A Challenge To All Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

Matthew, John, Jude and Peter were all there.

Why do you think that the stories in the Bible are eyewitness accounts?

 

[omega2xx]

Omega, debating YEC is like debating someone who believes the distance between LA and NY is a few yards. Anyone believing that is, in my opinion, immune from any evidence that can be presented. And I include my past self in that set.

The point is you try to paint all creationists with the Ken Ham brush.

But if you want to find out what other Christians think of what Mr. Ham believes, check out super mega dooper Christian philosopher and apologist WL Craig. He states quite clearly that YEC is a disgrace for Christianity (and common sense, I would add).

Most Christian have never heard of Ken Ham, and those who have do not accept all he says.

And if you do not even manage to reach agreement within your own ranks about something so basic, something that involves a discrepancy of several orders of magnitude, not to speak of major disagreements between different religions, then it is obvious that skeptics cannot take you too seriously and science (successfully) proceeds as if religion did not exist.

The age of the earth is irrelevant. The Bible does not give its age. Find a smaller brush.

 

[omega2xx]

Here is a non-exhaustive set of traits that is unique to great apes:
- forward-facing eyes
- close, downward-facing nostrils
- same dental formula
- digits with flattened nails
- lack of tail
- high cognitive abilities (self-recognition, abstract thinking,...) [1][2]
- complex social behaviors

(see ADW: Hominidae: INFORMATION)

That's not what i would call a baseless classification...


BTW, Carolus Linnaeus who is known as the father of taxonomy used to be believe that species had been created separatedly... and yet, he put humans in the same group as apes, a group he called "primates"[3]. So, claiming such a classification is a make-believe for evolutionists is clearly flawed.


Unique traits don't automatically exclude something from a group, you have to compare as many traits as possible with those of other species and see who closest to whom.



What's significant on a genetical level is not just our 90ish % similarity with chimps, it's also the fact chimps are closer to humans than to any other apes and that both chimps and humans are equally distant from gorillas! [4]
if you look for phylogenies of hominid, you'll see that humans are well-embedded in great apes and form a clade with chimps (the hominini tribe)
Hence, if you exclude humans from apes, then you'll have to exclude chimps as well.

DNA does not link species, It separates them into separate and distinct species.

Genetics only links the characteristics of the offspring to the characteristics of its parents and to the family(homo sapian). You have no way of knowing why humans can speak and walk upright and no ape can. You can't tell what caused monkeys with a prehensile tail to lose it tail.

 

[omega2xx]

Could you address what I actually said? It appears you have ignored most of it.

I thought I did. Ask it again and I will give more details.

 

[omega2xx]

Or your understanding of it is wrong. As it clearly is.

You don't understand what a correct definition implies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought I did. Ask it again and I will give more details.

Why does it make more sense to you to go with the explanation that requires 3 assumptions over an explanation that requires less (or none at all) assumptions? And is the former actually an explanation if it's composed mainly of assumptions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't understand what a correct definition implies.

No, that's you. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you are harping on this. It's bizarre.

 

[omega2xx]

Or your understanding of it is wrong. As it clearly is.

Of course, ST is omniscient. How dare me not accept what he says.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It's simply because that's where the evidence leads. That you refuse to accept this reality does not overturn it.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[Reggie Miller]

So, in other words, you accept the best explanation without direct evidence because it is the most reasonable conclusion deducted from the evidence. Congratulations, the same is true of me and abiogenesis and evolution.

Hmm.. There is direct evidence of God's Son. You interested?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Why do you think that the stories in the Bible are eyewitness accounts?

Duh... because eye witnesses wrote the original accounts. Yeah.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, that's you. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you are harping on this. It's bizarre.

Bizarre is definitely the most fitting word.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hmm.. There is direct evidence of God's Son. You interested?

I disagree, there's no contemporaneous first person accounts of Jesus, only third party or unverifiable accounts(the gospels included). But even if there was, that:
A. Does not verify the divine characteristics of the person, any more than there is verified metaphysical or miraculous accounts of Siddhartha or other religious persons of interest.
B. The majority of Christians have no problem with an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis account and thereby evolution.
C. YECreation accounts are not scientific and have been demonstrated so many times. It doesn't fit the evidence we have.

 

[Ganondorf]

DNA does not link species, It separates them into separate and distinct species.

Genetics only links the characteristics of the offspring to the characteristics of its parents and to the family(homo sapian).

Genetics can be used to categorize different species together, provided that the comparison yields similarities that tend fall into a particular nested hierarchy.

