Creationists: A Very Simple Question

[Subduction Zone]

When you got something scientific to add let me know. Until then you are but a waste of time...

This is almost certainly a breaking of the rules.

You are obviously fairly bright. That is why I offered to go over the basics with you. You are more than capable of understanding them. It is not an insult to state that you do not understand or misuse the terms that you use and an offer to go over the basics is not an insult either. There are posters that I will not mention that probably are not bright enough to learn. A truth seeker should embrace learning. Not run from it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Homo erectus.

By the way, science does not "prove" anything in the mathematical sense. You should be asking for evidence.

Sorry....

“Since then, there has been a trend in palaeoanthropology of reducing the number of proposed species of Homo, to the point where H. erectus includes all early (Lower Paleolithic) forms of Homo sufficiently derived from H. habilis and distinct from early H. heidelbergensis (in Africa also known as H. rhodesiensis).[10] In this wider sense, H. erectus had mostly been replaced by H. heidelbergensis by about 500,000 years ago, with possible late survival in Java as late as 140,000 years ago.

And if the cro-Magnin we find....

“extending throughout the Last Glacial Maximum(LGM), covering the period of roughly 48,000 to 15,000 years ago, usually referred to as the Cro-Magnon. The earliest sites in Europe dated 48,000 years ago”

Kind of hard to be a descendant when they were separated by 100,000 to 500,000 years.....

Notice they combined all the different ones into one. That would be like combining several dog breeds into one classification and then thinking you can get an accurate picture of dog lineage.

You all crack me up. Don’t even know your own evolutionaryvtime scales....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is almost certainly a breaking of the rules.

You are obviously fairly bright. That is why I offered to go over the basics with you. You are more than capable of understanding them. It is not an insult to state that you do not understand or misuse the terms that you use and an offer to go over the basics is not an insult either. There are posters that I will not mention that probably are not bright enough to learn. A truth seeker should embrace learning. Not run from it.

I answered, you chose to digress and avoid. So when you got something scientific to add, let me know. Posting off topic is against the rules, yet besides one, your last 12 posts have been just that. Make it 13 since this has nothing to do with the post either, and you are wasting my time....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Know what? Most species end up as being transitional.



Are no different than these:


Well they are, and a very significant difference it is. Whereas as ALL dogs belong to the subspecies famaliaris, a member off the Canis lupus species (which also includes the wolves and coyotes), the ceratopsians you've shown not only belong to different species, they also belong to different genera, if not also a few different families.

And while we're at it, please write this down. Breeds do not develop naturally. Breeds arise from the purposeful manipulation of animal mating by humans. Think there were humans around concocting all the different ceratopsians? Of course not.


My suggestion is that if you want to debate evolution and taxonomy at least bone up on it a bit.

.

No, they chose to classify them as such, not being able to see what mated with what from a pile of bones.

Just as if they had never seen dogs alive and had no clue as to their lineage, and had only bones, they would do the exact same thing with them, classifying them as separate species and genera.

I know this, you know this, everyone knows this.

You can deny that to your hearts content but it will be only half hearted as you try to convince yourself it isn’t true....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry....

“Since then, there has been a trend in palaeoanthropology of reducing the number of proposed species of Homo, to the point where H. erectus includes all early (Lower Paleolithic) forms of Homo sufficiently derived from H. habilis and distinct from early H. heidelbergensis (in Africa also known as H. rhodesiensis).[10] In this wider sense, H. erectus had mostly been replaced by H. heidelbergensis by about 500,000 years ago, with possible late survival in Java as late as 140,000 years ago.

And if the cro-Magnin we find....

“extending throughout the Last Glacial Maximum(LGM), covering the period of roughly 48,000 to 15,000 years ago, usually referred to as the Cro-Magnon. The earliest sites in Europe dated 48,000 years ago”

Kind of hard to be a descendant when they were separated by 100,000 to 500,000 years.....

