I challenge a Creationist to debate

[evolved yet?]

I pasted and listed my source.

What is your take on lucy?

First published:
Creation 12(3):32
June 1990
‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?
According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2
​

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3
Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

‘Lucy’ isn’t the ‘Missing Link’!

How about a main stream scientific journal, not a biased one.

 

[evolved yet?]

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.

Like evolution.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).

Yes, like what happened to creationism when Darwin came on the scene.

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Have they/you heard of circumstantial evidence?

Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

It only acts on existing variation but new, possibly favourable variations are always added.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.

They do confirm different parts of evolutionary theory, they do not confirm different theories.

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

Abiogenesis is different then spontaneous generation and is not the topic of debate, evolution is.

Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

Give me an alternative "theistic science" that makes sense and a theistic method that makes sense, oh wait I found it.

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

More copy and pasting? Seriously?

 

[Orias]

seems humans are monkeys, for one who wants a creationist to debate
then limits it to his apish tricks with this sort of a stupid linked type of
rebuttal system
I wish to address the the opening THREAD POST and not just the last
But then I am sure this too will be deleleted
showing the skewed mindset here
Thrice I have posted and thrice it has been wiped-deleleted
WHy? because it didn't follow the skewed demands of the first post?
Why even have a thread that CHALLENGES the readers, no matter when they
arrive?

Firstly, the purpose of this thread is to debate against a creationist. The relevance of your post here is little to none of the OP. If your not going to address the topic, then why post? Kind of like, why join a competition if you know your going to lose?

Secondly, humans are primapes, not monekys.

Thirdly, the point of challenging is the need to greater advance the self-fulfilment of one's perception/knowledge.

Verstehen? It's pretty much common sense.

 

[Orias]

Maybe you should actually read the posts made.

Intolerant words spoken eh?

Well a question for you, is the forum rules too hard for you?

 

[Danmac]

seems humans are monkeys, for one who wants a creationist to debate
then limits it to his apish tricks with this sort of a stupid linked type of
rebuttal system
I wish to address the the opening THREAD POST and not just the last
But then I am sure this too will be deleleted
showing the skewed mindset here
Thrice I have posted and thrice it has been wiped-deleleted
WHy? because it didn't follow the skewed demands of the first post?
Why even have a thread that CHALLENGES the readers, no matter when they
arrive?

Read post #77 and try to follow forum rules.

 

[Danmac]

Stop Copy and Pasting, if I were copy and pasting this debate would have been long over. And on the other point I showed that your scrutiny didn't stand up to evidence!

You prefer it in my own words. Fair enough.

 

[Danmac]

Like evolution.

Macro evolution has never been observed. If it has do you have a youtube display of the experiment?

Yes, like what happened to creationism when Darwin came on the scene.

I don't know that the creation model was ever part of science. What do yoy mean what happened to it?

Have they/you heard of circumstantial evidence?

You mean like in the OJ trial?

It only acts on existing variation but new, possibly favourable variations are always added.

It can only work with existing information.

They do confirm different parts of evolutionary theory, they do not confirm different theories.

They may not confirm different theories, but it is open to other interpretations.

Abiogenesis is different then spontaneous generation and is not the topic of debate, evolution is.

It is not part of evolution, because it can support my argument. You could say that science has placed a gag order on abiogenesis.

Give me an alternative "theistic science" that makes sense and a theistic method that makes sense, oh wait I found it.

More copy and pasting? Seriously?

I do not wish to use different findings or different evidence as you, I wish to interpret the evidence differently, that's all.

 

[evolved yet?]

Macro evolution has never been observed. If it has do you have a youtube display of the experiment?

We have seen speciation, we have seen mutation produce irreducible complexity, and since you have yet to define kind your definition of macroevolution as kind to kind transitions your definition of macroevolution doesn't work and is not science.

I don't know that the creation model was ever part of science. What do yoy mean what happened to it?

It was science from about the beginning of christianity to 1860.

You mean like in the OJ trial?

