15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[The Lorax]

From Scientific American.

[rtwo]

this reads a great deal like the other article you posted on this subject. It's interesting what a keen apologist you are for evolution -- If you have that same passion for reaching the lost with the truth of Christ, I suspect you are a very good evangelist, indeed.

I would take issue largely with number 3, being that the "proof" for macroevolution is that the fossil record doesn't refute it. They fail to point out, however, that the fossil record also doesn't refute the idea that all of these creatures were created individually and simply share -some- characteristics. Just like creatures that are around today still do.

[apothanein kerdos]

You realize that some of those would exclude God from being the Creator, right?

[MorningGlory]

From Scientific American.

Interesting reading. I read it through and noticed that there is NOTHING new in this article whatsoever. Excuses for the lack of transitional fossils, aimless theorizing about the possiblity that the seeds of life were dropped to earth from outer space, incredible scientific gymnastics to explain how evolution could possibly account for a designed world. Well written, but regurgitated, data which fails to show evolution as anything but what it is; a theory that has no answers for why, how, when, or where. What's the point?

[MorningGlory]

Excuses for the lack of transitional fossils,

This claim would fall under my point about Christians lying. Go back and read it again. It mentions a "flock" full of transitional species, and that's just reptile to bird. The article is dead on in that you give a creationist the answer to a question and they change the question. There are hundreds of transitional species, with more being found in the fossil record, not less. To claim they do not exist is dishonest. Just as claiming the earth is a closed system is dishonest.

Christians use the fossil record like a a stick of baloney. They ask for one type of proof, you provide it, they then want a thinner slice. I find it interesting that creationists are unified in their rejection of evolution, but cannot agree on a unified version of Genesis.

There are NO examples of a transitional species fossils; no worm/elephants, no cat/monkeys, no reptile/birds, no amoeba/horses, and no ape/men. The 'flock of transitional species just don't exist. What do you mean by 'my point about Christians lying'? When did you make that point? Did you write the article? It's a bit cheeky to accuse someone of lying because they don't agree with your point of view, don't you think? I reiterate; the article is hackneyed, done to death stuff that's been printed scores of times before and claims that 'proof' of the TOE has been presented. That is true dishonesty.

[CSLewis]

"We are in the midst of a culture war about how the universe was created: Intelligent design versus Evolution is a heated discussion in America, as it is not in most other parts of the world. How did we get here? Who made us? Did anybody make us? Or did we just come about?

But nobody should get so bogged down in what the facts are that the majesty of the creation recedes into the background. Here is what is so profoundly loving about God

[MorningGlory]

There are NO examples of a transitional species fossils; no worm/elephants, no cat/monkeys, no reptile/birds, no amoeba/horses, and no ape/men. The 'flock of transitional species just don't exist. What do you mean by 'my point about Christians lying'? When did you make that point? Did you write the article? It's a bit cheeky to accuse someone of lying because they don't agree with your point of view, don't you think? I reiterate; the article is hackneyed, done to death stuff that's been printed scores of times before and claims that 'proof' of the TOE has been presented. That is true dishonesty.

You can't be serious. There are so many that there is not creationist rebuttal outside of they want a thinner slice of the fossil record. Silly. here is the horse sequence from Kathleen Hunt. I'll leave her response to the creationist rebuttal out since it will be predictable, and I'll just cut and paste it later when needed. The horse series is one of the most examined so that's why its a good example:

* Radinskya yupingae (late Paleocene, China) -- A recently discovered perissodactyl-like condylarth. (McKenna et al., in Prothero & Schoch, 1989.)

* Hyracotherium (early Eocene, about 55 Ma; previously "Eohippus") -- The famous "dawn horse", a small, doggish perissodactyl, with an arched back, short neck, omnivore teeth, and short snout. 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Compared to Tetraclaenodon, has longer toes, interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps. Probably evolved from Tetra. in about 4-5 my, perhaps via an Asian species like Radinskya. Note that Hyrac. differed from other early perissodactyls (such as tapir/rhino ancestors) only by small changes in tooth cusps and in body size.

