A Challenge To All Creationists

[Monk Of Reason]

Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I mean...sounds fake but okay.

 

[viole]

Then I suggest you get to work and figure out what is the truth before it is too late.

My Muslim friend warned me about the same thing. What should we do? Throw a coin? A thousands of coins? One for each of the contradicting claims of every religion?

And too late for what? So that God appeased His ego by gaining another one who believes in Him, or else....eternal gnashing of teeth, or dentures, if you really wait too long?

If that is the case, then I would not like to spend a single second with someone with such a puerile attitude.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then I suggest you get to work and figure out what is the truth before it is too late.

Too late?

There's no good evidence for any of these claims, in my opinion. Hence the reason I don't accept any of them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My Muslim friend warned me about the same thing. What should we do? Throw a coin? A thousands of coins? One for each of the contradicting claims of every religion?

And too late for what? So that God appeased His ego by gaining another one who believes in Him, or else....eternal gnashing of teeth, or dentures, if you really wait too long?

If that is the case, then I would not like to spend a single second with someone with such a puerile attitude.

Ciao

- viole

This ^^^

 

[Reggie Miller]

The truth has been made known to all of you, my mission here is completed. Have a good day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I love getting the "truth" without any decent evidence.

 

[viole]

I love getting the "truth" without any decent evidence.

It would be already something if we had at least indecent evidence

Alas, our fate is to get reminders of our eternal destiny when alternative arguments run dry.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

The truth has been made known to all of you, my mission here is completed. Have a good day.

I suspect you are merely claiming "mission complete" to save face in your turning tail and running from the truth.

 

[Ouroboros]

The truth has been made known to all of you, my mission here is completed. Have a good day.

Then you did a terrible job.

 

[omega2xx]

The offspring can get some characteristics the parents don't have, since mutation will step in.

You also don't understand mutations. They do not add information, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

As such, genetic differences could manifest themselves as slight phenotypic modification. Now, if those slight modification are beneficial in a given environment, they'll likely spread to the population. Repeat the process with slight modifications accumulating and you may end up with population with new features.

That simply isn't true. A variation in the phenotype will not result in a new species.

Your very insightful explanation omits the concept of mutation, very strange for someone knowledgable about genetics.

You claiming somethng a mutation do will, that it won't is very strange for someone knowledgabe about genetics.

The evidence is presented in the peer-reviewed paper I cited.

No it isn't. Prove me wrong.

There will always be holes, since science isn't perfect. Rejecting an explanation just because there are holes is textbook example of hypercriticism, a feature of science denial.

I don't deny science, insist on it. Real science prove evolution is not possible. If you understood genetics and mutation, you would know that.

Let's extract DNA from a bee, a lion, a house cat and a wasp and make a comparison:
The house cat and the lion will be more similar to each other than any is to bee and wasp. The bee and the wasp will be more similar to each other than any is to the house cat or the lion.
Thus, we'll put house cats and lions in the same box and wasps and bees in another.
So, yes you can categorize species with genetic comparisons.

Of course you can. The DNA will identify each one you mentions correctly and place them all in a differeent species.

Basically, you're insisting that you're right without giving any argument. Great!

Basically you are saying you are right with on evidence and a lack of understanding of genetics.

Show us where the human classification as great apes requires tweaking.

It doens't need tweeking, it needs a better means of classification.

If you think the criteria behind the hominidae group are that superficial.....
.....then you've drunk too much strawman's kool-aid.
What's significant with the set of traits I quoted is
its exclusivity to great apes and humans.
When you show me any other four-limbed placental mammal sharing all of the following characteristics, you will be entitled to mock human classification as great apes. Good luck!

- forward-facing eyes
- close, downward-facing nostrils
- dental formula: 2/2, 1/1, 2/2, 3/3
- digits with flattened nails
- lack of tail
- lack of ischial callosities
- high cognitive abilities (self-recognition, abstract thinking,...)
- complex social behaviors

Speech or other human unique traits can be considered autapomorphous and thus don't constitute ground to exclude us from great apes.

Oh... and are we to assume Linnaeus drank the evo kool-aid and tweaked his results?

All species with eyes have forward facing eyes.
All species with nostrils have downward facing nostrils.
Humans have rounded nails
Lack of a characteristic is not a reason for putting species together.
Most if not all large animals have a pelvis.
Apes do not have high cognative abilities and you have no idea if hey are self recognized, and what you call abstract thinking is what others call natural instinct.
Apes do not have complex social behavior. It is severly limited.

