A Challenge To All Creationists

[Jose Fly]

Creation scientists do have evidence of a common ancestor between species from microevolution via inherent genetic variability and natural selection.

Let's see this evidence from creation scientists.

However, there is no evidence of any biological evolution between tigers, panthers and cheetahs with that of pigs, goats and elephants.

How do you know? Do you say that only after you've read through numerous scientific journals? After attending conferences and symposiums?

Thus, evolution scientists have to make up stuff to explain their common ancestry as follows:

Mutation + Gene flow + Genetic drift + Natural selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution

And you disagree? Please explain how if mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection play out in multiple populations for 3.8 billion years, no macroevolution will occur.

For example, the above explains how birds descended from dinosaurs .

What is macroevolution?

I don't see any explanation for dinosaur-avian evolution on that page.

 

[omega2xx]

Unnatrual-selection is already being claimed by creationists.....

Actually we can prove what the Bible says about species.---after their kind. That is more than evolution has proved in 100+ years, and you can't falsify it.

 

[omega2xx]

Really?
Why not?

And please show your work.
Bold empty claims do not support bold empty claims.

I have ask you and other evos to shdow the evidence that mutations can result in a change of species. When you show me your evidence I will show you why is it wrong.

Prediction. Mest... will not respond.

 

[omega2xx]

I'm sorry, but it is. A cursory glance a the literature will show you that.

Oh right, you don't look at evidence. How convenient for you.

I look at more of it than you do.I also look at the context, which you missed, and how the same word is used in other Scripture.

No, that is third person.

"I did this," "I saw Jesus walking on the water" and "I looked over there" are first person.

Third person is, "Jesus walked on water" and "the disciples looked over there."

Lets look at the actual verses: Mt 14:28 - And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." That is first person.

Mt 14:30 - But seeing the wind, he became afraid and began to sink, he cried out ,saying. "Lord save me. First person.

It's still a claim, either way. The Bible claims it. You claim it. It's not true just because the Bible claims it.

Quibble noted.

So, how do we figure out if it's true or not?

It can't be proven. We both accept what we believe by faith alone.

 

[metis]

Google "speciation".

 

[omega2xx]

Yes there are. Again, you are just wrong.

Gould accepted evolution and hated when creationists twisted his words to make it appear that he was saying something he wasn't.

The did not twist his words. The did the same thing I did---quote him

Now, how about that evidence for creationism?

There is no scientific evidence for creations and there is no scientific evidence against it.

I ALWAYS say creationism is more logical then evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Sorry but you are. Demonstrably so. Your views run counter to the accepted science and prevailing explanations for the diversity of life on earth.

No, my views run counter to the unproven doctrines of evolution.

But if you're so sure you are right, you can go out and write a paper demonstrating that. Then get it published, and turn all of science on its head.You'd probably even end up with a Nobel Prize.

Not necessary. Its been tried but so called science journals are afraid to include any article the mentions "God id it." Creation articles include scientific reason why the TOE is not real science and some of the converts might read it and actually start evaluating what is being said, instead of accepting it all by faith alone.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Again, more evidence detailing MICROevolution. That's not in dispute (at least, not with me ). But these facts have no bearing on common descent.

 

[gnostic]

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.

You are not "thinking" at all, omega2xx.

Did you bother to read THE WHOLE OF CHAPTER 7 at all, omega2xx?!

The sign was given to Ahaz by Isaiah, when they (kingdom of Judah) was at war with Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel:

1 In the reign of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel marched upon Jerusalem to attack it; but they were not able to attack it.

What the gospel quoted (Matthew 1:23) is only small part of the original sign (Isaiah 7:14-25 and 8:3-18, and just the beginning of the sign. You are only talking about partial sign, not the whole sign.

The Isaiah 7:14 is just the beginning of the sign, but the sign doesn't end in this chapter until the very last verse - 7:25.

However the child's involvement in the sign - Immanuel - doesn't depends on just with his birth, but the next 3 verse which relate to downfall of the two kings (Rezin and Pekah) at the hand of King of Assyria:

14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The L ORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah—that selfsame king of Assyria!

The "he" in 7:15 and the "lad" in 7:16 are Immanuel. When Immanuel reached the age that he know how to choose good from bad, and that the people of Judah will be reduced to eating curds and honey, the king of Assyria (7:16-17) will invade both Aram and Israel, the land or ground of "two kings" (Rezin and Pekah).