If we stopped every trial because there was know eye witnesses, what would the world be like today?

It can only work with existing information.

Isn't that what I just said?

They may not confirm different theories, but it is open to other interpretations.

Oh the old creationist line, "it's all interpretation."

It is not part of evolution, because it can support my argument. You could say that science has placed a gag order on abiogenesis.

It is not part of evolution because abiogenesis talks about the beginning of life, evolution is life changing after it has started, you seem to be unable to understand that.

I do not wish to use different findings or different evidence as you, I wish to interpret the evidence differently, that's all.[/QUOTE]

 

[Danmac]

We have seen speciation, we have seen mutation produce irreducible complexity, and since you have yet to define kind your definition of macroevolution as kind to kind transitions your definition of macroevolution doesn't work and is not science.

There are two things that can help us identify which of the vast majority of species belong to a particular kind. But first of all let me name some different kinds. We have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog kind, the snake kind, and so on. A kind has never been a part of another kind. For example.... The wolf is the parent kind of all dog species.. Every dog species is the offspring of the wolf, and is not related to any other kind. Two things can help us identify which animals belong to which kind. First there is reproductive isolation. Secondly would be common features that are shared by all species within a particular kind, which a quick glance is all that is necessary to determine what kind an animal belongs to. All dog species share many common features, which make it fairly easy to spot a dog species.

It was science from about the beginning of christianity to 1860.

So if creationism is science why do you call creationists wackos. What you are saying is that creationism was arrived at thru the scientific method. That being the case, it has become a matter of different interpretation, since as you say, both sides are scientific by nature.

If we stopped every trial because there was know eye witnesses, what would the world be like today?

Thank you. That adds credence to the Bible.

Danmac:It can only work with existing information.

EY:Isn't that what I just said?

So are you saying that evolution can only use already existing information?

Oh the old creationist line, "it's all interpretation."

You said creationism was science before Darwin. That would mean that creationists used the scientific method to form its conclusions. Isn't that what you said?

It is not part of evolution because abiogenesis talks about the beginning of life, evolution is life changing after it has started, you seem to be unable to understand that.

Its not part of evolution, because it doesn't support evolution. Its like lumping micro and macro together, and saying that science has observed macro. It is cherry picking what supports macro, and weeding out what doesn't in order to support a flawed theory.

 

[Danmac]

WHY DOES THIS SITE CONSTANTLY LOG ME OUT while I am in the
midst of posting?

Because this is a one on one debate. Read the forum rules.

 

[evolved yet?]

There are two things that can help us identify which of the vast majority of species belong to a particular kind. But first of all let me name some different kinds. We have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog kind, the snake kind, and so on. A kind has never been a part of another kind. For example.... The wolf is the parent kind of all dog species.. Every dog species is the offspring of the wolf, and is not related to any other kind. Two things can help us identify which animals belong to which kind. First there is reproductive isolation. Secondly would be common features that are shared by all species within a particular kind, which a quick glance is all that is necessary to determine what kind an animal belongs to. All dog species share many common features, which make it fairly easy to spot a dog species.

If reproductive isolation is a characteristic of kinds, there would be over a million kinds, we have seen new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestral species.

So if creationism is science why do you call creationists wackos. What you are saying is that creationism was arrived at thru the scientific method. That being the case, it has become a matter of different interpretation, since as you say, both sides are scientific by nature.

Creationism was once considered science but that was in a time when we didn't no there was a functional alternative and treated the creation myth with no criticism, now we know that creationism dos not fit the fundamental principals of science.

Thank you. That adds credence to the Bible.

Thank you. That adds credence to macroevolution and common descent.

So are you saying that evolution can only use already existing information?

Natural selection only acts on existing variation, but information is constantly being added by mutation.

You said creationism was science before Darwin. That would mean that creationists used the scientific method to form its conclusions. Isn't that what you said?

That is not what I said, you are making a non sequitor.

