A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

And doesn't a few was found mean that a few actually was found? So how are those few transitional fossils explained in creationism? And how are transitional fossils that we have found not evidence of transitions of species, i.e. evolution?

There are no transitional fossils. 2 of your exerts, Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing---"Whenever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...."The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

Mayr adds, "the fossil record is woefully inadequate."

 

[omega2xx]

Then you're just wrong.

No I'm not.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"20 million years" is not a blink eye.

A blink of eye might be 200,000 years, which it how long humans (Homo sapiens) have been around for.

Compare 200,000 with the less than 3300 years calculate from the Old Testament (from Adam to fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE), then you will see that humans have been around a lot longer than mythological appearance of Adam.

Oh, grief! Geology (not Biology) studies events that began with the age of the Earth, around 3.8 billion years ago!
20 million, compared to 3.8 billion.... do the math.

 

[omega2xx]

It is not 10 years.

With the the gospel of Matthew, it is more like 35 years or more, after Jesus' crucifixion.

And it is even longer than that, concerning Jesus' birth. I hardly think that the author was around at this time to be an "eyewitness", only to write the gospel some 76 or mor years later about the virgin birth.

You clearly stated that they (all 4 gospels) were eyewitness accounts. And I don't see how the authors can be at several places at once, like one with Mary and joseph (fleeing in exile), at the same being with Herod and with the magi.

Plus, the gospel of Luke tell of different origin story to the Matthew gospel.

And let's not forget that both included Jesus' supposed family trees, which are different between Joseph and David. I think both were invented.

The time between Jesus death and the actual event is irrelevant. Time will not change the truth.

The differences in Mathew's and Luke's genealogy is easily explain y the laws of a Leverite marriage.

 

[gnostic]

Only by liberal theologians who reject most of the Bible as not being God inspired. Conservative theologians accept the whole Bible just as it is.

Conservative theologians is what has being wrong with Christianity.

This is why some Christians are so backward...I must stressed the word "some", not all Christians.

The reason why they (some Christians) are backward, is when they treat obvious metaphors and simile as literals, and treat literals as metaphors when they shouldn't do that.

For instance the part where John 1 speaks of the logos or word, is written actually (and should be read) metaphorically, some Christians treat it as literal.

It just show how some Christians don't know how to interpret their own scriptures.

 

[omega2xx]

I am well aware of your ignorance on the subject.

You have already demonstrated that you have no interested in examining any evidence whatsoever.

I have already shared with you evidences, such as the polar bears and brown bears scenario.

Your reply clearly demonstrate you don't understand Natural Selection, you don't understand speciation, and you don't even understand basic genetics.

I gave you example of two extant species, but you ignore it, because it doesn't fit in with deluded fairytale that species must make something completely different.

Speciation doesn't say it will make creature from a completely different orders.

The absurdity I get from most creationists is they want to see evidences of dog species producing cat species. That's never going to happen and that's not the way evolution works, because they are clearly not understanding evolution.

The changes are always going to be small. But the further back in time (I am not talking about "time", as in hours or years, but as in number of generations), the more noticeable changes.

The difference is in the the fur and the amount of body fat, as well as some of bone features, that make polar bears different from the brown bears, which are better suited for survival in the icy regions of the polar cap.

The hairs are close together in the polar bears, so it is more waterproof than the fur of brown bears. The same texture and thicknesses of the fur also allowed the bear also insulated better than brown bear from the cold.

The body fat contents of the polar bear also insulated them the cold, more effectively than the brown bears. So both fur and fat, allow polar bears to swim in the icy sea, as well as allow them hunt, while brown bears usually hibernate during the colder seasons.

These are evidences that the polar bears to live and thrive in the frozen wasteland.

The brown bears and polar bears are of different species, but still close enough related that they can breed with each other, but this don't happen so often because polar bears don't strayed so far from their region, and brown bears don't frequently go that far north.

The mechanisms come from polar bears breeding with their own species, because they obviously instinctively know that breeding with mates that shared common characteristics, will give their offspring better chance to surviving in their region.

Again, I did provide an example of natural selection and speciation.

You, on the other hand, have not provided any evidence for creator being responsible for creation...which is the reason for this thread.

YAWN

 

[Hockeycowboy]

EDIT

"20 million years" is not a blink eye.

A blink of eye might be 200,000 years, which it how long humans (Homo sapiens) have been around for.

