The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[ybbor]

OK, that's a clear answer.

this means that
a) there is a LOT of time for evolution to happen
b) you must be aware of the long sequencs of similar but ever changing animals in the fossil record.
c) you must achknowledge that about 99,99% of all species that ever existed are no more.

a)although the earth is believed to be about 5 billion years old, it spent a lot of time cooling down, the actual amount of time for life to be created when you factor in tempature (so that pond scum doesn't get cooked to a crisp when it is created) is about 400 million years, which, in geological time isn't really that long
b)no, i am aware of similar fossils and fossils thta are different
c)you did not display any evidence for that, it's like you just handed me a piece of paper and said "sign here"

do you thus propose that there is a creator who creates populations of new species every now and tehn, costantly, for the last 3.5 billion years, each of which then evolves into a group of closely related and similar species?

is that, basically, what you claim?

no. somehow you assosciate darwinism with geological time. i never said anything about darwinism, i said i don't nesccesarily doubght geological time. your putting words in my mouth. again, you provide no evidence for this claim. your handing me a paper saying "i believe in evolution" and then saying "sign here, and initial there"

 

[carlosMM]

a)although the earth is believed to be about 5 billion years old, it spent a lot of time cooling down, the actual amount of time for life to be created when you factor in tempature (so that pond scum doesn't get cooked to a crisp when it is created) is about 400 million years, which, in geological time isn't really that long

eh, source?

this is utter nonsense!

b)no, i am aware of similar fossils and fossils thta are different

are you intentionally misunderstanding me or are you just ignoring the long rows of Therapsids, theropods, and the many cases of mammalian evolution, like, e.g. horses, big cats, thetytheria?
some of them starting with animals quite different from the last ones, but with a lot of intermediate small steps.

c)you did not display any evidence for that, it's like you just handed me a piece of paper and said "sign here"

ever been to a paleontological museum? every looked at the countless species of extinct animals found despite the very fragmentary geological record?

no. somehow you assosciate darwinism with geological time. i never said anything about darwinism, i said i don't nesccesarily doubght geological time.

geological time is one of the main factors needed to assert whether evolution happened. It is also one of the favorite things to deny for creationists.

Also, intelligent design people love to 'shoirten' it so they face a far lesser number of 'creations', as a huge number of them is a lot less likely.

your putting words in my mouth. again, you provide no evidence for this claim. your handing me a paper saying "i believe in evolution" and then saying "sign here, and initial there"

nope, but you seem to lack eyes and education! You lack basic information about fossils - otherwise c) would have been clear.

but if the statement I gave is not what you believe - why don't YOU write down what you believe? just, for a change, coherently?


explain to us the huge number of fossils, and, let me pick one, thetytherian evolution from the first known prot-proboscian to todays elephants and sirens!

 

[ybbor]

eh, source?

this is utter nonsense!

interview between Strobel and Walter L. Bradley P.H.D. (doctorate in material science)

ever been to a paleontological museum? every looked at the countless species of extinct animals found despite the very fragmentary geological record?

of course i believe there have been a large number of animals that have been extinct, but it's immpossible for anyone to know an exact number, i cann't say 99.99% and niether can you

geological time is one of the main factors needed to assert whether evolution happened. It is also one of the favorite things to deny for creationists. Also, intelligent design people love to 'shoirten' it so they face a far lesser number of 'creations', as a huge number of them is a lot less likely.

okay, A)your using sterotypes, quit that. just because 1 intelligent sesign theorist doesn't believe in geological time doesn't mean none of them do. some people in the darwinist camp believe in puncuational evolution, and others believe in gradual evolution, does that mean that they all believe in punctuational evolution? no. B)yes, it is necessary to assert darwin's theories of evolution happened, but just because geological time exists the way darwinists say it does doesn't mean all of darwinism is true. a main factor for intelligent design existing is to prove that stuff exists, we know stuff exists does that automatically make intelligent design true? of course not.

but if the statement I gave is not what you believe - why don't YOU write down what you believe? just, for a change, coherently?

