Creationists, may I ask you...

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Barcs

Nah, Evolution does not explain the reorganization of information (genetic or otherwise) to produce a new feature or species. There is no biological mechanism for this to take place. This is why we do not see evolution past or present.

The only one who doesn't see it apparently is you. The peer reviewed data on mutations, genetic drift and natural selection as well as all of the information we now have from decoding not just the human genome but that of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, Neanderthsl and Denisovan doesn't leave much wiggle room. How about instead of making blanket statements like you're reading off of an apologetics website you actually address the science. I know that you neither will not are able to but I still like to give ytgegenefit of the doubt.

Here's one for you... Could you exain to me how zinc is swapped out for hydrogen in Hydrochloric acid during a single replacement reaction? Let's see that Chem degree in action.

I'm glad to see lively debate on my thread, yet the OP is getting largely ignored. What I am seeing is an argument about evolution. For those arguing against it, either provide some concrete evidence (even a legit mathematical theorem) that goes against evolution, which is well-researched and vindicated by the majority of the scientific community - or stop your diatribes on this thread. No one cares if you personally agree with evolution or not, because facts do not depend on your personal opinions.

Creationists, I'll put the question in an easier way for you: why do you think some magical being created everything - a being which is all-powerful and everywhere, yet completely unobservable and for which not evidence exists - scientific or otherwise? I did not ask what you think about evolution. I just want to know how it is possible to willfully jump into the abyss of ignorance (*cough* faith).

Please, do not use the tired tactic of asking things like "why do you believe in science" or "can you explain what caused x and y?" I'm not an astrophysicist, but I do happen to know there are already plausible theories about the origin of everything that do not require God - and more inroads are being made constantly.

Even if there is a God, it would be irrelevant. Let's assume God existed - do you know when it would have had direct effect on the universe? The time before a Planck instant. Anytime after that, the universe has been doing its own thing with no interference.

originally posted by: scorpio84
...why do so many of you not believe in evolution?

I honestly do not get it.

Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors


I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

This is an honest question and if it some how offends it, then I'm sorry...that you are so easily offended. But seriously, if anyone here can give a good (i.e. logical and valid) reason as to why creationism makes more sense (i.e. is more correct, not is easier) than the theory of evolution, I'd love to read about it.

BTW, if this has been answered before, pardon me. I'm not about to go through thousands of posts which are invariably interspersed with a bunch of bickering.

There are so many missing links in the supposed evolutionary chain it will forever be impossible to connect them...

It's been said there are approx 2500 prophecies in the bible...And 2000 of those have been fulfilled...There are around 50 prophecies on the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ...Impossible odds of those things happening yet they all came true...I don't what what could be more compelling...

a reply to: scorpio84

1. You cannot create life from a mixture of nonbiological elements. Evolution cannot bring rocks or chemicals to life. Smh.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a magical pond with magical water and rocks (or meteorites) as claimed by evolutionary scientists. Or any other process that involves a non-biological element involving into a biological entity. As a man of reason and science, I would encourage you to discount anyone who tells you different.

2. There is no natural, biological mechanism to incorporate new information and organize it to evolve a species. People often confuse evolution and adaptation.

For example: The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs and cats are great examples of selective breeding. The DNA of both have many recessive traits. But they are not evolving into a new species. Many different types of dogs and cats can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs, or vice a versa. Or even a new species altogether of some sort. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. Another example might be people in colder climates- although they are adapting to the climate they are not evolving into a new species. For example, people living in colder climates for generations are not evolving fur and becoming a new specie. And the same is true in people in warmer climates, they are not evolving into a new specie either. You would think after generations and thousands of years that people separated by vast distances and climates would have evolved in someway. But nope.

The expanding knowledge of biology is producing scientific research that conflicts with the evolutionary theory, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Life cannot do what evolution needs it to.

3. For those who believe fossils are the answer to everything- huge dinosaurs exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record indicate no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that tiny changes from generation to generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.

Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils.

4. Modern evolutionary theories are turning to extraterrestrial sources such as meteorites and ancient aliens to explain life... Yikes.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: scorpio84

1. You cannot create life from a mixture of nonbiological elements. Evolution cannot bring rocks or chemicals to life. Smh.

Entirely irrelevant as once again, this is not a part of MES. I simply can not fathom why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a magical pond with magical water and rocks (or meteorites) as claimed by evolutionary scientists. Or any other process that involves a non-biological element involving into a biological entity. As a man of reason and science, I would encourage you to discount anyone who tells you different.

