How do Creationist Explain This?

[Deeje]

They have several such examples, and I'm pretty sure I've corrected you about this previously. Is there a reason you are making claims you know to be false?

How can you correct something that already correct?

(A few) transitional fossils

I needed to go no further than the introduction on this one.....let me highlight the glaring flaws here....

"Introduction: All species undergo gradual change over time, but in the fossil record we find evidence of some changes that are particularly striking. This website is dedicated to some of these so-called transitional fossils.

Could those changes be striking because these creatures are not even related???? Like Pakicetus and whales for example. How long would it take to go from a 5 foot long, four legged furry land dweller to a 100 foot long marine creature with a well designed tail fluke?

What "so called transitional" creatures are assumed to be in between these two?

Yep, I can see the resemblance.....

Seriously, is your fairy tale more elaborate than you think mine is?

And look this website comes with 2 warnings....

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.


Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."


— Rusty Cashman / Wikipedia

Can you see what I see? Can you tell me how science knows that branching even happens, since they have never observed it? It is an assumption based on what they want to see in the fossil record. The intermediate creatures are no such thing. There is no way to prove relationship and the evidence presented is very flimsy. They appear to be separate creatures who lived millions of years apart.


In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring. But don't be misled into thinking that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. They're not even the strongest evidence for evolution."

Yep...confusion even among scientists because things just don't add up when you tell a fictional story......just as well they are not the strongest evidence then.

 

[Deeje]

How does intelligent design rule out the notion that variability stems from one or a few sources?

Contrary to popular opinion, faith based belief is not blind. It has eyes that see what is not obvious to those who have no spiritual insight.

A relationship with the Creator is necessary to become a 'believer' in the first place. It gives us confidence when we read his word that his wisdom is vastly superior to ours. Intelligent design is obvious to us, but not so obvious to those who simply do not want to see it or acknowledge it.

To us, design requires planning so that the end product fulfills the desired requirements. Planning requires imagination and intelligence, demonstrated mostly in human beings. We alone possess the ability to comprehend past, present and future. This gives us ability to design and plan things that fulfill our own requirements for the present and the future. Since we are created in the "image" of our Maker, we reflect what he can do.....i.e. design things for a purpose. No one would suggest for a moment that our computers just designed themselves by a series of fortunate flukes....would we? Yet the human brain is a computer that functions at a capacity that humans at present cannot emulate.
Yet all the components of the computer are individually designed to perform a function that facilitates the working of the machine as a whole. If anything is missing, it fails to function as designed and is useless.

For all the amazing systems in the human body to function as a whole, they need to be integrated...they need to function as designed so that we can use our body for its designated purpose. The law of cause and effect is proof that there needs to be a cause for everything in existence. Science wants us to believe that we are not caused but that our existence was a fluke because some sort of spark made life appear in some chemical soup somehow, long, long ago......then from a single cell, eventually every life form evolved......including the dinosaurs...and us.

Intelligent Design has been has come under fire from the atheists in the scientific community because they don't want a god to exist because he isn't scientific enough for them. I'm sure he finds that amusing.

The one who created what science studies isn't scientific enough for them. We can probably blame the YEC's for that.

Variability comes from the mechanism for adaptation that is ingeniously built into the design of every living thing. Variety can then be produced in infinite numbers. It is obvious to us that the Creator loves variety. But adaptation never takes any organism outside of its taxonomy, making micro-evolution NO basis for macro-evolution. They are not one and the same process, despite what science may assert by inference.

 

[Thief]

How do creationist explain this this video?

if the mutant became resistant at step one....
the rest of the development was just multiplication

they should have switched the type of biotic to force a new mutation at each line

 

[Thief]

but of course.....switching the antibiotics at each line will produce hyper bacteria

better not breath too deep

TB has become resistant
it can survive on a dry surface for two weeks
it reproduces around 40hr intervals
makes the little bugger really hard to kill

and it has become air borne

how's THAT for man-made evolution?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How can you correct something that already correct?