Its not part of evolution, because it doesn't support evolution. Its like lumping micro and macro together, and saying that science has observed macro. It is cherry picking what supports macro, and weeding out what doesn't in order to support a flawed theory.

Here is a way of thinking about what you are saying:
"Chemistry is not part of gravity because it does not support gravity. It's like lumping gravity and quantum gravity (literally translates to microgravity) and saying science has observed gravity."
Are you trying to say that there is evidence against evolution? Please show it. Give an example of us cherry picking. And well you are at it give evidence for creationism.

 

[evolved yet?]

The other day SCIENCE claimed to have discovered a new PLANET
orbiting some star named GIESEL something or other and the next day
science posted what they FELT it was like composed directly
from the WHAT FACTS?
HOW MUCH OF TODAYS SCIENCE IS NO MORE THAN SPECULATION-FANTASY?
Consider the drug THALIDOMIDE when it first was touted as the new wonder
drug to cure the poor housefrau syndrome of boredom and what that
wrought and how it got banned and now is making a comeback, all
BECAUSE GOOD SCIENCE?
PLEASE don't bore me with what SCIENCE can do.
The BP mess is just the tip of it's failings.

You folks who are so agnostic and atheistic are just like the religious
zealots, naught one iota different, for they too can spin a fantasy about
what all they can claim in the name of GOD.

WISH you all who seek the truth would come back down to earth and
tell yourselves what you can prove of all you claim to believe.

pax

Start a one on one debate, stop interrupting this one.

 

[Danmac]

If reproductive isolation is a characteristic of kinds, there would be over a million kinds, we have seen new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestral species.

A loss of information within a species can cause it to become reproductively isolated from it's own kind. That should be a given.

Creationism was once considered science but that was in a time when we didn't no there was a functional alternative and treated the creation myth with no criticism, now we know that creationism dos not fit the fundamental principals of science.

Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think creationism was just a given, rather than a scientific conclusion.

Thank you. That adds credence to macroevolution and common descent.

Lets say that evolution was the vehicle that God used to bring about all kinds. There is enough evidence to support that. Lets go even further and say that macro evolution is true for all species, except for one. That being the human race. The human race was never part of animal evolution, but underwent a unique evolution that made us unique to all other kinds, and species. If that isn't true, then humans are nothing but animals, and are therefore exempt from any moral obligations to a higher power. That is the very reason that creationists cannot agree with the macroevolution of the animal kingdom to include the evolution of humans. The problem is that science tries to link humans to the animal kingdom by finding fossils that support their conclusion. That is why science needs to find the connecting links that always end up being animal fossils.

 

[evolved yet?]

A loss of information within a species can cause it to become reproductively isolated from it's own kind. That should be a given.

Not all speciations are a loss of information, in fact most are an increase in information.

Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think creationism was just a given, rather than a scientific conclusion.

You just contradicted your earlier comment:

So if creationism is science why do you call creationists wackos. What you are saying is that creationism was arrived at thru the scientific method. That being the case, it has become a matter of different interpretation, since as you say, both sides are scientific by nature.

Lets say that evolution was the vehicle that God used to bring about all kinds. There is enough evidence to support that. Lets go even further and say that macro evolution is true for all species, except for one. That being the human race. The human race was never part of animal evolution, but underwent a unique evolution that made us unique to all other kinds, and species. If that isn't true, then humans are nothing but animals, and are therefore exempt from any moral obligations to a higher power. That is the very reason that creationists cannot agree with the macroevolution of the animal kingdom to include the evolution of humans. The problem is that science tries to link humans to the animal kingdom by finding fossils that support their conclusion. That is why science needs to find the connecting links that always end up being animal fossils.

Is this a formal rejection of your earlier position that all animals were created in there own kinds, and you are now saying only humans are part of macroevolution?

 

[newhope101]

Hey Danmac
I found this on Creation Wiki "Baramin". Regardless of whether or not we all agree with the entire site, baramin appears to be a feasable explantion of kind..at least as good as the current taxa the evos use like Order, suborder,Family, genus and onto the species problem etc. You may also like to look up "cladistics" "Clade" in Wiki, if you haven't already. It speaks to the increasing popularity of the use of clades in light of recent genomic data.