Notice they combined all the different ones into one. That would be like combining several dog breeds into one classification and then thinking you can get an accurate picture of dog lineage.

You all crack me up. Don’t even know your own evolutionaryvtime scales....

You misunderstood as usual. Is your grandfather ancestral to you? Yes heidelbergensis is probably more likely the direct predecessor of Cro Magnon, that does not mean that Homo erectus was not ancestral to.both. Your logic needs a tuneup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I answered, you chose to digress and avoid. So when you got something scientific to add, let me know. Posting off topic is against the rules, yet besides one, your last 12 posts have been just that. Make it 13 since this has nothing to do with the post either, and you are wasting my time....

How have my posts been off topic? Educating you in the basics is necessary for you to have meaningful posts here. It is very on topic.

 

[gnostic]

Because people continually confuse adaptation within the Kind as any type of evolution occurring at all.....

And yet, creationists can and do readily believe in that ground dust metamorphoses into a living fully-grown man in Genesis 2:7 -

7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

One instant it is non-living dust, and in the next, a living human being. That’s magic, supernatural.

Is this any different from equally incredible myths:

• Enki and the goddesses Nammu and Ninmah (another name for creator goddess Ninhursag) created humans from clay and water (actually the primeval water, Aspu) (source the Sumerian Enki and Ninmah).
• In the Akkadian/Old Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis, humans were created from clay and blood of slain/sacrificed god of intelligence Geshtu-Ê, by Ea (Enki) and Mami (Ninmah).
• In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh’s companion, Enkidu, was made from clay and water of Aspu by the goddess Aruru (yet another for Ninmah).
• The ram-headed god Khnum creating humans from which he molded clay on his potter’s wheel.
• The sun god, whether he is called Ra or Atum, created the first land, a mound that would eventually become his temple in Heliopolis, created men and women, when some of Ra’s tears fell on this fertile mound.
• In various Greek myths, various heroes were “earthborn”, having sprung from rocks or soil, such as Cecrops and Erichthonius in Attica, in Athenian myths, Pelasgus in Arcadian myth and in Lelex from Laconia in Spartan myth. But perhaps the most is the myth of Cadmus, a hero who founded Thebes, and slain a dragon living in the groves, sowed the dragon’s teeth into sowed field, and armoured men sprung from the ground; only 5 of them survived, and were known as Sparti, and the Sparti were married off to Cadmus’ daughters.
• In the myth of Perseus, some of blood that leaked from Perseus’ bag containing the severed head of the Gorgon Medusa, fell to earth, sprung from the ground were some giant scorpions as well as the sword-wielding giant/man who was named Chrysaor. Another drop of Medusa’s blood fell into the sea (Mediterranean), and the winged-horse Pegasus was born.

All these stories from Sumerian/Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek myths have much credibilities and validity as Genesis of dust into man, that all the stories are wishful myths.

You call yourself Justatruthseeker and yet you refused to really understand evolution, hence I don’t think you are interested in learning any real truth.

You, like other creationists here, don't understand speciation.

The speciation, you “think” biologists are talking about, it isn’t the same as those what the biologists are actually saying.

Biologists are not saying that cats give birth to dogs or the other way around. This claim is unrealistic and false. No biologists are that stupid.

The speciation they are actually talking about involved very little changes that occurred over long period of times. But the speciation occurred at species-level within genus or clade.

You and other creationists think that speciation occurred at tribe or family level.

The cats and dogs belonged to very different different suborders and different families, which is why cats and dogs can never produce offspring. Species of one taxonomic family cannot produce offspring of completely different taxonomic family.

There are limitations of what can occur. There are limitations of what can occur, biologically.

If you don’t understand this, then you really don’t understand speciation or evolution.

Creationists also tends to forget that speciation occurred at population level, not at individual level (eg between parents and offspring).

For instance, if you have a female pet cat, and for the last 6 years, she has given birth to one kitten each year, and one of these kitten was hairless albino, then that the result of birth defect, especially if it is the only albino cat in 100 square miles. It has nothing to do with evolution, there should be more cats born with that problem.

