The Fallacy of being Creationism into schools

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We've been here before, Call, remember?

Not really.

A few weeks ago I cited the ability of chick embryo jaw tissue to grow tooth buds as evidence that birds had ancestors with teeth; you responded that if so, those ancestors were still birds.

I said it then, and I say it now.

I listed for you the diagnostic features of modern birds and asked you (a) to define "bird kind" for us, and (b) to tell us which feathered fossils were and were not birds.

I can go with the traditional definition of "bird" and be just fine.

No doubt your failure to answer these questions was an oversight. Isn't it lucky I've had a second chance to ask you?

Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, snakes/snakes. Any exception to the rule in your lifetime?

 

[johnhanks]

... I can go with the traditional definition of "bird" and be just fine.

Not if you're going to tell me they include animals with teeth - that's way outside the "traditional definition". Are you saying "bird kind" can include things with teeth? Can it include things without a wishbone? With unfused tail vertebrae? Just where does "bird kind" end and feathered dinosaurs begin, Call?

 

[RedJamaX]

"yes it is"
"no it isn't"
"yes it is"
"no it isn't"

No, really... this is fun

A god that has no influence or effect on anything to do with our physical existence.... that's what I am trying to describe as a god which is NOT a god of the gaps.

Well, as a theist I would disagree with the statement "God has nothing to do with it", because as I stated before, I refuse to believe that you can get this kind of specified complexity without a mind behind it. You are telling me that a mindless, brainless process/procedure allowed a "man" to have testicles and a "woman" to have ovaries, and for each gender just "happen" to be compatible enough to produce offspring. I just don't buy it.

Evolution did not have a "goal" at all... whether the result is producing human beings or even ending up with all kinds of species with different sexes. This is just the way it happened. Life that evolved on some other planet with a different environment may produce living creatures that are all asexual... of there could be three different sexes.

First off, we don't "know" whether or not God caused any natural disaster or weather pattern. How do you know that God didn't cause an earthquake or tsunami? You don't know whether God was the "trigger man" behind anything. You have to presuppose the non-existence of God to even make those claims of knowledge.

"God exists" is the presupposition. I don't see sufficient evidence for god's existence is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

But that isn't the point anyway, because maybe God DIDN'T cause any natural weather pattern. That isn't the point, the point is what is the ORIGIN OF SPACE, TIME, MATTER, AND ENERGY. And if it wasn't for God, there woudn't be a universe for a weather pattern to occur in the first place.

you're still presupposing god.

Actually theromodynamics is one of the most understood aspects of science, and that is based on observation and experiment, which is what evolution lacks.

Yes, thermodynamics is understood very well... but evolution is understood wtih even greater clarity and precision.

Because; none of these other sciences (except maybe cosmology) tries to explain the ORIGIN of things. Evolution does..it attempts to explain the origin of species. If that is what you (in general) want to believe, fine. But to call it "science" and make it seem as if it is a 100% fact that it occured is being flat out disingenious, and in most cases it is a flat out lie.

Evolution provides the system by which natural processes can result in the evolution of different species from a common ancestor. It does NOT provide the origin of LIFE.

That is still a "hypothesis" called a-biogenesis (which is NOT the same thing as spontaneous generation, please do not confuse them)

This is not the case because there are some theists that believe in evolution, and to further that point.....even if evolution DID occur (which I don't for one SECOND think that it did), but lets say that it did occur for the sake of argument...I still would believe that God orchestrated the process because I just can't get myself to believe that we can get this kind of complexity by a unconscious, blind, and mindless process. Just can't do it.

If we were designed... why would we have remnants of genes we don't use anymore... like developing gills in our early stages (the gills are never used during development so don't claim that we use them to breath through the amniotic fluid)... why do we have an appendix? Why do we have wisdom teeth? Why do 'we" have a blind spot in our vision, but other animals don't?? why does the heart never of the giraffe go all the way up his neck and back down again??
There is no evidence that we are designed.

We have both observational and experimental evidence that the universe (space, matter, and time), began to exist.

right, but, using your logic... we did not, cannot observe that process, nor will we EVER be able to replicate it... so, using the same requirements of observation and replication that you apply to evolution... why is it ok to accept that the universe had a beginning??

