Jump to content
IGNORED

Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.


KiwiChristian

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/14/2018 at 3:56 AM, shiloh357 said:

Either believe Evolution and call God a liar, or believe the Bible. 

I will not call God a liar, either in reference to His Word, or by what He has made evident to us by the work of His hands.

I find it interesting that you will listen to Richard Dawkins when it comes to theology, but not science. That makes about as much sense as listening to your local auto mechanic's medical advice, but ignoring what he says about your car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, Cletus said:

what you are thinking of is not a mutation.

Noun 1. genetic mutation - (genetics) any event that changes genetic structure; any alteration in the inherited nucleic acid sequence of the genotype of an organism

I gave you two examples of genetic mutations.

1. A change in DNA sequence that confers increased resistance to malaria.

2. A change in DNA sequence that allows the lactase enzyme to be produced not only in infancy, but into older ages.

According to the theory of evolution, genetic changes accumulate over tremendously long periods of time and eventually generate more visible changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/13/2018 at 7:27 PM, Tristen said:

The reason "Gould was promoting punctuated equilibrium" was to explain away the complete absence of transitional fossils found in the record (as Darwin conceived transitional fossils). You are right that he wasn't claiming they don't "exist", only that we haven't found any, and that their conspicuous absence is a problem for evolution theory.

Did Gould ever say there were no transitional species? I didn't give it a meticulous search, but this is the closest thing I found:

Quote

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

Gould commented on the rarity, but that was 30 years ago. Like I mentioned previously, the frequency of what paleontologists believe to be transitional is less than what might have been predicted, but if they are legitimate, even a small number corroborate the theory of evolution, not refute it.

 

On 1/13/2018 at 7:27 PM, Tristen said:

When properly defined, the current number of transitional fossils is zero.

What definition do you think is the proper one? Why would an organism with characteristics of two different classes not be considered transitional?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

7 minutes ago, Cletus said:

where is the control in your examples research?

Controls are needed for experiments. I am not conducting an experiment, just giving you examples of mutations that have persisted despite your claim that they don't.

Quote

here is a real good probability killer.  an animal would have to mutate and breed to carry on its "evolved" gene.  but the offspring keeps being bred back to a non mutated gene pool.  sooner or later that gene will be bred out of the gene pool.

Most humans do not have the mutation that allows lactase persistence, but this mutation has been around for thousands of years. Most humans do not have the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia (and confers increased malaria resistance), but this mutation has been around for thousands of years. The mutant alleles have not been bred out of the gene pool.

16 minutes ago, Cletus said:

a genetic mutation to do with lactase or malaria resistance does not prove evolution.

I never claimed they did. I am only using them to show you why your claim is incorrect. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, it would be a good idea to use arguments that are actually true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I will not call God a liar, either in reference to His Word, or by what He has made evident to us by the work of His hands.

You are calling him a liar when you deny the historicity and inerrancy of His Word.   You want the Christian faith on YOUR terms.

Quote

I find it interesting that you will listen to Richard Dawkins when it comes to theology, but not science. That makes about as much sense as listening to your local auto mechanic's medical advice, but ignoring what he says about your car.

I am not listening to him in terms of theology or science.  I am simply pointing out that he is more honest about the relationship of the Bible to evolutionists than some "Christians"  are about that relationship.

You have to edit the Bible in an attempt to make it work with Evolution.   You cannot take God at His word and accept Evolution.   It is why you have re-interpret the Bible and reject parts of it.  

For you, Evolution is the infallible standard against which the Bible is measured, and if the Bible and evolution do not agree, it's the Bible that is wrong and needs to be re-interpreted to fit Evolution.

You reject what an in-fallible, all-knowing God said happened 5,000 years ago, but will accept what fallible sinful men said happened 4 Billion years ago. Your faith is in man, not God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Did Gould ever say there were no transitional species? I didn't give it a meticulous search, but this is the closest thing I found:

Gould commented on the rarity, but that was 30 years ago. Like I mentioned previously, the frequency of what paleontologists believe to be transitional is less than what might have been predicted, but if they are legitimate, even a small number corroborate the theory of evolution, not refute it.

What definition do you think is the proper one? Why would an organism with characteristics of two different classes not be considered transitional?

What definition do you think is the proper one? Why would an organism with characteristics of two different classes not be considered transitional?

When Darwin was complaining about the lack of transitional fossils, he was not talking about a lack of fossils with shared characteristics between different creatures. It was the existence of fossils with shared characteristics between different creatures that evidenced the concept of Common Ancestry. Darwin meant a lack of fossils demonstrating intermediate stages of evolutionary structural development (e.g. from a fin to an arm, or an arm to a wing, or from a reptilian scale to a feather etc.). Darwin recognised that one, fully-functioning structure doesn’t just turn into another fully-functioning structure. Evolution theory rather proposes that there must be hundreds to thousands of incremental changes to get from one structure to another. Therefore, the fossil record should be saturated with these intermediate (i.e. transitional) forms – but it isn’t. It should further be saturated with evidence of incremental changes that didn’t eventuate in fully-functioning (Gould uses the term “stable”) structures.

Darwin suggested that we simply hadn’t found any because at the time, we were in the early stages of investigation. Gould suggested that the transitions occurred relatively rapidly, and in such a localised context as to limit the possibility of them being subjected to the conditions of fossilisation. And so such fossils would be so rare that we would probably never find any without being extremely lucky.

Changing the definition of transitional fossil to 'shared characteristics' answers the objection by Moving the Goalposts. Under the newer definition, there are millions of candidates for transitional fossils. What are all these crazy, dishonest, ignorant creationists talking about by claiming there are no transitional fossils?

 

Did Gould ever say there were no transitional species?

Whether or not a “species” is “transitional” is entirely speculative – i.e. a matter of subjective interpretation. But that is not what Gould is referring to when he spoke of “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design”.

 

Gould commented on the rarity, but that was 30 years ago

He says “rarity” in your quote, and “absence” in my quote. Either way, he wasn’t referring to fossils demonstrating shared features (like Archaeopteryx – which has been around for over 100 years). He is specifically referring to fact that of the available “datanot demonstrating the “process” of evolution (i.e. the intermediaries – how we get from one structural form to another).

If any true transitional fossil candidate has been discovered in the last 30 years, I’d be happy to take a look.

 

Like I mentioned previously, the frequency of what paleontologists believe to be transitional is less than what might have been predicted, but if they are legitimate, even a small number corroborate the theory of evolution, not refute it

If a smooth transition can be drawn from one “stable” form to another - that might be compelling. But simply finding a fossil with shared features of other species doesn’t meet the criteria of being legitimately transitional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, Tristen said:

It was the existence of fossils with shared characteristics between different creatures that evidenced the concept of Common Ancestry. Darwin meant a lack of fossils demonstrating intermediate stages of evolutionary structural development (e.g. from a fin to an arm, or an arm to a wing, or from a reptilian scale to a feather etc.). Darwin recognised that one, fully-functioning structure doesn’t just turn into another fully-functioning structure.

Ok, thanks. Sorry it took me so long to understand what you meant there. How do you counter the claim that the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon fossils represent transition from terrestrial mammal to cetacean? And the unusual pelvic anatomy for a swimming animal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

Why even bother to counter a false claim,  or a false theory, that has always been known to be false ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

16 minutes ago, Tristen said:

He says “rarity” in your quote, and “absence” in my quote.

I'm fairly sure the original quote was "rarity". An article from creation.com has Gould quoted as using "rarity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Why even bother to counter a false claim,  or a false theory, that has always been known to be false ?

Who has always known it to be false? It certainly isn't the people that have the background and curiosity to study fossils for a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...