Evolution is about affecting population, not a single cat.

 

[Skwim]

I know exactly what it means.
Transitional forms
“Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.”

Then why would you ask, "Which one of these [various present-day dog breeds] is transitional?" when we can't know what lies in the future? It's like asking. "what color eyes will your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- granddaughter have?

So what is the ancestral form of cro-magnon since we are it’s descendants?????

Not necessarily so at all. In as much as Cro-Magnons were merely a population of early Homo sapiens dating from around 40,000 to around10,000 years ago in Europe---in southwestern France to be exact---little work has been done to link them with other or earlier populations. Note, they weren't the only Homo sapiens then in existence.

.

 

[ecco]

Ahh, just different breeds within the same species....

Why do you say they are all the same species? They all look different?

 

[ChristineM]

SZ is the one spamming junk not even on the topic we were discussing.

But it seems I got to include you now too...

When you got something scientific to add let me know. Otherwise you are just wasting my time.

Wrong, not what you could understand but definitely on topic

And you finish with more of the same spam, it is truly pathetic

 

[Polymath257]

No, dog skulls don't look the same because of the variety already existing inside the genome. They were brought about by breeding and backcrossing, not by evolution...

This is a pretty remarkable claim if I understand you correctly. You claim that all the variation we see in dogs was originally there in the wolf genome? So both the genes to produce large dogs (St. Bernards, say) and small dogs (take your pick) were there originally in the wolf genome?

Now, *that* should be an easy thing to test. Are you sure you want to make this claim?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Calling them both "evolution" as if they are one and the same process is deliberately misleading. A bit of scientific sleight of hand if you will.

So no real objections, just an emotional response of accusations without substance.

Adaptation is provable and observable, but it only takes place within one taxonomic family of organisms.

Science does not have a standard of proof. When you say adaptation, do you mean the evolution of traits based on genetics, physiological versatility or developmental flexibility. It is important, since most people do not understand any of it.

Evolution takes place within a taxon. Artificially establish a limit without support is religion. Not science. Evolution takes place within all populations and is not limited to families.

No creature morphs into another, no matter how much time you throw at it.

No one expects this but creationists.

Canines were always canines and felines have always been felines and the same can be said for any other organism.

Except the evidence shows us that at one time, they were not. Evidence that you only seem to be able to address by dismissing it and waving your hands.

There is no scientist sitting around waiting for his dog to give birth to cats. How ridiculous.

They never cross over from one creature to another. The suggestion that whales were once four legged furry land dwellers is simply ridiculous!

No. It is science, based on evidence, that you obviously neither understand nor can you refute with evidence.

Macro-evolution is not observable and is based on assumption and suggestion rather than on any real evidence.

Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to maintain dissonance.

To suggest that a single celled organism, at sometime in the dim, dark past, spontaneously sprang into existence for no apparent reason, then mutated itself through natural processes into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on earth, IMO should be treated as more of an imaginative fantasy than any belief in an Intelligent Creator.

No one suggests that this is part of the theory of evolution. Scientists have not established the separate question of the origin of life. We do not know how life originated. People may believe in many different things, but those beliefs remain unsupported.

You creationists just love to erroneously conflate the origin of life with the evolution of life. You can set clocks by it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin claimed Finches couldn’t interbreed. It only took 200 years to observe that. They are humping like rabbits before their very eyes. Yet they refuse to correct Darwin’s mistakes in classification. So what makes you think they can be trusted for any claimed speciation just because they want them to be separate species????

Did Darwin claim this about the finches? So, according to you mating is interbreeding. I was unaware of that standard. Are the dog and the leg the same species then?

Darwin's mistakes in classification were corrected by the ornithologist he provided his bird specimens to for identification.

How can anything you post be trusted, because you want it all to go away and be replaced by your particular belief, without question. Not to mention the fact that the bulk of your evidence is emotional appeal.