I think this is another example of cherry picking in which the argument that the "universe had a beginning" allow theists to inject their presupposition that god is responsible for that event.

but using your own logic for requirements to believe something discovered by science... If you don't believe evolution is true, then you shouldn't believe that science can provide anything to backup you presuppositions about the origin of the universe. The same scientific method is used to arrive at both conclusions.

I do. I have the Ontological Argument, I have the Kalam Argument, I have the Moral Argument, and I have arguments based on the Resurrection of Jesus.

All of these arguments are fallacious and based on false premises. but I;m not getting into those here.

I have arguments for all the things in question.

none of which are good arguments.

We only use those terms (macro/micro) to distinguish between the two. They are two different concepts...one being true, and the other false.

Before your so-called "micro-evolution" was proven through scientific observation... it was not identified as a term at all by creationists which preceded you... Previous to the scientific evidence that evolution could be observed at that level, it was all just called evolution by everybody, and it was all denied by creationists. Just like the god of the gaps, that much was proven and so the creationists were forced to adapt and created their own terms of "macro" and "micro" evolution.

There is plenty of historical evidence and to think otherwise is to go against the consensus amongsts historians and biblical scholars.

no... there is a whole other discussion on this one too... too far off topic to discuss here.

He was so fictional that people living within his alleged life-time were convinced that he was a real person. So either these people were clinically insane, or they were lying. Which is it.

Almost everybody follows some patterns in their life which can be identified as "clinically insane". Adhering to a faith-based delusion does not necessarily mean that an individual is "delusional", but it does mean that they hold a false belief. It also does not mean they were lying. EVERYBODY used to "believe" that the earth was flat. They weren't really lying, just ignorant. Lying implies that you know better.

Show me evidence of dogs producing non-dogs...whether past or presently.

Again, fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution occurs.

Yeah, when you take away all the fluff and feathers that is basically what is being said

again.... really?

If my backyard is where the dinosaur died, then why shouldn't I be able to dig far enough to find a dinosaur fossil?

Specific environmental conditions of specific terrain over long periods of time (millions of years) create fossils. Otherwise the bones just biodegrade over a few hundred years. I am not familiar with the specifics of these processes, but I do know that.

I am a creationists, so if you ask me "Who created God", I will say "An uncaused cause cannot be caused".

You listen to William Lane Craig too much.

No because as mentioned above, there is no infinite regress.

Agreed... I think that the multi-verse theory is correct. And what ever exists out side of our universe is an infinite amount of spacial vacuum and has existed for an infinite amount of time... but, that's not based on any science we currently have nailed down.

These fossil findings are evidence that things that once lived have been since DEAD. To conclude anything beyond this is to add your presupposition to the finding. If you already believe in evolution, every thing that you dig out of the dirt will feed that presupposition.

Not a presupposition, all of those fossils have provided the mound of evidence which "led" to the conclusion of evolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not if you're going to tell me they include animals with teeth - that's way outside the "traditional definition".

Well, if birds with teeth no longer exist then it wouldn't be necessary to add "teeth" to their description, now would it?

Are you saying "bird kind" can include things with teeth?

Sure. I have no problem with that. Maybe millions of years ago there did exist birds with teeth. But that is no reason to suggest that this is some evolutionary change from a reptile to a bird. That is a unnecessary conclusion, unless you are adding your pressupposed interpretation to the mix here.

Can it include things without a wishbone? With unfused tail vertebrae? Just where does "bird kind" end and feathered dinosaurs begin, Call?

I don't know, but what I do know is based on my belief God said "they will bring forth after their kind", and birds where distinguished from other creatures. Birds produce birds.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Never ever ever ever fails. When people disagree with evolution, they are always accused of being ignorant of the theory. "You just don't understand what it means", or "Thats not evolution". Happens all the time. As if they are so smart and we are so dumb lol. No, I disagree with evolution because of what I DO understand.

But you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not understand how evolution works. You keep saying things about seeing these changes, and we have been saying we have seen and are seeing these changes. Then you say microevolution doesn't count, and evolution is entirely discredited because no one has actually seen one species become another (even though again, we have seen this), but the way you keep talking about a dog giving birth to a non-dog shows you do not understand evolution, how natural or artificial selection works, or how genetic reproduction makes it possible for evolution to happen.

