Challenge to Creationists/IDers

[Lonestar_logic]

Your link states that religous ideas should be taught in science class.
You are a quack.

Your concession is duly noted.

Not 4th quarter, not 4th and 1, no white towel in sight and the fat lady is not even warming up.
10-9.

Sure spounded like a concession to me. I mean afterall, you didn't actually counter anything the article stated. Fact is, there isn't, never has been and never will be evidence of one species evolving into another. Just because someone thinks it should taught in school means nothing.

 

[konradv]

Your concession is duly noted.

Not 4th quarter, not 4th and 1, no white towel in sight and the fat lady is not even warming up.
10-9.

Sure spounded like a concession to me. I mean afterall, you didn't actually counter anything the article stated. Fact is, there isn't, never has been and never will be evidence of one species evolving into another. Just because someone thinks it should taught in school means nothing.

Just because one thinks it will "never" be proved, means nothing either!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not 4th quarter, not 4th and 1, no white towel in sight and the fat lady is not even warming up.
10-9.

Sure spounded like a concession to me. I mean afterall, you didn't actually counter anything the article stated. Fact is, there isn't, never has been and never will be evidence of one species evolving into another. Just because someone thinks it should taught in school means nothing.

Just because one thinks it will "never" be proved, means nothing either!

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata that pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as the scientists have tagged them.

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.

 

[konradv]

Sure spounded like a concession to me. I mean afterall, you didn't actually counter anything the article stated. Fact is, there isn't, never has been and never will be evidence of one species evolving into another. Just because someone thinks it should taught in school means nothing.

Just because one thinks it will "never" be proved, means nothing either!

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

No one says fish evolve into birds, etc. You're the numbnuts for either not knowing anything about evolutionary theory or purposely trying to distort it. Species don't magically change from one form to another. as creationists like to say, but DIVERGE from a common anscestor, until after millions of years, you have both a cat and a dog, a bird and a reptile, an elephant and a manatee, etc.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just because one thinks it will "never" be proved, means nothing either!

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

No one says fish evolve into birds, etc. You're the numbnuts for either not knowing anything about evolutionary theory or purposely trying to distort it. Species don't magically change from one form to another. as creationists like to say, but DIVERGE from a common anscestor, until after millions of years, you have both a cat and a dog, a bird and a reptile, an elephant and a manatee, etc.

Evolutionist believe that reptiles evolved into birds and birds evolved into mammals etc, etc.. over time with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

 

[peach174]

Just because one thinks it will "never" be proved, means nothing either!

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

No one says fish evolve into birds, etc. You're the numbnuts for either not knowing anything about evolutionary theory or purposely trying to distort it. Species don't magically change from one form to another. as creationists like to say, but DIVERGE from a common anscestor, until after millions of years, you have both a cat and a dog, a bird and a reptile, an elephant and a manatee, etc.

That is the difference between evolutionists and creationists.
Divergence from a common ancestor, is evolution.
Creationists believe in many types of similar species that can cross mate to become a different species. They believe in adaptation.
Like what is happening right now with grizzly bears and polar bears, mating and becoming a new hybrid species.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

No one says fish evolve into birds, etc. You're the numbnuts for either not knowing anything about evolutionary theory or purposely trying to distort it. Species don't magically change from one form to another. as creationists like to say, but DIVERGE from a common anscestor, until after millions of years, you have both a cat and a dog, a bird and a reptile, an elephant and a manatee, etc.

That is the difference between evolutionists and creationists.
Divergence from a common ancestor, is evolution.
Creationists believe in many types of similar species that can cross mate to become a different species. They believe in adaptation.
Like what is happening right now with grizzly bears and polar bears, mating and becoming a new hybrid species.

It would not be a new species, it would still be a bear. If you bred a labrador with a poodle you would get another breed of dog but it would still be a dog, not a new species of dog.

 

[peach174]

You can't have one wolf and only one wolf to become different breed. Like they say all breed's of dogs came from the wolf. No.
You need another similar type of dog to make many different types of dogs.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You can't have one wolf and only one wolf to become different breed. Like they say all breed's of dogs came from the wolf. No.
You need another similar type of dog to make many different types of dogs.

Different breeds isn't the same as different species. You stated that polar bears breeding with grizzlies would form a new "hybrid-species" and that's simply not true.

