Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

Ok for the purpose of this OT, let's assume that evolution isn't true and that the counterpoint, Creationism, is true. We will also assume for the purposes of this exercise that with one being untrue that the other is true.

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct? Now we know for a fact through uncovering fossils 99% of all animals on the planet are extinct. Also with 5 mass extinctions throughout history, there had to be points where God repopulated the earth with new animals. Heck scientists are discovering new species of animals all the time. So my question for the Creationists is, if evolution isn't true and God just magics species whole onto the planet, where is the evidence of this occurring? Why has no one seen this happen?

A whole species appearing on the planet would be quite an event, so naturally SOMEONE should have mentioned this. Yet we see nobody saying this. Even religious people aren't exclaiming that they've seen animals suddenly appearing whole on the planet. There are people all over the planet, shouldn't SOMEONE have seen this happen? Many breeds of modern dogs wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. So it reasons that at least THAT species should have been witnessed to its creation. But no mention of this. Even in the ancient texts.

Also, if your counterpoint is that god only created animals once, I'd say that is wrong since we do not see evidence of say the Megolodon and the Mammoth existing in the same time periods. So it therefore reasons that god is creating new animals all the time. So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth? Fair's fair Creationists, you guys spend countless hours demanding evidence (that you ignore) from people who recognize evolution as true, so it's your turn to provide the evidence for your side of things.

"scientists are discovering new species of animals all the time"
"whole species appearing on the planet would be quite an event"

A contradiction in terms?
Also my cat just rocked up at the door one day, let itself in and hasn't stopped eating and sleeping ever since. Maybe this is how all new species are born?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good points, but!!

1)
IF creationism is true, then it stands to reason that many sciences are wrong - including geology and physics upon which we heavily rely, when dating something.

2)
Without reliable dating measures we have no way of knowing if certain animals did or did not live in the same time period.

3)
If we have no way of knowing that, then God could very well have created animals only once.

a reply to: JonMel77

Possibly, I'm just trying to follow the Creationist logic. But don't think that I'm claiming that scientists are saying that they are witnessing these animals being created, they are just being discovered. Usually in remote places like the rain forest. You don't see many new species discovered in places that humans heavily habit. Why is that? Why does god hide these creations from man? Wouldn't witnessing such an event be EXCELLENT evidence of an intelligent designer? That could put the god debate to end once and for all. So shouldn't Creationists be vested in trying to find something like this taking place?

originally posted by: JonMel77
"scientists are discovering new species of animals all the time"
"whole species appearing on the planet would be quite an event"

A contradiction in terms?
Also my cat just rocked up at the door one day, let itself in and hasn't stopped eating and sleeping ever since. Maybe this is how all new species are born?

No, I think OP is talking about actually witnessing beings popping into existence. You would imagine if billions of beings pops into existence that someone at some point would actually see it happen, right?

Edit: nevermind

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good points, but!!

1)
IF creationism is true, then it stands to reason that many sciences are wrong - including geology and physics upon which we heavily rely, when dating something.

Generally I don't see Creationists argue that physics is wrong. The YEC crowd seems to have issues with geology and I can see why. So I'd like to see them explain themselves on that.

2)
Without reliable dating measures we have no way of knowing if certain animals did or did not live in the same time period.

But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct. So it at LEAST reasons that some animals did live during different time periods. Or when the earth was first created it was EXPONENTIALLY more diverse with life. Though I don't think the planet could fit all those different lifeforms on it...

3)
If we have no way of knowing that, then God could very well have created animals only once.

Maybe... It's tough to follow Creationist logic and I'm just trying to gather the evidence for their side.

a reply to: DupontDeux

No that's what I meant. I was just expanding on my point a bit, but failed to explain the contradiction well enough. My bad.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In order to answer...i have to...

*lowers own IQ to that of a rock*

So my question for the Creationists is, if evolution isn't true and God just magics species whole onto the planet, where is the evidence of this occurring? Why has no one seen this happen?

Well god took a break.

God Works in Mysterious ways.

It Happens we just dont know it yet.

You just need to believe.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JonMel77

Possibly, I'm just trying to follow the Creationist logic.

But you aren't, not literally. If someone believes that the universe was created, does that make them a creationist? Logically, yes. Does that mean that it's a given that they believe any mixture of notions such as no evolution and young earth theory and wrapping them all into one seemingly convenient bundle? No, not really, in fact most likely not as such views are not ones the majority subscribe to, whether they follow a particular faith or not.

Anyhow, only mentioned that is it makes such a sweeping assumption (I'm not sure if a figure is available who believe only in the 'species appeared out of nowhere' and 'The earth is less than 6,000 years old' is available? I'm sure in some American states it may be a high proportion, but that tells a different story in itself). Having said that, and just to show the exception can sometimes be worth considering, at some point in the indeterminate past, nothing which we as rational people would classify as life existed on this planet. Then something we would classify as life did....... so, it's not an unfair question to ask, where did it come from? Yes, I am talking about a single cell life form, but before it there were no others.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh, He's still at it, don't you worry.