The passage may have begun with 7:14, the rest of the sign (7:15-17) revealed the development of when the sign will be fulfilled.

The rest of the sign (7:18-25) involved more about the king of Assyria than about the child.

The king of Assyria which is revealed to be Tiglath–pileser III (reign 745 - 727 BCE) in 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:7, contemporary of Pekah and Ahaz.

The sign involved more than just Immanuel's birth. And the fulfilment of the sign would happen sooner than Matthew and you claiming to be. The sign 7:14-17 showed that Immanuel is merely signpost of what will happen in Ahaz's reign, which had nothing to do with virgin birth and messiah.

Isaiah 8, plus the sign given in verses 3 - 4, is also relate to Ahaz, Rezin, Pekah and the king of Assyria. Except that the passage (8:3-4) revealed that the woman in 7:14 is Isaiah's wife and the son Immanuel is his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

3 I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son; and the L ORD said to me, “Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz. 4 For before the boy learns to call ‘Father’ and ‘Mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, -and the delights of Rezin and of the son of Remaliah, d shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”

And 8:3-4 is just small part of the sign about the king of Assyria getting involved in the war.

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Immanuel is mentioned again (8:8), in relation to his war, more sign about Immanuel and king of Assyria.

The only person "blindly accepting what someone says" is you omega2xx, who have been blindly following the gospel author, you cannot even think for yourself. You are more ignorant than I thought.

 

[omega2xx]

So if it's neither dishonesty nor stupidity that compelled you to try and claim that S. Gould believed there were no transitional fossils, what did?



Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one here is going to take your say-so about paleontology as anything other than it is......something some anonymous creationist said on the internet.

It is not what some creationist said, it is what Gould an Mayr said.

 

[Shad]

It was quotes from Gould and Mayer. Are you not familiar with Gould's invention of "punctuated equilibra?"

No it was a quote from a creationist as I put the whole line into google. You copy/pasted the site rather than quoting the actual source.


Introductory Quotes

Yes I know it hence why I can spot your quoting mining and find the source easily. Perhaps you should actually read about rather than using your creationist site.

I think I even put those remarks in quotes.

No you copy/pasted it

Even Darwin knew there were no transitional fossil, but he though they would be found. In 100+ years none have been found. If evolution was true the great majority of fossils would be transitional.

Empty claim

If it takes 10 generations to go from an A to a B, and that is conservative, 90% of the fossils would be transitional.

Empty claim.

 

[omega2xx]

Agreed. Creation scientists do have evidence of a common ancestor between species from microevolution via inherent genetic variability and natural selection. However, there is no evidence of any biological evolution between tigers, panthers and cheetahs with that of pigs, goats and elephants.

Don't be taken in by their scientific sounding terms. The law o genetics works the same in in micro and it does in Macro. Genetic variability might result in a change of eye color or skin color, bit it will never result in a change of species. There is no such thing as natural selection. Even if their was it might help the rabbit with the stronger legs survive, but it will never result in it being the parent of anything other a rabbit. Not only that the gene for stronger leg(and there is no such thing) might not even show up in the next generation.

Thus, evolution scientists have to make up stuff to explain their common ancestry as follows:

Mutation + Gene flow + Genetic drift + Natural selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution

For example, the above explains how birds descended from dinosaurs .

Amen brother. The think time will change the laws of genetics.

What is macroevolution?

I think it refers to the big animals.

 

[McBell]

This thread is about creationism. Show us the evidence that creation is a viable hypothesis.

Don't hold your breath waiting for it....
they are currently to busy patting each other on the back over their displayed ignorance to get to the actual thread topic.

 

[McBell]

"the already well established and well supported theory of microevolution."

There, fixed.

Pray tell, do you do the same sort of "add to the text" tactic when you read the Bible?
Would explain quite a lot....

 

[Jose Fly]

It is not what some creationist said, it is what Gould an Mayr said.

Are you really this dim? You tried to claim that Gould said there are no transitional fossils. Gould spoke to this and clearly stated that he was tired of creationists misrepresenting him as saying that there are no transitional fossils. He then pondered whether creationists do this out of dishonest or stupidity.

He was talking about you.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, after all these years, you can't even figure out where I went to college when it's right in front of your nose. (Hint: It's a major liberal university). See my post above for the answer. Thus, I wonder how you can evaluate scientific explanations.

no surprise there.
Nope, non at all.

