Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[konradv]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

 

[YWN666]

And we once again come back to the differences in sides.

Evolution makes generalizations that work across all species, and are supported across multiple scientific fields, including paleontology, anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Creationists on the other hand base points on things they don't understand, or look funny.

Wrong. Creationists base their conclusions off of validated theories, while evolutionists look at something they don't understand and say "it musta been evolution that did it."

Scientists start with the evidence and draw conclusions from it. Creationist starts with the conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it. When they can't find any facts, they manufacture them. Creationism is not science, it is a joke.

 

[IanC]

what came before RNA/DNA? why don't we see it anywhere? the simplest life form is too complicated to fully explain. but it just randomly came together? howse that primordial soup experiment coming along, 60 years later?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The beginnings of life in no way affect evolution, which is a theory that describes how established life changes over time. Life could have been established by aliens, and it still doesn't affect evolution. If you wish to go back in time to a point where little evidence can be sought and once again make the claim "I don't know what happened here, so therefore it must be god", go right ahead and continue your ignorance.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The beginnings of life in no way affect evolution, which is a theory that describes how established life changes over time. Life could have been established by aliens, and it still doesn't affect evolution. If you wish to go back in time to a point where little evidence can be sought and once again make the claim "I don't know what happened here, so therefore it must be god", go right ahead and continue your ignorance.

That is like saying a god isn't important to ID.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Very true, but - if you have enough pieces of evidence to put together enough of a picture to see a trend or to make comparisons with modern day animals you can put forth a theory that has a enough facts to support causation (either that or a hell of a lot of unbelievable coincidences - now which is more believable?).

What are the hundreds of coincidences?

But we have in certain species of insects, fish, and bacteria. If you are talking about observing large scale changes of the kind in the fossil record, we - and the sciences involved - haven't been around long enough.

How does "spontaneously" and "millions of years" go together?

If you have enough other evidence - then yes, you can. If you are putting together a jigsaw puzzle and you are missing 3 pieces, do you assume they never existed or do you assume you simply haven't found them? If the puzzle appears to be a picture of an elephant, and most of the pieces support that conclusion - do you feel reasonably sure of making that conclusion or do you deny it based on the missing pieces?

Which could be said of Creation Theory, but with evolutionism the whole puzzle is missing. You have to first imagine that your puzzle exists. Then you can imagine that there are pieces to it.

So your issue is with the lack of fossil evidence then?

Partly, but the real issue is "how"?

No. It happens, but you are mixing together a lot of different things here.

What happens?

Dogs turning into other types of dogs are still the same species - in fact dogs, coyotes, wolves can all interbreed and produce offspring. They are "breeds" rather than genetically seperate species. Large scale changes take millions of years. We've only been around for a fraction of the time, and our ability to use science even briefer.

Which is a fancy way of saying we don't know it happened but we hope it did.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

No. No evolutionist ever says that. Change happens. We can see it. When we can't visually see it, we can directly see the genetic evidence that shows how the change occurred. There is no blind belief. There is direct evidence.

The beginnings of life in no way affect evolution, which is a theory that describes how established life changes over time. Life could have been established by aliens, and it still doesn't affect evolution. If you wish to go back in time to a point where little evidence can be sought and once again make the claim "I don't know what happened here, so therefore it must be god", go right ahead and continue your ignorance.

That is like saying a god isn't important to ID.

No. No it's not like that at all, which brings us to the fundamental difference between the two stances. Your ideas REQUIRE you to have all questions answered as far back as possible, which generally ends in "because god did it". Science does not need to understand every unrelated or distant aspect of a phenomenon to understand any one aspect. Similarly, I don't need to know how a TV is made to know how to work one. The lack of knowledge in the origins does not prevent us from knowing more recent applicable and functional capabilities.

So once again: evolution has nothing to do with how life began. It only demonstrates how life has changed over time.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Dogs turning into other types of dogs are still the same species - in fact dogs, coyotes, wolves can all interbreed and produce offspring. They are "breeds" rather than genetically seperate species. Large scale changes take millions of years. We've only been around for a fraction of the time, and our ability to use science even briefer.