A)what i wrote was coherent, just because you didn't grasp it doesn't mean it isn't, B) I believe that all living things we see on earth right now were directly created by an intelligent agent. no new species have been created

 

[carlosMM]

interview between Strobel and Walter L. Bradley P.H.D. (doctorate in material science)

hearsay, can't find any corroboratin these guys are in any way experts. Also, material science guys usually deal with TINY parts of material, a few cm or so, not entire planets.

funny, but every textbook on geology and astrophysics strongly disagrees with you.

also, lots of rock formations dated to an age far greater than 400 million years contain lots of fossils.

you are simply wrong.

of course i believe there have been a large number of animals that have been extinct, but it's immpossible for anyone to know an exact number, i cann't say 99.99% and niether can you

exact number - no. but a few hundred million years with ecosystems of similar complexity as todays (from fossil record) make it a vast majority.

okay, A)your using sterotypes, quit that.

you are not going to tell me what to do and what to think you say until you expalin yourself.

just because 1 intelligent sesign theorist doesn't believe in geological time doesn't mean none of them do.

most deny it - as do you! 400 million years

some people in the darwinist camp believe in puncuational evolution, and others believe in gradual evolution, does that mean that they all believe in punctuational evolution? no.

indeed it doesn't, but you yourself claimed only 400 million years

B)yes, it is necessary to assert darwin's theories of evolution happened, but just because geological time exists the way darwinists say it does doesn't mean all of darwinism is true.

I never claimed that. I just wanted to go to the basics of your absurd claims. Stipulate or disprove.

a main factor for intelligent design existing is to prove that stuff exists, we know stuff exists does that automatically make intelligent design true? of course not.

where's your point?

A)what i wrote was coherent, just because you didn't grasp it doesn't mean it isn't,

may I poiunt you to this post:

well, i am not 100% certian about the length of time it took to create the universe, i'll have to ask the big guy himself that one, (or wait for the DVD with extra bonus footage of an interview with the "director" ) but i believe in 'gap creationism' as some call it. the "days" mentined in the bible i belive to be symbolic, as in "the day of feudul japan" or "the day of my youth" etc. at the same time God lies outside of time so it could mean something completely different. when i finnaly have the question answered, on the other side of eternity will i be surprised if it turns out it was created in a billion years? no. will i be surprised if it turns out the universe was created in 6 24hour days? no. if someone asked me to partciapte in a debate on gap creationism vs. 6 day creationism iw ould politly decline, and instead lsiten to the debate to get a better understanding. my issue is not with wheter there was an intelligent sesigner, but how the intelligent dwsigner worked

not quite a coherent answer to the simple question your were asked. I had to ask you again, until something came out (the absurd 400 million).

B) I believe that all living things we see on earth right now were directly created by an intelligent agent. no new species have been created

but you also acknowledged variation and selection in e.g. dogs, whcih were bred from wolves. Are dogs and wolves then one species?

Also, this is exactly what I asked you before, if you had cared to read properly:
do you thus propose that there is a creator who creates populations of new species every now and then, costantly, for the last 3.5 billion years, each of which then evolves into a group of closely related and similar species?

a polite answer would have been:
yes, but only for 400 million years (from this: I believe that all living things we see on earth right now were directly created by an intelligent agent. no new species have been created

but asking you is like pulling teeth without the benefit of anesthetics. (This, may I add, is typical for people who fear to have errors in their statements - they want to blur the issues.)


So, basically, you claim all life was created despite the huge evidence of evolution.
let me ask you a few more Qs then:

why is there ample evidence of radiation - that is, why does your intelligent agent so often prodcue quite similar groups of species that show onyl small meaures of differences fitting their environment?

why are there long linages of sublte shifts in appearance, as for example in whales - an intelligent designer should have gotten whales 'right' the first time, no?

why is there variation and genetic mutation and all that?

why do you deny the process of (e.g. horse evolution) a minor shift in leg length thorugh cariation and another one and another one leading to a different ecological role, adding selective pressure e.g. for reducing the number of hooves, leading to new species
and propose variation in the leg length butsudden creation of a new horse with slightly longer legs than the last, well within that species variation range, and rudimentary toes 2 and 4 including variation of their size, alos varying, and again sudden creation of an again slightly different one?


Can you explain how constant recreation of almost exactly the same animal makes sense if the newly crated animal is only cariation and selection away from the old one?

Why is there variation but not enough to reach speciation?

