A Very Simple Question For Creationists

[Jose Fly]

Ok, macroevolution remains an unsupported claim. I agree.

Do you seriously think that's what I said, or are you being dishonest?

Else give me an example of macroevolution.

Since micro-evolution is evolution below the species level, macro-evolution is evolution above that, i.e., the evolution of new species. And the evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented. Even most creationist organizations don't deny that.

answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

"As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time."

In fact, most of them understand that speciation is required for their flood beliefs to work.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow. Black or white you are. That is not my position.

??????? You really aren't making sense at all.

 

[Reggie Miller]

So your position is, no one can say anything about the evolution of any species or trait until they first explain the origin of all the elements in the universe?

Well, if you omit any sort of powerful creator, then yes, you need to explain how life came from non-life and evolved however you think it happened.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Do you seriously think that's what I said, or are you being dishonest?



Since micro-evolution is evolution below the species level, macro-evolution is evolution above that, i.e., the evolution of new species. And the evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented. Even most creationist organizations don't deny that.

answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

"As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time."

In fact, most of them understand that speciation is required for their flood beliefs to work.

But can you explain how the first organism evolved into the trillions of life forms observed today without making assumptions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, if you omit any sort of powerful creator, then yes, you need to explain how life came from non-life and evolved however you think it happened.

What if I tell you that I don't know how the first life on earth arose?

 

[Jose Fly]

But can you explain how the first organism evolved into the trillions of life forms observed today without making assumptions?

Nope. In fact, I'd say no one can explain anything without making any assumptions.

 

[Reggie Miller]

What if I tell you that I don't know how the first life on earth arose?

Then you're admitting you believe in a theory that has no origin and can't be explained. Not good.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Nope. In fact, I'd say no one can explain anything without making any assumptions.

God can.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then you're admitting you believe in a theory that has no origin and can't be explained. Not good.

That makes as much sense as saying that since chemists can't explain the origin of the first elements, the whole field of chemistry is bunk.

 

[Jose Fly]

God can.

Uh huh.

 

[Reggie Miller]

That makes as much sense as saying that since chemists can't explain the origin of the first elements, the whole field of chemistry is bunk.

That's deflecting.

We're talking about the theory of evolution without a Creator. Unfortunately for you that entire theory is based on abiogenesis and the aftermath of it since the aftermath of it supposedly (according to you, not me) resulted in the trillions of life forms on Earth today.

Maybe there is something wrong with your theory? Yep, I think,so.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Uh huh.

Deflecting again.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's deflecting.

No, it's quite accurate.

We're talking about the theory of evolution without a Creator.

I've never heard of a "theory of evolution without a Creator". Can you cite a scientific paper that mentions it?

Unfortunately for you that entire theory is based on abiogenesis and the aftermath of it since the aftermath of it supposedly (according to you, not me) resulted in the trillions of life forms on Earth today.

No, no matter how the first life forms arose, evolutionary theory still explains its subsequent diversification.

Maybe there is something wrong with your theory? Yep, I think,so.

Or more likely, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[savagewind]

Or more likely, you have no idea what you're talking about.

There is something wrong with your theory because it has no beginning.


If God is the beginning of life then God is the reason for the different species.

You @Jose Fly say, "That makes as much sense as saying that since chemists can't explain the origin of the first elements, the whole field of chemistry is bunk." and "So your position is, no one can say anything about the evolution of any species or trait until they first explain the origin of all the elements in the universe?" I view that as you saying it is your way or NO WAY. That is called black or white. I see you reasoning that if something isn't white, it is black. I think that the only kind of people who think like that about evolution vs creation are the people who believe in the Bible (even before God, imo) and who take all its words literally.

The argument from a believer in God's point of view is that YOU seem to say, "God is impossible".

I am not saying, "evolution is impossible".

I am saying that life is a miracle and could not have possibly arrived without help.

Science has not found out what is helping it.

Go ahead and say it! Are you thinking, "it needs no helper!"?

That is where we disagree.

 

[Reggie Miller]

No, it's quite accurate.



I've never heard of a "theory of evolution without a Creator". Can you cite a scientific paper that mentions it?



No, no matter how the first life forms arose, evolutionary theory still explains its subsequent diversification.



Or more likely, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1. I disagree with you but that doesn't change the fact that you are attempting to deflect the conversation in another direction.

2. No, I'm using common sense. Please explain the TOE the way you see it, post your evolutionary tree and explain exactly when, where and how the first organism in your tree came about. If you can't do that your TOE is baseless and meaningless considering that you can't explain how your evolutionary tree came about in the first place. You may use scientific papers, by the way.

3. "No, no matter how the first life forms arose, evolutionary theory still explains its subsequent diversification."
Evolutionary theory, or rather macro-evolution is all just assumptions and guesswork. The truth is that you have no idea how the first life form came about, neither do you have any idea how that first life form evolved. If you do, please explain. James Bond already showed above that the assumed genetic mutations assumed in macro-evolution simply do not happen according to the current TOE.

Take Man, for example, and trace his evolutionary tree back as far as you care to go. Explain all of the genetic mutations that happened along the way, exactly how they happened and why and under what circumstances. Good luck. It is your theory, surely you can explain it in detail since you are convinced it is absolutely correct.

4. Or more likely, you have no idea what I'm talking about since you choose to reject my view out of hand as you have already convinced yourself that you're right and everybody else is wrong..

 

[savagewind]

If the argument for evolution is to discredit the belief in a Creator, then explain this.

What is it, where did it come from and how?

 

[savagewind]

Am I not playing fair?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Am I not playing fair?

Indeed you are playing fair, ma'am.

 

[savagewind]

It has been proved that water can be created by combining hydrogen and oxygen, but it is not a practical method for obtaining it. The reason why (I have heard) is that with its creation comes an EXPLOSION.

Now, can you imagine all the water on Earth created along with an explosion?

I can and I see no land with that water. Can you explain the land?

 

[savagewind]

I suppose the first things you need for evolution is water and land.

Please explain (in simple terms, please) the water and the land.