Creationists

[UltimateReality]

That's the problem, there are only millions. Many populations were never very high to begin with and many fossils were destroyed over time. The bottom line is that the creationists will constantly ask for more evidence, regardless, while completely ignoring deductive logic. There are species alive now that aren't present in the fossil record. What do creationists deduce from that, multiple creations?

I'd be happy with a single example.

The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out. Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re the horse series in current Korean “past-sell-by-date” Darwin textbooks … | Uncommon Descent

 

[typicalusguy]

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.

If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

It's the best site on web.

All that site does is prove that Darwin's Theory needs some serious revisiting. If GRADUAL changes occur over millions of years, we should be able to find more than just punctuated examples. There are HUGE gaps in the primate evidence presented on this site.

Hollie, here is an alternate description of your "fact" of evolution:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8&feature=related]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]

I'd hate to be on the wrong side of that intellectual beating.

 

[konradv]

I'd hate to be on the wrong side of that intellectual beating.

You are.

 

[typicalusguy]

Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence? Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull". What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.

My favorite is the one where Darwinists created the "missing link" from a pig's tooth.

I forget which fraud that was (there have been so many) was it Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man?

 

[konradv]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull". What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.

My favorite is the one where Darwinists created the "missing link" from a pig's tooth.

I forget which fraud that was (there have been so many) was it Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man?

That's you've got, a 100+ year-old hoax?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Same ol same ol,well time to enjoy the beach.

If you're not opposed to a bit of enlightenment:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

It's the best site on web.

Oh no not talkorigins.

You have fossils found in the wrong strata but yet they try to piece a puzzle together that never existed.

How do you know that many of the fossils found are not just extinct organisms ? How do you know they were products of evolution ?

Explain to me many living fossils living today relatives dated way back in time show no change since evolution is always happening ? Every group of organisms have mutations why no change ?

Here is your chance to be enlightened.

Living-Fossils.com

Why is there no evolutionary change since evolution never stops and all groups of organisms have mutations ?

Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 8: Argument: The fossil record supports evolution

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

 

[Youwerecreated]

Got a cite for your "undisputed" evidence? Why do I get the feeling you'll "dispute" any other evidence, just to prove your point.

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull". What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.

Sorry but with many fossils they find bone fragments and use their imagination and plaster that is a fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The evolution of the horse is quite well worked out. Sorry, they didn't find every last fossil.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.

"It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."

Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views

Sorry, but the Evolution of the Horse timeline was published long before Wiki came into existence. You can't use that dodge.

How do you prove they were products of evolution ?

 

[konradv]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull". What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.

Sorry but with many fossils they find bone fragments and use their imagination and plaster that is a fact.

Sure they use their imagination. That's not the point. The post we're talking about claimed that they "use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull".

 

[konradv]

While I appreciate you quoting Wiki, the information there is not reliable and majorly manipulated. I always use a disclaimer when citing it as a reference.

"It's hardly news to observe that Wikipedia is biased against intelligent design (ID). Michael Egnor recently exposed how Wikipedians removed statements discussing how biological machines can be reverse-engineered, like human machines (an observation which has strong pro-ID implications). Errors persist from the very beginning of Wikipedia's entry on ID, with very first paragraph stating, "ID's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God." I'm pretty sure that notable ID-friendly scientists like Mike Gene would ardently dispute that statement on many levels."

Did an Anti-ID Wikipedia Editor Shut Down a Darwin-Dissenter? - Evolution News & Views

Sorry, but the Evolution of the Horse timeline was published long before Wiki came into existence. You can't use that dodge.

How do you prove they were products of evolution ?

Species weren't there and them they were. Unless we're talking multiple creations, I don't see another explanation. Since we see species appear for over a billion years, even saying that God's "day" is different from ours, there aren't enough days to get the whole creation story done.

 

[typicalusguy]

What's bogus is your saying they "make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull". What they're doing is making the clay fit with the pieces they have.

My favorite is the one where Darwinists created the "missing link" from a pig's tooth.

I forget which fraud that was (there have been so many) was it Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man?

That's you've got, a 100+ year-old hoax?

They let the hoax linger 100 years in classrooms? i thought they admitted it after only 60 years.

In any event, the Church of Evo poisoned children's minds for decades with their frauds.

 

[konradv]

You have fossils found in the wrong strata but yet they try to piece a puzzle together that never existed.

How do you know that many of the fossils found are not just extinct organisms ? How do you know they were products of evolution ?

Explain to me many living fossils living today relatives dated way back in time show no change since evolution is always happening ? Every group of organisms have mutations why no change ?

Why is there no evolutionary change since evolution never stops and all groups of organisms have mutations ?

If fossils are found in the wrong strata, it's usually because of some geological activity and aren't used in the explanation of what happened in the stratum in question.

We assume organisms are the product of evolution, because their appearance and disappearance occurs all through earth's biologic history and would require a "multiple creation" theory to make sense.

Organisms don't change, if a mutation provides no significant advantage. No mutated sub-population will occur, if there's no weaning out of the old or acquiring the ability to develop a new niche. This most commonly occurs in the most stable of ecological niches.

Your last comment doesn't make sense. It would require me to say there was no evolution, when I obviously believe there has been and by extension, is still ongoing.

 

[Hollie]

Have you read Origin of the Species?!?!? Punctuated Equilibrium theory violates Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Although I would agree with you that PE fits the evidence while the TOE does not!!

Only in the world of of fundie Christian apologetics does Punctuated Equilibrium violate Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, here is an alternate description of your "fact" of evolution:

Honestly, that was terrible.

Berlinski is not a biologist, and his degrees do not coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins. Do you find it at all strange that you require an individual not schooled in the biological sciences to offer apologetics for creationism / ID?

His degrees are, as usual with creationists, suspiciously detached from the sciences most needed to establish an understanding of the very area in which they seek to explore.

Another red flag is association with the Discovery Institute. These Charlatans have been exposed as such.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian/Muslim creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take seriously your protests here were your arguments not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique. However, those of the science loathing persuasion typically copy and paste from creationist websites noted previously.

 

[Hollie]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

 

[Youwerecreated]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

Why do you think believers loathe science ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

 

[Montrovant]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Why must there always be a gain? Couldn't it just be different rather than more?

Also (and I know my knowledge about the function of DNA is limited, at best) could it be that a change in DNA could cause more functions/features to form then previously without needing any 'more' to be there? Put another way, if a strand of DNA causes your eye color, is it possible that changing that strand might both change eye color AND give better vision?

 

[Youwerecreated]

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Why must there always be a gain? Couldn't it just be different rather than more?

Also (and I know my knowledge about the function of DNA is limited, at best) could it be that a change in DNA could cause more functions/features to form then previously without needing any 'more' to be there? Put another way, if a strand of DNA causes your eye color, is it possible that changing that strand might both change eye color AND give better vision?

No because a function is lost.

It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?

Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?

 

[konradv]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

How do you get a net gain of DNA information if the previous information is no longer ?

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Fusion and transfection are two examples of how DNA can gain information. If you're the scientist you say you are, you should know that.

Also, if a gene mutates the information isn't gone. It still resides in the other copy of the chromosome. Something you also should know!!!