How do Creationist Explain This?

[Subduction Zone]

Have you even read On the Origin of Species?

It probably would not do any good.

all creationists tend to go into cognitive dissonance when reading that work.

 

[youknowme]

Also, lets clear this up right now: Evolution is a scientific fact. It is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence, and as we saw in the OP it is directly observable.

That said, evolution does not disprove God as the creator of all life. Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, it is an explanation On the Origin of Species; it is right in the title of the book. Darwin studied the variation of life, he was not building a theory on where life itself came form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, lets clear this up right now: Evolution is a scientific fact. It is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence, and as we saw in the OP it is directly observable.

That said, evolution does not disprove God as the creator of all life. Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, it is an explanation on the On the Origin of Species; it is right in the title of the book. Darwin studied the variation of life, he was not building a theory on where life itself came form.

Even abiogenesis does not refute God. It only refutes a "God" of Bible literalism. There are many Christians that accept abiogenesis too.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What about the Epic of Gilgamesh? Why didn’t the author of it, make his ark more seaworthy? Whoever he was, he wrote that Utnapishtim created a 120- cubit cube as his ark.

Actually, this 30:5:3 ratio has only recently (in the last two centuries) been discovered to make a vessel seaworthy.

How did Moses know?

So... because the ratio was only "discovered", as in written down and worked out mathematically in the past two centuries, that means that boat builders for the previous millennia haven't been using it "just because it works" without knowing the specific formula, right? Viking ships, Roman ships, Egyptian ships, Phoenician ships, and stone age prehistoric ships we've found the remains of that match the same ratio are obviously part of the grand archaeological conspiracy to discredit the Bible, I guess. Yep, the only way Noah could have known what a functional boat looks like is if God told him.

 

[youknowme]

It probably would not do any good.

all creationists tend to go into cognitive dissonance when reading that work.

The odd thing is that the book was written for creationist readers and Darwin himself started out as a creationist, but yet it always seems like it is the non-creationist that actually takes the time to read the book. If they really were trying to be open minded then they would at least read the book.

 

[Deeje]

Also, lets clear this up right now: Evolution is a scientific fact. It is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence, and as we saw in the OP it is directly observable.

Just to correct you there.....Evolution is not and never has been an established "fact". It is a hypothesis for which science endeavors to provide "evidence". The evidence it has that can be substantiated, is for adaptation....but creating variety within one family of creatures or organisms is not the same as suggesting that all life springs from a common source in the dim dark past......namely a simple cell that somehow sprang into life one day for no apparent reason, and somehow morphed itself into all the life forms we see on Earth. That is the part of evolution for which there is NO real evidence.

Arguing over how it changed is pointless unless you know how life began.

Interpretation of the evidence I believe is driven by the mindset of the scientists, who seem to have the attitude that it MUST be true, rather than the evidence demonstrating anything conclusive one way or the other. It is deductive at best...assumptive in general, and conveyed by suggestion rather than proof.

There are no conclusive "facts" supporting macro-evolution...there is only interpretation of evidence resulting in a conclusion based on nothing more than what science assumes to have happened all those millions of years ago. So, lets be clear about that.

That said, evolution does not disprove God as the creator of all life. Evolution is not a theory on the origin of life, it is an explanation On the Origin of Species; it is right in the title of the book. Darwin studied the variation of life, he was not building a theory on where life itself came form.

OK, now we are getting somewhere...

What does science "know" as opposed to what it "assumes" and wants to promote? Very little when it comes to actually proving that evolution, on the scale claimed by scientists, ever happened. What do we have as real conclusive evidence apart from the diagrams and artist's impressions, provided by those convinced that the theory is true?

There is no actual evidence that what are said to be our ancestors were not just various species of apes. Pictures like these ones convey an idea, but these half human half ape creatures are a figment of science's imagination. There is no way to prove that they ever existed from the meager fossil record that they have. Similarity is assumed to prove relationship. To my way of thinking, all it demonstrates is the same manufacturer, using the same materials in different presentations. And it obviously took him longer that 7 literal days to do it.

No one doubts the facts that science can prove.....adaptation is indeed the mechanism of minor change and the driver of speciation. It is displayed in all living things AFAIK and scientists have observed these changes in their experiments. What they have not observed is change of the magnitude suggested by scientists, who took Darwin's idea and moved it way past all possible testing. It seems to operate on the principle that "if a little is good, a lot must be better"....but that is not always the case.

Darwin's finches were still finches and the iguanas were still iguanas. None had moved out of their taxonomic classification.

Abiogenesis appears to be the nemesis of evolution.....why? Because if there is a Creator of life, then their whole theory goes out the window.

Calling adaptation "micro-evolution" is very misleading IMO because it then appears as if "macro-evolution" is a natural follow on....but that is simply not what science "knows"...it is what science "believes".

