The battle of evolution vs creationism

[outhouse]

And a coyote isn't a dog, right? Foolishness.

.

You call facts foolishness?

 

[Windwalker]

The story involving the Garden of Eden is a fable based on what? A nonbeliever who doesn't believe in the bible?

Are you unfamiliar with what it's based on? It's based on the Enuma Elish, which is considerably older than Genesis. It's the Babylonian myth of creation that a general outline goes like this:

1. Divine spirits and cosmic matters coexist
2. primeval chaos; war of gods against Tiamat (the deep sea)
3. light emanates from the gods
4. creation of firmament (dome)
5. creation of dry land
6. creation of heavenly lights
7. creation of humans
8. the gods rest and celebrate with a banquet

Contrast this with the Genesis myth:

1. Divine spirit created by word all matter but is independent of it
2. earth is desolate with darkness over the deep
3. 1st day: light
4. 2nd day: sky dome
5. 3rd day: dry land
6. 4th day: heaven lights
7. 6th day: creation of humans
8. 7th day: God rests and sanctifies Sabbath

So, there you go. You have more knowledge now than before.

 

[Parsimony]

Um, what is the question?

If you had read back through the topic starting on page 24 like I told you to, you would know what the questions were. However, since you insist on me repeating them, then I'll do it again. I'll start with just one to keep it simple:

Dolphins have no sense of smell (olfaction). This is sensible because they breathe air and therefore cannot take a whiff of the water in order to detect predators, prey or mates using this sense. They appear to get along perfectly fine without a sense of smell (they can make up for it by tasting the water). Since dolphins have no sense of smell and have no need for a sense of smell, it would then follow that God would have no reason to put the genes necessary for that trait into their DNA.

However, once geneticists actually took a look at dolphin DNA, they found thousands of olfaction genes that had been deactivated by mutation. Can you explain why God would fill dolphin DNA with thousands of broken genes that would have never served any function if dolphins had always lived their lives in water? Evolution has an easy answer to this: if dolphins evolved from land-dwelling ancestors which had a use for a sense of smell, then it would make sense (and even be expected) that we find these genes.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, turtles produce turtles.

Let's be consistent here. Dogs and cats represent taxonomic families (canidae and felidae, respectively), but turtles are members of a whole taxonomic order (testudines). Interestingly, humans and the great apes are also members of the same family (hominidae). By your logic, chimps can produce humans since they are in the same family.

 

[johnhanks]

I believed I asked a question.

I assume the question was this one:

Dogs produce dogs, outhouse. Have you ever observed anything beyond this in your years?? No. So why think that you would have observed such a thing 150 million years ago?

Perhaps others have withheld their answers on compassionate grounds, not wanting to appear to mock the ignorant; in which case I'll take the risk of appearing insensitive.

You wouldn't have observed dogs producing dogs 150 million years ago, as there were no dogs. You would have observed small, shrew-like proto-mammals producing small, shrew-like proto-mammals; and you could have watched them for ten, twenty, a hundred generations and still seen small, shrew-like proto-mammals producing small, shrew-like proto-mammals. But if you could have maintained your watch for fifty million years, you would have seen what you would call macro-evolutionary change. Since no human can actually do this, we can observe it only through changes in the fossil record.

One of the ways in which you like to misrepresent evolutionary theory is to pretend that "evolutionists" claim that improbable changes we don't observe now (your favourite seems to be dogs producing non-dogs) would have been seen in the distant past. It's been pointed out to you many times that evolutionary biologists claim no such thing: evolutionary change occurs by degrees over very long periods, and is all but imperceptible in human life-spans (but eminently perceptible through the lens of the fossil record).