Comparison of human, chimp and gorilla genomes
tends to produce the following pattern:

You have no way of knowing why humans can speak and walk upright and no ape can.

A bold assertion, given that the origin of human language is still a matter of research. Moreover, ignorance of precise pathways behind some human innovative traits doesn't invalidate our kinship with other apes. Scientific theories don't claim omniscience.

You can't tell what caused monkeys with a prehensile tail to lose it tail.

Even if that were the case, so what? How does this undermine the taxonomic validity of hominidae?

 

[omega2xx]

Why does it make more sense to you to go with the explanation that requires 3 assumptions over an explanation that requires less (or none at all) assumptions? And is the former actually an explanation if it's composed mainly of assumptions?

Why do you try to change my one assumption to your 3?

 

[omega2xx]

Genetics can be used to categorize different species together, provided that the comparison yields similarities that tend fall into a particular nested hierarchy.

They cannot. Genetics only control the characteristics of the offspring and the characteristic MUST BE IN THE GENE POOL OF THE PARENTS. No gene for fins, no kid with fins.

Comparison of human, chimp and gorilla genomes
tends to produce the following pattern:

Man made pictures are not evidence, especially when made by an evolutionists with an agenda.

A bold assertion, given that the origin of human language is still a matter of research. Moreover, ignorance of precise pathways behind some human innovative traits doesn't invalidate our kinship with other apes. Scientific theories don't claim omniscience.

It is irrelevant if man does not know the origin of language, apes don't have that ability and their is no known way they could have gotten it. If he pathway is not known, it is your assertion that is bold.


Even if that were the case, so what? How does this undermine the taxonomic validity of hominidae?[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

They cannot. Genetics only control the characteristics of the offspring and the characteristic MUST BE IN THE GENE POOL OF THE PARENTS. No gene for fins, no kid with fins.



Man made pictures are not evidence, especially when made by an evolutionists with an agenda.



It is irrelevant if man does not know the origin of language, apes don't have that ability and their is no known way they could have gotten it. If he pathway is not known, it is your assertion that is bold, not mine.

Even if that were the case, so what? How does this undermine the taxonomic validity of hominidae?

If you don't understand why, I can't help you. iwhat you want. If you can't explain how apes acquired the ability to speak, the classification premise is wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

the characteristic MUST BE IN THE GENE POOL OF THE PARENTS. No gene for fins, no kid with fins.

We know that's false, and it's so trivially easy to demonstrate it's a common lab experiment in introductory biology courses.

All you have to do is take a single-clone strain of E. coli that is susceptible to an antibiotic, culture them on a medium where half is neutral and the other half is infused with the antibiotic. Eventually some will begin to grow and thrive in the half with the antibiotic. In better programs you will even compare genetic sequences of both populations to see the specific genetic changes that conferred the new trait (antibiotic resistance).

Because you used a single-clone strain (all the individuals are descended from a single individual), you know that the new trait (antibiotic resistance) and the sequence that produced it were not present in the original population.

Let the hand waving begin.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hmm.. There is direct evidence of God's Son. You interested?

Direct evidence? Sure -- bring it on! I'm interested. Once I see it, I'll figure out how it can be tested to be what it says it is, and if it works, I promise you I will believe.

 

[omega2xx]

We know that's false, and it's so trivially easy to demonstrate it's a common lab experiment in introductory biology courses.

All you have to do is take a single-clone strain of E. coli that is susceptible to an antibiotic, culture them on a medium where half is neutral and the other half is infused with the antibiotic. Eventually some will begin to grow and thrive in the half with the antibiotic. In better programs you will even compare genetic sequences of both populations to see the specific genetic changes that conferred the new trait (antibiotic resistance).

It is not false and you example is phony. It is amazing how many of you evo think an virus remaining a virus is evidence of evolution. Evolution REQUIRES a change of species. Even is some survive the genes will not change. Even if the change is cause d by a mutation, the virus may have blue eyes instead of brown eyes, but the species will reamain exactly the same.

Because you used a single-clone strain (all the individuals are descended from a single individual), you know that the new trait (antibiotic resistance) and the sequence that produced it were not present in the original population.

A virus with an new trait, which is not new, it is an altered trait) the virus IS STILL A VIRUS. Not only that some of the viruses may have had a resistance to the anti-biotic, or they would have all died. and evolution takes to long to help them

]Let the hand waving begin.

Put your hands in your pockets.