The different dogs breeds is simple to explain. God didn't just create one type of canine, there were many including foxes, wolves, dingos, jackals, etc.... over the course of time man crossbred these different canines and ended up with different breeds. To this day new breeds are being created through crossbreeding.

 

[peach174]

You can't have one wolf and only one wolf to become different breed. Like they say all breed's of dogs came from the wolf. No.
You need another similar type of dog to make many different types of dogs.

Different breeds isn't the same as different species. You stated that polar bears breeding with grizzlies would form a new "hybrid-species" and that's simply not true.

The different dogs breeds is simple to explain. God didn't just create one type of canine, there were many including foxes, wolves, dingos, jackals, etc.... over the course of time man crossbred these different canines and ended up with different breeds. To this day new breeds are being created through crossbreeding.

Yes it is, it is a new type of bear, different than a grizzly or a polar bear.
Deffination of species;


A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You can't have one wolf and only one wolf to become different breed. Like they say all breed's of dogs came from the wolf. No.
You need another similar type of dog to make many different types of dogs.

Different breeds isn't the same as different species. You stated that polar bears breeding with grizzlies would form a new "hybrid-species" and that's simply not true.

The different dogs breeds is simple to explain. God didn't just create one type of canine, there were many including foxes, wolves, dingos, jackals, etc.... over the course of time man crossbred these different canines and ended up with different breeds. To this day new breeds are being created through crossbreeding.

Yes it is, it is a new type of bear, different than a grizzly or a polar bear.
Deffination of species;


A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

Exactly a polar bear can reproduce with brown bears (which is a subspecies of Grizzlies) but it's still a bear. I'll concede that it may be classified as a subspecies.

Different species are defined as having reproductive isolating mechanisms that prevent significant genetic exchange in the wild, even where their ranges may overlap. Subspecies are groups of a particular species that share some morphological characteristics and that are located in a particular geographic area.

Species:
noun
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

 

[Gadawg73]

About The BioLogos Foundation | The BioLogos Forum

Almost every conservative Christian college and university NOW go by this.
Time for you folks to leave the 18th century and study the FACTS.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

About The BioLogos Foundation | The BioLogos Forum

Almost every conservative Christian college and university NOW go by this.
Time for you folks to leave the 18th century and study the FACTS.

So?

 

[Gadawg73]

About The BioLogos Foundation | The BioLogos Forum

Almost every conservative Christian college and university NOW go by this.
Time for you folks to leave the 18th century and study the FACTS.

So?

Your claim that the belief, study and acceptance of evolution as fact is a liberal conspiracy taught by liberals is bogus to the core.
But you know that already yet will not admit it.
Liberal doctrine always incorporates the belief in supernatural occurences.
Conservative doctrine deals with fact, not emotion and the beliefs that come from it be they religious based or not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

About The BioLogos Foundation | The BioLogos Forum

Almost every conservative Christian college and university NOW go by this.
Time for you folks to leave the 18th century and study the FACTS.

So?

Your claim that the belief, study and acceptance of evolution as fact is a liberal conspiracy taught by liberals is bogus to the core.
But you know that already yet will not admit it.
Liberal doctrine always incorporates the belief in supernatural occurences.
Conservative doctrine deals with fact, not emotion and the beliefs that come from it be they religious based or not.

I said nothing about a conspiracy, I did however say that the notion that life began from one single cell and over time evolved into the many species that exist today is bullshit. No reptile ever changed into a bird, no bird ever changed into a mammal, no ape ever turned into a man which is the core of the evolutionists theory.

If evolutionist are right then explain why there is no more reptiles evolving, birds evolving, apes evolving etc.... did evolution just suddenly stop?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just because one thinks it will "never" be proved, means nothing either!

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

No one says fish evolve into birds, etc. You're the numbnuts for either not knowing anything about evolutionary theory or purposely trying to distort it. Species don't magically change from one form to another. as creationists like to say, but DIVERGE from a common anscestor, until after millions of years, you have both a cat and a dog, a bird and a reptile, an elephant and a manatee, etc.

I seriously believe that the idea of a primogenitor will eventually be proven wrong. We have traced life back to the time the Earth was about a billion years old, and have found traces of that early life all over the globe. Abiogenesis is being given less and less of a time frame to happen, and evolution at first would have had to be much faster than we currently believe for a single random reaction in what is now France and spread over the entire planet in a very short period of time.

