CDZ Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Syriusly]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

 

[S.J.]

The instant you come across someone talking about "a horse didn't become a bear" or some other such silliness, you may as well move on because the instant they utter that (or similar) remark, you realize that they don't get that one aspect of evolution is that Archea and other prokaryotes are what evolved into bears, horses, birds, etc. You have two choices with those folks:

This is exactly what I've been saying. You claim that all creatures evolved from the same common ancestor, yet when challenged to explain how, this is how you avoid it.

 

[Syriusly]

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

But they're still bears, not horses.

I was going to reply flippantly "And?" but instead- why not respond to the point? Brown bears and Polar Bears are separate species- no one would mistake one for the other. I have provided evidence that polar bears evolved from earlier Brown Bears.

Address my post if you are interested in a debate of the issues- rather than trying to derail the thread.

The instant you come across someone talking about "a horse didn't become a bear" or some other such silliness, you may as well move on because the instant they utter that (or similar) remark, you realize that they don't get that one aspect of evolution is that Archea and other prokaryotes are what evolved into bears, horses, birds, etc. You have two choices with those folks:

• spend countless hours battling over all manners of things, all the while the central and often tacit thing enabling/underlying their conviction has nothing to do with what science has or has not shown and everything to do with their degree of faith in the verity of the words written in whatever be their central book of dogma, or
• move on and use that time for some other substantive or entertaining pursuit.

I don't have a problem with folks having faith in whatever. I do have a problem with folks presenting faith as though it's reason. I also have no interest in discussing things with folks who lack the confidence and intellectual integrity to accept and recognize that their having faith that "whatever" is true/real obviates the need for them to have proof that it is true/real. If there were incontrovertible proof, one wouldn't need to have faith, now would one?

I generally agree, but I am going to give it a shot until it is demonstrably hopeless.

 

[S.J.]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

 

[Syriusly]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

 

[S.J.]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

 

[Syriusly]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

 

[S.J.]

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

No, but why can't we cover one thing at a time? You want to ask me questions before you've answered mine. Sounds like you're ducking out.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Whenever the evolutionists are pinned down by challenges they cannot meet, they almost invariably revert to attacking the Bible. This is their default strategy for avoiding uncomfortable questions..

Who is doing this? Rather than attack 'evolutionists'- stick to arguing your points.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

You don't HAVE a theory. Theory is science. Creationism is not science. Therefore debate is impossible.

 

[Syriusly]

Just pointing out that apparently you are not willing to be pinned down by a challenge you cannot meet.

Now- are you willing to state what you do believe in? Creationism? Evolution? What theory do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

No, but why can't we cover one thing at a time? You want to ask me questions before you've answered mine. Sounds like you're ducking out.

I provided a very specific post- regarding the evolution of one species- brown bear- to another species- polar bear. You have yet to actually address what I said in my post.

At the same time I asked you to provide a statement regarding- what I can only suppose is your position- which is a statement supporting Creationism. You have yet to do so.

You pose a challenge- I respond
I pose a challenge- you respond

That is how a debate works.

 

[jwoodie]

The objective terminology in this debate should be "gradual transformation into new species" vs. "interventional creation of new species." The former theory is derived from the observable adaptation of species to their local environment (e.g., polar bears), but has little archaeological evidence or biological explanation for their transformation into entirely new species. .

That is a great jumping off point for a discussion.

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.
Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."

One small fossil, one giant step for polar bear evolution

Polar Bears can and do mate with Grizzly Bears and produce viable offspring. From a genetic standpoint, they are not different species.

 

[S.J.]

I've already stated many times that I can't prove creation but that does not mean your theory is correct by default. You still have to prove yours, and if you can't, you should admit it is based (at least partially) in faith, just like mine.

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

No, but why can't we cover one thing at a time? You want to ask me questions before you've answered mine. Sounds like you're ducking out.

I provided a very specific post- regarding the evolution of one species- brown bear- to another species- polar bear. You have yet to actually address what I said in my post.

At the same time I asked you to provide a statement regarding- what I can only suppose is your position- which is a statement supporting Creationism. You have yet to do so.

You pose a challenge- I respond
I pose a challenge- you respond

That is how a debate works.

You're wanting to jump back and forth. I'm not gonna be sucked into that pattern. You did not make the case to support a common ancestor. Tell us who or what the common ancestor is. A brown bear and a polar bear are both bears. You're talking about breeding and adaptation. That does not make a case for chickens and snakes coming from the same ancestor.

 

[Syriusly]

The objective terminology in this debate should be "gradual transformation into new species" vs. "interventional creation of new species." The former theory is derived from the observable adaptation of species to their local environment (e.g., polar bears), but has little archaeological evidence or biological explanation for their transformation into entirely new species. .

That is a great jumping off point for a discussion.

And polar bears are a great example. As you note- polar bears clearly are adapted to their environment. But "Polar Bears" didn't turn from a brown bear to a "white bear"- Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears into the separate species- polar bear. This evolution from one species to another is supported both by fossil evidence- and by DNA

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth.
Kurten (1976) describes bear transitions: "From the early Ursus minimus of 5 million years ago to the late Pleistocene cave bear, there is a perfectly complete evolutionary sequence without any real gaps. The transition is slow and gradual throughout, and it is quite difficult to say where one species ends and the next begins. Where should we draw the boundary between U. minimus and U. etruscus, or between U. savini and U. spelaeus? The history of the cave bear becomes a demonstration of evolution, not as a hypothesis or theory but as a simple fact of record." He adds, "In this respect the cave bear's history is far from unique."

