What if creationism is true?

[shawn001]

"There are many species of dogs, but guess what, they are all dogs."



Once Large and Wolf-like, Coyotes Ultimately Became Much Smaller

"When the last ice age ended more than 10,000 years ago, many large species of mammals went extinct and others underwent changes in appearance."

"Coyotes changed from large, pack-hunting dogs to the smaller canines we know today and wolves essentially remained the same. Changes in body size occurred for coyotes because large prey and their large competitors were disappearing, the researchers find."

Once Large and Wolf-like, Coyotes Ultimately Became Much Smaller - Kansas City, Missouri News

To bad you really don't understand evolution and where mammals came from in the first place to become a dog.

There were no "dogs" millions of years ago, so where did they come from?

I notice he wants you to see his "eveince" but not recognize the actual evidence.


Call of the wild

There were no "dogs" millions of years ago, so where did they come from?

 

[shawn001]

amen

New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Ancient Humans Were Mixing It Up: Anatomically Modern Humans Interbred With More Archaic Hominin Forms While in Africa


Ancient humans were mixing it up: Anatomically modern humans interbred with more archaic hominin forms while in Africa


New Human Species Discovered: Mitochondrial Genome of Previously Unknown Hominins from Siberia Decoded

New human species discovered: Mitochondrial genome of previously unknown hominins from Siberia decoded


Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

call of the wild, prove all the above research wrong!

 

[shawn001]

why did the "creator" create different humanoid species that lived on the planet along side of modern humans and that we breed with them?

You have proof humans coexisted with the dinosaurs?

 

[Vile Atheist]

About as embarrasing as believing that life can come from nonlife.

By using evidence to suggest that at one point, the Earth had suitable conditions to, by virtue of chemistry, physics, and geology, with a bit of chance, allow for the formation of a viable self-replicating molecule which formed a basic protocell and continued to replicate imperfectly over a gargantuan period of time to produce a high degree of biodiversity, it answers the question "Where does life come from?" and gives us a good evidence-based answer. Do we know for sure? Of course not. Not at the moment, at least. But "I don't know the exact answer to this question" does not mean that "My magical invisible friend for who I don't have a shred of evidence, therefore created everything".

On the contrary, spouting the notion that life can only come from life spawns an infinite regress. This regress is impossible because we know that at some point, the Earth was formed. Life could not exist on Earth when the Earth was just spacedust floating around, before it coalesced into some semblance of a planet. To compensate for this fact, a magical invisible friend needs to be created. But there is no indication that this invisible friend exists nor is there any evidence to suggest that it might possibly exist.

The "life from non-life" crowd has a hell of a lot more evidence for what it says than the "my pastor says that Jesus loves me" crowd.

 

[waitasec]

About as embarrasing as believing that life can come from nonlife.

and god came from what?

oh right, god always existed....

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Science can show how life can come from non-life. The problem is that those who accept that there had to be an intelligent designer presuppose that 1. because life exists, it had to exist, and 2. that life is something more than simple biological and chemical makeup. This where it goes from reason to faith. There's nothing to suggest that life absolutely had to exist, and that there is some kind of spirit, or eternal essence to living beings.

 

[fishy]

It its amazing, that everytime someone disagrees with evolution, we have to be accused of being ignorant of the subject matter. It NEVER FAILS. We dont believe that life can come from nonlife.

I rest my case. :biglaugh:

 

[Krok]

I rest my case. :biglaugh:

It is amazing to think that so many of the people who vehemently "disagree" with evolution don't even know what it is that they disagee with.

I guess it comes from them looking at a "Dr". Dino video and thinking they know exactly what "evolution" is and that they also know everything!

 

[fishy]

The more complexity you get, the more evidence there is of intelligent design. In abiogenesis, there isn't even a good theory of how lifeless materials got together and formed a living cell, a cell that is more complex than a space shuttle.