I needed to go no further than the introduction on this one.....let me highlight the glaring flaws here....

"Introduction: All species undergo gradual change over time, but in the fossil record we find evidence of some changes that are particularly striking. This website is dedicated to some of these so-called transitional fossils.

Could those changes be striking because these creatures are not even related???? Like Pakicetus and whales for example. How long would it take to go from a 5 foot long, four legged furry land dweller to a 100 foot long marine creature with a well designed tail fluke?

What "so called transitional" creatures are assumed to be in between these two?

Yep, I can see the resemblance.....

Seriously, is your fairy tale more elaborate than you think mine is?

And look this website comes with a warnings....

Warning 1: The images are only artist's conceptions and might contain errors; so I keep a page with links to photos or diagrams of the fossils themselves.


Warning 2: When a fossil is called "transitional" between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent. Evolution is a branching process - by which we mean that species often split in two. Therefore:

"Because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process that produces a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other."


— Rusty Cashman / Wikipedia

Can you see what I see? Can you tell me how science knows that branching even happens, since they have never observed it? It is an assumption based on what they want to see in the fossil record. The intermediate creatures are no such thing. There is no way to prove relationship and the evidence presented is very flimsy. They appear to be separate creatures who lived millions of years apart.


In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring. But don't be misled into thinking that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. They're not even the strongest evidence for evolution."

Yep...confusion even among scientists because things just don't add up when you tell a fictional story......just as well they are not the strongest evidence then.

If you can't or won't acknowledge basic reality, I'm not going to bother any more. I tried. I don't know if you are genuinely unable or just unwilling to have an appropriate response based discussion, but I'm tired of beating my head against that particular wall. Bye.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

but of course.....switching the antibiotics at each line will produce hyper bacteria

better not breath too deep

TB has become resistant
it can survive on a dry surface for two weeks
it reproduces around 40hr intervals
makes the little bugger really hard to kill

and it has become air borne

how's THAT for man-made evolution?

That's exactly what it is. A biological response to environmental pressures. That's what drives evolution.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So yet again, when a Jehovah's Witness is questioned about a specific detail of the Biblical Flood, their answer is nothing more than "God did it".

With a healthy does of condescension and affected sanctimonious piety, don'y forget.

 

[Jollybear]

Did you ever hear of the Non Sequitur Show?

Even I found out just how ignorant I was on evolution myself until I came across this Aron Ra and Kent Hovind debate. I came away a hell of a lot more knowledgeable of evolution than I ever was prior to viewing the debate and was wholly impressed and floored with Aron Ra's ability to articulate evolution to lay people in a way that is understandable. I am in utter amazement by just how well this man can teach and be interesting at the same time. I've learned more about Evolution from him than I ever learned in school.

Aside from the obvious entertainment this brings with the exchanges between Aaron Ra and Kent Hovind, Aaron explains evolution in such a way here that if anyone watching and listening to this dosent walk away with a better understanding of what evolution is and how it works at the conclusion, oh woe is ye!!

The debate is 2 hours long, so fire up the popcorn if you want to learn a little bit about evolution while listening to the loonyness of Hovind ramblings.

Ill watch it soon and let you know my thoughts

 

[Deeje]

The Bible is wrong because its genealogy of Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

And yet it is believed by some scientists that we can trace our ancestry back to a common individual through our DNA.

Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Science believes a lot of things, much of which is supposition depending on their current understanding of things which could all change tomorrow with no apology. When you kill God...there is no one to answer to....

Of course, the Bible is wrong; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

Prior to the global deluge humans lives much longer than the three score and ten that the Bible gave those in later times. Noah was 500 years old before he even fathered children......a wise move on his part IMO. (Genesis 5:32)

If there was indeed a global flood that took a water vapor canopy away from above our atmosphere, (as the Bible states) then premature aging of the human race may have been caused by increased radiation levels from the sun. It would also alter carbon 14 dating outcomes.