It's not a claim by "evolutionary scientists. Only by creationist proponents. Nobody knows how life began and snyone who claims they know definitively how life began is being intellectually dishonest. There are hypothesis, they are being tested and there is evidence of how it COULD have happened but no definitive proof of how life began on Earth. But it's irrelevsnt because this topic is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

2. There is no natural, biological mechanism to incorporate new information and organize it to evolve a species. People often confuse evolution and adaptation.

Please explain the fusion of human chromosome 2 then. Please explain how new morphological traits appear if no new information can be added.

For example: The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs and cats are great examples of selective breeding. For example, people living in colder climates for generations are not evolving fur and becoming a new specie. And the same is true in people in warmer climates, they are not evolving into a new specie either. You would think after generations and thousands of years that people separated by vast distances and climates would have evolved in someway.

Once again you demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of science in general and specifically how Modern Evolutionary Synthesis works. If you understood it you would know thst two dogs birthing a cat would definitively prove evolution to be completely false. Adaptation is a part of MES.

The expanding knowledge of biology is producing scientific research that conflicts with the evolutionary theory, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Life cannot do what evolution needs it to.

Out of context quote mine with no citation? Seems legit... In the future, when you decide to plagiarize Answers in Genesis, I would encourage you to attempt some basic due diligence and see if the source material matches up with your quote mine.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists 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. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks. Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. 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. For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.] [1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.

For a little further context,

So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups. - Jon (Augray) Barber Yet once again, this is Gould discussing "Punctuated Equilibria." It is best, perhaps, simply to allow Gould to defend himself, as he did in his article "Evolution as Fact and Theory", originally published in 1981: [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.] Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices. I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . . Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

3. For those who believe fossils are the answer to everything- huge dinosaurs exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record indicate no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

In response to someone who made the exact same claim regarding dinosaurs in another thread... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your claim is completely false.

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that tiny changes from generation to generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.

Actually they do. Just as predicted by Darwin.

a reply to: peter vlar

Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils.

Every single species living and extinct is a transitional species. The fossil record is loaded with quality examples showing clear transitions. Whales are one of the best and most concise examples. And the fossil record doesn't stand alone. It is confirmed by genetics, chemistry and geology. There is far more evidence supporting Modern Evolutiomary Synthesis than there is any other theory in the history of science. And missing link... Straw man thst doesn't exist in science. It's a red herring played by creationists and scientifically illiterate

4. Modern evolutionary theories are turning to extraterrestrial sources such as meteorites and ancient aliens to explain life... Yikes.

This is a bold faced lie. No anthropologists, evolutionary biologists or paleontologists with real credentials believe that ancient alien s have anything to do with MES. There is absolutely no evidence to support this ludicrous notion.
Every single argument you have made is someone else's. You are not only a liar regarding your education and credentials, you're plagiarizing other proponents of creationism without giving proper citations. FYI... That typeof intellectual dishonesty will get a person banned from ATS. It's a pretty extreme violation of the sites T&C. You may want to provide the appropriate citations in the future or mods will certainly take action. Just a friendly heads up. I might think you're out of your mind but thst doesn't mesn I want to see you kicked to the curb.

a reply to: Barcs

Things are not always as they appear Barcs...observation is not king. A quantum perspective would demonstrate that well....

A2D

originally posted by: Iscool
There are so many missing links in the supposed evolutionary chain it will forever be impossible to connect them...

The missing link argument is terrible. Every fossil is a missing link. We don't need every fossil of every generation to understand the relationships between populations.

It's been said there are approx 2500 prophecies in the bible...And 2000 of those have been fulfilled...There are around 50 prophecies on the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ...Impossible odds of those things happening yet they all came true...I don't what what could be more compelling...

A lot of things have been said by a lot of people, doesn't mean any of them are true. If you are going to make wild claims, I would suggest bringing evidence (which there is none) forward otherwise it means absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: scorpio84

1. You cannot create life from a mixture of nonbiological elements. Evolution cannot bring rocks or chemicals to life. Smh.

First this has nothing to do with evolution. Secondly, there is no such thing as biological/non-biological elements. There are what we classify as "organic molecules" however, there is no evidence to suggest they act outside known chemical process. All of your bodily functions is the result of chemical reactions. Your blood circles oxygen to cells due to chemistry. Salt in your body is exchanged using a K/NA pump that operates by chemistry. The reason why carbon atoms tend to form into hexagonal based structures is because of chemistry. Plants use chemical reactions to extract and utilize non-organic elements to live. Key there is chemical reactions. Life is a chemical reaction. You want to challenge that, start trying to prove organic chemistry false.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a magical pond with magical water and rocks (or meteorites) as claimed by evolutionary scientists. Or any other process that involves a non-biological element involving into a biological entity. As a man of reason and science, I would encourage you to discount anyone who tells you different.

