Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
If you can't define what a kind is, then you have not yet stated a hypothesis. You'll have to try again, without using that term.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
If you can't define what a kind is, then you have not yet stated a hypothesis. You'll have to try again, without using that term.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
C'mon. What is it with you guys? Are you incredibly stupid, or what? How many times have I typed these words? What do I have to do to get you to understand these one-syllable words?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
newhope: You have labeled yourself an agnostic, and stated that you understand and accept the Theory of Evolution. I have repeatedly accused you of lying, and actually being a Young Earth Creationist. Now you reveal your actual beliefs, which are exactly as I predicted. In other words, you have revealed yourself to be nothing but a liar. Why should anyone now pay the slightest attention to anything you might say?
Furthermore, I'm curious. Why did you do it? What were you hoping to accomplish? Have you not yet learned that lying is never a good way to advocate for your cause?
Furthermore, I'm curious. Why did you do it? What were you hoping to accomplish? Have you not yet learned that lying is never a good way to advocate for your cause?
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
HOW?
What is with you people? How hard can this be? Have you never taken a science class in your life? O.K. God created some unspecified numbers of breeding pairs in Iraq at some point. Let's start there. HOW did He do so? Magic poofing? Is that your hypothesis?
There were no elephants, then suddenly there were two fully formed elephants standing there out of thin air? Is that your scientific hypothesis?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Actually, it's from the logical handbook.
If you want to proslytize, go to a different board. If you want to argue God vs. no God, go to a different thread. The subject of this thread is what evidence you have for your hypothesis of HOW God, whom we all assume to have created all things, did so. Do you have one? If not, scram. Thanks.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
First, this isn't a thread about evolution, so anything you've posted to attempt to discredit it would be irrelevant in this thread.
Second, you have yet to even formulate a hypothesis, let alone a theory, so you've made absolutely zero progress.
Third, you're a self-admitted liar, so you may find persuading us of anything rather challenging.
Venatoris
Active Member
I think you're confusing them. When you ask a creationist "how?" they assume you are asking how god created everything. The answer is magic poofing of course but I don't think that's what you(or I) want from them. Correct me if I'm wrong but you want specifics to backup the magic poofing after it happened such as: name all the "kinds" and use scientific data to back it up and show cases where a species has never, and will never, branch off into seperate/different/new species. I think the problem is when you ask a question in the most simplistic way possible, the simplest answers seem sufficient. We want data supporting their claim that doesn't rely on attempts to assassinate evolution. right?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It's always simple when you assume your conclusion. *hint* You haven't established that anything was programmed.
Pegg: Do you have a hypothesis for HOW God created all the different species? No one else in the creationist camp has formulated one yet.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Actually, current scientific thinking is that it is. FAIL.
Now can we get back to Biology?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
But I thought all energy had to have a source?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Stop. Just stop. We all agree that God created every ant, every bacteria, every mollusk, etc. That's not at issue. We're not arguing that. Get it? O.K. now referring to the many species of organisms on earth. ToE describes the process God used to create them, and is well-supported by the evidence. You don't buy it. O.K., what's your hypothesis for how God created all the various species?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Great, can we talk Biology yet?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
O.K., you don't even have a hypothesis. You're out. Next?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
If their hypothesis is magic poofing they should say so: God magically poofed two of X into existence at Y time. There approximately Z number different Xs. Then something else happened. Why is that so hard? If you can't formulate a hypothesis, how can you even figure out what would or would not be evidence of that?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Now?
Hells bells, I put her liar arse on ignore quite some time ago.
Didn't you know?
Lying is perfectly acceptable when done in gods name.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
And I say that you have an invisible green goblin living in your home.
You cannot prove that you do not so you HAVE to stay ambivalent to its existence.
Is that how we should look at the world?
And before you protest, explain to me exactly how my claim is different from yours.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
So you are admitting that you do not, in fact, have a hypothesis?