Like it or not, we are all driven by our own prejudices and often stuck in our own mindset. People inured by science will read right past the suggestions and assumptions and think that they are reading about facts.....but when you read the data carefully, you will discover that there is language in science that shrouds the real truth of matters. Unless you are looking for it, you will not see it.

 

[Deeje]

Creationists, and intelligent designers are closed minded desperately trying to disprove because they know they cannot prove.

We don't need to prove our God to anyone....we know that he exists and nothing science puts forward will ever change that. But believing that he doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away. He is patiently waiting for those humans who have yet to decide, to make their decision, but once the time is up...that's it.

Its strange that you say we have something to prove because, we actually have nothing to lose if we are mistaken.....unbelievers OTOH have their very lives at stake according to the Bible.

There are open and closed minded Christians just as there are open minded and closed minded scientists. Science the process is always open minded in its approach. You just do not like to admit its.

I never find scientists to be open minded in their approach to evolution.....its usually a win at all costs kind of deal....they will use ridicule and accusations about one's intelligence and educational background, if anyone dares to question their pet theory. How dare we tell those who can't be wrong that they might be wrong! They have "overwhelming evidence" after all....but when you really examine it...its all smoke and mirrors with a few nice diagrams and artist's impressions.

You can be critical of a scientific idea and challenge it as ID proponents it id just they cannot show any evidence of the intervention of an intelligent design.

Are you serious? Even Richard Dawkins admitted that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Who would ever imagine a complex computer program without the need for a programmer?

Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

More advanced than science? Oh dear.....the undesigned things in nature are more intelligently designed than the things that are intelligently made by man! How could that be?

Steven Meyer observed that "no theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell"

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/

Science has no answers to the most important questions. Where and how did life originate? How could undirected chance be responsible for the complexity needed to produce life in such abundance and variety.....and at the same time make sure that reproductive systems of infinite variety, kept replicating all those living things perpetually.

Then there are habitats and food sources, air and water, supplied in abundance to keep everything alive....more flukes? Why is this planet covered in water that most living things cannot drink? Is the water cycle also just a fortunate accident of nature? When do the flukes end and common sense dictate how ridiculous it is to assume that random chance is the creator of it all....including the universe?

You question those that say the genesis creation story true and they become the most closed minded. Why because it was written so it is true no exceptions.

The creation account is perfectly compatible with what science "knows"...but certainly not with what science "believes".

Its just one belief system against another from my perspective.

 

[youknowme]

Just to correct you there.....Evolution is not and never has been an established "fact".

Oh yes it is, and is recognized as such by the world over. Also, I noticed you didn't answer the question that I asked you.

 

[Deeje]

Oh yes it is, and is recognized as such by the world over.

By whom? The ones who believe it? The ones who interpret their evidence fit their theory, rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself?
I could say the same about the Bible. The truth is, science has no substantiated proof for macro-evolution.
We have no substantiated proof of our God either. We each have a belief system founded on our assumption based mindset. That is the truth.

Also, I noticed you didn't answer the question that I asked you.

Would it make a difference to my argument? Feel free to tell me how.

 

[youknowme]

Would it make a difference to my argument? Feel free to tell me how.

So that clearly is a no. What books have you actually read on evolution?

 

[youknowme]

The ones who interpret their evidence

You need to actually have reviewed the evidence before you can "interpret" it, and I am wondering if you have ever even touched a book on evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We don't need to prove our God to anyone....we know that he exists and nothing science puts forward will ever change that. But believing that he doesn't exist, doesn't make him go away. He is patiently waiting for those humans who have yet to decide, to make their decision, but once the time is up...that's it.

Its strange that you say we have something to prove because, we actually have nothing to lose if we are mistaken.....unbelievers OTOH have their very lives at stake according to the Bible.

Wrong on both claims. Your claim to know that your God exists is shown to be cerebellar and not knowledge by your inability to support your claims. "If you can't show it you don't know it". And your second argument is Pascal's wager. A bogus concept that is based upon a poorly stated false dichotomy and was debunked ages ago.

I never find scientists to be open minded in their approach to evolution.....its usually a win at all costs kind of deal....they will use ridicule and accusations about one's intelligence and educational background, if anyone dares to question their pet theory. How dare we tell those who can't be wrong that they might be wrong! They have "overwhelming evidence" after all....but when you really examine it...its all smoke and mirrors with a few nice diagrams and artist's impressions.

You have only yourself treo blame for this. You give extremely weak arguments against the theory that have been refuted so many times that to use them again makes a person look idiotic, especially when one continually ignores corrections.

Are you serious? Even Richard Dawkins admitted that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” Who would ever imagine a complex computer program without the need for a programmer?

Anyone that understood how evolution works.

Bill Gates said that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

More advanced than science? Oh dear.....the undesigned things in nature are more intelligently designed than the things that are intelligently made by man! How could that be?

Instead of asking gotcha questions you should be trying to learn. The answer is not that difficult.

Steven Meyer observed that "no theory of undirected chemical evolution explains the origin of the information needed to build the first living cell"

So what? He is a lying hack. You hurt your argument by Delhi t on him.

