The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

[Etritonakin]

There were both? Credible historians? I'm not sure what you are saying.

Did you mean to say that Abraham and Adam were not real people -or that Abraham was ignorant of his lineage and made stuff up -or that both were real, but the stories about them are not true?

Are you saying the "begats" in the bible are a mix of genealogy and imagination -that they were not the work of credible historians?

Israelites are the descendants of Jacob -and, technically, even Abraham was not an Israelite.
Adam lived many generations before Abraham -so it would stand to reason that many considered themselves descended from Adam (or that many had many things in common -even if the human populatIon was not dramatically decreased by a flood or men did not attempt to breed together into one "race". We're all relatives on some level, anyway.

I don't believe Adam was the first man by scientific definition -or that he was the first humanoid on earth -or that the bibles says so -just so you know.

I was under the impression that ancient cultures had vivid imaginations about certain things -but were generally rather particular about genealogy -not that I'm an expert.

 

[shawn001]

There were both? Credible historians? I'm not sure what you are saying.

Did you mean to say that Abraham and Adam were not real people -or that Abraham was ignorant of his lineage and made stuff up -or that both were real, but the stories about them are not true?

Are you saying the "begats" in the bible are a mix of genealogy and imagination -that they were not the work of credible historians?

Israelites are the descendants of Jacob -and, technically, even Abraham was not an Israelite.
Adam lived many generations before Abraham -so it would stand to reason that many considered themselves descended from Adam (or that many had many things in common -even if the human populatIon was not dramatically decreased by a flood or men did not attempt to breed together into one "race". We're all relatives on some level, anyway.

I don't believe Adam was the first man by scientific definition -or that he was the first humanoid on earth -or that the bibles says so -just so you know.

I was under the impression that ancient cultures had vivid imaginations about certain things -but were generally rather particular about genealogy -not that I'm an expert.

FYI


Comparing two creation stories: one from Genesis
and the other from Babylonian pagan sources:

Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation

 

[ttechsan]

Ok then here goes one. Give me any example (other than evolution) where you find FUNCTIONAL DESIGN, ENGINEERING, PROGRAMMING like we see in creation without the use of Intelligence?

I realize evolution says the Design etc is only apparent Design etc. The problem with that is so big. Why? Because it is FUNCTIONAL just as it is DESIGNED, ENGINEERED, PROGRAMMED to do! That blows that argument out of the water! See a cloud can appear Designed etc. But it is not Functional etc. That is valid, but not in creation!

See your problem is this. Evolution is based on a process of Random trial and error without an actual intelligence of a thinking brain. So what is ironic is this. Evolution despite this handicap, has out designed, engineered, programmed what man even today can't match. Even funnier is that evolution did it before man "evolved" on the scence at the top of the evolutionary chain. On top of that. Even today mankind is studying creation and the Design, Engineering, Programming found in creation which today man can't match to make life better for mankind.

So how is it possible evolution despite its handicaps can outperform mankind and do so way before mankind "evolved" onto the scene to even do such things and still can't match or beat it even today?

I will post my next question after this.

 

[ttechsan]

Let's take the Finches. Now one problem is they are used as an example of evolution. Yet we have no idea of what they evolved to as a higher order species. The no.of steps it took and what each step entailed yet you say it is fact. How is that with so much info missing?

Next part is this. The beaks change. All that shows is adaptability, which is already encoded in the DNA. That had been proven over and over by genome project etc. But it isn't really my point anyway.

Beak chance made made them fittest so they had no reason to change again. They already were fittest. Therefore any additional change would involve making them unfittest all the way until the had "evolved" to the Higher Order species evolution teaches they became yet can't tell us what it is and the other info I mentioned.

Yet, all during that stage they had to fight the evolutionary forces of survival of the fitttest as they were continually unfittest until they reached fittest again. So not knowing all the other info how do we know they made it and more importantly what even drove them to make a change that was unecessary in the first place as they were already fittest. Plus they never were non finches now were they.

So tell me what they became, the no. of stages they took to become whatever it was, what each stage entailed, what motivated the change since already were fittest in the first place by slight modifications anyway?

You try and sell us it is proven fact so please start proving it.

I have many more for you but will let you just start on these two to start with.

Should be easy to sell me on a proven fact right?

BTW I don't need religion to defeat evolution. See religion is just flat bad science without common sense and logic! The more we learn in science and its complexity the easier it becomes!

 

[ttechsan]

Let's take the Finches. Now one problem is they are used as an example of evolution. Yet we have no idea of what they evolved to as a higher order species. The no.of steps it took and what each step entailed yet you say it is fact. How is that with so much info missing?

Next part is this. The beaks change. All that shows is adaptability, which is already encoded in the DNA. That had been proven over and over by genome project etc. But it isn't really my point anyway.

Beak chance made made them fittest so they had no reason to change again. They already were fittest. Therefore any additional change would involve making them unfittest all the way until the had "evolved" to the Higher Order species evolution teaches they became yet can't tell us what it is and the other info I mentioned.

