A Challenge To All Creationists

[savagewind]

The two don't seem to be connected in any coherent way and your logic doesn't follow.

The two what? Nature and God?
Evolution is blind and God makes making SEE.

 

[Jose Fly]

Whenever you see a creationist say something like, "show me a mutated gene that resulted in one species evolving into a completely different organism", you know they're not operating in good faith.

They're hiding behind a completely undefined and meaningless criterion ("completely different organism" or similar), so they don't ever have to admit they're wrong. No matter what sort of example anyone posts, because "completely different organism" is undefined, they'll just wave it away as not being good enough.

At work we call this the rock game. It's where someone says "Bring me a rock", but they never say what sort of rock they want, even if you ask. Then no matter what type of rock you give them, they'll say "That's not the type of rock I want".

It's pretty dishonest, really.

 

[savagewind]

This is false. You need several thousand mutations accumulating over time in isolated populations for "macro evolution" to happen. There is no "macro evolution" and "micro evolution" processes. They are the same process of biological evolution but simply on different time scales. Earlier in the thread it has already been linked to different organisms undergoing speciation in controlled environments.

Maybe is a virus becomes a bacteria, you will have your day!

 

[Reggie Miller]

This is false. You need several thousand mutations accumulating over time in isolated populations for "macro evolution" to happen. There is no "macro evolution" and "micro evolution" processes. They are the same process of biological evolution but simply on different time scales. Earlier in the thread it has already been linked to different organisms undergoing speciation in controlled environments.

But you already admitted that you can't explain exactly how or why these mutations take place. So why discuss it further?

Micro-evolution has been observed and is valid. Minute changes in the genome among the same species has been obvserved.

Macro-evolution has not been observed but only assumed valid. No major changes that result in a fish becoming a reptile has ever been observed. Ever.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The two what? Nature and God?
Evolution is blind and God makes making SEE.

I see no connection between 1 + 1 making 2 and god. Secondly there is no evidence that any of these processes are guided by god.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Whenever you see a creationist say something like, "show me a mutated gene that resulted in one species evolving into a completely different organism", you know they're not operating in good faith.

They're hiding behind a completely undefined and meaningless criterion ("completely different organism" or similar), so they don't ever have to admit they're wrong. No matter what sort of example anyone posts, because "completely different organism" is undefined, they'll just wave it away as not being good enough.

At work we call this the rock game. It's where someone says "Bring me a rock", but they never say what sort of rock they want, even if you ask. Then no matter what type of rock you give them, they'll say "That's not the type of rock I want".

It's pretty dishonest, really.

You're the one who is dishonest if you can't admit that:

1. Abiogenesis can only be speculated about, it cannot be shown that it actually happened.

2. Macro-evolution is an assumption only.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Maybe is a virus becomes a bacteria, you will have your day!

A virus isn't even alive. And a virus will never become a bacteria under the theory of evolution. At least recommend something that is actually in line with the theory.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But you already admitted that you can't explain exactly how or why these mutations take place. So why discuss it further?

Incredibly false. We know EXACTLY how mutations occur. Of all the things you claim we don't know you choose one of the few we know exactly how it is done.

Micro-evolution has been observed and is valid. Minute changes in the genome among the same species has been obvserved.

True.

Macro-evolution has not been observed but only assumed valid. No major changes that result in a fish becoming a reptile has ever been observed. Ever.

Because humanity has not been around long enough to witness it. We do have evidence of it however.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're the one who is dishonest if you can't admit that:

1. Abiogenesis can only be speculated about, it cannot be shown that it actually happened.

2. Macro-evolution is an assumption only.

You're dodging by trying to change the subject. Again, what is a "completely different organism"?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Incredibly false. We know EXACTLY how mutations occur. Of all the things you claim we don't know you choose one of the few we know exactly how it is done.

True.

Because humanity has not been around long enough to witness it. We do have evidence of it however.

Wow. We have evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, too. You might reject it just as I reject your evidence but it is there, nevertheless.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You're dodging by trying to change the subject. Again, what is a "completely different organism"?

You don't know? Let's see:

1. A man and a flower are completely different organisms.

2. A dog and a cat are completely different organisms.

3. A mouse and a lion are completely different organisms.

Shall I go on?

 

[savagewind]

A virus isn't even alive. And a virus will never become a bacteria under the theory of evolution. At least recommend something that is actually in line with the theory.

LOL A virus isn't alive? So? Does that mean to you that its offspring will never BE alive?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Wow. We have evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, too. You might reject it just as I reject your evidence but it is there, nevertheless.

What is the evidence?

LOL A virus isn't alive? So? Does that mean to you that its offspring will never BE alive?

Yes. It does not meet the requirements for life.

 

[Jose Fly]

You don't know? Let's see:

1. A man and a flower are completely different organisms.

2. A dog and a cat are completely different organisms.

3. A mouse and a lion are completely different organisms.

Shall I go on?

By what measure? Are humans and chimps "completely different organisms"? Are chimps and gorillas? Are chimps and macaques?

 

[savagewind]

What is the evidence?

Yes. It does not meet the requirements for life.

Are you kidding? What are the requirements of life that the very first cell which became alive that you are so certain of that a virus does not have?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you kidding? What are the requirements of life that the very first cell which became alive that you are so certain of that a virus does not have?

Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential artificial life as "living". Biology is the primary science concerned with the study of life, although many other sciences are involved.

 

[savagewind]

By what measure? Are humans and chimps "completely different organisms"? Are chimps and gorillas? Are chimps and macaques?

Yes. They are. Every example so far is a parent and an offspring in the same family. Humans and gorillas are of different families. I think it can be true that in this case, a wild cat and a domesticated cat are different families.

 

[savagewind]

Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential artificial life as "living". Biology is the primary science concerned with the study of life, although many other sciences are involved.

Thank you. A virus is not alive, like creatures of the cell type. OK?

YOU are so sure that a virus can never become a cell type creature. I do not see that what you have posted gives evidence of that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Thank you. A virus is not alive, like creatures of the cell type. OK?

YOU are so sure that a virus can never become a cell type creature. I do not see that what you have posted gives evidence of that.

It could become something akin to cell type creatures perhaps but it would not be the same as the bacteria and single celled type organisms today because that evolution already occurred.

Much like the wings of a bird and the wings of a fly are not the same thing. Though they may function similarly they are independent evolutionary events.

 

[omega2xx]

I believe that such "speculations" are rational.

I think we have a consistent pattern here. Most, if not all, naturalistic explanations about things, replaced previous supernatural explanations of the same thing. The contrary never happened, to my knowledge.

In other words, your claim that the birth of life cannot have natural explanations, might in the future get thrown into the same heap where the claim "lightining can only be issued by Thor" finds itself in.

Ciao

- viole

The idea that life can originate from lifeless elements was thrown on the same heap that claims evolution is science.