Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

*challenge 6D, which should be easy for you if what you claim is true: Can you give me a list of modern species that have been found in the same strata as dinosaurs? (Species mind, not genus as these are clearly long lived groups containing different species over time.)

Lets imagine you have never seen a dog but in the fossil record you find a bulldog, a poodle, a weiner dog and a great dane. Can you tell from the bones that they are the same species? *NO! Can we tell from the bones of modern birds that they are the same species as those in the fossil record? No!

Also.... keep in mind that the definition of soecies is rubbery, and organisms are often reclassified.

Also....keep in mind that the creationist model (as discussed previous) is rapid adaptation and speciation

Are there ANY dog bones,*of any sort, in the fossil record alongside dinosaurs?

Sure... dog like animals ate small dinosaurs.
" a*second mammal fossil found at the same site claims the distinction of being the largest early mammal ever found. It's about the size of a modern dog"
http://m.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html

Are modern kinds of creatures found in dinosaur layers? Absolutely!

Are evolutionists surprised? Absolutely!
From the same article:
"It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur"

 

[TheDuke]

Dear All,

So I guess that the answer here is Creation batting 1,000 and evolution batting 100. Nice try! Finally, the time has come. It's useless trying to keep infusing evolution, when it is not true. But, we creationists will have to keep up a relentless army against evolutionists, because they never know when they are beaten. Ay carumba!! Study the Bible instead of your science books, as far as evolution goes. God created man and apes separately. When will it sink in???!!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :guitar: :singer:
​

How do you figure?

Really, "Study the Bible instead of your science books"
I think I've heard that one before, hm..... where was it?


oh, yeah:

some laughs

 

[TheDuke]

Genetics.*
And
God's Word.

May I trouble you, fine sir, for a tiny bit of more specific details on the former, if you please...

 

[Jose Fly]

Science shows we are descendants of Neandertals.

And by the same measure, science shows that...

The universe isn't less than 10,000 years old.

The earth isn't less than 10,000 years old.

Organisms were not instantaneously created less than 10,000 years ago.

Organisms were not created according to "kinds".

H. sapiens are not separate and unrelated to other organisms.

The entire earth was not flooded ~4,000 years ago.

All organisms were not wiped out ~4,000 years ago.

The human population was not reduced to 8 individuals ~4,000 years ago.

Extant species are not descended from single pairs of "kinds" that existed ~4,000 years ago.​

We could keep going for quite a while, but the conclusion is clear. By the same standard 6days uses to claim that "we are descendants of Neandertals", essentially the entirety of creationism has been proven wrong.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear All,

So I guess that the answer here is Creation batting 1,000 and evolution batting 100. Nice try! Finally, the time has come. It's useless trying to keep infusing evolution, when it is not true. But, we creationists will have to keep up a relentless army against evolutionists, because they never know when they are beaten. Ay carumba!! Study the Bible instead of your science books, as far as evolution goes. God created man and apes separately. When will it sink in???!!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael
<wacko graphics removed and a more sensible font and color used>

Dear buddy Michael (who is addicted to garish colors and silly fonts),

I’ve been busy with a few other things lately, so no recent posts. I do appreciate your watching over my thread during my brief absence. I contemplated responding to some of the science stuff I have seen you post lately, but then I found that the fence post behind my house doesn’t misrepresent science nearly as much as you do, so I conclude it has a better understanding of science than you.

Anyway, thanks for babysitting the thread for me. I have a couple of small ideas I may post on in the next day or so.

 

[Tyrathca]

what is a "common descent meme generator"?

Is it really that difficult to at least link me to one single relevant post...

The problem is that he can't link to such posts without also linking to the rebuttals which show how little he actually understands.

 

[TheDuke]

Where's the missing link?

How do you mean?
If you need more info, just google "evolution of birds" or something like that.

 

[TheDuke]

Some education

Some education

So, my dear bible thumping friends,

It's time for a primer:

primer

 

[gcthomas]

Sure... dog like animals ate small dinosaurs.
" a*second mammal fossil found at the same site claims the distinction of being the largest early mammal ever found. It's about the size of a modern dog"

So now "about the size of a modern dog" = "a modern dog"? Really?

