is about. Stop with all these red herrings and start showing some real content.

 

[Super Universe]

Yes, there is life, however as evidence of your singularly idiomatic view, it does not serve. Again you are a minority of one considering that evidence.

I suspect that I have witnessed a great deal more of the life on this planet than you can imagine.

As for a time reference ... I'd be happy with just something like: Oh, so-many-years ago.

Millions of people have read the Urantia Book, so, again, I'm not the only one "considering" that evidence.

You have witnessed a great deal more of life than I can imagine? Maybe you have. That and $3.75 will get you a coffee.

As for the time reference, you're time is not the same as my time. I can say that it happened on the earth about 3.5 billion years ago to go along with what your scientists believe but if humans find out that their carbon 14 dating estimates are incorrect then that changes everything.

 

[Skwim]

Ex nihilo, nihil fit

That's It?? Nothing comes from nothing?

Gotta do better, far better than this to get into the game.


.

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

Millions of people have read the Urantia Book, so, again, I'm not the only one "considering" that evidence.

You have witnessed a great deal more of life than I can imagine? Maybe you have. That and $3.75 will get you a coffee.

As for the time reference, you're time is not the same as my time. I can say that it happened on the earth about 3.5 billion years ago to go along with what your scientists believe but if humans find out that their carbon 14 dating estimates are incorrect then that changes everything.

**
If we find out that our Carbon-14 dating is incorrect (which it isn't), then it means it's incorrect. It doesn't change anything simply because that is not the only dating method that science uses to gain answers. I mean, if you'd like to go through that old chip wrapping that YEC's call the '101 Evidences for a Young Age Of The Earth and the Universe', I'd happily de-bunk whatever you put down.

 

[Sapiens]

Millions of people have read the Urantia Book, so, again, I'm not the only one "considering" that evidence.

Interesting, especially in light of your earlier post:

I'm not quite a minority of one. There are tens of thousands of other Urantia Book believers.

So, according to you there are Millions of people who have read the Urantia book (millions means two million at a minimum) and yet there are tens of thousands (similarly twenty thousand. However most estimates, e.g., Martin Gardner suggest "no more than a few thousand") believers.

So, your conversion rate is rather low and the number of readers that find you Urantia Book to be complete and utter wack-a-doodle is rather high. So, perhaps you are not literally a minority of one, but figuratively the description is not far from the bulls-eye.

You have witnessed a great deal more of life than I can imagine? Maybe you have. That and $3.75 will get you a coffee.

As for the time reference, you're time is not the same as my time. I can say that it happened on the earth about 3.5 billion years ago to go along with what your scientists believe but if humans find out that their carbon 14 dating estimates are incorrect then that changes everything.

I amazes me that someone like yourself, who is trying to rewrite modern science, does not know that C14 is of no use for time scales that exceed 50,000 years.

 

[McBell]

It is amusing that out of the creation scients you pick one that may not be qualified. You make Satan so proud.

wow.
That went way over your head.