 

[Perfection]

interview between Strobel and Walter L. Bradley P.H.D. (doctorate in material science)

Now there's a credible source

of course i believe there have been a large number of animals that have been extinct, but it's immpossible for anyone to know an exact number, i cann't say 99.99% and niether can you

By, 99.99% he means the vast majority are extinct

B) I believe that all living things we see on earth right now were directly created by an intelligent agent. no new species have been created

Except that speciation has been observed...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Phydeaux]

...b) you must be aware of the long sequencs of similar but ever changing animals in the fossil record.

Looking at the fossil record I can not see evidence for evolution (as in one living thing changing slowly into all the living things we see to day). There are too many gaps, although you may be able could come up with an explanation for the gaps, it still does not prove the theory.

There are also some things that go against evolution in the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion, and Bighorn Basin.

Also just because some thing has not been seen in the fossil record for millions years does not mean that they could not have lived with man, there is evidence against that, such as the Coelacanth which was not seen for 65 million years, there are also stories of them, and drawings of them. So it could be that at least one kind of dino could be living to day.

...c) you must achknowledge that about 99,99% of all species that ever existed are no more...

What does this have to do with Evolution? Just because "99,99% of all species" are gone does not mean there must be evolution, it just means they are gone, and nothing else.

 

[Phydeaux]

also, lots of rock formations dated to an age far greater than 400 million years contain lots of fossils.

you are simply wrong.

Could you show how his theory is wrong? You can't just say that because my theory is right yours is wrong, you must show the flaw in the theory.

 

[ybbor]

also, lots of rock formations dated to an age far greater than 400 million years contain lots of fossils.

you are simply wrong.

A)you seem to be misinterprenting what i said, i did not say the earth was 400million years old. i said the tempature was too hot to produce much life before then. yes life appears to have showed up on earth about 3.5 million years ago. but that life was essentialy algae or pond scum.

exact number - no. but a few hundred million years with ecosystems of similar complexity as todays (from fossil record) make it a vast majority.

well, you used a exact number, ridiculed me for not accepting it, and now say you can't accept it yourself.

you are not going to tell me what to do and what to think you say until you expalin yourself.
most deny it - as do you! 400 million years indeed it doesn't, but you yourself claimed only 400 million years I never claimed that. I just wanted to go to the basics of your absurd claims. Stipulate or disprove.
where's your point?

i didn't say the earth was only 400 million years old!!! i said the tempature wan't condusive to life except in the last 400 million years

may I poiunt you to this post:

well, i am not 100% certian about the length of time it took to create the universe, i'll have to ask the big guy himself that one, (or wait for the DVD with extra bonus footage of an interview with the "director" ) but i believe in 'gap creationism' as some call it. the "days" mentined in the bible i belive to be symbolic, as in "the day of feudul japan" or "the day of my youth" etc. at the same time God lies outside of time so it could mean something completely different. when i finnaly have the question answered, on the other side of eternity will i be surprised if it turns out it was created in a billion years? no. will i be surprised if it turns out the universe was created in 6 24hour days? no. if someone asked me to partciapte in a debate on gap creationism vs. 6 day creationism iw ould politly decline, and instead lsiten to the debate to get a better understanding. my issue is not with wheter there was an intelligent sesigner, but how the intelligent dwsigner worked

not quite a coherent answer to the simple question your were asked. I had to ask you again, until something came out (the absurd 400 million).

well, it sems cohereant to me, and you didn't have to ask me again i was originally asked by birdjaguar asked me if i belived in geological time. i gae an answer (which sense you can't seem to understand my other answer was 'yes, i believe the days mntioned in the bible are figurative, but at the same time i'm not 100% sure) you then asked me a yes or no question, i replyed with yes. you then said that i should belive that the earth is old and had a long time for life to devolp. pehpas i sould have been clearer and mentioned that i ment advanced life, which in hindsight it looks like i didn't menion in my post, and almost gave an impression to the contrary, sorry for the misscomunication

So, basically, you claim all life was created despite the huge evidence of evolution.

so basically you believe in evolution despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary

let me ask you a few more Qs then:

why is there ample evidence of radiation - that is, why does your intelligent agent so often prodcue quite similar groups of species that show onyl small meaures of differences fitting their environment?

because he felt like it. just because an intelligent designer does something doesn't mean it has to amke sense to us

why are there long linages of sublte shifts in appearance, as for example in whales - an intelligent designer should have gotten whales 'right' the first time, no?

perhaps the orriginal whale's appearance was what the intelligent designer thought was best for him in the begining, is no longer best for him now.

why is there variation and genetic mutation and all that?