Get back to me when you have found something interesting to claim. This fossil is a mammal, but it is in entirely a different Order to dogs, let a lone a different Genus. It doesn't even look like a 'modern dog':

 

[TheDuke]

And by the same measure, science shows that...

The universe isn't less than 10,000 years old.

The earth isn't less than 10,000 years old.

Organisms were not instantaneously created less than 10,000 years ago.

Organisms were not created according to "kinds".

H. sapiens are not separate and unrelated to other organisms.

The entire earth was not flooded ~4,000 years ago.

All organisms were not wiped out ~4,000 years ago.

The human population was not reduced to 8 individuals ~4,000 years ago.

Extant species are not descended from single pairs of "kinds" that existed ~4,000 years ago.​

We could keep going for quite a while, but the conclusion is clear. By the same standard 6days uses to claim that "we are descendants of Neandertals", essentially the entirety of creationism has been proven wrong.

Hold on, did 6d finally accept the theory?

 

[Husband&Father]

So now "about the size of a modern dog" = "a modern dog"? Really?

Get back to me when you have found something interesting to claim. This fossil is a mammal, but it is in entirely a different Order to dogs, let a lone a different Genus. It doesn't even look like a 'modern dog':

The official narrative of evolution claims that mammals didn't get to be the size of dogs until after the huge reptiles died off. I think that the point is that this mammal, that is the 'size of a dog" is not supposed to exist at the designated time period.
Also, all mammals are supposedly related so why make a big deal about if this thing is a "modern dog" or not. If it is not a dog it is a forerunner of a dog, no? Even if you are right he's not wrong; he's just early.

 

[Husband&Father]

Creationism is not Antithetical to Science. At Least Newton Didn't Think So.

Creationism is not Antithetical to Science. At Least Newton Didn't Think So.

So you really don't understand the difference between "creationism hasn't contributed to science" and "Christians haven't contributed to science".

Ok then.

Obviously there is a distinction between saying "creationism has not contributed to science" and saying "Christians have not contributed to science." The distinction, as far as you are concerned, being that a "Christian" can make a contribution while "creationism" per-say, can not.

Then we must consider the Christian who is also a creationist. Can he make a contribution to science? I think that he can, Sir Newton being a prime example of one who, despite being an ardent creationist, was able to do his small part for science.

So although you can make the statement that creationism has not, in-and-of-itself, contributed to science, it is not, in-and-of-itself, detrimental to science either. Creationism did not hinder Newton (what a bible believing dolt) from becoming the greatest scientist of his century and one of the greatest of all time...I wonder if it helped him.

 

[Yorzhik]

My opinion is based on your own expressed rejection of scientific consensus being a reasonable indicator of reality.

You don't make sense here. It's simple - Evidence first, consensus second.

Oh please, be honest, you are compelled to reject common descent, and evolutionary biology too it seems, only because your creationist version of God requires it, not because you somehow demonstrably know better than a whole world of dishonest cringing cowardly conspiring scientists with mortgages to pay.

Roll your eyes all you want. The scientific evidence is on my side.

I'm sure you would like me to go off to pick through the shabby ruins of your previous assertions and half baked nonsense Yorzhik but imo the truth is far more likely to match the current scientific consensus than any of that. You may try to pontificate about the second law of thermodynamics and entropy increasing or Shannon's theory but the truth is that you can't even explain the geological column and fossilisation sequences or indeed the DNA evidence such as ERVs.

So you've got nothing. That's fine, but never say I didn't supply the evidence.

So I am driven by the "fear of some supernatural boogieman" apparently, not that I'd rather like to know what actually is true, of course.

Roll your eyes some more. It's your own words that indict you. Every time evidence is presented to you in the context of disagreeing with common descent you immediately run away holding your ears screaming about the supernatural. So, yes, you are quite open and clear about being driven by fear of the supernatural that you won't consider the topic of the evidence against common descent.

Show me that fully formed complex species have ever suddenly been created as is, then we might be able to disregard all naturalistic explanations and scientific consensus in favour of our preferred "boogieman" as you do.

If you have falsified common descent, rather than perhaps employing the smoke and mirrors approach, then you would have us believe that somewhere in all your previous posts lies that great truth that I and more worthy others are all so eager to ignore, often even by those who already do have a favourite "boogieman". lain:

You wouldn't know. Your eyes glaze over and you forget the subject of any discussion on the evidence for and against common descent.