 

[omega2xx]

No the apposable thumbs, jaw structure, skull structure, 98% similar DNA, vocal chords and fossil record do that.

It isn't the similarities that are you problem, it is the differences, land you have no fossils linking man to apes.

Both of these points simply ignore the evidence. It makes me feel like this conversation is over. I hope I am wrong.

If You think posting a few traits is evidence you don't understand evidence. Unless you post some real evidence, it is useless to continue MO.

 

[omega2xx]

Not sure why you think so.

If John says something it is firsthand, not a retelling. If Luke says the same thing, it show they both saw the same thing, It is not retelling . Even if you want to consider it retelling, that does no make it wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

Because I cite the actual data to back up my say-so. You do no such thing.

No you don't. You only parrot the usual evo talking points.

Again, your point that I was responding to made no mention of the evolution of new species. You merely claimed that a trait had to be present in the genomes of the parents in order to exist. That is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it.

Also, I've posted numerous citations to observed and documented examples of the evolution of new species. Did you forget?

No you haven't. You have posted examples of species remaining he same and you called it evidence of evolution.

And that's precisely how you get a single-clone strain that is susceptible to the antibiotic. In the experiment you can do a parallel smear on a medium that is all antibiotic infused. When you get no survival, you know the strain lacks the resistance trait. Not only that, but as I said previously you can actually run a PCR analysis of the initial colony and the evolved colony, compare the sequences, and actually see the new genetic sequences that confer the resistance trait.[/QUOTE]

This is an example of what I just said. You are claiming bacteria remaining bactgeris is evidence of evoluyion. It ain't

I mean, it's like I said earlier...the experimental evolution of antibiotic resistance is a fairly common thing.

Experimental evolution of resistance to an antimicrobial peptide

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Uh huh. So anyways, if you truly believe new traits cannot arise via evolutionary mechanisms, exactly where do you think new traits come from?

A change in eye color is not a new trait. Bacteria becoming resistant it not a new trait. Bacteria remaining bacteria is not evidence of evolution. You do understand that evolution doctrine preaches a change of species, don't you?

 

[Ouroboros]

You also don't understand mutations. They do not add information, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

You forget copy errors that causes duplications of whole genes, also you forget about slippage mutations where a single codon can get added or be removed, caused by loop-outs.

But since you're so informed about genetics, you already knew about this. I guess it just slipped your mind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It isn't the similarities that are you problem, it is the differences, land you have no fossils linking man to apes.

Except for the entire genus of Australopithecus and homo; Habils, gautengensis, rudolfensis, georgicus, ergaster, erectus, cepranensis, ancessor, heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis, denisovian, floresiensis and Neanderthals.

If You think posting a few traits is evidence you don't understand evidence. Unless you post some real evidence, it is useless to continue MO.

If by definition things that agree with your religious worldview of "goddit" then no I don't have any evidence. However I do have scientific evidence that has been well documented and has stood up to scruitiny for the past 150 years. Clearly it is an atheist agenda to subert christianity along with global warming.

 

[Shad]

IOW you can't be specific, so forget it.

Those were specific. If you can not find the verses using those keywords either you do not know your bible or your are lazy.

 

[Shad]

Be specific. An event not being mentioned in every gospel is not a contradiction or an error.

There events told in different view such as the resurrect at tomb, the last words of Jesus. These are not missing events but different versions of supposedly the same event

 

[Shad]

That depends on who you ask. Paul was a well learned man as well as many of the great Church theologians. It is an academic stance as well.

He wasn't an eyewitness at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then demonstrate it.

Already done. I posted links to two papers describing the evolution of new traits in bacteria.

No you haven't. You have posted examples of species remaining he same and you called it evidence of evolution.

So you're actually arguing that a population can't acquire a new trait unless it becomes a new species. That's one of the dumbest things I've seen from a creationist.

This is an example of what I just said. You are claiming bacteria remaining bactgeris is evidence of evoluyion. It ain't

And now apparently you think "bacteria" is a species. I guess you're trying to top yourself.

Bacteria becoming resistant it not a new trait.

Is resistance to an antibiotic a trait? If not, what is it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Except for the entire genus of Australopithecus and homo; Habils, gautengensis, rudolfensis, georgicus, ergaster, erectus, cepranensis, ancessor, heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis, denisovian, floresiensis and Neanderthals.

Especially Australopithecus. It has both ape-like and human-like features.