* Hyracotherium vassacciense (early Eocene) -- The particular species that probably gave rise to the equids.

* Orohippus (mid-Eocene, ~50 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests.

* Epihippus (late Eocene, ~45 Ma) -- Small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser.

* Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- A later subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth.

* Mesohippus celer (latest Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Three-toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger

* Mesohippus westoni (early Oligocene) -- A slightly later, more advanced species.

* Miohippus assiniboiensis (mid-Oligocene) -- This species split off from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, after which Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for the next 4 my. Distinctly larger, slightly longer skull, facial fossa deeper and more expanded, subtly different ankle joint, variable extra crest on upper cheek teeth. In the early Miocene (24 My) Miohippus began to speciate rapidly. Grasses had just evolved, & teeth began to change accordingly. Legs, etc., started to change for fast running.

* Kalobatippus (late Oligocene) -- Three-toed browser w/foot intermediate between Mio. & Para.

* Parahippus (early Miocene, 23 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot". Permanent establishment of the extra crest that was so variable in Miohippus. Stronger tooth crests & slightly taller tooth crowns.

* 'Parahippus' leonensis (mid-Miocene, ~20 Ma) -- Three-toed browser/grazer with the emphasis on grazer. Developing spring-foot & high-crowned teeth.

* 'Merychippus' gunteri (mid-Miocene, ~18 Ma) -- Three-toed grazer, fully spring-footed with high-crowned teeth.

* Merychippus primus (mid-Miocene, ~17 Ma) -- Slightly more advanced.

* Merychippus spp. of mid-late Miocene (16-15 Ma) -- 3-toed grazers, spring-footed, size of small pony. Diversified into all available grazer niches, giving rise to at least 19 successful three-toed grazers. Side toes of varying sizes, very small in some lines. Horsey hoof develops, leg bones fuse. Fully high-crowned teeth with thick cement & same crests as Parahippus. The line that eventually produced Equus developed as follows: M. primus, M. sejunctus, M. isonesus (these last two still had a mix of primitive, hipparion, and equine features), M. intermontanus, M. stylodontus, M. carrizoensis. These last two looked quite horsey, with quite small side toes, and gave rise to a set of larger three-toed and one-toed horses known as the "true equines".

Okay, horses got bigger. Not exactly representative of one species evolving into another though.

[Tubal-Cain]

Myco, you will want to look here for Gee's response to the Discovery Institute (where HE gets many of his quotes and ideas from what I can tell): http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/..._10_15_2001.asp

Gee believes in evolution and common descent. His words, when understood properly, do no harm to the theory of evolution. Essentially all Gee would be saying is that you cannot be sure that horse fossil A is a direct ancestor/descendant of horse fossil B merely by looking at the fossils. However, he does not deny that there are transitional fossils and that they appear in the proper chronological order predicted by common descent.

[MorningGlory]

What do you mean by 'my point about Christians lying'?

I argue with atheists and Christians about evolution often. Had a bible study on Genesis with a church elder and he wasn't real thrilled when I challenged his errors. My contention is that Christians, specifically creationists, contract instead of grow the kingdom of God when they try to argue that evolution is false. As I said in an earlier post of three points that I have noted from these discussions (quoting my own post):

[MorningGlory]

However, evolution has failed to show one species morphing into another which points to all species having been created.

You are obviously ignoring mountains and mountains of data and your own logic. Someone else has pointed out that if you concede that all of the evolutionary mechanisms work as described, than there is no logical reason why they cannot lead to the formation of new species. of course the evidence shows that this is indeed the case, using a variety of different fields, disciplines, and expertise.

That's theory; where are the fossils of the transitional species? There IS a logical reason why evolution cannot produce new species. It's called

Creation. Mountains of data hasn't provided the links, my friend.