I'm not under any illusions that this reply will make any difference to your posturings, and realise that you will continue to post drivel like "scientists want you to believe that these impossible things we don't see now happened w-a-a-a-a-y back". But I thought it was important to put a correction on the record.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you unfamiliar with what it's based on? It's based on the Enuma Elish, which is considerably older than Genesis. It's the Babylonian myth of creation that a general outline goes like this:

1. Divine spirits and cosmic matters coexist
2. primeval chaos; war of gods against Tiamat (the deep sea)
3. light emanates from the gods
4. creation of firmament (dome)
5. creation of dry land
6. creation of heavenly lights
7. creation of humans
8. the gods rest and celebrate with a banquet

Contrast this with the Genesis myth:

1. Divine spirit created by word all matter but is independent of it
2. earth is desolate with darkness over the deep
3. 1st day: light
4. 2nd day: sky dome
5. 3rd day: dry land
6. 4th day: heaven lights
7. 6th day: creation of humans
8. 7th day: God rests and sanctifies Sabbath

So, there you go. You have more knowledge now than before.

Question: Why would I care about a "Babylonian myth of creation" when I have historicity based on the life, death, Resurrection, and post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ...which correlates with the biblical creation account?

Can you tell me why?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Based on previous mythology in Mesopotamian cultures that existed long before any Israelite existed.


It is fact Israelites did not exist before 1200 BC [Israel Finklestein]

Wait a minute, so other ancient cultures believed that there was a God that created two humans...and those humans disobeyed god by sinning and therefore God needed to send his only begotten son to die for the sins of mankind???

I wasn't aware of that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Communicating with you is a utter waist of time watching you dance around facts with unsubstantiated personal opinion that carries no credibility anywhere.

The question is, what do you have outside mythology as a replacement hypothesis????????????????????????????????? I supply facts, while you dodge them anyway you can

outhouse...buddy...All I am saying is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. What are you so upset about? I am making the statement based on what I've observed all my life. I see no reason to take this huge leap of faith by believing in voodoo science. Maybe you do, but I don't.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You call facts foolishness?

The only fact I saw was the "fact" that is wasn't a fact.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I assume the question was this oneerhaps others have withheld their answers on compassionate grounds, not wanting to appear to mock the ignorant; in which case I'll take the risk of appearing insensitive.

Call it what you want, because it is down right predictable that every time someone disagrees with the theory of evolution they will be accused of being stupid, dumb, ignorant, or any other synonym one can think of. It is as if evolutionists are the smart ones and anyone that doesn't believe in it are the dumb ones. Not to mention the fact that, I mean lets face it...even evolutionists have never seen these large scale changes on the macro level. Yet they believe it because if you take out the God hypothesis, they have no other way of explaining how living and breathing organisms got here.

But it doesn't matter, because just as silly as naturalists/evolutionists/atheists think Christian theism/theism is, we think your view is just as silly...and in fact, stupid.

You wouldn't have observed dogs producing dogs 150 million years ago, as there were no dogs.

No dogs 150 million years ago, but dogs now..hmmm

You would have observed small, shrew-like proto-mammals producing small, shrew-like proto-mammals; and you could have watched them for ten, twenty, a hundred generations and still seen small, shrew-like proto-mammals producing small, shrew-like proto-mammals.

Now lets hold it right here. Stop!!! Hold it. Now lets compare what was said immediately above to what is said immediately below. Now, you went from "small, shrew-like proto-mammals", to the "macro-evolutionary" change at which a "dog" would have developed. My goodness do you see what just happened here? This is about the fourth time this has happened. It happened so fast you didn't even see it. You've just allowed your presupposition to creep in. You've immediately left science and went to religion. It happened in a nano second.

We know that animals reproduced 150 million years ago (for arguments sake). What we DONT know is, nor is there any evidence for.....those small shrew like mammals that you referred to evolving in to dogs. There is just no correlation there. That is something that you added in. That isn't science.

Basically you are saying it happened so long ago that no one saw it happened...and these things tend to take a very long time to happen...so long that no one that is alive will ever see it happen....but yet, it happens? You don't see the scam? You don't see how you are being duped?

"No one has ever saw it happen, because it happened so long ago that no one was around to see it happen....and no one will ever actually see it happen because it takes so long for it to happen.....but it happens"

Duped.

But if you could have maintained your watch for fifty million years, you would have seen what you would call macro-evolutionary change.

Since no human can actually do this, we can observe it only through changes in the fossil record.

There is no fossil record, john. There are fossils of animals that died. Thats it. Those fossils don't come with obituaries. You don't know if those fossils had any children, and you certainly don't know if those fossils had DIFFERENT kind of children.