Which is a fancy way of saying we don't know it happened but we hope it did.

No. That means we know how it happened, and can even document exactly what happened on a genetic level, but you don't understand genetics and so you pretend it doesn't exist and therefore everything Coyote said is nonsense. In all actuality, it just stems from you not understanding simple concepts. The world is not dark just because you close your eyes.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Dogs turning into other types of dogs are still the same species - in fact dogs, coyotes, wolves can all interbreed and produce offspring. They are "breeds" rather than genetically seperate species. Large scale changes take millions of years. We've only been around for a fraction of the time, and our ability to use science even briefer.

Which is a fancy way of saying we don't know it happened but we hope it did.

No. That means we know how it happened, and can even document exactly what happened on a genetic level, but you don't understand genetics and so you pretend it doesn't exist and therefore everything Coyote said is nonsense. In all actuality, it just stems from you not understanding simple concepts. The world is not dark just because you close your eyes.

That's about like sun worshippers saying that we don't know how it all works so therefore it really is as they say, but we are just ignorant of it. Good one.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

No, it's in fact the exact opposite. We understand how genetics works. YOU don't understand it personally, but educated individuals do. Contrast that to sun worshippers, whereas no one knew what was going on yet everyone believed it anyway.

I have to say, that last post was pretty trollish, which either makes you the dumbest Christian or the most entertaining troll I've met in a while.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey now, the religous argument has to be right.
The thousands of universities that teach evolution as fact are liberal, left wing ideologue scientists with a political agenda.
They will make millions off of selling key chains that state evolution is fact.
The 2 universities that teach ID as fact and state evolution is false are correct.
They sell Bibles instead of key chains.

 

[konradv]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

Don't know what you're applauding. I called you out for saying something that is a patent lie!!! No evolutionist would ever claim that a dog can turn into a lizard, but you continue to spread the lie anyway. You admit that there are small changes in species that we can see within a human lifetime, but refuse to acknowledge what's likely to happen when those small changes accumulate over millions of years. Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

 

[HUGGY]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

Don't know what you're applauding. I called you out for saying something that is a patent lie!!! No evolutionist would ever claim that a dog can turn into a lizard, but you continue to spread the lie anyway. You admit that there are small changes in species that we can see within a human lifetime, but refuse to acknowledge what's likely to happen when those small changes accumulate over millions of years. Turning a blind eye to facts and lying about conclusions is intellectual dishonesty in my book.

You gotta "book" too? Oh! Great!

 

[Coyote]

what came before RNA/DNA? why don't we see it anywhere? the simplest life form is too complicated to fully explain. but it just randomly came together? howse that primordial soup experiment coming along, 60 years later?

Hate to disappoint you but 60 years is not 60 million years. You must have set the timer wrong.

 

[Coyote]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

Not quite, but I suppose you are so busy congratulating yourself you are missing out on the details.

While the fossil record only preserves a tiny fraction of all the species that ever existed, it does offer a pretty good insight into one major transition: a reptile evolving into a new group, avians. No need to suspend belief to comprehend this.

Unfortunately, the fossil record has not preserved any deities.

 

[Coyote]

The beginnings of life in no way affect evolution, which is a theory that describes how established life changes over time. Life could have been established by aliens, and it still doesn't affect evolution. If you wish to go back in time to a point where little evidence can be sought and once again make the claim "I don't know what happened here, so therefore it must be god", go right ahead and continue your ignorance.

That is like saying a god isn't important to ID.

No. It is like saying you don't have a clue what evolution is.

God is important to ID because God is the conclusion, and the purpose of ID is to start from the conclusion and cherry pick facts and fallacies to support said conclusion. Unfortunately that means starting from the premise that an invisable supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent being who talks to people through incendiary shrubbery and keeps getting pissy and killing off his followers - actually exists.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

 

[THE LIGHT]

The beginnings of life in no way affect evolution, which is a theory that describes how established life changes over time. Life could have been established by aliens, and it still doesn't affect evolution. If you wish to go back in time to a point where little evidence can be sought and once again make the claim "I don't know what happened here, so therefore it must be god", go right ahead and continue your ignorance.