Absolutely false, an untruth, an attempt at obfuscation, proof that you understand nothing of the discussion.
Why oh why do you continue to conflate evolution with abiogenesis, even after you have been told ad infinitum that they are separate processes. I can only conclude that you deliberately misconstrue the scientific positions. Are you aware that deliberately espousing information that you know is patently false is actually a very serious offence according to your beliefs?

 

[fishy]

You can look it up anywhere!!! This is an established fact that the Miller-Urey experiment didnt prove life from non-life.

That is most certainly not what you presented in your post. You claimed that some scientists proved that the conditions Miller-Urey used to produce the life they produced was not the conditions extant at the time that such an occurrence was hypothesized. Is it possible you can understand the difference?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Absolutely false, an untruth, an attempt at obfuscation, proof that you understand nothing of the discussion.

Yeah yeah yeah, spare me the "you dont understand evolution crap". Heard it all before. Once the creationist start asking the tough questions while exposing the religion of evolution for a lie, we get accused of nothing understanding it lol. This happens all the time.

Why oh why do you continue to conflate evolution with abiogenesis, even after you have been told ad infinitum that they are separate processes.

Because, you cant get evolution without abiogensis, that is why I "conflate" them together. No one has been able to show how life could have originated unguided and randomly, and no one has been able to prove that this large evolutionary process has taken place. This has not been proven.

I can only conclude that you deliberately misconstrue the scientific positions. Are you aware that deliberately espousing information that you know is patently false is actually a very serious offence according to your beliefs?

No I am not deliberately misconstruing anything. I have not said nothing false as of yet. I am telling you, this is the typical response from people, everytime someone questions evolution. Science attempts to prove that life came from nonlife, which is false. It is false. Deal with it. I understand if you can negate your religion, my position on theism wins by default. But please dont get mad at me. I am not the one that taught you that mess. Evolution is a lie, deal with it. You have never observed evolution, neither have anyone else. Yet, you believe it. Strange.

 

[fishy]

Bumped .

It its amazing, that everytime someone disagrees with evolution, we have to be accused of being ignorant of the subject matter. It NEVER FAILS. We dont believe that life can come from nonlife.

I rest my case. :biglaugh:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is most certainly not what you presented in your post. You claimed that some scientists proved that the conditions Miller-Urey used to produce the life they produced was not the conditions extant at the time that such an occurrence was hypothesized. Is it possible you can understand the difference?

What??? Dude, just stop talking to me. This is the problem. Some of you would rather just attack instead of actually engaging in the discussion. Now I could just sit here and tell you that your quote above is pointless because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I wont do that . The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in conditions that were not similiar to what scientist believe the early earths conditions were at the moment that life began. Now what part of that dont you understand, or you just want to keep these feeble attempts at attacking without any warrant or basis. Is there a block feature on this forum??

 

[Tristesse]

Bumped .
Originally Posted by Call_of_the_Wild
It its amazing, that everytime someone disagrees with evolution, we have to be accused of being ignorant of the subject matter. It NEVER FAILS. We dont believe that life can come from nonlife.
I rest my case. :biglaugh:

What you personally believe has no bearing on what actually is. Evolution isn't about life from non-life, that would be abiogenesis.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because, you cant get evolution without abiogensis, that is why I "conflate" them together.

False. You can choose to believe that God created the initial, unicelluar life forms, then they evolved.

No one has been able to show how life could have originated unguided and randomly, and no one has been able to prove that this large evolutionary process has taken place. This has not been proven.

Science doesn't "prove" things - stop using unscientific terms in a scientific debate. Science produces "evidence" of things, and as it currently stands the evidence of evolution is viewed by the the vast majority of scientists and experts in the field as being more overwhelming and numerous than the evidence for gravity.

Science attempts to prove that life came from nonlife, which is false.

Once again, science doesn't "prove" things.

It is false. Deal with it.

Why don't you "prove" it?

I understand if you can negate your religion, my position on theism wins by default.

