A Challenge To All Creationists

[Jose Fly]

It's similar to secular scientists' evidence which you should be familiar with.

Then let's see it.

You try getting a tiger to have sex with a goat .

Even if you do it in a lab, the offspring does not survive past one generation. The Russians did human-ape sex experiments -- http://io9.gizmodo.com/379276/soviet-monkey-human-sex-experiments-live-on .

That's your understanding of evolutionary theory? You truly think that's what the theory proposes?

You give me an experiment on how it works .

No, I asked you a question. 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.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evidently you have forgotten what a period means. Although I can see how one might read it as Gould and Mayr say there are no transitional fossils. Although I did quote what they said, which is basically the same.

So when you said "Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing", what exactly was that "same thing"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Here's a thorough review on the subject:
Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era



Now, where's that evidence for creationism?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I don't know what word you are talking about. We are talking about the lack of eyewitness accounts to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Bible.

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.

"Matthew 14:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

29 “Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus."




That is still third person.

Quibble noted.

Aybody or any book can claim anything. What I care about is if the claim is demonstrably true.

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

Accepting the scientific theory of evolution does not require faith. It doesn't take any more faith to accept than it does to accept germ theory or gravitational theory. Hence the emphasis on EVIDENCE.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I'm not twisting his words - you are. Hence the reason I pointed it out. Gould was always very outspoken about criticizing creationists for misquoting and misconstruing his intentions.

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

There's no scientific evidence against magical pixies either but that doesn't make them real.

I don't bother believing in things until there is evidence that I should believe in the thing.

I ALWAYS say creationism is more logical then evolution.

Then you're in luck because this is the very thread where you are supposed to be demonstrating that creationism is more logical than evolution and presenting your evidence. What's taking so long?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Your personal religious views run counter to the scientific evidence. Which is fine, but it doesn't make your opinions factual.

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.

Because "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything and nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of any god(s).

Who do you know that has presented a scientifically sound paper to a scientific journal and been rejected for demonstrating that "god did it?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

No. People "whine" about quote mining when someone quote mines. It's dishonest and makes the poster appear foolish and ill-informed. Maybe stop doing it if you don't want to be called out on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

No. People "whine" about quote mining when someone quote mines. It's dishonest and makes the poster appear foolish and ill-informed. Maybe stop doing it if you don't want to be called out on it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I held my breath waiting for one of you evos to provide the evidence for mutations being the mechanism for a change of species, you wouldn't have to put up with omega any more.

I don't know what you're waiting for that in this thread for. This thread is for creationists to make their case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are no transitional fossils. 2 of your exerts, Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing"
Evidently you have forgotten what a period means. Although I can see how one might read it as Gould and Mayr say there are no transitional fossils. Although I did quote what they said, which is basically the same.

Um, what?
You said that "there are no transitional fossils." Then you say Gould and Mayr "say basically the same thing." So if they're not saying there are no transitional fossils, what is it that you claim they are saying?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidently you have ignored my reason. Now here is your chance to be the hero of this debate. I have said I no longer read links because they NEVER provide any scientific evidence/ I have invited all of you evos to cut and past the evidence your link provided. To date no one has accepted my offer.

That is simply not true. A quick perusal of the thread will demonstrate that.

So instead of avoiding the obvious, shut me up and cut and paste the evidence. IMO some of you have gone back to your link and discovered it did not have any scientific evidence. So until you do that, you are just blowing smoke to try and cloud the real issue.

Evidently it will not shut you up because judging from your past behavior on this thread, you will simply ignore it.
Besides, this thread isn't about that. As previously mentioned several times.

 

[omega2xx]

No, omega2xx. You are putting words in my mouth. But now, I understand what you are disagreeing with me.

So let's make it abundantly clear:

I DID NOT SAY THE VIRGIN BIRTH DIDN'T HAPPEN!​

And I didn't say "I don't believe in the virgin birth".

You haven't said it directly, but all of your interpretations point to not believing in it. So tell me plainly, do you believe in the virgin birth?

What I have been saying all along is that the gospel author, presumably "Matthew" have deliberately misinterpreted the context of Isaiah's passage - the sign.

Matthew didn't interpret. He wrote what God inspired him to write.

And that Christians such as yourself continue to misinterpret and misuse Isaiah 7:14.

Not on your say so.

You are wrong about Isaiah's sign, because it doesn't say what you believe it to be - "virgin birth" and the "messiah". The sign has nothing to with Mary and Jesus, because you are ignoring the WHOLE SIGN.
Isa 7:14 is a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. If you don't accept that, you will never understand the passage.

And the "whole sign" is 7:14-17 and 8:3-4.

It is not. Something only God can do is the sign---have a virgin have a son. Isa 7:14-17 in not is not even part of the context of *;3-4

Have you noticed that I not once, I question the virgin birth and birth of Jesus?

I am not criticising Mary or Jesus.

I never thought you wee.

The only thing I am criticising Matthew 1:23 and Christian interpretations of Isaiah's passage.

That's fine but that interpretation comes fro, hundreds of Bible scholars much more qualified than you are. BTW what denomination o you belong to?