They claimed Lions and Tigers couldn’t interbreed. It only took over 40 years to observe that.

Who is they? So you are saying that lions and tigers naturally breed in the wild? Can you cite the reports and evidence for this?

They claimed Grizzly bears and Polar bears couldn’t interbreed. Only took a few hundred years to observe that.

This was observed in nature too? I am unaware of that.

Discovering that two species can produce offspring when forced to mate does not falsify evolution.

Claim after claim falsified, but they got it right this time. Right? Right? But they said they had it right the last time too.....

Most of the claims that do not hold up are the claims of creationists, but that never stops the next one from publishing them over and over.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s all we ever see.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species.

It doesn’t matter how many mutations the Husky undergoes, it remains a Husky. It produces only Husky when mated with Husky.

But now let’s all IMAGINE that magically over millions of years it changes into something else. Ignoring the fossil record where every creature found remains the same across those claimed millions of years until it goes extinct.

So, now we are left having to IMAGINE “missing common ancestors “ to connect separate creatures because we ignored the fossil record and real life observation.

Evolution is a valid possibility as long as we ignore real life, the entire fossil record, and use only our imaginations..... it fits the imaginary data perfectly.

You have certainly ignored real life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We keep hearing about "speciation" as if it is the production of a new creature in the evolutionary process. "Speciation" is the creation of a new variety of creature within one taxonomic family. Variety is seen within all creatures because they are all designed with adaptive abilities programmed into their DNA....but these many varieties are "species" of one creature. They will never be anything else.

The whale evolution scenario is therefore a load of rubbish. Those four legged furry creatures were not whales. The mere thought is ridiculous, especially when you examine the evidence for their conclusions. There is nothing linking any of those creatures to one another except a dodgy ear bone. And they can't even get that right.

So what are we looking at really?

"Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution. Evolutionary change tends to be concentrated within speciation events. The direction of transpecific evolution is determined by the process of species selection, which is analogous to natural selection but acts upon species within higher taxa rather than upon individuals within populations. Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species. Rates of speciation can be estimated for living taxa by means of the equation for exponential increase, and are clearly higher for mammals than for bivalve mollusks."

A theory of evolution above the species level. - PubMed - NCBI

If estimations based on equations are a substitute for real evidence, then you are welcome to them.



But the processes are not the same. Micro-evolution only produces variety within a specific family of creatures.
As I have pointed out countless numbers of times, Darwin did not observe "evolution"...he probably observed "speciation" which just gave him more varieties of finches. Whether species can interbreed is irrelevant. That just keeps the varieties specific. It prevents a mish-mash of non-specific "half whatever" creatures that could not be classified. Whenever we see a bird or an animal, we know what it is because they are programmed to breed only with their own "kind".



Rubbish. Whales were not once walking furry land animals. They were specifically created for aquatic life, just as the furry land dweller was created for terrestrial life.
Their aquatic features are not accidental mutations, but beautifully designed for the life they were created to live...including their abundant food sources. The largest creature on earth feasts on the smallest....and weighs several tons. The habitats of all creatures were created in expectation of their arrival. As were their food sources and even the air they breathed, and the water they drank. Without precipitation dumping fresh water on the earth, no land animals could live.....without salt in the oceans, marine creatures couldn't either.

Science seems to allow for a lot of fortunate accidents in its evolution story. None of it adds up though. How many flukes does it take before you statistically run out of numbers?



Ditto. You stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine. Those who are interested enough to really check out the evidence for themselves will make their own decisions.[/QUOTE]
Speciation is the evolution of a new creatures. Semantics does not change that. Kind has no valid meaning in science and arbitrarily assigning taxonomic family as the definition of kind is invalid and does nothing to clarify the use of kind or make it a science term.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, they chose to classify them as such, not being able to see what mated with what from a pile of bones.

Actually observing the mating of members of a species is important and useful evidence, but it is not a necessary criteria for establishing taxonomic placement. Claiming that it is illustrates your bias, your ignorance and that you have no real support for your denial of science.