Utterly false. Even if evolution were thoroughly refuted, that doesn't lend any credibility whatsoever to your presupposition that it was done my any kind of supernatural, all-powerful intelligence. Falsifying one idea does not demonstrate another.

Evolution is a lie, deal with it.

"Prove" it.

You have never observed evolution, neither have anyone else. Yet, you believe it. Strange.

Evolution has already been observed. Deal with it.

 

[fishy]

You claimed that some scientists proved that the conditions Miller-Urey used to produce the life they produced was not the conditions extant at the time that such an occurrence was hypothesized.

And once again you make the same claim. Oh dear.

The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in conditions that were not similiar to what scientist believe the early earths conditions were at the moment that life began.

Here Look

No no no no no :no: The Miller-Urey experiment has already been proven to be bogus. First of all, they had to have the proposed early enviorment of the earth "fixed" so they could get the desired result that they wanted. Later science experiments found out later that the earth's early enviorment wasn't similar to the one that was used in the Milller-Urey experiment.

You are claiming in this post that the environement used for the experiment was not valid, not that the experiment failed. Do you understand the difference? I'm sure I asked that before.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

For over a thousand years, the church taught that the earth was flat, and the sun and planets revolved around the earth. It took time, but science eventually proved this wrong. For over a thousand years, the church taught that natural disasters were caused by god's wrath on sinful mankind. It took some time, but science eventually proved this wrong. For over a thousand years, the church taught that diseases were caused by god's wrath, but, in time, science eventually proved this wrong. I could go on, but there's no need to. Every step of the way, science has always proved the church wrong. And, as we can see, evolution is no different. To those who believe that all things were created in six days less than 10,000 years ago, science has proved that wrong. Where did life originate? Science has some ideas it's working on. Abiogenesis still has a ways to go. However, it will, like all those things I have just mentioned, once again, prove the church wrong. It just takes time, but science is not a static, we already know everything there is to know, field of study. It changes as new data comes in and is tested against a hypothesis. This is the way things work, and will continue to work, until the church realizes, if it can, that science will always win out. Just like how, for thousands of years, the church taught that man was made out of the dust of the earth, but, eventually, science proved that wrong. So just because science can't explain a thing or two at the moment, doesn't mean it won't be able to in the future, as these examples clearly show. And I could add more, but that would just be redundant. So, science can't explain a detail or two at the moment, this is no reason to automatically assume that god did it. Science will eventually prove that wrong, too, just like it always has.

 

[Leafar]

Ok, granted. But they are all dogs. All of the animals that I named were all dogs. That is my only point.

You didn't name any animals, I did. And I mentioned "Dingo and 37 other subspecies". A dingo is not a dog, even though it is a subspecies to gray wolf, just like the dog.

The so called evidence that you showed could mean common designer, as I keep pointing out. I could argue once again, that the designer used the same blueprint in making his creation, which is why you have similiarities.

The evidence that I provided you with points towards evolution. If that immense amount of evidence doesn't make you see clearly, then nothing will. And as I said: Of cource it could be a designer. But nothing suggests it. If we new that a hyper intelligent, omnicient being existed, then it would be logical to at least take it into account. This is not, in itself, a proof of that. You're assuming what you wan't to prove. You assume that an intelligent designer exists, therfore he could be the source of life, and therefore all life has the DNA, and therfore God must be the cause.

Second, as I pointed out before, humans have four more chromosomes than a bat, so does that mean that a bat is four chromosomes away from being human? Of course not.

So? There is more than the number of chromosomes that specify a species. It's not like Armadillios and the Guinea pig are the same species just cause they have the same amount of chromosomes.

You can look it up anywhere!!! This is an established fact that the Miller-Urey experiment didnt prove life from non-life.

Of cource it didn't prove it, I know that. I merely showed you that there are suggestions out there (although no theories) about what could have happened. What I mean is that it's not like you have to choose between ID or the Miller-Urey experiment. Again, the lack of proof doesn't suggest ID.

