Was stumped by a Creationist

[harmonica]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

Actually, a theoretical transporter doesn't create matter from nothing, it disassembles matter on one end, quantifies it and identifies its structure to the sub-atomic level, then recreates the same form of matter at another location using locally available matter.

The original matter is, for lack of a better term, killed and replaced by new matter with the identical structure.

One of the key actions in evolution is death. Death is the catalyst for natural selection.

I knew that

 

[fncceo]

What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.

Very true. Creation and evolution can easily co-exist. Simply point at nature and say, "god did that!". Problem solved.

*Note the god-believer is the one who must adhere his stance to the established fact of evolution , and not the other way around

Or, your definition of G-d can evolve as well.

Perhaps G-d is an entity capable of transversing a multiverse and creating a singularity. Perhaps it wasn't clay he used to form the creatures, but the sub-atomic structure of this universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.

Precisely!

 

[DOTR]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?

I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support it and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?

This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.

Evolution is not on the defensive. Some evolutionists are because their entire life is directed at debunking creationism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.

In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:

Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:

If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution? Be specific, "professor".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.

In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:

Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:

If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution? Be specific, "professor".

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species. But unless you can name a mammal species that is proven to have evolved into two or distinctly different species I say it is NOT in fact proven and you have to admit it. The horse among others proves evolution exists inside a species.

 

[RandomPoster]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

I believe that if you remove the restriction of scope that it has to be a mammal, as opposed to any species of living being, it would be a fair request given that an agreement could be made regarding the line of distinct speciation. I would suggest a lack of interfertility. It would have to be a lack of genetic interfertility, as opposed to physical limitations such a Shetland pony not being able to be bred by a Clysedale. Even at that, the lack of an example would not completely falsify the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Wuwei]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.

In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:

Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:

If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution? Be specific, "professor".

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species. But unless you can name a mammal species that is proven to have evolved into two or distinctly different species I say it is NOT in fact proven and you have to admit it. The horse among others proves evolution exists inside a species.

This is one evolutionary tree for mammals.

There are many splits that diverge. The divergence happens very slowly. The actual divergent point is probably very fuzzy. But no doubt the original animal at the divergent point is long gone.

 

[pinqy]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?

Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?

Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?

Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can. Do you have verifiable proof that single mammal EVER evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species? cause I can tell you NO ONE in science can provide that evidence.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

We are not your mommies. And we really do not care whether or not you accept the fact that is evolution.

In fact, let me give you a dose of reality, using an exercise that will expose both your willful ignorance and your dishonesty:

Evolution is an established fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. That being the case, it's more fair to make demands of you. I will start:

If we had no conclusive evidence of one mammal species evolving into two different species, how would this undermine or contradict the theory of evolution? Be specific, "professor".

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species. But unless you can name a mammal species that is proven to have evolved into two or distinctly different species I say it is NOT in fact proven and you have to admit it. The horse among others proves evolution exists inside a species.

This is one evolutionary tree for mammals.

There are many splits that diverge. The divergence happens very slowly. The actual divergent point is probably very fuzzy. But no doubt the original animal at the divergent point is long gone.

Yet not a single proven instance that any of those mammals came from another distinctly different mammal Your chart is conspicuously missing any names for any of the supposed parent species.th

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species

Then you do not believe in evolution, sorry. And this comment by you shows a total ignorance of what evolutionary theory is.

And you dodged my question... let's say no definitive proof exists of one mammal evolving into two species. How would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? If you can't answer this question, then you don't have any argument. I mean, we know your argument will be silly and wrong, but good grief...can you even state it?

So...?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I believe in evolution inside a species

Then you do not believe in evolution, sorry. And this comment by you shows a total ignorance of what evolutionary theory is.

And you dodged my question... let's say no definitive proof exists of one mammal evolving into two species. How would this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? If you can't answer this question, then you don't have any argument. I mean, we know your argument will be silly and wrong, but good grief...can you even state it?

So...?

For the slow and stupid. You have no actual evidence that proves a single mammal species ever evolved into two distinctly different species, if you did you would trot it out.

Just because evolution occurs with IN a species is NOT evidence it occurs to create different species from a single source.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have no actual evidence that proves a single mammal species ever evolved into two distinctly different species

Neato! Let's assume this is true.

So, again: How would the truth of this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? Boy, you sure are having a hard time with this simple question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have no actual evidence that proves a single mammal species ever evolved into two distinctly different species

Neato! Let's assume this is true.

So, again: How would the truth of this undermine or contradict evolutionary theory? Boy, you sure are having a hard time with this simple question.

I believe in evolution dumb ass. Just not one mammal species evolving into two or more distinctly different species, since you nor any scientist can actually provide any real evidence it ever happened YOU are the one that must explain why you have faith in a fairy Tale?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe in evolution dumb ass.

No, you don't. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for the diversity of species. You don't believe animals speciate. Therefore, no , you do not believe in evolution .


One more time:

Let's assume we have no definitive proof that any mammal has ever evolved into two, distinct species. (Your only contribution to the discussion)

How would this contradict or undermine evolutionary theory?

 

[pinqy]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?

Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?

Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can.

I never said otherwise, what I’m trying to figure out is what your claim is. Is it your claim that speciation occurs in all other classes, phylya, and kingdoms, just not mammals?

It seems odd to accept speciation in plants and insects but claim that it is not possible with mammals. What distinction are you claiming?

 

[Wuwei]

Yet not a single proven instance that any of those mammals came from another distinctly different mammal Your chart is conspicuously missing any names for any of the supposed parent species.th

There are numbers for the parent species, probably referring to some accompanying text. The proof is probably in the DNA segment matching. Look, I really don't care what you believe, and I am not going to try to talk you out of anything.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name a proven single Mammal species that evolved into 2 proven entirely different species.

Why do you specify mammals? Are you acknowledging observed speciation of plants, flies, bacteria, etc?

Do you have an example of a mammal being spontaneously created with no ancestors?

Plants insects bacteria are not mammals and just because one type of life can evolve into separate distinct entities does not mean another can.

I never said otherwise, what I’m trying to figure out is what your claim is. Is it your claim that speciation occurs in all other classes, phylya, and kingdoms, just not mammals?

It seems odd to accept speciation in plants and insects but claim that it is not possible with mammals. What distinction are you claiming?

Perhaps you can explain how we have actual proof that it happens in plants and insects BUT none in mammals?