My criticism is also your misrepresentation of Isaiah's sign.

That's fine too. My criticism is your misrepresenting what is obvious.

And I didn't say I don't believe in Jesus. Jesus didn't write about his birth, and he didn't tell the author to quote Isaiah's sign.

God tol all of the men who wrote the Bible what to write.

]But, you, don't give me positive image of Christianity, because of your stubborn ignorance on your puny biblical scholarship.

If you don't have the intellect to discuss something without your snotty remarks, go discuss your errors with someone else.

But it is not your ignorance that make me sick to the stomach. No, it is not your ignorance; my real problem is your lack of integrity and honesty, which give Christianity bad reputations. You have displayed your dishonesty so frequently in this thread alone, that everyone can see it.

Have a nice day and if you expect me to keep discussing anything with you, I will need an appology for you snotty remarks.

 

[omega2xx]

So when you said "Gould and Mayr, say basically the same thing", what exactly was that "same thing"?

New species appear in the record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

 

[Ouroboros]

Gould's view of evolution, transitional fossils, and creationists lies:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.​

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

 

[Reggie Miller]

New species appear in the record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.

There should literally be billions of intermediates in the fossil record of both species that survived and species that did not survive. Instead we have zero confirmed intermediate forms.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Gould's view of evolution, transitional fossils, and creationists lies:

[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim.

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.​

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

What you think are transitions that may or may not be are in the fossil record. Far, far too few of them. After billions of years the fossil record should be chock full of them. Mr. Gould is just blowing hot air.

 

[Ouroboros]

What you think are transitions that may or may not be are in the fossil record.

It was an excerpt (quote) from Gould's book. What he may think was transition or not, that you have to look into yourself by reading his books.

Far, far too few of them.

One is enough to prove that evolution is true. To prove evolution is done by actually proving that the process is actually happening, and we don't need to prove each and every individual or species on the planet, now or in the past. It's enough to prove that the process works and is happening.

And if you read Gould's work, you will understand why there are few transitional fossils, but also understand that we have plenty and enough to know for absolute certainty that evolution is true. That's Gould's view, the scientist that was wrongly quoted earlier in this thread as some attempt to disprove evolution. Gould was an evolutionist.

After billions of years the fossil record should be chock full of them. Mr. Gould is just blowing hot air.

No. Evolution does not say that we should find a shock full fossil record. You can't come and say that evolution has to do X, Y, Z only to satisfy your needs. Evolution does not teach that we can find an abundance of fossils in the record. Besides, we don't need to, since having found over a half of million fossils (or closer to 750,000 now I think), it's quite plenty. And there are several species that have complete transitional records.

And if you think Gould is blowing hot air, he's the one that was falsely quoted as being opposed to evolution earlier in this thread. So which is it? He's against evolution and blowing hot air, or is he an evolutionist and creationists are lying about him?

 

[Ouroboros]

There should literally be billions of intermediates in the fossil record of both species that survived and species that did not survive. Instead we have zero confirmed intermediate forms.

We have more than zero. And we do not expect to have billions of intermediates. If we did, there wouldn't be any biomass for us to live on. 99.99% of all life is repurposed into the cycle of life. Ecology is real. Don't forget that. Even Darwin knew that we wouldn't have a lot of fossils. And yet, we've found hundreds of thousands of them.

 

[Reggie Miller]

It was an excerpt (quote) from Gould's book. What he may think was transition or not, that you have to look into yourself by reading his books.


One is enough to prove that evolution is true. To prove evolution is done by actually proving that the process is actually happening, and we don't need to prove each and every individual or species on the planet, now or in the past. It's enough to prove that the process works and is happening.

And if you read Gould's work, you will understand why there are few transitional fossils, but also understand that we have plenty and enough to know for absolute certainty that evolution is true. That's Gould's view, the scientist that was wrongly quoted earlier in this thread as some attempt to disprove evolution. Gould was an evolutionist.


No. Evolution does not say that we should find a shock full fossil record. You can't come and say that evolution has to do X, Y, Z only to satisfy your needs. Evolution does not teach that we can find an abundance of fossils in the record. Besides, we don't need to, since having found over a half of million fossils (or closer to 750,000 now I think), it's quite plenty. And there are several species that have complete transitional records.

And if you think Gould is blowing hot air, he's the one that was falsely quoted as being opposed to evolution earlier in this thread. So which is it? He's against evolution and blowing hot air, or is he an evolutionist and creationists are lying about him?

One is not enough. Because scientists have been wrong before and I don't believe them. You will need many more than one.

Yes,. Deny it if you will but there should be millions of transitional forms in the fossil record - if transitional forms exist.

 

[Reggie Miller]

We have more than zero. And we do not expect to have billions of intermediates. If we did, there wouldn't be any biomass for us to live on. 99.99% of all life is repurposed into the cycle of life. Ecology is real. Don't forget that. Even Darwin knew that we wouldn't have a lot of fossils. And yet, we've found hundreds of thousands of them.

You don't have any confirmed transitional forms, only assumed ones. And don't give me that ecology junk. They should be there and they aren't. Macro-evolution remains only a flimsy theory.with no proof to support it.