A Challenge To All Creationists

[Jose Fly]

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.

No, humans and gorillas are both in the family Hominidae.

 

[omega2xx]

You haven't made the point to anyone's satisfaction.

He has to mine.

Firstly because abiogenesis requires far fewer assumptions and speculation than 'God did it' and secondly because there is no micro and macro evolution.

No true. God spoke and it happened, One assumption. abiogenesis assumes life can originate from lifeless elements. One assumption.

The same process applies to both and creationists have never demonstrated a wall separating one from the other.

And evolution has never demonstrated a clear path linking species, especially to the guess of what the first life form was.

Stating that there is a micro and macro evolution is like saying there is a micro and macro plate tectonics. We can, in the entire human life span, only observe a few feet of movement, but that's no reason to assume that they haven't moved thousands of miles based on available evidence.

There is no available evidence.

And the evidence shows small changes in gene inheritance add up to large enough changes for speciation events and beyond.

There is no evidence supporting that statement, ans speciation does not result in a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

No, humans and gorillas are both in the family Hominidae.

An arbitrary classification evolutionist needed to give the faithful hope they have no believed in vain.

 

[savagewind]

No, humans and gorillas are both in the family Hominidae.

Yes, but we are not talking about what science says. We are talking about obvious profound differences in life forms. A gorilla seems profoundly different than a human. One species of frog is not profoundly different than another species of frog.

 

[viole]

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

Yes, by people like Ken Ham, the famous scientist, I suppose. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

He has to mine.



No true. God spoke and it happened, One assumption. abiogenesis assumes life can originate from lifeless elements. One assumption.



And evolution has never demonstrated a clear path linking species, especially to the guess of what the first life form was.



There is no available evidence.



There is no evidence supporting that statement, ans speciation does not result in a change of species.

That looks like 3 assumptions to me:
God exists.
God can speak.
When God speaks, other things come into existence.

So it takes about 3 assumptions to conclude that "God spoke and it happened."

Why would you go with an explanation that takes multiple assumptions when there are better options available that require less assumptions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

He has to mine.



No true. God spoke and it happened, One assumption. abiogenesis assumes life can originate from lifeless elements. One assumption.



And evolution has never demonstrated a clear path linking species, especially to the guess of what the first life form was.



There is no available evidence.

If you ignore it, it does appear that way.

There is no evidence supporting that statement, ans speciation does not result in a change of species.

Speciation results in a new species, BY DEFINITION.

 

[Reggie Miller]

What is the evidence?

You don't know? Hmm...

 

[Reggie Miller]

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

Just go play with your evolutionary tree. It needs another adjustment somewhere or another.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You don't know? Hmm...

I have heard a number of people attempt failed arguments for evidence. I hope yours is different. I don't hold my breath however.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I have heard a number of people attempt failed arguments for evidence. I hope yours is different. I don't hold my breath however.

Well, you can start with the New Testament. Eye witnesses who were there. But hey, who believes a bunch of guys that would rather suffer horrible deaths than recant their testimony?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, you can start with the New Testament. Eye witnesses who were there. But hey, who believes a bunch of guys that would rather suffer horrible deaths than recant their testimony?

Except the bible is not a viable source. There is not a record of people who was told to recount their stories. Jewish and early Christian persecution did happen in Rome that is no doubt but there is no shortage of people in history who have been persecuted. Not to mention martyrdom strengthens beliefs rather than ends them. The persecution of Jews and early Christians in the long run probably helped propagate the belief.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Except the bible is not a viable source. There is not a record of people who was told to recount their stories. Jewish and early Christian persecution did happen in Rome that is no doubt but there is no shortage of people in history who have been persecuted. Not to mention martyrdom strengthens beliefs rather than ends them. The persecution of Jews and early Christians in the long run probably helped propagate the belief.

Well, you're wrong. The Bible is a very good source, very accurate, originally written by the eye witnesses who were there. Furthermore, the accuracy has been verified by several good sources.

Of course if you don't believe that then that's your story.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, you're wrong. The Bible is a very good source, very accurate, originally written by the eye witnesses who were there. Furthermore, the accuracy has been verified by several good sources.

Of course if you don't believe that then that's your story.

What is the evidence any of these claims are true?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, but we are not talking about what science says.

Then what is your definition of "family" (since you used the term).

We are talking about obvious profound differences in life forms. A gorilla seems profoundly different than a human. One species of frog is not profoundly different than another species of frog.

Again you're hiding behind undefined criteria. Now it's "profoundly different", which I'll predict you won't define either.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just go play with your evolutionary tree. It needs another adjustment somewhere or another.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.

 

[Jose Fly]

An arbitrary classification evolutionist needed to give the faithful hope they have no believed in vain.

Empty assertion.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, by people like Ken Ham, the famous scientist, I suppose. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

It is amusing that the Darwinites can only mention one scientist as if he is typical. I bet education wise, he is more qualified than you are. Instead of attacking him, why not prove what he says is wrong? Please provide the proven science that says he is.

 

[omega2xx]

That looks like 3 assumptions to me:
God exists.
God can speak.
When God speaks, other things come into existence.

So it takes about 3 assumptions to conclude that "God spoke and it happened."<<

God spoke is one assumption. That was YOUR QUESTION. You don't get to embellish it.

Why would you go with an explanation that takes multiple assumptions when there are better options available that require less assumptions?

My assumption is that you can't offer a better option. Actually that is not an asSumption, YOU CAN't.

 

[omega2xx]

If you ignore it, it does appear that way.


Speciation results in a new species, BY DEFINITION.

If the definition for speciation includes producing a new species and it doesn't, the definition is wrong, therefore not THE definition.