In that case I strongly suggest that the Creationists sit their butts down, clamp their mouths shut and let the actual scientists get on with finding out how. They have done a pretty good job so far.
Oh, and us teachers will continue to teach Evolution seeing as so far it is the ONLY workable explanation we have.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
YECs in this thread, including those claiming to be agnostics:
Does this sum up your hypothesis? If not, please correct anything that does not match:
Around 6000 years ago, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of animal into existence, as well as all of the plants. This happened in a garden in Iraq. Finally, He formed a man out of dirt and a woman out of his rib. We don't know what a "kind" is or how to distinguish one, or tell whether any two creatures are the same or a different kind, and we have no idea how many "kinds" He poofed. Examples of kinds are dogs, bears, cats. God did not make any e.g. cat we see today, but rather a sort of generic Ur-cat, capable of evolving into various different cats, but not beyond that line of limitation, the "kind" we can't define, describe or identify.
The "kinds" multiplied for around 2000 years and gave rise to various different species. Then God regretted His creation, but rather than start with a clean slate, He decided to re-set with the original models. Two of each "kind" of land-dwelling animal traveled from all over the world to--Palestine? Not sure about that, somewhere in the middle East, and got on a wooden boat with a single human family. The entire world was inundated with rain until it was totally flooded, all the plants underwater, all the fresh and sea water mixed together, for around a year.
All of the people on earth are descended from that single family, who are in turn descended from the man and woman made out of clay and a rib.
At the end of that time the waters receded (to where?), the pairs of "kinds" emerged from the boat and traveled off again to their various locations all over the world. They continued to evolve in the manner described in the Theory of Evolution (ToE), except always stopping at the limit imposed by their "kind." All of the species we see today are variation on these "kinds."
Is that all correct?
If so we can begin to talk about evidence, and on page 26 it's about damned time.
Does this sum up your hypothesis? If not, please correct anything that does not match:
Around 6000 years ago, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of animal into existence, as well as all of the plants. This happened in a garden in Iraq. Finally, He formed a man out of dirt and a woman out of his rib. We don't know what a "kind" is or how to distinguish one, or tell whether any two creatures are the same or a different kind, and we have no idea how many "kinds" He poofed. Examples of kinds are dogs, bears, cats. God did not make any e.g. cat we see today, but rather a sort of generic Ur-cat, capable of evolving into various different cats, but not beyond that line of limitation, the "kind" we can't define, describe or identify.
The "kinds" multiplied for around 2000 years and gave rise to various different species. Then God regretted His creation, but rather than start with a clean slate, He decided to re-set with the original models. Two of each "kind" of land-dwelling animal traveled from all over the world to--Palestine? Not sure about that, somewhere in the middle East, and got on a wooden boat with a single human family. The entire world was inundated with rain until it was totally flooded, all the plants underwater, all the fresh and sea water mixed together, for around a year.
All of the people on earth are descended from that single family, who are in turn descended from the man and woman made out of clay and a rib.
At the end of that time the waters receded (to where?), the pairs of "kinds" emerged from the boat and traveled off again to their various locations all over the world. They continued to evolve in the manner described in the Theory of Evolution (ToE), except always stopping at the limit imposed by their "kind." All of the species we see today are variation on these "kinds."
Is that all correct?
If so we can begin to talk about evidence, and on page 26 it's about damned time.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
newhope101
Active Member
Autodidact quote:Around 6000 years ago, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of animal into existence, as well as all of the plants.
If by 'poofed' you mean appeared 'magically' by the limits of human understanding, you are correct. Much the same way as Hawkins says all the matter in all the universe was contained in the size of an atom and just decided one day to explode. You believe that don't you? Then to explain that nonsense there are hypothesisied stages inflation and multiple universes and dimentions. OMG truly believing God created man 6,000 years ago does not appear silly comparatively.
I don't know about you Pegg, but I think God created humans around 6,000 years ago. That radiometric dating has been given population values and other data that biases the dating. I have given examples previously. Kinds were made prior to humans also in the area called 'the garden of Eden", and then spread and filled the earth as the bible quotes.