I shall dismiss your bold empty claim as bull **** since you are not able to support it with anything other than an ad hominem diversion.

 

[McBell]

Actually we can prove what the Bible says about species.---after their kind. That is more than evolution has proved in 100+ years, and you can't falsify it.

Bold faced lie.

Not that anyone is the least bit surprised.

 

[McBell]

I have ask you and other evos to shdow the evidence that mutations can result in a change of species. When you show me your evidence I will show you why is it wrong.

Prediction. Mest... will not respond.

You made the claim.
You are the one who needs to support said claim.

The fact that you will not leaves no alternative but to dismiss your bold empty claim as bull ****.

Prediction,.... MORE lies from omega2xx

 

[omega2xx]

You are not "thinking" at all, omega2xx.

You are in a rut and have not really thought about the subject.

Did you bother to read THE WHOLE OF CHAPTER 7 at all, omega2xx?!

I have taught Isiah, so I have probably read it more than you have. Not only have I read it, I have studied it verse by verse.

[The sign was given to Ahaz by Isaiah, when they (kingdom of Judah) was at war with Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel:

Irrelevant. "Sign" refers to a miraculous sign. A prophets wife or a young girl having a son, would not be anything that could point to God/

]What the gospel quoted (Matthew 1:23) is only small part of the original sign (Isaiah 7:14-25 and 8:3-18, and just the beginning of the sign. You are only talking about partial sign, not the whole sign.

The Isaiah 7:14 is just the beginning of the sign, but the sign doesn't end in this chapter until the very last verse - 7:25.

Not true. The only thing that could be a sign from God was something impossible---a virgin having a son.

However the child's involvement in the signn - Immanuel - doesn't depends on just with his birth, but the next 3 verse which relate to downfall of the two kings (Rezin and Pekah) at the hand of King of Assyria:

The child has no involvement.

The "he" in 7:15 and the "lad" in 7:16 are Immanuel. When Immanuel reached the age that he know how to choose good from bad, and that the people of Judah will be reduced to eating curds and honey, the king of Assyria (7:16-17) will invade both Aram and Israel, the land or ground of "two kings" (Rezin and Pekah).

You have missed the context there also. The boys age is a prophecy as to when teh 2 kings will be forsaken.

The passage may have begun with 7:14, the rest of the sign (7:15-17) revealed the development of when the sign will be fulfilled.

The rest of the sign (7:18-25) involved more about the king of Assyria than about the child.

The king of Assyria which is revealed to be Tiglath–pileser III (reign 745 - 727 BCE) in 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:7, contemporary of Pekah and Ahaz.

The sign involved more than just Immanuel's birth. And the fulfilment of the sign would happen sooner than Matthew and you claiming to be. The sign 7:14-17 showed that Immanuel is merely signpost of what will happen in Ahaz's reign, which had nothing to do with virgin birth and messiah.

Isaiah 8, plus the sign given in verses 3 - 4, is also relate to Ahaz, Rezin, Pekah and the king of Assyria. Except that the passage (8:3-4) revealed that the woman in 7:14 is Isaiah's wife and the son Immanuel is his son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.QUOTE]

You have run off the road. This is about if a virgin had a son. Nothing past the birth is relevant.

And 8:3-4 is just small part of the sign about the king of Assyria getting involved in the war.

Those verse have nothing to do with 7:14. It is very unlikely that Isaiah's
wife was a virgin.

Immanuel is mentioned again (8:8), in relation to his war, more sign about Immanuel and king of Assyria.

The only person "blindly accepting what someone says" is you omega2xx, who have been blindly following the gospel author, you cannot even think for yourself. You are more ignorant than I thought.

It seems that when one does not have the intellect to make their point, they think insulting the other person will convince others they know what they are talking about. How sad.

 

[omega2xx]

No it was a quote from a creationist as I put the whole line into google. You copy/pasted the site rather than quoting the actual source.


Introductory Quotes

Yes I know it hence why I can spot your quoting mining and find the source easily. Perhaps you should actually read about rather than using your creationist site.









No you copy/pasted it



Empty claim



Empty claim.

I don't have the source of Gould's quote but Mayr said what I posted in a book he wrote: "What Evolution is," p 189 & p69.

It is amusing that when a quote refutes someone's theology, they always whine abut quote mining, something they all do when they think it serves their purpose.

Better luck next time with all of your empty claims.