Mammals discovered in the twenty-first century

The thing is, he slips them on to the planet when nobody's looking. Generally in unpoplated, unexplored areas.

Why does he do that? Apparently it's fatal to see Him face to face. But you can look at His backside.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Assess the growth region of interest
Pull - Guide the hot molten cooling celestial "remnant" near grow LIGHT*
place the celestial remnant near grow light-STAR/NEBULA/Chemical light emitting planet/moon

Let its external cool just a little...
bring in ICE bio compound filled asteroid/comet large moon sized
bio compounds = future growing Flora/Fauna upon celestial remnant

IMPACT celestial remnant while still heated with ice bio compound asteroid/comet
allow time for atmosphere to develop as ice melts and releases bio materials in atmosphere and ground

move celestial into secondary orbit near grow light.

check bio. growth over 100,000 years cycle
after assessed growth is accepting
check back in Xmillion years

a reply to: uncommitted

Then your arguement is with Theory of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your premise of animals dropped on the earth "whole" is not accurate.

My premise, for this exercise, will be that creationism is true, but the process is not as envisioned.

Do trees in your yard just appear? Or do they grow from seeds, or "suckers" growing off the original tree?

Do people (and animals) appear suddenly whole and fully grown, or do they reach full growth by a process?

Therefore, when God created our current existence, it was not instantaneous but rather the result of a process. Indeed one could say that He created the process that created us. Therefore, God created man, correct?

(Change in perception)

God created man in his own image, correct? Surely God does not physically resemble the 60 year old guy I am ... therefore "man", as created in His image, must be a reference to our soul. Therefore at some point in time man's pre-history, he became man by being infused with a soul or spirit...that which resembles God.

This is further supported by the story of Adam and Eve. They had 2 sons, and one slew the other, correct?

Cain, after the murder, moved to the land of Nod and married. Therefore, there were other humans present, but yet Adam, Eve, Cain and Able were the first of the race of man.

Perhaps the people of Nod were Cro-magnon, or Neanderthal...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Creationists would tell you that the dating is wrong and all the extinctions come from the flood.

More sophisticated creationists will tell you that the evidence of evolution is a test of faith. That God specifically planted evidence, knowing scientists would interpret as signs of evolution, and only the truly faithful would be able to see through it to the truth.

This a nifty little argument because there's really no way to counter it. In addition, it envisions a God who understands how man's thoughts would develop. And it makes evolutionary biologists instruments of his will. Which is kind of brilliant.

There's a lot of reasons why most creationists don't adopt this argument. But I think it's the best one they have.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regarding physics I was referring to radioactive decay (and carbon dating) - a thorn in many a creationist's side.

And my point is that if we cannot carbon date, and if we cannot use geological dating then we are just left with (my third point) that fact that a lot of species have lived at some point. Without means of dating, we cannot tell if they originated in the same point in time and then just sort of died out at various points along the way.

As I said, I think your points are really good, but the trouble with debating logically against creationists is that creationism is not logic.

Hence the success of characters like that Kent Hovind-fella. :-)

In a way a creationist could argue that God created all living creatures, and extinct ones, in a single step when He created DNA. It was only time and the right environment, and maybe a bit of evolution to get from one creature to the next to see His fruits come to bear. So God created the universe in a big bang, waited for day 2 when the stars had all burnt their fuel and supernovaed to create all the elements, and then created life by arranging the required molecules into a nice spiral code type structure which he then dropped on the newly formed planet at the centre of His universe.

There we can have creationism and evolution all at the same time

There is a large amount of ignorance when it comes to quoting ancient texts such as the ancient religious texts around the world.

Whatever God is it is well beyond your intelligence level and could be compared to trying to teach and earth worm to build a nuclear power plant.

Evolution and creation are one and the same! Cant have one without the other.

a reply to: luciddream

In order to answer...i have to... *lowers own IQ to that of a rock* 

Why would you say this? Perhaps you should do a little research. This is a perfect example of people assuming they are smarter, or more intelligent that someone else. Which, in all honesty, is quite unintelligent.
The truth is that I believe in Creation because of events and experiences that have occurred in MY life. If you have not shared these, how does that make your I.Q. higher than mine?
If you actually use critical thinking and common sense you will see that to believe "the theory of evolution", in it's entirety, is an act of faith.
Many things that the theory claims can not be observed, they are BELIEVED to have happened a certain way. The god of evolution is time. The followers of evolution have faith that, with their god, all things are possible. Sound familiar?
Quad

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So I ask again, where is the evidence that new species are being created and deposited on the earth?

Have you seen modern man?
With it's purposely mangled DNA?
How did we get here?
They still haven't found the missing link.
It's missing.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: uncommitted

Then your arguement is with Theory of Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

I haven't got an argument with anything. The title of this thread is - Animals appearing whole - ie anti evolution - so given a single celled lifeform is still an animal, and it appears to have appeared whole, then it's relevant to the thread?