Just as if they had never seen dogs alive and had no clue as to their lineage, and had only bones, they would do the exact same thing with them, classifying them as separate species and genera.

I know this, you know this, everyone knows this.

You can deny that to your hearts content but it will be only half hearted as you try to convince yourself it isn’t true....

You contrived a story about dog classification, then you claim everyone can know something contrived that did not actually occur.

It can be denied and should be, by any reasonable person.

You do not have the first clue of what a taxonomist or a systematicist does do you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Know what? Most species end up as being transitional.



Are no different than these:


Well they are, and a very significant difference it is. Whereas as ALL dogs belong to the subspecies famaliaris, a member off the Canis lupus species (which also includes the wolves and coyotes), the ceratopsians you've shown not only belong to different species, they also belong to different genera, if not also a few different families.

And while we're at it, please write this down. Breeds do not develop naturally. Breeds arise from the purposeful manipulation of animal mating by humans. Think there were humans around concocting all the different ceratopsians? Of course not.


My suggestion is that if you want to debate evolution and taxonomy at least bone up on it a bit.

.

What I see is that in his use of dog skulls, he has chosen characters that are obviously very plastic and not characters that a taxonomist would use to determine relationships within dogs. Then he falsely equates the picture of the dog skulls to that of various species of Ceratopsidae with the conclusion that they are not different species either.

His entire argument is contrived on his emotional state, personal desires and the confabulation of the evidence.

 

[ecco]

Calling them both "evolution" as if they are one and the same process is deliberately misleading.

Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you don't realize that the word "evolution" has two different meanings. In any case, microevolution and macroevolution are just subsets describing some of the processes of Evolution.

However, I can understand why you would want to blame science for "deliberately misleading". It suits your agenda. It's similar to your repeated calls for "proof" even though you have been told many, many times that science deals in evidence, not proofs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you don't realize that the word "evolution" has two different meanings. In any case, microevolution and macroevolution are just subsets describing some of the processes of Evolution.

However, I can understand why you would want to blame science for "deliberately misleading". It suits your agenda. It's similar to your repeated calls for "proof" even though you have been told many, many times that science deals in evidence, not proofs.

I noticed that all of her arguments were assertions used dismissively, and not one point based on any evidence.

What is more ironic, is that if proof were used by science and was provided, they would ignore it, deny it or dismiss it.

 

[Deeje]

So no real objections, just an emotional response of accusations without substance.

You know, I was wondering why a "Christian" would so strongly defend unprovable science.....but researching the Methodist church, I discovered why. You guys sold out to science long ago! When choosing between God (as in directed creation) and the musings of science (everything happened by undirected chance) apparently your founder didn't want to appear to be "uneducated" or "unintelligent".....was it about saving "face" rather than saving "faith"?

The official position as stated on the Methodist website is..."The official statement on Science and Technology says in part, "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."

Actually they are right.....there is no conflict with their "theology"....but there is conflict with the scriptures.

That said, I understand your rhetoric is as empty as all the other people who stake their lives on assumption and assertion rather than stick to the directions in their Creator's instruction manual. We are given that choice for a reason IMO.

Science does not have a standard of proof.

LOL...yes we know. But the fact remains...if you can't prove something, you have no facts...you have 'beliefs'. Your church has simply swapped one belief system for another....according to Jesus, neither will be of benefit at the end of the day however. (Matthew 7:21-23)

When you say adaptation, do you mean the evolution of traits based on genetics, physiological versatility or developmental flexibility. It is important, since most people do not understand any of it.

This is why so many people accept it.....it is marketed very carefully, making all the science fiction look like science fact. It counts on ignorance and gullibility in some....a desire to be accepted as "intelligent" and "educated" by others.....and also as a way to kill God off for the avowed atheists. Depending on your agenda. it serves all those who question the Creator. I wonder who came up with it?