One small fossil, one giant step for polar bear evolution

Polar Bears can and do mate with Grizzly Bears and produce viable offspring. From a genetic standpoint, they are not different species.

Actually Polar Bears are considered separate species. Of course Brown Bears and Polar Bears are very closely related species.
DNA study clarifies relationship between polar bears and brown bears

Similarly wolves and coyotes can cross breed- but they are different species.
Red Wolf Recovery Program

 

[Syriusly]

I did not challenge you to prove whatever it is- I asked you what your theory regarding the diversity of life on Earth is?

What is the explanation that you believe on why Kangaroos are found only in Australia- and New Guinea- and not in South America?

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

No, but why can't we cover one thing at a time? You want to ask me questions before you've answered mine. Sounds like you're ducking out.

I provided a very specific post- regarding the evolution of one species- brown bear- to another species- polar bear. You have yet to actually address what I said in my post.

At the same time I asked you to provide a statement regarding- what I can only suppose is your position- which is a statement supporting Creationism. You have yet to do so.

You pose a challenge- I respond
I pose a challenge- you respond

That is how a debate works.

You're wanting to jump back and forth. I'm not gonna be sucked into that pattern. You did not make the case to support a common ancestor. Tell us who or what the common ancestor is. A brown bear and a polar bear are both bears. You're talking about breeding and adaptation. That does not make a case for chickens and snakes coming from the same ancestor.

I get that you don't want to be asked to argue pro-Creationism.

How about you respond to my actual post- specifically.

 

[jwoodie]

Actually Polar Bears are considered separate species. Of course Brown Bears and Polar Bears are very closely related species.
DNA study clarifies relationship between polar bears and brown bears

Similarly wolves and coyotes can cross breed- but they are different species.
Red Wolf Recovery Program

Actually, DNA can differentiate between human races. Are they different species, too?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Creationism is based on faith with very little backing. Exactly what in the bible makes a scientific case for it? Evolution has biology, geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy all backing it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Actually Polar Bears are considered separate species. Of course Brown Bears and Polar Bears are very closely related species.
DNA study clarifies relationship between polar bears and brown bears

Similarly wolves and coyotes can cross breed- but they are different species.
Red Wolf Recovery Program

Actually, DNA can differentiate between human races. Are they different species, too?

A case could be made with the tens of thousands of years separating the "races" and the differences in size, appearance and structure that they're in fact different subspecies.

 

[S.J.]

Before we get into my beliefs, let's first have questions answered about evolution that all of you claim has been proven. Once we do that, I'll be happy to give you my theory but I'm not gonna get sidetracked into a whole different discussion. I'm not letting you off the hook before you've answered my questions.

I thought this was a debate of 'Evolution vs Creationism'

Is this just another "Evolution- and the people who don't think its true thread"?

No, but why can't we cover one thing at a time? You want to ask me questions before you've answered mine. Sounds like you're ducking out.

I provided a very specific post- regarding the evolution of one species- brown bear- to another species- polar bear. You have yet to actually address what I said in my post.

At the same time I asked you to provide a statement regarding- what I can only suppose is your position- which is a statement supporting Creationism. You have yet to do so.

You pose a challenge- I respond
I pose a challenge- you respond

That is how a debate works.

You're wanting to jump back and forth. I'm not gonna be sucked into that pattern. You did not make the case to support a common ancestor. Tell us who or what the common ancestor is. A brown bear and a polar bear are both bears. You're talking about breeding and adaptation. That does not make a case for chickens and snakes coming from the same ancestor.

I get that you don't want to be asked to argue pro-Creationism.

How about you respond to my actual post- specifically.

You're wrong, but the fact that you keep ducking the subject at hand in an attempt to avoid answering my very basic questions shows me that YOU are the one who does not want to argue your theory. I can see that you're unable to meet the challenge.
I think I have a fair compromise for us. I'm gonna leave for a while (work) but when I come back later I'll hit you up, ok?

 

[Two Thumbs]

adaptation is not evolution, evolution means you are not the same species, while adaptation can be as minor as a change in size, still the same, just look different.

evolution fails at the TK boundary, utterly.

after that event the only thing left were a few small, underground mammals and some sea life.

even over million of years you are not going to go from rodent to crocodile.

case in point; we share dna with bananas

The very concept of specie is an old idea that is meaningless. The differences in species are nothing more than a very large amount of adaptation.

adapted from what?

earth was a tumbling ball of flaming rock
then we got hit by a lot of comets and we got water, still tumbled
then we got hit by a rock the size of the moon
that gave the earth rings that eventually became the moon
that gave us spin, season and weather
where did life come from?
from random lighting hitting rocks and water?

evolution fails from the start and refails, hard, at the tk

 

[Liminal]

Well, that didn't take long.

But most people who hold by Evolution state that the science is so complex that almost no one understands it.
So how can there be a debate on a forum.

Because, as everyone knows already, the Flintstones had pet dinosaurs.