Nothing about genetics will get me any closer to believing in the theory. What will you show, that we are genetically linked to some other living species? Well guess what; it could be that this is a result of COMMON DESIGNER as opposed to COMMON ANCESTOR. Evolutionists don't even want to consider that option. That is what happens when you presuppose naturalism, you completely shut yourself off from the God hypothesis. It isn't even a distant consideration. My postulation is the SAME designed constructed, orchestrated, engineered (and any other synonym you can think of) every living species, so there very well may be similarities between one living species and the other, but this is not a knock down PROOF of evolution. This is just another hypothesis that hasn't been observed but yet believed because the naturalist doesn't like a God toying around with his "science".

Are you are aware that many of these so-called "Evolutionist" are religious, even Christian? There is also the issue of attaching needless reasons and trimming the excess. In this case, why attach a god (it does not qualify as a proper scientific hypothesis) or creator or designer or what-have-you when it is unnecessary?

The accuracy of carbon dating has been put in to question and not only that, how in the world can you determine how many species of animals were living at a certain point in time? Unless you dig up every single species of animal that has ever lived and died. You would have to do the same for the aquatic life as well. "140 million years ago, there were an X amount of species living", another magic trick going on here.

Who said anything about carbon dating? I only mentioned the fact there are observable fossils found only at certain points in time, and there is a layer in the fossil record in which land animals do not appear at all, but there is plenty of life in the ocean.
You are also showing a lack of knowledge of statistics. When you can see a certain rate of appearance, even without seeing every single life form, you can still make an accurate estimation based on what is seen about there being fewer species the further you go back.
But just ask (and no cheating and using Google, Wiki, etc.), do you know what the Cambrian Explosion is?

OMG there are no transitional fossils. Not one. In fact, Darwin stated that his theory would be proven correct should future generations find these mysterious "transition fossils". None have been found yet.

If you want to believe that you can, but indeed many have been found. Here is a list of the transitional fossils that have been found for just our species alone.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Not if you're going to tell me they include animals with teeth - that's way outside the "traditional definition". Are you saying "bird kind" can include things with teeth? Can it include things without a wishbone? With unfused tail vertebrae? Just where does "bird kind" end and feathered dinosaurs begin, Call?

Chickens and ducks actually do have teeth, just not the kind other animals have

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

All Ducks do in fact have teeth. About less than a 32th of a centimeter in length, they of course do not use these as they are to small for any practical use, like chewing, and instead swallow there food whole.

What kind of teeth do ducks have

The egg tooth is an essential component to the hatching process in almost all species of birds. This specialized structure develops for the sole purpose of “pipping” (initial breaking of the shell) and cutting the chick out of the egg.

The Egg Tooth

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Chickens and ducks actually do have teeth, just not the kind other animals have

But the problem is evolutionists believe that this is proof of evolution. But based on what? There is no need for making such radical claims.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Sure. I have no problem with that. Maybe millions of years ago there did exist birds with teeth. But that is no reason to suggest that this is some evolutionary change from a reptile to a bird. That is a unnecessary conclusion, unless you are adding your pressupposed interpretation to the mix here.

Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth: Scientific American

Upon closer examination of the snubbed beak, he found tiny bumps and protuberances along its edge that looked like teeth--alligator teeth to be specific.

a small genetic change in chickens allows embryonic birds to revert to their ancestry and grow teeth. What's more, the teeth are those of alligators, the closest living relative of modern birds.

New Scientist Short Sharp Science Blog: Mutant chicken with alligator teeth - New Scientist

The presence of reptilian teeth in the mutated embryo is evidence of evolution from reptiles. The DNA held on to an "imprint" of sorts from a reptilian evolutionary ancestor of the chicken generations before.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

But the problem is evolutionists believe that this is proof of evolution. But based on what? There is no need for making such radical claims.

It is proof of evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not if you're going to tell me they include animals with teeth - that's way outside the "traditional definition". Are you saying "bird kind" can include things with teeth? Can it include things without a wishbone? With unfused tail vertebrae? Just where does "bird kind" end and feathered dinosaurs begin, Call?

I tried to give the example of trying to point out where exactly does red end and yellow begin, and where is orange in the middle of them, but I guess that one fell on deaf ears/blind eyes, whichever applies to a forum. Life is hardly ever clearly black and white, and the question of where does one species begin and another end is certainly no different.