Holobaramin

Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology

 

[Danmac]

Hey Danmac
I found this on Creation Wiki "Baramin". Regardless of whether or not we all agree with the entire site, baramin appears to be a feasable explantion of kind..at least as good as the current taxa the evos use like Order, suborder,Family, genus and onto the species problem etc. You may also like to look up "cladistics" "Clade" in Wiki, if you haven't already. It speaks to the increasing popularity of the use of clades in light of recent genomic data.

Holobaramin

Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for "whole") is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah's ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[Danmac]

Not all speciations are a loss of information, in fact most are an increase in information.

Thru natural selection information is lost.

You just contradicted your earlier comment:

Which one?

Is this a formal rejection of your earlier position that all animals were created in there own kinds, and you are now saying only humans are part of macroevolution?

Humans did not evolve from a lower form of life. We are superior to all other kinds in many ways. Why else do you think all of those fossils are eventually determined to be non human?

 

[evolved yet?]

Thru natural selection information is lost.

But more information is then added through mutation.

Which one?

Did you see that colon? It was there for a reason.

Humans did not evolve from a lower form of life. We are superior to all other kinds in many ways. Why else do you think all of those fossils are eventually determined to be non human?

What about Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecines and all the Homo Fossils that have a phenotypes intermediate or mosaic between other great ape's appearances and ours?

 

[.lava]

..........................................*mod post*

this thread has been moved to general religious debates section

.

 

[Valjean]

Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think creationism was just a given, rather than a scientific conclusion.

Our nation was founded by Deists and Christians as a rejection of the Judeo-Christian principles that had first kept Europe in darkness and backward misery for centuries and, with the reformation, in war and turmoil for another couple centuries. The US was founded as an experiment in anti-religious Enlightenment principles.

Lets say that evolution was the vehicle that God used to bring about all kinds. There is enough evidence to support that. Lets go even further and say that macro evolution is true for all species, except for one. That being the human race. The human race was never part of animal evolution, but underwent a unique evolution that made us unique to all other kinds, and species. If that isn't true, then humans are nothing but animals, and are therefore exempt from any moral obligations to a higher power. That is the very reason that creationists cannot agree with the macroevolution of the animal kingdom to include the evolution of humans. The problem is that science tries to link humans to the animal kingdom by finding fossils that support their conclusion. That is why science needs to find the connecting links that always end up being animal fossils.

Humans are no more "unique" than any other species. There is no reason to believe we are a seperate, magic creation. There is as much physical and genetic support for human evolution as for the evolution of any other species.
I don't understand what you mean by your last sentence. Could you clarify, por favor?

Hey Danmac
I found this on Creation Wiki "Baramin". Regardless of whether or not we all agree with the entire site, baramin appears to be a feasable explantion of kind..at least as good as the current taxa the evos use like Order, suborder,Family, genus and onto the species problem etc. You may also like to look up "cladistics" "Clade" in Wiki, if you haven't already. It speaks to the increasing popularity of the use of clades in light of recent genomic data.

Baraminology is another creationist invention to give religion the appearance of science, like "Intelligent Design."

Thru natural selection information is lost.

Huh? What "information" are you talking about, how is it lost, and what is the significance of this loss?

Humans did not evolve from a lower form of life. We are superior to all other kinds in many ways. Why else do you think all of those fossils are eventually determined to be non human?

There is no lower or higher life. There is only life.
Horses are superior in many ways. Hawks are superior in many ways; and cats, and lungfish, and lizards. Every species has its strengths and weaknesses. Evolution neither improves nor perfects, it just adapts.

And what fossils are you talking about, Dan?

But more information is then added through mutation.

What is all this stuff about 'information' being added or lost? This has nothing to do with evolution. This "information" thing is another creationist straw man. Don't get sucked into it.

......................