Compare 200,000 with the less than 3300 years calculate from the Old Testament (from Adam to fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE), then you will see that humans have been around a lot longer than mythological appearance of Adam.

Oh wait: according to biologists, life began 3.8 billion years ago, not the Earth, so yes, 20 million compared to 3.8 billion is nothing!

 

[omega2xx]

What does life on earth have to do with the universe?

Why do keep asking me to jump from one subject, to a completely different subject?

How life on earth originated is part of the TOE. Well it was at one time until not being able to offer an explanation, without everyone laughing, caused the to drop it.

And beside that, you are still not providing a single evidence for creationism.[

There is no scientific evidence for creaionism. I admit it, you should do the same for evolution.

Why should I give you more examples, when you provide none in retrurn?

And this thread is about creationists providing evidences for creationism, or at the very least a logical explanation to creationism. You haven't done that.

And btw, "god did it" or "god can do anything or everything" or "god is powerful", or the "bible is an eyewitness account", are not explanations, let alone evidences.

They are simply your personal belief, which is really no different from unsubstantiated opinion.

I accept what I believe the same way you accept what you believe---BY FAITH ALONE.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, grief! Geology (not Biology) studies events that began with the age of the Earth, around 3.8 billion years ago!
20 million, compared to 3.8 billion.... do the math.

Are we still talking about Cambrian explosion?

Isn't that what you were talking about when you corrected Ouroboros about 540 million years and lasting for 20 million years, about Cambrian explosion?

I was using those numbers, comparing them how long men being around and the Genesis myth version. 20 million years with 6000 years of Genesis creation.

The Cambrian explosion is about rise and diversity of multicellular life forms compared to the previous era (Precambrian) of single-celled life.

 

[omega2xx]

It is made up as Zeus siring Heracles upon a mortal woman (Alcmene), or Zeus transforming into shower of gold to impregnate Danae with Perseus.

Matthew 1:23 is a misused, misinterpreted and mistranslation of Isaiah verse - 7:14.

The verse in Isaiah 7:14 doesn't say the woman will give a virgin birth. The author (to the gospel) had deliberately use a Greek translation to Hebrew work, and referred to the the woman being parthenos "virgin".

But "virgin" in Hebrew is betulah. In 7:14, it used almah "young woman", not betulah "virgin".

Plus, the gospel author (supposedly Matthew) have ignore the most important part of the sign, in the next 3 verses (7:15-17), which stated that when a boy reach a certain age, the king of Assyria will attack Judah's enemies, Israel and Aram, taking the two kings as hostages.

The sign was given when Judah was at war with the two kingdoms, and they have besieged Ahaz in Jerusalem. Isaiah provided sign that Assyria will intervene.

Isaiah provide a similar sign to 7:14-17 in the next chapter, in 8:3-4. This verse (8:3) revealed the woman being pregnant is Isaiah's wife, and that his own son was the "sign". This is confirmed later in chapter 8:



Isaiah 7:14 is not the only time almah "young woman" being used. In fact 7:14 bear a striking resemblance to verse about Hagar, while she was pregnant with Ishmael (16:11):





Compare the two, which I had highlighted in red.

Genesis 16:11 don't contain almah, like Isaiah 7:14, but there is better indication that Isaiah's verse is not referring to Mary.

What I want to point to you is the words "with child", which mean the woman is already "pregnant" or has "conceived", which mean the sign in Isaiah cannot be Mary.

In Hebrew, "with child", "conceived" or "pregnant" is harah.

To show that I am not making it up, here is the Hebrew transliterations of both verses:




Looking and comparing the two verses in transliterations (not translations), showed that they are almost identical.

It is clear to me that Matthew 1:23 has changed the context to Isaiah's original sign, only providing the least important part of the sign.

"alma" describes a young girl who is a virgin. This is clearly seen in Gen 24:43. The word for "maiden" in that verse is "alma." Surely you don't think Abraham's servant would take a woman for his master's son's wife who is not a virgin.

Now put on your thinking cap and think instead of blindly accepting what someone says.

Isa 7:14 says what will happen is a sign. A young girl giving birth to a son,would be an every day event in Jerusalem. That could not qualify as a sign from God.

 

[gnostic]

There is no scientific evidence for creaionism. I admit it, you should do the same for evolution.

That's BS.

The core of natural selection is adaptation, which is to survive in the (environmental) conditions, by adapting.

My polar bear/brown bear is example of (and evidences for) Natural Selection. They (polar bears) have changed enough to thrive in the freezing polar region.