Considering you don't understand that elements aren't biological....

2. There is no natural, biological mechanism to incorporate new information and organize it to evolve a species. People often confuse evolution and adaptation.

Really, there are mutations that do, but aside from that, how do you think we are able to biologically engineer species like spidersilk producing goats....viruses.

For example: The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs and cats are great examples of selective breeding. The DNA of both have many recessive traits. But they are not evolving into a new species. Many different types of dogs and cats can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs, or vice a versa. Or even a new species altogether of some sort. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. Another example might be people in colder climates- although they are adapting to the climate they are not evolving into a new species. For example, people living in colder climates for generations are not evolving fur and becoming a new specie. And the same is true in people in warmer climates, they are not evolving into a new specie either. You would think after generations and thousands of years that people separated by vast distances and climates would have evolved in someway. But nope.

This is a strawman. There is no difference between the DNA in cats or Dogs. The structure and makeup is the same. It is just the amount of genes and the arrangement.

The expanding knowledge of biology is producing scientific research that conflicts with the evolutionary theory, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Life cannot do what evolution needs it to.

You don't really know anything about his research do you?

3. For those who believe fossils are the answer to everything- huge dinosaurs exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record indicate no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

There are plenty of transitional fossils....and "explosion" refers to tens of millions of years...

The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that tiny changes from generation to generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't.

You don't really know anything about the fossil record do you?

Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils.

Every organism is a "missing link". We are all a transitional fossils. As I said before, you don't actually understand the fossil record.

4. Modern evolutionary theories are turning to extraterrestrial sources such as meteorites and ancient aliens to explain life... Yikes.

Umm nice red herring. This has absolutely no basis in MES, I realize you are trying to lump actual scientists into the same boat as frauds such as Sitchin, but you missed the mark.

a reply to: TheSorrow

I was not aware that evolution was even concerned with how life began. My impression was that its primary concern was how species evolve over time. The rest of your post is a bunch of nay-saying without any original thought. Where did you get your supposed chemistry degree? I want to move to have that school discredited.

a reply to: Cypress

True, genetic engineering is possible in a lab. But there's no natural biological mechanism for this to happen.

a reply to: Cypress

You also mentioned that all living DNA is the same. I suppose it has the same structure. I've never heard anyone make that case before.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: TheSorrow

I was not aware that evolution was even concerned with how life began. My impression was that its primary concern was how species evolve over time. The rest of your post is a bunch of nay-saying without any original thought. Where did you get your supposed chemistry degree? I want to move to have that school discredited.

Nah, That's ok. The concept of creating life from non-biological or non organic elements in my opinion is silly science. It is the foundation for which evolution is built on. Funny how people pretend that little problem doesn't exist. Any science that advances evolution is legit. Any science (all of science! Haha) that contradicts evolution is somehow ignored. You cannot have it both ways- on one hand everything is evolving. On the other hand there is no scientific evidence of anything evolving. Species are adapting. But people are people, birds are birds, cats are cats, no gradual evolution into a new specie. Yes it is true that we can mix the breeds of different creatures and species but we are not creating a new species. Next time you're out walking in the park notice the various types of dogs for example. Because of different ways of breeding them we can create different types of dogs but they are still dogs.

I enjoyed reading some of the responses to my post- everyone ran for the hills and avoided all the topics and points that I made. Just attacked me personally.

One did comment on genetics- Yes it is true that genetic engineering is possible. But only in lab conditions. Not in nature. Think about the information needed to evolve any aspects of the human body. Or even a single cell. So complex. I posted a video earlier in the thread on the inner workings of a single cell. I would encourage you to watch it. You will be blown away as to the complexity of life even in is simplest forms. Evolution cannot account for this.

Evolutionary scientist would have you believe that through some magical and unknown process, information is taken in and then organized and then used to create some new function, limb, or organ to continue the evolution of a species. If you do some honest research you will discover that this is impossible. There is no natural mechanism to collect, organize, and put into motion information (besides adaptation). Funny how everyone ignored my comment on how people should be evolving in vastly different ways around the world. But we know this to be silly. Because it is.