Science has no answers to the most important questions. Where and how did life originate? How could undirected chance be responsible for the complexity needed to produce life in such abundance and variety.....and at the same time make sure that reproductive systems of infinite variety, kept replicating all those living things perpetually.

Not true. But even if that was the case That would not be evidence for your beliefs.

Then there are habitats and food sources, air and water, supplied in abundance to keep everything alive....more flukes? Why is this planet covered in water that most living things cannot drink? Is the water cycle also just a fortunate accident of nature? When do the flukes end and common sense dictate how ridiculous it is to assume that random chance is the creator of it all....including the universe?

A nonsensical argument where you contradict yourself. No refutation needed.

The creation account is perfectly compatible with what science "knows"...but certainly not with what science "believes".

Wrong again, and lying about science will not get you anywhere. Scientists, unlike you, do know. The can show why what they believe is true you won't or can't do that.

Its just one belief system against another from my perspective.

that is only because you keep yourself ignorant of the sciences as a self defense technique.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to actually have reviewed the evidence before you can "interpret" it, and I am wondering if you have ever even touched a book on evolution.

I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept of evidence. For most of them it is an empty term.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Unreal! I knew someone would object to that comment. Dogs and cats don't change one to the other gradually, over time, over many generations, either. And if they did, the Bible would still be right, each after its kind.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

You ducked the rest of the post and picked on one word. Why?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are "dog" and "cat" examples of "kinds"? If so, how did you determine them to be so?


For the love of.......would you guys get some new talking points???!!!

I haven't looked through this thread yet, but my bet is someone has already posted to you that the coelacanths from the fossil record are in a different taxonomic family than the ones alive today. The question is, are you capable of incorporating that information into your narrative and giving up this ridiculous and ignorant creationist talking point?


Are you capable and interested in a good discussion of those subjects, or are you just parroting something you read on a creationist website, book, pamphlet, etc.?

EDIT: I now see that you pasted this same material several times in this thread. That makes me wonder.....where did you get this? Have you been reading through the scientific literature on pleiotropy and DNA transcription, and the above is your summary? Or did you get this from somewhere else?

What would be a "good discussion" of just-so stories, told to skirt the obvious fact, we have no evidence for "macro" evolution?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Dogs and cats don't change one to the other gradually, over time, over many generations, either.

Evolution doesn't claim they do, so what's your point?

And if they did, the Bible would still be right, each after its kind.

Give us a working and consistent definition of "kind", and we'll talk.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What would be a "good discussion" of just-so stories, told to skirt the obvious fact, we have no evidence for "macro" evolution?

That's because "macro" evolution is a strawman concept made up by Creationists. "Macro" evolution, as you insist on calling it, is nothing but the accumulated change after thousands or millions of "micro" evolutions. The evidence of "macro" evolution you are demanding doesn't exist, but the theory of evolution doesn't claim that it does.

Out of interest, can you give a clear and unambiguous example of what you think evidence of "macro" evolution would look like?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh brother! You can't refute that which you do not understand. You are only making yourself foolish when you say that dogs cannot transmorgrify into cats. You know what tells us that? The theory of evolution. Dogs will always be dogs just as you and your descendants will always be apes. Change of minds is a creationist strawman. By the way, macroevolution has been directly observed too. You should also try to learn the meaning of terms that you use.



Not "considered" , known to be,if you cannot be honest why bother posting? And I provided links that showed your last claim is wrong. Coelacanth is an entire family. Your statement is akin to you saying that there is no difference between man and .lemurs. You may not be able to see the differences but they are more than obvious to those that study these fish.




If you are only going to continually shout your ignorance to the world you only make this too easy. You appear to think that "dragonfly" is a species. That is an entire infraorder:

Dragonfly - Wikipedia



An even more obvious error. There are countless species of fish which all differ from each other. If you value your toes never go hunting. Though the woodland creatures will probably have a good laugh.



Another foolish statement. There are countless mutations that are information. Ask properly and I will support this claim. I know that you cannot support yours so I am not even going to bother asking.



Nope, that is merely an argument from ignorance fallacy. And it is a moving of the goal posts to abiogenesis, an open admission in your part that you were wrong in your previous claims. But since it was a Gish Gallop when I showed your first claim to be wrong you lost right there. Thanks for continuing to support the theory of evolution by using such poor arguments against it.

You seem fairly angry on this subject. I was wondering if you would jump on the word transmogrified. Dogs and cats don't switch even over long periods of just-so story time.

I'll let you have the last word here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unreal! I knew someone would object to that comment. Dogs and cats don't change one to the other gradually, over time, over many generations, either. And if they did, the Bible would still be right, each after its kind.

No, the theory of evolution says that they cannot change into each other. They share a common ancestor. Let me help you. Evolution is a one way street, there is no going back. When whales returned to the oceans become fish again. They lost some of those fishy traits forever.