Yet, all during that stage they had to fight the evolutionary forces of survival of the fitttest as they were continually unfittest until they reached fittest again. So not knowing all the other info how do we know they made it and more importantly what even drove them to make a change that was unecessary in the first place as they were already fittest. Plus they never were non finches now were they.

So tell me what they became, the no. of stages they took to become whatever it was, what each stage entailed, what motivated the change since already were fittest in the first place by slight modifications anyway?

You try and sell us it is proven fact so please start proving it.

I have many more for you but will let you just start on these two to start with.

Should be easy to sell me on a proven fact right?

BTW I don't need religion to defeat evolution. See religion is just flat bad science without common sense and logic! The more we learn in science and its complexity the easier it becomes!

 

[ttechsan]

The problem I mentioned on Finches is throughout all of evolution. So show me & not with just so stories but backed up proven science facts you evolutionist claim to have but really don't!

 

[Etritonakin]

FYI


Comparing two creation stories: one from Genesis
and the other from Babylonian pagan sources:

Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation

Interesting that it points out that one story likely comes from another -or both from something earlier, etc...

Given a relatively small human population, similarities are not surprising.

It would stand to reason that stories would be more and more similar backward in time -perhaps even partly based on common truths.

 

[shawn001]

Interesting that it points out that one story likely comes from another -or both from something earlier, etc...

Given a relatively small human population, similarities are not surprising.

It would stand to reason that stories would be more and more similar backward in time -perhaps even partly based on common truths.

The Sumerians were the first to write. Stories as we know get more embellished with Time. Its very likely Abraham came from the Sumerian city of UR.

Archaeological Data About the Biblical Story of Abraham

So its also likely the creation stories both come from something earlier, although not the same religions. When they match that closely and are different religions something is going on.

 

[shawn001]

The problem I mentioned on Finches is throughout all of evolution. So show me & not with just so stories but backed up proven science facts you evolutionist claim to have but really don't!

This is just to funny. As you rant scientist know Bird are the relatives of dinosaurs and we are already back engineering the genes.


"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says

How Darwin's finches got their beaks
A gene's-eye view of evolution
By William J. Cromie

Harvard News Office

How Darwin's finches got their beaks


Building a dinosaur from a chicken

Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus".

 

[Ouroboros]

Let's take the Finches. Now one problem is they are used as an example of evolution. Yet we have no idea of what they evolved to as a higher order species. The no.of steps it took and what each step entailed yet you say it is fact. How is that with so much info missing?

The origin of birds

Next part is this. The beaks change. All that shows is adaptability, which is already encoded in the DNA. That had been proven over and over by genome project etc. But it isn't really my point anyway.

The beak change is controlled by the BMP4 gene.

Genes do control physiology. There's no doubt about it, and there's no doubt about that those genes also mutate.

Beak chance made made them fittest so they had no reason to change again. They already were fittest. Therefore any additional change would involve making them unfittest all the way until the had "evolved" to the Higher Order species evolution teaches they became yet can't tell us what it is and the other info I mentioned.

There's no higher or lower order of species in evolution... or in biology. It's a social construct not found in nature.

Yet, all during that stage they had to fight the evolutionary forces of survival of the fitttest as they were continually unfittest until they reached fittest again. So not knowing all the other info how do we know they made it and more importantly what even drove them to make a change that was unecessary in the first place as they were already fittest. Plus they never were non finches now were they.

All birds came from the dinosaurs. That much we know.

 

[shawn001]

He talking about finches like its the 1800's.

 

[McBell]

He talking about finches like its the 1800's.

it is interesting how Creationists try to strawman 1800's Darwinism into evolution.
It is almost as if they want to live back in biblical times.....

Though to be honest, I cannot blame them.
I mean, at least in the Biblical world god actually did things for himself.
Unlike now a days where outside the wishful thinking of his followers, there is no empirical evidence that god even exists, let alone interacts with humanity.

 

[Ouroboros]

The problem I mentioned on Finches is throughout all of evolution. So show me & not with just so stories but backed up proven science facts you evolutionist claim to have but really don't!

Do some research, and you'll find how much evidence there is.

I took some classes. You can do the same.

 

[Ouroboros]

He talking about finches like its the 1800's.

Peter and Rosemary Grant took up from where Darwin ended in 1973 and studied them for 30 years or so. They've seen and documented how the finches has changed over that time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok then here goes one. Give me any example (other than evolution) where you find FUNCTIONAL DESIGN, ENGINEERING, PROGRAMMING like we see in creation without the use of Intelligence?

Evolutionary algorithms (trial-and-error through random "gene mutations" of code/parameters, and then selection process) has been, and is used more and more, in control processes, game development, finance, laboratories, robotics, and many other fields. The fact that genetic or evolutionary algorithms work means that it works. If it works, it works. So if it works to use to solve technical problems, then why can't nature use it to solve natural problems? For instance, there's an antenna that was developed using the method of "random mutation of design + selection". The antenna looks weird, but it works great.