Evolutionary scientist would have you to believe that random mistakes or a variety species breeding would create a new species and advance evolution. Although someone said that all DNA is the same I can assure you that this is not true. Although they do have similarities (structure). This is another reason evolution has become a cult. For example- horses and tigers cannot breed and "advance evolution" or create a new specie.

Concerning fossils, it proves that evolution does not exist. They are far too many gaps. Not a gradual evolution of species. Smh.

a reply to: TheSorrow

sometimes, people walking away isnt a sign that you won, but a sign that you arent worth it. proving you wrong isnt worth the time and energy you will probably milk out of it. besides, we arent new to the "can you make me" game. its a pretty popular debating strategy around here, even if it isnt quite debating.

a reply to: TheSorrow

No one is "running for the hills". You refuse to respond to the points that anyone has made that directly refute yours, instead choosing to reply with just an emoticon or a funny little "smh" like you're a twelve year old kid texting a buddy. As a result, you're being treated accordingly.

a reply to: iterationzero

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Barcs

Nah, Evolution does not explain the reorganization of information (genetic or otherwise) to produce a new feature or species. There is no biological mechanism for this to take place. This is why we do not see evolution past or present.

This is a flat out lie.

Evolution explains precisely how information is reorganized in the genetic code. Genetic mutation IS the mechanism. It has already been verified and confirmed. This is why we DO see evolution in the past AND the present.

Read a book or at least the wiki on evolution, then come back to this thread and try again. You are basically swinging your fist in the air and wondering why you aren't hitting anything.

But there's no natural biological mechanism for this to happen.

Genetic mutations do not exist?

Did you miss Peter's response a few posts above that clearly explained this?

Repeating the original claim is not a logical debating strategy, it only makes the conversation go in circles. This has already been addressed. Repeating the same lie not only shows intellectual dishonesty, but it shows you are not actually interested in logic, reason or facts, you just want to promote a belief system.

It is the foundation for which evolution is built on.

So basically you think that repeating blatantly wrong statements enough times makes them true.

Evolution is built on genetic mutations and natural selection at it's core. Obviously there's way more involved that just that, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Any science (all of science! Haha) that contradicts evolution is somehow ignored.

*Awaiting your list of science that contradicts evolution.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

Things are not always as they appear Barcs...observation is not king. A quantum perspective would demonstrate that well....

A2D

What exactly is a quantum perspective and how does that change anything we have learned about the physical universe?

a reply to: Barcs

Yikes! I would not trust Wikipedia as a resource. No wonder people are so mislead.

FYI- Mutations are harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs". It is impossible for DNA to look at the outside world figure out how to better evolve. Smh.

For example- since Down Syndrome involves an entire extra chromosome number 21, it is classified as a chromosomal mutation. Still no evolution here. Same species. Still human. To argue that this is somehow evolution or beneficial is an example to the extent evolutionary scientists seek confirmation where there is only evidence to the contrary.

Mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be. Generally it's bad news

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Barcs
Yikes! I would not trust Wikipedia as a resource. No wonder people are so mislead.

Yikes! I would not expect you to actually read anything about the science you criticize wrongly. The point is that you haven't even got a fundamental understanding of the very basics of science or evolution. You need to change that if you wish to argue against it. How can you attack what you don't even understand? It's like a 3rd grader that just learned basic math trying to criticize calculus. Your criticisms do not make any sense and I'd love to see you back up ANY of your claims.

FYI- Mutations are harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs". It is impossible for DNA to look at the outside world figure out how to better evolve. Smh.

FYI - not all mutations are harmful. We are talking about mutations on the genetic level. There is no debate in science about this. We can map entire genomes and observe mutations from generation to generation. They are often random, they don't figure out how to evolve. For that you need to look toward natural selection. Please do some reading on the topic before coming back and spouting some nonsense pasted from ICR or some other religious website about natural selection. Your arguments do not make sense.

Mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be. Generally it's bad news

You are dead wrong. Most genetic mutations are actually neutral.

Did you know that during conception, humans experience more than 100 random mutations to genome? Most of them don't do anything because the human genome is humongous (3 billion base pairs).

Since you don't like wiki, here is a better site:

www.talkorigins.org...

By all means show me which parts of the science is wrong.

Please do the very basics and learn about what you are criticizing. It comes off very poorly when you use straw mans from religious websites rather than legitimate science and research. I get that you want evolution to be some crazy conspiracy, but at this point that is ridiculously unrealistic and would mean thousands of biologists are all fabricating evidence and studies and not a single one blows the whistle to preserve its integrity. I'm just not buying it. All the evidence is there, and it doesn't have to conflict with god either. Stop the war on science. It only makes you look bad.