God created kinds in the garden of Eden and genomic testing supports there were one or two individuals traced, such as the wolf and sponge research I have posted. The ecological niche was made in Eden. From there all animals spread and adapted. Researchers need to research how many of each kind was initially made, one breeding pair or 100. It seems that only one pair of wolves were necessary.
Life was made in the order the bible states. Tiktaalic was meant to be the first creature to crawl out of the sea onto land. Yet there were already tetrapod footprints around to that time. Again this info supports the bible account.
Genomic research also identifes that humans were in a geographical area and spead, or at least the out of Africa proponents are attempting to illustrate this.
As to how these animals spread and adapted. Genomic research has identified that even trichoplax shared 80% of our genes. This is great news for creationists. It shows that every organism was created with much diversity so that it could spread adapt and fill the earth.
So basically genomic research, is supporting the bible account of creation.
You know, Pegg there are hundreds of researchers working on how their evidence fits in with TOE. Yet a couple of forum defenders of creationism are expected to come up with a solid theory. Just a trap. This lot as well as 100's of researchers around the world can't even stabilize their own theory for 5 minutes before it changes.
re naderthal first they were a dead end line then they 'prooved' lineage to humans now that's been retracted by other evidence. Seriously, they have no idea what they are looking at when they study genetics. They've turned humans into chimps with 99.4% shared genes. Now they are thinking of putting chimps into the 'homo' line. Regardless of if they do or not the thinking highlights the stupidity and level TOE proponents are prepared to swallow and go to to support Toe, and then demand creationists sort their story out on the spot. It's a request rooted in frustration. I think.
Autodidact knows creationists can smack ToE heaps. She just wants the opportunity to slap back. Don't bite Peg. ToE has no theory other than we came from chimps. How, when let alone why is all they need to work out. Even natural selection is doubted by many fancy brains as being an adequate explanation of macroevolution. I have posted the Wiki info and there is heaps out there.
See Peg, evolutionists believe in their theory despite the holes, the contradictions and the constant changes. They have as very strong faith in this and they will stick to it regardless of how silly anyone makes them look.
They will throw up evidence for ToE that is disputed within the ToE community, like arch the dino bird where evidence shows that birds macro'd into dinos now after having 'proven' that dinos maro'd into birds. There is so much that has turned around there is insufficient room to post it all. I'm mean seriously, how can any evolutionist offer fossils as evidence. Genomic testing does not validate the fossil record. To the contrary, and I have posted that info also. I have posted how one can use genomic dating methods to arrive at 6,000 years for humans, illustrating the complexity involved and assumptions that are entered into the computations to get dates. The same complexity is involved in all radiometric dating.
The articicle below demonstrated yet again that scientists have no clue what they are doing or talking about. Rather they grasp at any straw. The article below says these changes are a part of science, unlike religion. What this lass needs to see is this: The Toe was proposed, any primate found was collected and used to back up evolution. Then came along advanced genomic sequencing techniques, that slapped the fossil hunters and made them look again at their old bones, but also showed biblical creationists the evidence they require and the folly of ToE.
The great thing about Toe is the proponents only need yet another hypothesis to explain this and how this fits into the nice smooth transition to human. It would be so easy to explain if researchers were only asking the right questions. ie how does this fit in with creation....easy...they were all non human primates that adapted to their environment and available food, and we'll try to work out if they are orangutangs, chimps, banobos or gorillas etc. Really easy for creationists!!!!
Current genomic data supports the biblical standpoint for creation and only confuses or contradicts ToE..because true scientific evidence will not support myth.
Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory
Thursday, August 09, 2007
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON
Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.
If by 'poofed' you mean appeared 'magically' by the limits of human understanding, you are correct. Much the same way as Hawkins says all the matter in all the universe was contained in the size of an atom and just decided one day to explode. You believe that don't you? Then to explain that nonsense there are hypothesisied stages inflation and multiple universes and dimentions. OMG truly believing God created man 6,000 years ago does not appear silly comparatively.