(pos geek rep for the first person that gets the reference)

 

[hortysir]

The reason for the "Missing Link" is because it doesn't exist

 

[konradv]

The fact is numbnuts, one species cannot evolve into another species. A fish cannot evolve into a bird, a bird cannot evolve into a mammal, apes cannot evolve into a man and that's what evolutionist wants people to believe.

No one says fish evolve into birds, etc. You're the numbnuts for either not knowing anything about evolutionary theory or purposely trying to distort it. Species don't magically change from one form to another. as creationists like to say, but DIVERGE from a common anscestor, until after millions of years, you have both a cat and a dog, a bird and a reptile, an elephant and a manatee, etc.

I seriously believe that the idea of a primogenitor will eventually be proven wrong. We have traced life back to the time the Earth was about a billion years old, and have found traces of that early life all over the globe. Abiogenesis is being given less and less of a time frame to happen, and evolution at first would have had to be much faster than we currently believe for a single random reaction in what is now France and spread over the entire planet in a very short period of time.

(pos geek rep for the first person that gets the reference)

Sounds like faith, not science. How does abiogenesis not have a time frame? There's 3.5 BILLION years between earth's formation and your timepoint!!! It's also funny that you should say "we currently believe", because for most scientists, what we believe is that, there has been plenty of time for abiogenesis and the evolutionary changes we've seen to this point.

I give up. What "single random reaction" are you talking about? Your message doesn't mean much, if your going to give us vague data like "a very short period of time".

 

[Steelplate]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

Disagree.... and I'll tell you why.

Evolution.

You see, I don't think you understand the concept of Intelligent Design. Or, perhaps I don't... I never really looked into it. My definition of Intelligent Design is that God, or the Creator... or whatever one feels comfortable with(As a Christian, I choose God) created the Building blocks of life and placed them on this planet(and perhaps many more... before and after this one). He nurtured our world when it needed it, but also left it grow as it did.

Now, the big sticking point seems to be whether man came from Ape. I don't think so. I think God created man... but perhaps that original man didn't look like we do today. We've seen skulls of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon man and can see the evolution that leads all the way to modern man... but we've never seen the link between man and ape. So I think that the assumption that man evolved from ape is a false one(My opinion).

Now... to get to the point of your post. We are talking about millions of years of evolution here. If God designed the world to be self replicating and self sufficient... there will undoubtedly be alterations to the genetic code through millenia of replication.

Look at the way we age as an example. Our bodies replace every cell over the course of approximately 10 years. As those cells replicate, they become less than the one it replaced. Kind of like a xerox machine... you take the original, make a copy... throw the original away and make a copy of the copy... and so on. You will notice that every time you make a copy of a copy it degrades in quality. That is how we age.. our skin gets wrinkled, our hair gets gray, our vision fails, our bodies wear down.

Take that same idea and transplant it over millenia of a species replicating.

 

[konradv]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

Disagree.... and I'll tell you why.

Evolution.

You see, I don't think you understand the concept of Intelligent Design. Or, perhaps I don't... I never really looked into it. My definition of Intelligent Design is that God, or the Creator... or whatever one feels comfortable with(As a Christian, I choose God) created the Building blocks of life and placed them on this planet(and perhaps many more... before and after this one). He nurtured our world when it needed it, but also left it grow as it did.

Now, the big sticking point seems to be whether man came from Ape. I don't think so. I think God created man... but perhaps that original man didn't look like we do today. We've seen skulls of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon man and can see the evolution that leads all the way to modern man... but we've never seen the link between man and ape. So I think that the assumption that man evolved from ape is a false one(My opinion).

Now... to get to the point of your post. We are talking about millions of years of evolution here. If God designed the world to be self replicating and self sufficient... there will undoubtedly be alterations to the genetic code through millenia of replication.

Look at the way we age as an example. Our bodies replace every cell over the course of approximately 10 years. As those cells replicate, they become less than the one it replaced. Kind of like a xerox machine... you take the original, make a copy... throw the original away and make a copy of the copy... and so on. You will notice that every time you make a copy of a copy it degrades in quality. That is how we age.. our skin gets wrinkled, our hair gets gray, our vision fails, our bodies wear down.

Take that same idea and transplant it over millenia of a species replicating.

IMO, we have seen link(s) between man and ape. What of all the fossils found that have both ape and human characteristics? If you include the more recent modern human ancestors, why not them?