 

[Yorzhik]

what is a "common descent meme generator"?

Is it really that difficult to at least link me to one single relevant post...

A meme generator is a person that always answers in ready-made soundbites instead of discussing a topic rationally.

So if I asked you for a couple things, for instance, what good points have YEC made that you acknowledge? or how many mutations, on average, does it take to change one feature to another? I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't give a straightforward answer to them.

 

[gcthomas]

The official narrative of evolution claims that mammals didn't get to be the size of dogs until after the huge reptiles died off. I think that the point is that this mammal, that is the 'size of a dog" is not supposed to exist at the designated time period.

There was nothing in evolution theory that prevented such a creature existing, since animals can evolve size rather easily. It was just that since none that size had been found it did not feature in the narrative. Now it does. Hardly a strike against evolution.

Also, all mammals are supposedly related so why make a big deal about if this thing is a "modern dog" or not. If it is not a dog it is a forerunner of a dog, no? Even if you are right he's not wrong; he's just early.

Not a dog. Not a forerunner of dogs. Dogs did not descend from this order of mammals. Not remotely related to dogs. Not early, just thoroughly wrong. (I mentioned the different Order/Genus details just to avoid this sort of challenge.)

 

[gcthomas]

A meme generator is a person that always answers in ready-made soundbites instead of discussing a topic rationally.

So if I asked you for a couple things, for instance, what good points have YEC made that you acknowledge? or how many mutations, on average, does it take to change one feature to another? I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't give a straightforward answer to them.

My recollection is that you were repeatedly asked to define just what "a feature" meant, but you declined to give a clear answer.

Do you have some 'feature change' in mind that cannot have a series of evolutionarily favourable or stable intermediates? Let's have a straightforward answer.

 

[6days]

Get back to me when you have found something interesting to claim. This fossil is a mammal, but it is in entirely a different Order to dogs, let a lone a different Genus. It doesn't even look like a 'modern dog':

Nobody claimed it was a modern dog. You are creating another strawman.
Notice I said it was "dog like"... and about the size of a modern dog.*

Also note.... you objected to a artist impression of an bird in the dinosaur layers because it looked like a modern bird. *Yet, you have no problem with artist drawings when you think it supports your belief system.

Also note...You have no idea what the order and genus of this particular animal was. As you know evolutionists often assign a classification....then change it later.*(Compare the many different versions of evolutionists tree of life).*There is usually no way of determining from a fossil alone what the classification is. *

Also.....note how the fossil record so often shocks and surprises evolutionists. The article admits "It*contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur"

And.... to bring this back on track. I mentioned several dogs that would befuddle evolutionist classifications if we didn't know from observation that they all belong to the same species.

 

[6days]

There was nothing in evolution theory that prevented such a creature existing,

Evolutionism is like a fog that can cover any landscape. The article admitted the find contradicted conventional evolutionary theory..... but evetything can be shoehorned to fit a non falsifiable belief system.

 

[alwight]

You don't make sense here. It's simple - Evidence first, consensus second.

I don't know that you have any of the former but your disregard for the latter is obvious.

Roll your eyes all you want. The scientific evidence is on my side.

I can't help for what you might erroneously think is true.

So you've got nothing. That's fine, but never say I didn't supply the evidence.

You may think that you provided evidence but I don't recall anyone conceding anything even if you did declare victory.

Roll your eyes some more. It's your own words that indict you. Every time evidence is presented to you in the context of disagreeing with common descent you immediately run away holding your ears screaming about the supernatural. So, yes, you are quite open and clear about being driven by fear of the supernatural that you won't consider the topic of the evidence against common descent.

No, what you might claim is evidence of disagreement with common descent doesn't seem to have been particularly convincing to anyone. Your obvious lack of interest for a naturalistic explanation and consensus rather indicates your supernatural preference.

You wouldn't know. Your eyes glaze over and you forget the subject of any discussion on the evidence for and against common descent.

 

[Yorzhik]

The problem is that he can't link to such posts without also linking to the rebuttals which show how little he actually understands.

You never, nor has anyone else, rebutted any evidence I brought against mutation + NS. Or concerning Shannon information. I'd be willing to open another thread on the topic if your side can learn to behave yourselves.