There is no, and there will never be no kind of naturalistic explanation for how life can come from non-life.

lol... that's what the religious people have been saying since the beginning of time. "There will never be a naturalistic explanation for thunder. It is so obvious that it is Thor, the god of thunder that is the source" or "There is no way that that big ball of light in the sky could ever be explained, it is obviously the god Helios in all his glory"

Do you realize how arrogant it is, now when we have the explanation? That is why future generation will laugh at our ignorance, because of the people that thought that we had reached our limits regarding the naturalistic explanations of our Universe and life.

I will tell you why you refuse to accept it, because you are aware of its religous implications.

False. ID doesn't have any religious implications. If it were to be proven that ID was correct, we would still be completly ignorant regarding the will of this intelligent designer, if he even cared, if he was even still here etc. ID is often covered up in alot of (mostly christian) religious bullcrap but in itself it doesn't imply any religion at all.

You know that Intelligent Design points towards a transcendent Creator,

Nope, not that either. Not if you, by transcendent, mean in regard to a materialistic universe. It could, as I said earlier, just as likely be aliens.

This "we dont know" crap wont cut it. You guys are playing the "It is only designed until it points to a transcendent creator" game. It is silly.

It's logic reasoning, and I am aware that it is in your eyes regarded as silly even though you try to use it all the time. If we don't know, then we don't know. There is no evidence of design, no matter how little evidence there is for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. The lack of naturalistic explanation for thunder, a few hundred years ago, was no more a reason to believe in an intelligent thundergod than your example.

Even if you hypothesize aliens with a blueprint, guess what, you are still hypothesizing intelligent design. All you did was shift the label of "designer" to aliens instead of God. Creationists are saying that this specified complexity comes from a being of intelligence, just like anything else in the world that we can clearly see were designed. We dont believe that lifeless, inantimate, blind, unguided, and unintellible objects or entites can create things as complicated as space shuttles or airplanes. And to be frank, SCIENCE doesn't even tell us this as of yet, and it never will

Ok. Then why don't you believe it was aliens?

I will wait for another silly naturalistic explanation to make an ATTEMPT to explain these things. I already have my answer to these questions. My answer is found in Genesis, where God created the heavens and the earth, and he created the beast of the field and the birds of the air.

Yes of course... and bats are birds, and man made from mud, and women from mud and a rib, and you can fit all species of the earth on noahs ark, and people can rise from the grave and it's possible for some human to walk on liquid water, and it's possible to... lol... just lol

Um, nothing in science is guided, so what are you talking about?? The assembling of a cell was in fact a blind and unguided process. There was no intelligent being placing the amino acids in the right sequence to create a protein molecule.

Um... it's called the laws of physics, and as you might have realized during your life, they're hard to mess with. Try break them and you'll see. It's not random that when you drop a pen, it falls towards the middle of the earth until it hits something. It will happen every time. And it's not random that the right molecules were formed during that and that sort of condition. It is forced to happen by the laws of physics. What might seem a bit random is that the earth happened to have the right conditions, but when taking into account how many planets there is out there it's not that strange that at least one ended up with the right conditions for life.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You have never observed evolution, neither have anyone else. Yet, you believe it. Strange.

You have never observed God. You have never observed Jesus, or his disciples, or a virgin birth, or the crucifixion. You have never observed any of the characters in the Old Testament. You have never observed any of the characters in the New Testament.

And yet, you foolishly believe in all of these.

 

[johnhanks]

Yeah yeah yeah, spare me the "you dont understand evolution crap".

Why don't you spare us the repeated demonstrations of the fact?

Heard it all before.

Yes, I can imagine you hear it a lot.

Once the creationist start asking the tough questions while exposing the religion of evolution for a lie, we get accused of nothing understanding it lol.

This is rich. You have yet to ask a coherent question about evolution, let alone a tough one.