I'm sorry but science is not exact and does not rely on provable data to come to its conclusions. It likes to sound like it does, however.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological,

The impact of the man Jesus Christ has affected the world like no other......Napoleon was reported to have said...“Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.” By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of billions of people for nearly two thousand years.

" I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that One Solitary Life."
JAMES ALLAN FRANCIS, One Solitary Life, pp. 1–7 (1963)

Soooo......if atheists are wrong, and the Bible is correct, they have cancelled out any way for the sacrifice of Christ to apply to them....its their call though. No one will stand over them with a big stick making them believe in God....though he may do that at some time in the future..... I have no control over that.....sorry.

 

[Deeje]

If you can't or won't acknowledge basic reality, I'm not going to bother any more. I tried.

Wow....giving up so soon? You gave me a link and I gave it back to you but because I didn't fall at your feet convinced of the existence of transitional fossils you retreat wounded.....

Have you never really considered the veracity of the evidence against what science believes? I am not talking about YEC.

I don't know if you are genuinely unable or just unwilling to have an appropriate response based discussion, but I'm tired of beating my head against that particular wall. Bye.

I was trying to have an appropriate discussion but you gave up because the intro on your link wasn't quite what you imagined it should be? I read things very carefully....why don't you?

Beating your head against a brick wall can give you a headache ....I believe that is what happens when you claim to be a Christians and an evolutionist at the same time...I believe that they are incompatible.....sorry. Apparently, you are trying to straddle two horses going in opposite directions....so I think you need to let one of them go, just for your own sanity mate.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So yet again, when a Jehovah's Witness is questioned about a specific detail of the Biblical Flood, their answer is nothing more than "God did it".

Depends on the detail. Not many specifics are given in the account. One facet that the narrative reveals, is the Ark's dimensions and the ratios thereof: for the purpose it served -- simply to float -- with no power-driven source and no steering needed -- it's ratio's of length to width to height, 30:5:3, were ideal. They are ratios that modern shipbuilders such as the US Navy, uses today.

Interesting that the Author gave us that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on the detail. Not many specifics are given in the account. One facet that the narrative reveals, is the Ark's dimensions and the ratios thereof: for the purpose it served -- simply to float -- with no power-driven source and no steering needed -- it's ratio's of length to width to height, 30:5:3, were ideal. They are ratios that modern shipbuilders such as the US Navy, uses today.

Interesting that the Author gave us that!

You have yet to support your claim that modern ships are built to Ark dimensions. You only gave cherry picked dimensions of a few ships. You need to do a bit better than that. Ships today often have dimensions based upon the sort of locks that they will have to go through. That means the width and the depth, and even the length sometimes, have dimensions that have nothing to do a supposed ideal ratio. You can read more about that here:

The Ultimate Guide to Ship Sizes

 

[Faithofchristian]

May I assume you are a creationist and therefore do not believe in evolution?

First of all, watching your video, they never got around to explain where did the bacteria come from, So where or how did the bacteria come from
I suppose it just pop up like everything else does in evolution.
It seems like every time I watch a video like this, people will always bring up something else, but never explain as to where the other thing came from.
In this case the person never explained as to where the bacteria came from or how the bacteria evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, watching your video, they never got around to explain where did the bacteria come from, So where or how did the bacteria come from
I suppose it just pop up like everything else does in evolution.
It seems like every time I watch a video like this, people will always bring up something else, but never explain as to where the other thing came from.
In this case the person never explained as to where the bacteria came from or how the bacteria evolved.

no need. Attempting to move the goalposts is an admission that you are wrong. Honesty is the best policy. This video refutes the creationist claim that the information was already in the genome.

 

[PruePhillip]

How do creationist explain this this video?

That's easy. Creationists believe in Genesis 1.
This first chapter of the bible does not so much say that God created life
but that the earth and the sea created life.
Why the earth first? In 2018 it was agreed that the most likely route for
life was through fresh water, not sea water.
First the land, and then "God commanded the seas to bring forth life."
and from the sea came not only fish and whales, but birds too.
How could birds come from the sea? Ask Darwin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall does not seem to realize that he just said that man and trees were the same "kind". One cannot be consistent and be a creationist.