If you put, let's 20 brown bears on the polar ice, how long do you they would last without physically and genetically adapting to this harsher condition.

They would starve to death, because they normally hibernate in the cold season. And the longest hibernation of for brown bears that I know of, has been less than a hundred days in duration.

You don't know what you are talking about evidences, because you refused to see what's in front of face.

But the funny thing is that you believe in god, that god is real to you, even when you have never met god, and you are basing your belief in a god on words written by men, who were superstitions and clearly no understanding of science.

That's a level of ignorance that I have dug myself out of.

But you keep your head buried in the sand...the choice is yours.

 

[omega2xx]

That's BS.

The core of natural selection is adaptation, which is to survive in the (environmental) conditions, by adapting.

My polar bear/brown bear is example of (and evidences for) Natural Selection. They (polar bears) have changed enough to thrive in the freezing polar region.

If you put, let's 20 brown bears on the polar ice, how long do you they would last without physically and genetically adapting to this harsher condition.

They would starve to death, because they normally hibernate in the cold season. And the longest hibernation of for brown bears that I know of, has been less than a hundred days in duration.

You don't know what you are talking about evidences, because you refused to see what's in front of face.

But the funny thing is that you believe in god, that god is real to you, even when you have never met god, and you are basing your belief in a god on words written by men, who were superstitions and clearly no understanding of science.

That's a level of ignorance that I have dug myself out of.

But you keep your head buried in the sand...the choice is yours.

If you think your brown bear example is an example of natural selection, you still have a long way to go to get out of your pit of ignorance.

 

[gnostic]

"alma" describes a young girl who is a virgin.

No, it mean young woman. And young woman can be virgin or can be pregnant.

If the woman was a virgin, it would have been more understandable to use "betulah", not "almah".

The sign was given to Ahaz at the time he was at war. The signs were given twice: 7:14-17 and again, in 8:3-4.

Clearly the signs were talking of the same events, when the king of Assyria intervened and attack the two kings. And this intervention will occur when the boy reach a certain age.

7:14 is the same woman as in 8:3, which is Isaiah's own wife, the "prophetess".

The most important word in this verse is not almah, but harah, which indicated she has already conceived, and therefore "with child", which is exactly the same word used in Genesis 16:11 - "harah".

 

[gnostic]

If you think your brown bear example is an example of natural selection, you still have a long way to go to get out of your pit of ignorance.

You are such an i####.

Polar bear and brown bear are just one example of millions. Biodiversity has been occurring as life been around, where they required to adapted in the place they inhabited, or risk becoming extinct.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Are you an Old Earth Creationist

Yes.
The Bible, when you come to the book of Hebrews 4, actually supports the idea of the seventh day, God's Rest Day, as still continuing in the first century CE, during which time Paul wrote those words.

And, when you read the Genesis account, it never says 'the seventh day ended' (as the other days did). So, if that day is not a literal 24-hr. day, there's no reason to declare the others as being 24 hours, either. (The Hebrew word for 'day' used in Genesis 1 & 2, "yom", can refer to an undisclosed length of time. Many other Scriptures substantiate this. Willing to provide them, if you'd like.)

With regard to your other questions, suffice it to say that those creative days in Genesis having a definite beginning and ending,
refer to separate creations, some earlier than others. The fossil record is in full accord with this description of events.

I believe there is MICROevolution, since it's certainly an observation that animals do change somewhat over time. Now, why would God program DNA with this ability to mutate (albeit on a limited scale)?

(Now, please, bear with me.)

Because of God's love: He created humans as life forms with the capability to live forever, to never die, living forever HERE, ON THIS EARTH.

[That's what Jesus' sacrifice is (mostly) about, getting that situation back for us humans.]

And all lifeforms gradually changing, will simply give humans more to enjoy as they (we) live forever, never getting tired of "seeing the same old things"....all flora and fauna will constantly be evolving into new species, on Earth.
Psalms 115:16; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 11:6-9. (You won't hear about this in church. I never did.)

Take care.

 

[Shad]

There are no transitional fossils. 2 of your exerts, Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing---"Whenever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...."The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

Mayr adds, "the fossil record is woefully inadequate."

Not a quote from either but a copy/paste from a creationist site using three different quotes combined. Try again son.

 

[gnostic]

The time between Jesus death and the actual event is irrelevant. Time will not change the truth.

The differences in Mathew's and Luke's genealogy is easily explain y the laws of a Leverite marriage.

