15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[MorningGlory]

Glory2000

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.

What kind of logical reason is creation? What mechanism does it provide that stops evolution when it gets too close to the limits of it's kind?

Creation is logical; it explains why ants have never turned into zebras. It also explains why there is a poster named theatheistreview. The Creator programmed the instructions for starting and stopping change into the genetic codes; I assume you're familiar with those??? While evolution definitely occurred in plants and animals it has NOT produced any new species; not by natural selection or any other means. Unless you have late breaking news about this subject?

You're answering a question with a question above (actually two). And as for the 'horsey' data; why repost someone else's stuff?

[ted]

t.

[ted]

From our Terms of Service we all agreed to:

Abuse of other posters is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, name calling, insulting, harassing, threatening or in any way invading the privacy of another poster. We also strongly discourage giving out personal information such as email addresses, physical addresses and phone numbers on the public boards. Any information given out in private is at your own discretion and risk. (Eph. 4: 29)

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

What part of this is not understood?

t.

[MorningGlory]

Glory2000

Creation is logical; it explains why ants have never turned into zebras.

No, I asked what is the logical reason that micro evolution deosn't become macro evolution when left for a little longer and you said that creation was that reason. That didn't seem to make sense to me, because creation is the 'competing hypothesis' and not a mechanism for halting evolution. I wasn't saying creation is illogical (though nor am I saying in this statement that it is logical), I was asking why it was the logical reason for evolution halting when it gets too close to the limits of the 'kind'.

Glory2000

And as for the 'horsey' data; why repost someone else's stuff?

Because it was good evidence and it was either ignored or inadequately accounted for by you guys. Now, how does the "horsey data" fit into your world view? Why did god create so many different horses if most of them were going to become extinct? Surely it was within his infinite knowledge to foresee that that would happen. Was he trying to trick us into thinking it was evidence for evolution to test our faith?

Yep, God did create many different types of horses or they may have evolved into the different types we see today. I do not discount evolution WITHIN a species! I DO discount any species becoming a new species and there is not one shred of evidence that this has ever happened.

God never tricks us, that is the sole purpose of the other guy; you know, the great deceiver. You are proceeding on an assumption with the horsey data; in order to know if the last animal on the list is the evolutionary offspring of the first one we would have to know for sure that the first was indeed a horse.

[MorningGlory]

Glory2000

Yep, God did create many different types of horses or they may have evolved into the different types we see today. I do not discount evolution WITHIN a species! I DO discount any species becoming a new species and there is not one shred of evidence that this has ever happened.

God never tricks us, that is the sole purpose of the other guy; you know, the great deceiver. You are proceeding on an assumption with the horsey data; in order to know if the last animal on the list is the evolutionary offspring of the first one we would have to know for sure that the first was indeed a horse.

But that's the point, the first wasn't a horse. The lineage isn't made up of lots of different types of horses, it's made up of animals that morph slowly into a horse chronologically. My question was, if you have to take this lineage as evidence for either creation or evolution, why do you choose to take it as evidence for creation? (note that I'm not asking for some explanation of why it isn't valid evidence for evolution, I'm asking why does the evidence fit better with creation than evolution?)

Need I point out the irony?

I don't take the data as evidence of Creation or evolution. It really doesn't show either. As I said, the first animal would have to be a horse in order to end up, millions of years later, as the last animal on the list.

[ted]

Need I point out the irony?

No.

In fact, that was the very point of my last post in this thread.

t.

[MorningGlory]

Myco

Actually there is. Its beyond mountains and its multidiscipline. With no rational foundation to discuss the data on, that is why there is such hostility between creationists and evolutionists. I've refuted every criticism I've read here. I have not seen any sgred of solid evidence for creation. Just God did it. Well my contention is that God is not deceptive, and at some point, that would be the ONLY explanation for all the fields of any discipline remotely related to determining where we came from being by evolution.

I don't know where you're going with the last sentence in the paragraph above. Please explain.

Myco

No its not because the only defense of creationism is to try to disprove evolution. That fails, so why not prove creation? Can you give me one solid, verifiable, testable fact in support of creation?

I am not trying to disprove evolution, my friend. I'm telling you that no species ever evolved into another. I can't give you solid facts to support Creation, as you know, other than the written word of the Bible.

Myco

No I'm not, because the very same mechanisms that allow variation within a species allow it to lead to new species. That's logical as well as correct.

I'll allow that it might be logical, if man was directing this show, but it is not correct. Genetic variations do occur, random mutations occur, but there is no documented evidence that any species has ever evolved into a new one.

Myco

Yes it has. I can post the information if you'd like, but before that, can you define what a specis is for me so you don't move the goal post. If you don't know, I can do it for you.

In answer to that wannabe patronizing comment; a species is a distinct group that shares specific attributes and a gene pool, can mate, and produce offspring which will, in turn, will be able to reproduce.

[georgesbluegirl]

Hard to actually define a species, really. Group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals, right? Of course, some species can interbreed...hence camel/horses and lions/tigers (yes, ligers exist. Gosh).

Anyway, I think that what Myco was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that God doesn't want to trick us - that by denying the compiled evidence for evolution, we are saying that our God is deceiving us. If science and logic point us toward one answer from many directions, why would keep trying to fight that? What would be the point in God giving us the desire to understand things and minds that help us to do so if we believe that anything we unearth (literally and figuratively) is a farce?

[MorningGlory]

Hard to actually define a species, really. Group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals, right? Of course, some species can interbreed...hence camel/horses and lions/tigers (yes, ligers exist. Gosh).

Anyway, I think that what Myco was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that God doesn't want to trick us - that by denying the compiled evidence for evolution, we are saying that our God is deceiving us. If science and logic point us toward one answer from many directions, why would keep trying to fight that? What would be the point in God giving us the desire to understand things and minds that help us to do so if we believe that anything we unearth (literally and figuratively) is a farce?

That's true, some species do interbreed. However, the offspring is almost always sterile, effectively preventing a new species. While I agree that God gave us the intellect to examine and question our world, He is in no way deceiving us. The evolutionary record is there, in regards to plants and animals, and should be examined.

I see that you were able to decipher Myco's meaning; I simply could not figure out what the gist of that sentence was! Evolution exists, there's no way to deny the evidence, but it exists WITHIN species. All organisms have to have the ability to adapt, to climate and availability of food for instance, in order to survive. My point to Myco and others is that 1. All species have built in interspecial breeding inhibiters, 2. There is no evidence of any species EVER morphing into a new one, and 3. If all species descended from one common ancestor, by natural selection, who programmed the genetic codes that keep species distinct and why? These inhibitors negate the very concept of natural selection and point to a Creator.

If we take natural selection, as understood by Darwin, to it's logical outcome then the distinctions between species should have continued to blur over the eons; we should be a pretty much integrated, unispecies by now if the earth is, indeed, 14 billion years old. And yet, the species are as distinct now as they were when they were created.

[georgesbluegirl]

Glory,

I wasn't saying that two species will cross and create viable offspring (most of the time), just pointing out that the definition of "species" itself is vague even biologically speaking.

I fail to see how the principles of natural selection in action would lead to "blurring" between species. The whole idea of speciation has to do with ecological niches...biodiversity is how ecosystems function. Can you draw out what you were saying?

Evolution doesn't rest on the idea of interspecies breeding at all...quite the opposite.