One of the ways in which you like to misrepresent evolutionary theory is to pretend that "evolutionists" claim that improbable changes we don't observe now (your favourite seems to be dogs producing non-dogs) would have been seen in the distant past. It's been pointed out to you many times that evolutionary biologists claim no such thing: evolutionary change occurs by degrees over very long periods, and is all but imperceptible in human life-spans (but eminently perceptible through the lens of the fossil record).

Well, if it happened in the distant past, and you lived in the distant past, then you would have seen it. That is part of the scam. That is the reason why we never see it occur, because it takes so long to occur. Tell ya what, since we know so dang much, how come we can't simulate the right circumstances at which it would occur? Do some cloning or something? We should be able to create all kind of animals since we know that "small-shrew like mammals" evolved in to a dog. Why not experiment and make the dog evolve in to another kind of animal? Why do we have to wait if we know how it is done? We cant do it because it cant happen, john.

I'm not under any illusions that this reply will make any difference to your posturings, and realise that you will continue to post drivel like "scientists want you to believe that these impossible things we don't see now happened w-a-a-a-a-y back". But I thought it was important to put a correction on the record.

Why am I to believe that animals millions of years ago were able to do things that animals today hasn't been observed to do? All I see is dogs producing dogs, etc. Why am I to believe that there were exceptions millions of years ago when I was conveniently not here to observe it? Huh?

 

[johnhanks]

Basically you are saying it happened so long ago that no one saw it happened...Well, if it happened in the distant past, and you lived in the distant past, then you would have seen it ... Why am I to believe that animals millions of years ago were able to do things that animals today hasn't been observed to do?

You really didn't take in a word of my post, did you? You are doing exactly what I predicted.

You are the only one suggesting that things were possible in the past that don't happen today: that idea forms no part of evolutionary theory. Animals millions of years ago were indeed doing the things that animals today do: that is, their populations' gene pools changed over time, just as we observe today. For that change in genome to result in what you would call a change of "kind" takes longer than any human can observe, but no creationist has identified any limit on the extent of genetic change that would prevent it from happening; and the fossil record (which exists as a record of change over time whether you like it or not) confirms that it happens.

 

[outhouse]

Wait a minute, so other ancient cultures believed that there was a God that created two humans...and those humans disobeyed god by sinning and therefore God needed to send his only begotten son to die for the sins of mankind???

I wasn't aware of that.

NO

previous cultures had many creation myths. In which Adamu was one of their first men created from dirt.


Because we think Israelites changed the mythology to suit their own needs does not mean Mesopotamian cultures did not influence Israelite mythology.

 

[outhouse]

outhouse...buddy...All I am saying is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. What are you so upset about? I am making the statement based on what I've observed all my life. I see no reason to take this huge leap of faith by believing in voodoo science. Maybe you do, but I don't.

That's but we don't base science on uneducated opinions.


Your ignorant, completely at that, to the millions of details that make up the FACTS surrounding Evolution.

There has been no scientific debate for over a hundred years about evolution.

So you are factually wrong dogs and cats are in a state of evolution, they evolved from pervious species, and they very well may evolve into another species. That is actually a fact. Your argument is weak and flawed, you just don't know enough to understand the reality of the situation here.

 

[outhouse]

The only fact I saw was the "fact" that is wasn't a fact.

A coyote, is factually not a dog.

It is a different species.



And remember there is a reason why you don't have any credible sources. Your opinion based on faith, is not credible in this case. You dont have the education to attack all of science and claim it doesn't know what its doing.

And brother, this is not even high school biology were talking about here, this is just your outright refusal of credible knowledge.