I don't know about you Pegg, but I think God created humans around 6,000 years ago. That radiometric dating has been given population values and other data that biases the dating. I have given examples previously. Kinds were made prior to humans also in the area called 'the garden of Eden", and then spread and filled the earth as the bible quotes.
God created kinds in the garden of Eden and genomic testing supports there were one or two individuals traced, such as the wolf and sponge research I have posted. The ecological niche was made in Eden. From there all animals spread and adapted. Researchers need to research how many of each kind was initially made, one breeding pair or 100. It seems that only one pair of wolves were necessary.
Life was made in the order the bible states. Tiktaalic was meant to be the first creature to crawl out of the sea onto land. Yet there were already tetrapod footprints around to that time. Again this info supports the bible account.
Genomic research also identifes that humans were in a geographical area and spead, or at least the out of Africa proponents are attempting to illustrate this.
As to how these animals spread and adapted. Genomic research has identified that even trichoplax shared 80% of our genes. This is great news for creationists. It shows that every organism was created with much diversity so that it could spread adapt and fill the earth.
So basically genomic research, is supporting the bible account of creation.
You know, Pegg there are hundreds of researchers working on how their evidence fits in with TOE. Yet a couple of forum defenders of creationism are expected to come up with a solid theory. Just a trap. This lot as well as 100's of researchers around the world can't even stabilize their own theory for 5 minutes before it changes.
re naderthal first they were a dead end line then they 'prooved' lineage to humans now that's been retracted by other evidence. Seriously, they have no idea what they are looking at when they study genetics. They've turned humans into chimps with 99.4% shared genes. Now they are thinking of putting chimps into the 'homo' line. Regardless of if they do or not the thinking highlights the stupidity and level TOE proponents are prepared to swallow and go to to support Toe, and then demand creationists sort their story out on the spot. It's a request rooted in frustration. I think.
Autodidact knows creationists can smack ToE heaps. She just wants the opportunity to slap back. Don't bite Peg. ToE has no theory other than we came from chimps. How, when let alone why is all they need to work out. Even natural selection is doubted by many fancy brains as being an adequate explanation of macroevolution. I have posted the Wiki info and there is heaps out there.
See Peg, evolutionists believe in their theory despite the holes, the contradictions and the constant changes. They have as very strong faith in this and they will stick to it regardless of how silly anyone makes them look.
They will throw up evidence for ToE that is disputed within the ToE community, like arch the dino bird where evidence shows that birds macro'd into dinos now after having 'proven' that dinos maro'd into birds. There is so much that has turned around there is insufficient room to post it all. I'm mean seriously, how can any evolutionist offer fossils as evidence. Genomic testing does not validate the fossil record. To the contrary, and I have posted that info also. I have posted how one can use genomic dating methods to arrive at 6,000 years for humans, illustrating the complexity involved and assumptions that are entered into the computations to get dates. The same complexity is involved in all radiometric dating.
The articicle below demonstrated yet again that scientists have no clue what they are doing or talking about. Rather they grasp at any straw. The article below says these changes are a part of science, unlike religion. What this lass needs to see is this: The Toe was proposed, any primate found was collected and used to back up evolution. Then came along advanced genomic sequencing techniques, that slapped the fossil hunters and made them look again at their old bones, but also showed biblical creationists the evidence they require and the folly of ToE.
The great thing about Toe is the proponents only need yet another hypothesis to explain this and how this fits into the nice smooth transition to human. It would be so easy to explain if researchers were only asking the right questions. ie how does this fit in with creation....easy...they were all non human primates that adapted to their environment and available food, and we'll try to work out if they are orangutangs, chimps, banobos or gorillas etc. Really easy for creationists!!!!
Current genomic data supports the biblical standpoint for creation and only confuses or contradicts ToE..because true scientific evidence will not support myth.
Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory
Thursday, August 09, 2007
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON
Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.