But both Matthew and Luke genealogy were very specific. It state that Joseph, not Mary, was a descendant of David:

1. In Matthew 1, it trace the lineage to David, through his father Jacob (1:16), and he was a descendant of Solomon too. And when the angel spoke to Joseph (1:20), it said “Joseph, son of David..." There are no reference to Mary's father, or her ancestry, especially in connection to David.
2. In Luke 3, the genealogy say that Joseph was the son of Heli (3:23), and then trace back to David, through David's other son by Bathsheba, Nathan (3:31). Again no mention of Mary being of David's line, nor her father. Twice more it mentioned Joseph being of David's house in the 2 earlier chapters:
   1. one during the census (1:4), where it say Joseph went to Bethlehem, home of his ancestor David,
   2. and the other time, where it say angel visited her, when she was engaged to Joseph "of house of David". No mention of her ancestor.

Both gospels contradict each other.

The only time her ancestor was ever "implied", it is through her kinswoman (1:36), Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist:

36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.

Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses (1:5):

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

That's the only hint of Mary's ancestry. She could be descendant of Aaron.

If the gospels wanted Mary to be the descendant of David, it would have said so.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes.

Fair enough. I accept your answer.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are no transitional fossils. 2 of your exerts, Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing."

S.J. Gould spoke directly to this in his article "Evolution as Fact and Theory"...

""Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms."

He's talking about what you just did, so the question now becomes whether you did it out of dishonesty or stupidity. Which is it?

 

[Ganondorf]

Here is an excerpt from ICR---1. The purported fusion site on human chromosome 2 is actually located in a different position on chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model. The hypothetical fusion site is also in an area with suppressed recombination (meaning that the fusion sequence should be very pristine) and should exhibit very little degeneracy, compared to standard telomere sequence. Telomere sequences in humans normally consist of thousands of repeats of the standard 6-base sequence “TTAGGG.” We found that the hypothetical fusion region is completely degenerate and vaguely represents anything close to intact and fused telomeres. An earlier 2002 research report by molecular evolutionists also made note of this extreme sequence degeneracy and the obvious discrepancies it presented for the evolutionary model.3

There is a lot more but I am not sure if it is copyrighted and I don't think I can post much that is copyrighted. If you really want to know the problems, check what the SCIENTISTS at ICR say and they alway put it in a scientific context, which is more than the evolution scientist do.

Your article pertains to a comparison of chimp and human DNA on a specific chromosomal region, while your point, as i said, requires the comparison of their and other great apes' genomes. Also, problems with evolution don't invalidate humans' belonging to great apes: Linnaeus classified us among primates while being a creationist.
BTW, just a question: do you agree that humans are mammals?


Here's the abstract and a part of the introduction (i don't know either if i can quote more) of the study I linked to show you humans' belonging to great apes (note that the authors reported in detail their methods and calculations in an enclosed PDF file -see Supplementary Information- and they, just like ICR did in your exercpt, reference other studies) :

Gorillas are humans’ closest living relatives after chimpanzees, and are of comparable importance for the study of human origins and evolution. Here we present the assembly and analysis of a genome sequence for the western lowland gorilla, and compare the whole genomes of all extant great ape genera. We propose a synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence consistent with placing the human–chimpanzee and human–chimpanzee–gorilla speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago. In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; this is rarer around coding genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression. A comparison of protein coding genes reveals approximately 500 genes showing accelerated evolution on each of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee lineages, and evidence for parallel acceleration, particularly of genes involved in hearing. We also compare the western and eastern gorilla species, estimating an average sequence divergence time 1.75 million years ago, but with evidence for more recent genetic exchange and a population bottleneck in the eastern species. The use of the genome sequence in these and future analyses will promote a deeper understanding of great ape biology and evolution.


Humans share many elements of their anatomy and physiology with both gorillas and chimpanzees, and our similarity to these species was emphasized by Darwin and Huxley in the first evolutionary accounts of human origins1. Molecular studies confirmed that we are closer to the African apes than to orang-utans, and on average closer to chimpanzees than gorillas2 (Fig. 1a). Subsequent analyses have explored functional differences between the great apes and their relevance to human evolution, assisted recently by reference genome sequences for chimpanzee3 and orang-utan4. Here we provide a reference assembly and initial analysis of the gorilla genome sequence, establishing a foundation for the further study of great ape evolution and genetics.


nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html