I realize evolution says the Design etc is only apparent Design etc. The problem with that is so big. Why? Because it is FUNCTIONAL just as it is DESIGNED, ENGINEERED, PROGRAMMED to do! That blows that argument out of the water! See a cloud can appear Designed etc. But it is not Functional etc. That is valid, but not in creation!

A cloud is functional. Its function is to carry water for rain.

Everything has a function, regardless if they're designed that way or not. Rocks are needed for surface and mass. Without the rocks, we'd be holding on to a very small planet made of everything but the minerals.

See your problem is this. Evolution is based on a process of Random trial and error without an actual intelligence of a thinking brain. So what is ironic is this. Evolution despite this handicap,

It's not a handicap. The reason why evolutionary algorithms are being used more and more is because of its power to find solutions that we can't.

It reminds me of the computer chip that was set to evolve. My son was talking about it the other day. I don't have the link, but I will look for it and post it here. He told me that the chip had closed circuit loops that seemed like having no function, but when they removed those loops, the chip would stop working. The suspicion (my son told me, I haven't confirmed) was that it somehow utilized quantum tunneling or some other effects. But, take this with a grain of salt. It's second hand information, and I don't have the links to the actual experiment.

has out designed, engineered, programmed what man even today can't match.

Exactly. It does. It's more complex than our current math. And math is complex enough.

Even funnier is that evolution did it before man "evolved" on the scence at the top of the evolutionary chain.

We're not on the top. Bacteria and bugs are on the top. There's more biomass of bacteria than humans (if I remember correctly).

On top of that. Even today mankind is studying creation and the Design, Engineering, Programming found in creation which today man can't match to make life better for mankind.

Correct. We can't match it because the world in total is a lot more advanced than the things it produces, which is natural and logical. The big thingy X is producing smaller things Y. The Y things can't produce X things simply because X is much larger than Y.

So how is it possible evolution despite its handicaps can outperform mankind and do so way before mankind "evolved" onto the scene to even do such things and still can't match or beat it even today?

Because humans are a simple and limited animal that doesn't know much and is a product of nature, while nature is a lot more complex and intricate (which it has to be to produce humans) than the humans. It's natural. We're not the top of the world, understanding the universe and world better than the universe can know itself. It would be a logical contradiction if we knew more than what there is to know.

 

[Etritonakin]

As an evolution newb, I don't really know how to write this correctly, but.....

As we -as individuals (and animals to varying degrees) -are able -in our thoughts/brain activity -to adapt to different situations/environments (examples of conscious or unconscious brain activity.....I can't continue to do what I've always done to survive -I have to try new things and learn the new environment -this is a struggle -sure would be nice if I had this or that trait) -and the ability to do so came about by the same process as everything else.....

Is it possible that the brain activity toward adaptation of the individual to its immediate environment can then, in turn, turn DNA switches on or off in order to make offspring more fit to survive?

When things are easy, we are mentally peaceful -when they are difficult, we are mentally frustrated -and this involves brain chemistry, etc...... so, can the struggle to survive actively alter the course of evolution?

Can the chemicals or changes, etc., associated with stress, distress, hunger, cold, heat -whatever -be active triggers for changes in DNA which is then passed on?

Is this already known to happen or thought to happen?

 

[Ouroboros]

Is it possible that the brain activity toward adaptation of the individual to its immediate environment can then, in turn, turn DNA switches on or off in order to make offspring more fit to survive?

I don't think there's any evidence of that, at least not yet.

There's a new field of study called epigenetics, which might shed light on those things more going forward. For instance, a mother's diet during pregnancy can influence the fetus and its development, so who knows, maybe there is something there.

When things are easy, we are mentally peaceful -when they are difficult, we are mentally frustrated -and this involves brain chemistry, etc...... so, can the struggle to survive actively alter the course of evolution?

Can the chemicals or changes, etc., associated with stress, distress, hunger, cold, heat -whatever -be active triggers for changes in DNA which is then passed on?

Maybe. Considering that stress isn't just a neural condition, but a hormonal and chemical, so it's possible.

Is this already known to happen or thought to happen?

I looked it up, and yes, stress can change brain development of the fetus.

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't think there's any evidence of that, at least not yet.

There's a new field of study called epigenetics, which might shed light on those things more going forward. For instance, a mother's diet during pregnancy can influence the fetus and its development, so who knows, maybe there is something there.


Maybe. Considering that stress isn't just a neural condition, but a hormonal and chemical, so it's possible.


I looked it up, and yes, stress can change brain development of the fetus.

It's a pretty sweet concept, anyway.

I just can't reckon what is with completely random mutations alone.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a pretty sweet concept, anyway.

I just can't reckon what is with completely random mutations alone.

Have you ever played Yatzee?

 

[Etritonakin]

Have you ever played Yatzee?

My brain hurt after just reading the rules