Coyote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Canis latrans


Currently, 19 subspecies are recognized, with 16 in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and three in Central America.[5] Unlike the related gray wolf, which is Eurasian in origin, evolutionary theory suggests the coyote evolved in North America during the Pleistocene epoch 1.8 million years ago (mya),[6] alongside the dire wolf.[7] Although not closely related, the coyote evolved separately to fill roughly the same ecological niche in the Americas that is filled in Eurasia and Africa by the similarly sized jackals. Unlike the wolf, the coyote's range has expanded in the wake of human civilization, and coyotes readily reproduce in metropolitan areas.[8][9


In an evolutionary biology research conducted by a team of researchers in the Uppsala University, analysis of control region haplotypes of the mitochondrial DNA and sex chromosomes from Mexican grey wolves, a critically endangered subspecies of the grey wolf once nearly driven to extinction in the wild, confirmed the presence of coyote markers in some of the wolves.

Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)

is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammalian order Carnivora.


MtDNA evidence shows an evolutionary split between the modern dog's lineage and the modern wolf's lineage around 100,000 years ago but, as of 2013, the oldest fossil specimens genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage date to approximately 33,000–36,000 years ago.[4][6] Dogs' value to early human hunter-gatherers led to them quickly becoming ubiquitous across world cultures. Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals.

 

[Skwim]

Call it what you want, because it is down right predictable that every time someone disagrees with the theory of evolution they will be accused of being stupid, dumb, ignorant, or any other synonym one can think of. It is as if evolutionists are the smart ones and anyone that doesn't believe in it are the dumb ones.

Aside from your self-serving exaggeration here, most people who disagree with evolution simply don't understand the subject well enough to express a cogent rebuttal. Treading into unfamiliar territory they often rely on the misrepresentations and outright lies promulgated by prominent creationists; those with a personal stake in their position---think money and celebrity here.

The upshot is that when people make crassly stupid or ignorant remarks, they will be called on it. Want to be treated with more respect, then appraise yourself of the underpinnings of evolution, and the rational behind it. Don't care to bother with it, then I suggest either removing yourself from the arena of debate or suffer the consequences of any ill-conceived remarks. Without good training I doubt you'd get into a boxing ring with a seasoned boxer. The same holds true for the honest creationist; it's rather silly to engage the evolutionist on his own ground when knowing next to nothing about the subject, and sillier yet to do so with just enough information to demonstrate one's gross misunderstanding: while the outright ignorant can be excused for their lack of knowledge, those who insist on continually shooting themselves in the foot with goofy pronouncements only invite disparagement.

In any case, evolutionists, almost all having a fair grasp on the subject, will never be taken in by creationism, and, if nothing else, simply smirk in disbelief at the attempts to sell it.

I think this is a fair description of the lay of the land, so when next confronted with disbelief and derision at your remarks keep in mind that it's a result of your own doing and not that of evolutionists. Don't want to be pelted with impertinent retorts then don't invite them.

 

[McBell]

Call it what you want, because it is down right predictable that every time someone disagrees with the theory of evolution they will be accused of being stupid, dumb, ignorant, or any other synonym one can think of.

The problem here is that in your ignorance of what the theory of evolution is and says, you are in fact not disagreeing with the theory of evolution, but with strawmen that have been labeled the theory of evolution.

 

[outhouse]

when I have historicity based on the life,


Can you tell me why?

You don't have any historicity at all, that is the problem.



Its one thing when you don't understand science, we get that. But when you don't even understand your own religious history, its rather embarrassing.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A coyote, is factually not a dog.

It is a different species.



And remember there is a reason why you don't have any credible sources. Your opinion based on faith, is not credible in this case. You dont have the education to attack all of science and claim it doesn't know what its doing.

And brother, this is not even high school biology were talking about here, this is just your outright refusal of credible knowledge.

Coyote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Canis latrans


Currently, 19 subspecies are recognized, with 16 in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and three in Central America.[5] Unlike the related gray wolf, which is Eurasian in origin, evolutionary theory suggests the coyote evolved in North America during the Pleistocene epoch 1.8 million years ago (mya),[6] alongside the dire wolf.[7] Although not closely related, the coyote evolved separately to fill roughly the same ecological niche in the Americas that is filled in Eurasia and Africa by the similarly sized jackals. Unlike the wolf, the coyote's range has expanded in the wake of human civilization, and coyotes readily reproduce in metropolitan areas.[8][9


In an evolutionary biology research conducted by a team of researchers in the Uppsala University, analysis of control region haplotypes of the mitochondrial DNA and sex chromosomes from Mexican grey wolves, a critically endangered subspecies of the grey wolf once nearly driven to extinction in the wild, confirmed the presence of coyote markers in some of the wolves.

Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)

is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammalian order Carnivora.


MtDNA evidence shows an evolutionary split between the modern dog's lineage and the modern wolf's lineage around 100,000 years ago but, as of 2013, the oldest fossil specimens genetically linked to the modern dog's lineage date to approximately 33,000–36,000 years ago.[4][6] Dogs' value to early human hunter-gatherers led to them quickly becoming ubiquitous across world cultures. Dogs perform many roles for people, such as hunting, herding, pulling loads, protection, assisting police and military, companionship, and, more recently, aiding handicapped individuals.

Look, I am not in to bio-babble. I am using "dog" to describe a kind of animal. There is a "dog" kind, a "cat" kind, a "elephant" kind, and a "turtle" kind. There are many different varieties of animals within those kinds. That is why we have big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, etc. There is no reason to distingiush a wolf from a coyote, or a coyote from a german shepard, other than to say that all are different kinds of the SAME ANIMAL. That is micro evolution. That is what we see. That is what we can observe. That is science. We observe animals producing many different varieties within their own kind. That is microevolution. We don't see animals producing different kind of animals, which is what you and others on here believe happens ever 150 million years or so. If you want to believe it, fine, believe what you want. But don't call it science, because it isn't. Science doesn't predict such large scale changes, nor has it ever been observed. It is just a theory that is used as a way to provide an explanation for how the heck did living organisms acheive their current state, if you negate the existence of a Almighty God.

A wolf, a coyote, a fox, a jackal, a german shepard are all part of the "dog" kind. I understand that biologists want to complicate things to make themselves look more smart than they are by trying to categorize animals in a dozen different ways...family...genus...species...etc. There is no need for all of that.

A lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, jaguar are all part of the "cat" kind. A cat will only produce a cat, and a dog will only produce a dog. No exceptions. Anything beyond that is speculation and unscientific.

I will place my faith in Jesus Christ and evolutionists will place their faith in Charles Darwin. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You don't have any historicity at all, that is the problem.



Its one thing when you don't understand science, we get that. But when you don't even understand your own religious history, its rather embarrassing.

There is more evidence that Jesus rose from the dead than an animal miraculously producing something different than what it is some 150 million years ago.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The problem here is that in your ignorance of what the theory of evolution is and says, you are in fact not disagreeing with the theory of evolution, but with strawmen that have been labeled the theory of evolution.

Hey Mest, guess what? Dogs produce dogs...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Aside from your self-serving exaggeration here, most people who disagree with evolution simply don't understand the subject well enough to express a cogent rebuttal.

Um, Skim, it really isn't that difficult of a subject to understand. When you say "most people who disagree with evolution simply don't understand the subject", you are basically saying the people that believe in it are smart enough to understand it and those that don't believe it are not smart enough to believe it.

I don't disagree with evolution because of what I don't understand, I disagree because of what I DO understand.

Treading into unfamiliar territory they often rely on the misrepresentations and outright lies promulgated by prominent creationists; those with a personal stake in their position---think money and celebrity here.

The outright lies comes directly from the textbooks itself.

The upshot is that when people make crassly stupid or ignorant remarks, they will be called on it. Want to be treated with more respect, then appraise yourself of the underpinnings of evolution, and the rational behind it.

I don't recall any rational behind evolution...

Don't care to bother with it, then I suggest either removing yourself from the arena of debate or suffer the consequences of any ill-conceived remarks.

Remove myself? Nope, I feel right at home. In fact I am taking my shoes off and putting a dent in the couch.

Without good training I doubt you'd get into a boxing ring with a seasoned boxer. The same holds true for the honest creationist; it's rather silly to engage the evolutionist on his own ground when knowing next to nothing about the subject, and sillier yet to do so with just enough information to demonstrate one's gross misunderstanding: while the outright ignorant can be excused for their lack of knowledge, those who insist on continually shooting themselves in the foot with goofy pronouncements only invite disparagement.

Evolutionist on his own ground? Oh please.