That is like saying a god isn't important to ID.

No. It is like saying you don't have a clue what evolution is.

God is important to ID because God is the conclusion, and the purpose of ID is to start from the conclusion and cherry pick facts and fallacies to support said conclusion. Unfortunately that means starting from the premise that an invisable supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent being who talks to people through incendiary shrubbery and keeps getting pissy and killing off his followers - actually exists.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Which shows that you don't have a clue of what either evolution or creation is.

God is not the conclusion of creation. God is the origin of life but the point of creation is that everything continues as it was originally set up. Can that be tested and observed? Yes. Has it been observed to be that way? yes.

On the other hand, No God is the true aim of evolution, but the Big Bang is the origin of life from which everything came from a rock and the sun.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Quote:
Which is not really what they mean. They always give examples of a dog turning into another type of dog through breeding which I am okay with. That is observable. But we have never observed a plant turning into a dog or a dog turning into a giraffe or a lizzard turning into a bird. It just don't happen.

Evolutionist don't say plants turn into dogs or dogs turning into giraffes, either. That's merely a twisting of evolutionary theory. Dogs would turn into something dog-like, then something less dog-like and eventually something that isn't a dog anymore, but isn't a plant, fish, cat or giraffe.

Thanks for admitting it.

I love how evolutionists say "it happened" but we can't see it so you'll just have to "believe" it happened.

Not quite, but I suppose you are so busy congratulating yourself you are missing out on the details.

While the fossil record only preserves a tiny fraction of all the species that ever existed, it does offer a pretty good insight into one major transition: a reptile evolving into a new group, avians. No need to suspend belief to comprehend this.

Unfortunately, the fossil record has not preserved any deities.

Well, maybe the preserved deities that you are looking for are in the other fraction of fossils that haven't been preserved.

This just shows, the fossil record IS your deity.

 

[Coyote]

That is like saying a god isn't important to ID.

No. It is like saying you don't have a clue what evolution is.

God is important to ID because God is the conclusion, and the purpose of ID is to start from the conclusion and cherry pick facts and fallacies to support said conclusion. Unfortunately that means starting from the premise that an invisable supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent being who talks to people through incendiary shrubbery and keeps getting pissy and killing off his followers - actually exists.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life itself.

Which shows that you don't have a clue of what either evolution or creation is.

You think?

Maybe we should exlore definitions.

Evolution:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Creation:
Creation is a discipline of science concerning the origin of life on Earth as well as the origin of our planet and the universe. The creation model consists of the hypothesis that the Earth, the universe, and life itself was created out of nothing in complete and fully functional forms.


What part of it do you think I don't understand?

God is not the conclusion of creation. God is the origin of life but the point of creation is that everything continues as it was originally set up. Can that be tested and observed? Yes. Has it been observed to be that way? yes.

The pertinant question is: how do we explain the diversity and complexity of life on this planet - how did it come to be?

The theory of evolution explains this by concluding that living organisms evolved from simple to complex over a very long period of time. This is supported by the fossil record, biochemistry, geology, genetic biology, and observable changes in populations.

The "theory" of creation explains this by concluding that everything came into being at once in the current forms, in a short period of time due to the efforts of a supernatural being. God is both the origin and conclusion. This is supported by what?

On the other hand, No God is the true aim of evolution, but the Big Bang is the origin of life from which everything came from a rock and the sun.

Wrong. Again, you demonstrate an utter lack of understanding of evolution. Evolutionary theory does not address the existence or non-existence of God. It does not seek to prove or disprove God. It does not even address the question of "why" life is here or it's purpose. All it does is attempt to explain how the living things we see today came to be in their present forms. I'm sticking to biological evolution - not physics or astronomy or the evolution of the universe - but biological evolution of living things.

In fact, an acceptence of the theory of evolution does not preclude the belief in a diety - it's just that explanations involving supernatural beings are not science and people should quit trying to distort science and sully faith by pretending it is.