 

[johnhanks]

Well, if birds with teeth no longer exist then it wouldn't be necessary to add "teeth" to their description, now would it?

So, was a feathered animal with teeth, no wishbone and unfused tail vertebrae a bird? Just how many definitive bird features do you have to subtract before it's a non-bird?

I don't know, but what I do know is based on my belief God said "they will bring forth after their kind", and birds where distinguished from other creatures.

So when God created Aurornis, was he making a bird or a feathered reptile? Or wasn't he sure?

 

[johnhanks]

Chickens and ducks actually do have teeth, just not the kind other animals have

They have serrated beaks, not true teeth with roots and a blood supply: the serrations are called tomia.

Shaping an edge into a zig-zag pattern does not create teeth in the sense that other vertebrates possess them: you do not, presumably, take your saw to the dentist.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

They have serrated beaks, not true teeth with roots and a blood supply: the serrations are called tomia.

Either way, the gator-tooth chicken still supports the claim that birds have reptilian ancestors.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

 

[johnhanks]

Show me evidence of dogs producing non-dogs...whether past or presently.

You know, Call, every time you trot this one out you're impressing on us still further how poorly you understand evolution.

If you really want to discredit a theory, you should challenge its supporters over predictions the theory actually makes. Never, since Darwin and before, has the theory of evolution predicted that animals would give birth to offspring of a different species. Your obsessive repetition of this very basic error serves only to make you look foolish: it's like challenging the theory of gravity by asking its supporters if they've ever seen a falling apple stop halfway down and go back up again.

What you should be doing is asking us if we've observed things evolutionary theory does predict. Like, do we see gene pools change over time? (Yes we do!) Do we observe any mechanisms to limit how far that change can go? (No we don't!)

And since you're so hung up on cats and dogs, you should ask whether, if we look back far enough in the fossil record (say 50 million years), we find that "dog kind" and "cat kind" existed then. (No they didn't!) Do we see any animals a bit like cats and dogs that could be their ancestors? (Yes we do!)

Game, set and match to evolution.

 

[johnhanks]

Either way, the gator-tooth chicken still supports the claim that birds have reptilian ancestors.

Most certainly.

 

[RedJamaX]

Sure. I have no problem with that. Maybe millions of years ago there did exist birds with teeth.

Good start, now just understand that before they had feathers, they had leathery skin and were known as dinosaurs before they fully evolved into birds.

But that is no reason to suggest that this is some evolutionary change from a reptile to a bird.

That alone.. no, but combined with all of the other fossil evidence... yes.

That is a unnecessary conclusion, unless you are adding your pressupposed interpretation to the mix here.

God is the presupposition. God was invented to explain the the things that people did not understand. Evolution, even when it was just an idea, only began as an idea because certain observations led to that conclusion. That process is the exact opposite of a presupposition.

I don't know, but what I do know is based on my belief God said "they will bring forth after their kind", and birds where distinguished from other creatures. Birds produce birds.

Your belief is not based on evidence... it's based on a 2,500 yr old story.

 

[RedJamaX]

OMG there are no transitional fossils. Not one. In fact, Darwin stated that his theory would be proven correct should future generations find these mysterious "transition fossils". None have been found yet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Darwin wrote that approximately 150 years ago. In the past 150 years, scientists have found enough fossils of all kinds of species to fill warehouses and museums around the world.

All fossils are transitional fossils.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Darwin wrote that approximately 150 years ago. In the past 150 years, scientists have found enough fossils of all kinds of species to fill warehouses and museums around the world.

All fossils are transitional fossils.

Who ever would have thought that 150 years before our own contemporary and modern science someone could have predicted what we would find. And just how well this century and a half old theory of Natural Selection would turn up more and more evidence as technology improved to back up the very old and ancient idea that things evolve and share a common ancestry, with adding nothing more than the wild idea of the environment being one of the best predictors of a species evolutionary course.
But then again it seems that many do not know and realize that Darwin did not come up with the theory of evolution, and many do not realize just how complicated genetic replication, or genetics as a whole, really is.
Of course evolution may be proven incorrect one day, as can any scientific theory, but with the understanding, knowledge, and evidence I would be more surprised if evolution received a complete and total overhaul before gravity did. But yet for some reason no one questions what happens when you drop an object from any height, even though gravity has the world's leading physicist still scratching their heads while evolution remains one the most well understood theories we have.