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, which I shall name jibbers. As all that is needed for a living organism to be considered a "species" is humans giving it a different name.

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why are you asking that? Do you dispute the evolution of new species? Earlier you told me that you agreed "evolution is a fact", remember?

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow....giving up so soon? You gave me a link and I gave it back to you but because I didn't fall at your feet convinced of the existence of transitional fossils you retreat wounded.....

Have you never really considered the veracity of the evidence against what science believes? I am not talking about YEC.



I was trying to have an appropriate discussion but you gave up because the intro on your link wasn't quite what you imagined it should be? I read things very carefully....why don't you?

Beating your head against a brick wall can give you a headache ....I believe that is what happens when you claim to be a Christians and an evolutionist at the same time...I believe that they are incompatible.....sorry. Apparently, you are trying to straddle two horses going in opposite directions....so I think you need to let one of them go, just for your own sanity mate.

Kangaroo Feathers makes a good point. There is no point discussing evidence with someone who doesn't understand or value evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

· Micro evolution is self evident, variation with a single kind of animal has many examples. Dogs, chickens, cat, cows and pigs are excellent examples of human driven micro evolution. There are over 300 modern dog breeds, but they are still all dogs. They haven’t transmogrified into cats.

Nobody who understands evolution says that we should see any animals "transmogrify" at any time. In fact, if such a thing happened, it would count as evidence against evolution.

The people who posit magic as an explanation for things they can't explain are creationists.

It never ceases to amaze me that people attempt this argument because it just demonstrates such a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Which goes back to a point I was making to someone else where I claimed that most people who reject evolution do so on the basis that they simply don't understand it.

As to the kinds argument ... Are dogs and wolves the same kind? How about cats and dogs? Are squirrels and chipmunks the same kind? What about zebras and horses? How do you delineate between the kinds in any useful way, and where can we find the pairs of original kinds that your God supposedly created, and what are they?

· Fossils of the coelacanths are considered to be 60 million years old. They were once thought to be extinct. However, coelacanths have been discovered alive and well living in various parts of the earth’s oceans. Now they are called “living fossils”. But if you observe the morphology of coelacanths, they haven’t changed one bit in over 60 million years. Funny that. I didn’t know that macro evolution could stop on a dime for 60 million years.

· Fossils of dragonflies have been found. There are dragonflies in modern times too. There is no morphological difference between 50 million year old fossils of dragonflies and modern dragonflies. The only difference is that dragonflies used to be much larger in the past.

· There are countless fossils of ants, fish and other organisms which still live today. No difference morphologically.

· Pleiotropy is another major problem that plagues change over time derived from mutation. One single gene has effects on multiple organs downstream. This means that a mutation in a single gene, doesn’t cause a change in one feature, it often affects multiple features. All genetic mutations are detrimental, they result in the loss of information, never the gain of information. There are no examples of genetic mutations that result in a gain of information. None. Period.

· DNA is a highly compressed twin helix strand. It contains immense amounts of information. A gene will code for a function protein, one that has a highly specific three dimensional configuration. It must be folded into that shape in order to be functional. Imagine a 3d jigsaw puzzle piece. If it is slightly misshaped it will not fit into its complement receptor and will not be functional. DNA is protected inside the nucleus. In order to access a gene, DNA helicase (a protein enzyme) must come in and unzip a section of DNA. Then RNA polymerase must come in to transcribe the gene sequence in an RNA. The RNA must travel outside the nucleus to be utilized. The RNA must be transcribed by another protein enzyme in order to produce a functional protein. Do you see the complexity? This is irreducible complexity. Furthermore, the genes required to build out these two vital protein enzymes (DNA helicase, RNA polymerase) are encoded inside the DNA itself. Do you see the paradox?