Using adaptation to suggest the slow evolutionary process of macro-evolution, is an unprovable assertion, not based on anything that can be established by scientific testing of any kind. Suggestions are rife in all the literature. Suggestions are not facts.

Have you never heard of "leading the witness" in a court case? No one leads their witnesses more than science in this issue.

Evolution takes place within a taxon.

Where did the originals come from? For there to be a "family" there needs to be parents who have the same genetics and DNA code. Science guesses about the processes and provides detailed charts containing all the assumptions about the "branching".....but they can't produce the roots of the tree. Nothing grows without roots.....roots cannot grow without a seed germinating.....if science wants to present a tree, it needs to provide the whole picture.

Artificially establish a limit without support is religion. Not science. Evolution takes place within all populations and is not limited to families.

No one expects this but creationists.

Christ was a creationist. In fact, he was personally involved in creation, so in order for a "Christian" to reject creation is to reject Christ and his direct role in it. The scripture he used contained the Genesis account of creation and he referred to it as fact.

It comes down to choice then doesn't it? Those who choose science as their 'religion' (belief system) rather than to accept the word of God on faith have to answer to the judge of all of us, not me.

Except the evidence shows us that at one time, they were not. Evidence that you only seem to be able to address by dismissing it and waving your hands.

Please provide this "evidence" that canines and felines were not always members of their set taxonomies. The only proviso I make is that it must be based on real evidence, which means there can be no assumption, assertions or suggestions included in that evidence....just provable facts. OK?

Let's see how you go with that......?

There is no scientist sitting around waiting for his dog to give birth to cats. How ridiculous.

There are no creationists sitting around doing that either. Are you suggesting that those who believe in an Intelligent Creator are of necessity, "stupid"? Or does it just suit the evolutionist's air of superiority to imply that this is the case?

No. It is science, based on evidence, that you obviously neither understand nor can you refute with evidence.

Science cannot provide any evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone produce real evidence to back up their guesswork. Can you produce proof that whales were once four legged furry land animals? Again, there can be no guesswork....just real proof. If you cannot provide real proof, it means you have no facts.

I believe that the great con artist has woven his magic, getting perfectly intelligent people to accept a fairy story. It apparently works on believers and non-believers alike......
Do you accept the existence of this personage that Jesus identified as "the ruler of this world"?...or did he evolve too? (1 John 5:19)

Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to maintain dissonance.

Not that you could be suffering from this very affliction yourself...?

If you are a Christian, you can't have your cake and eat it too in this issue. A sell out is a sell out.
There is no room for evolution in the Bible.....what there is room for is the fact that the creative "days" were NOT 24 hour periods. YEC is a reason why so many discard creation as ridiculous. The literal 6,000 year, 24 hour day scenario does not fit creation at all. But if the creative days were each millions of earth years in length, then slow and deliberate, separate acts of creation are accommodated. It also allows for an old earth because there is no timeframe between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

The preparation of the earth for habitation may also have taken millions of years. The Creator is not constrained by earth time. Creation fits with what science knows......it just doesn't fit what science assumes.

No one suggests that this is part of the theory of evolution. Scientists have not established the separate question of the origin of life. We do not know how life originated. People may believe in many different things, but those beliefs remain unsupported.

Here we go ....typical evolutionists response....a wave of the hand and claims that the issue of how creatures may have changed over time and origin of life are unrelated......what nonsense!! If you find out who the originator of life is.....every other question about natural science is answered. If the creative days were not 24 hours then creation fits what science can prove.

You creationists just love to erroneously conflate the origin of life with the evolution of life. You can set clocks by it.

LOL....where did life come from is the most important question we could ask, in case you hadn't noticed. Science cannot answer it....and they don't look like they ever will.....to them, life is just a fluke, and undirected chance made it into everything we see on earth and even in the universe.....who can believe that?

I often hear about this "magical proofing" used by evolutionists to deride those who believe in the Creator......but it appears that evolutionists have their own version of "magical proofing".....but they just can't admit it.

The snow job is pretty complete if you ask me.....