because that's the intelligent designer's way of making things different, a pretty boring world if everything looked the same

why do you deny the process of (e.g. horse evolution) a minor shift in leg length thorugh cariation and another one and another one leading to a different ecological role, adding selective pressure e.g. for reducing the number of hooves, leading to new species and propose variation in the leg length butsudden creation of a new horse with slightly longer legs than the last, well within that species variation range, and rudimentary toes 2 and 4 including variation of their size, alos varying, and again sudden creation of an again slightly different one?

because it doesn't make sense to me (i'll explain ina later post)

Can you explain how constant recreation of almost exactly the same animal makes sense if the newly crated animal is only cariation and selection away from the old one?

Why is there variation but not enough to reach speciation?

sorry i'm not sure of the question, may i (politely) ask you to rephrase?

 

[ybbor]

Once upon a time in jolly ol' England... there two moths, the biston betularia typics and the biston betularia carbonia by the Latin speakers, however most people just called them, the peppered moths. The 1st type was mostly white with black spots, and the other mostly black with white spots. as said before, the moths had several names, but the local birds just called them "lunch." but the birds can't eat what they can't see. Many trees in the kingdom at the time were covered with lichen, which hid the white moths easily, and made the dark moths stand out. Consequently there were few black moths around. And that's how it remained. Until men started building factories that burned coal. The smoke produced killed most of the lichen, and started covering everything with a thin layer of black soot. now that the lichen was gone the white moths had no camouflage, and the black moths could blend in with the soot. So the birds picked off the white moths, and pretty soon, there were more black moths than white moths. Then pollution was banned in that part of England, and the ratio of black: white returned to about the original ratio. Thus showing the process of natural selection. Without intelligent guidance. Or so the Darwinists claim.

This is a story of population adaptation. Not of natural selection. This shows nothing of the ability to create. Both the moths were present at the beginning, middle, and end of the story. Nothing new was created. Nowhere in the story did a white moth become a black one or vice-versa. All that changed was the proportion of moths. It is completely void of evolution


[NOTE: wild peppered mothes rarely, if ever, rest on tree trunks, thier usual resting place is high in the canopy under the branches. photographs showing the mothes on lichen covered tree trunks were staged, generally by pinning dead moths to trunks]
This story is similar to:

the deep-beaked finches

Scientists looked at the beak sizes of finches, particularly how they varied compared to changes ion the environment. After a severe drought in the Galapagos Islands scientists found that the beak of the average finch that survived the drought was 4% longer and 6% deeper than the average beak size before the drought (to make it easier to crack drought resistant seeds). Then there was a period of extreme wet conditions and scientists found that the average beak size was 1% narrower than before. Showing conclusive proof of Darwin’s theory. Or so the Darwinists claim.

The same problem with the peppered moths is the problem with the Galapagos finches. Both small and big beaks existed at the beginning of the story and at the end of the story. There are always birds with both beak sizes. You can truthfully say that birds with bigger beaks were more likely to survive the drought, but that is not the same as saying the finches evolved bigger beaks. This isn’t a story of beak-less birds developing a whole new structure (i.e. beaks) to cope with the drought. Both stories show trying to claim that a change in ratio is equivalent to evolving.

 

[carlosMM]

A)you seem to be misinterprenting what i said, i did not say the earth was 400million years old. i said the tempature was too hot to produce much life before then. yes life appears to have showed up on earth about 3.5 million years ago. but that life was essentialy algae or pond scum.

sorry to be so frank, but it is you who's incapable of reading - and thinking, may I add?

you said 400 million years, I said, well older rocks are full of fossils. Never dide I say you said earth was 400 million years OLD - just that you said there was ltitle life, which is wrong.

well, you used a exact number, ridiculed me for not accepting it, and now say you can't accept it yourself.

I am not saying I cannot accept it! again, learn to read!
alright, let me rephrase: can you agree that the vast majority of species has died out?

i didn't say the earth was only 400 million years old!!! i said the tempature wan't condusive to life except in the last 400 million years

yeah right, I should be pissed - as above shown you misinterpret me.

well, it sems cohereant to me, and you didn't have to ask me again i was originally asked by birdjaguar asked me if i belived in geological time. i gae an answer (which sense you can't seem to understand my other answer was 'yes, i believe the days mntioned in the bible are figurative, but at the same time i'm not 100% sure) you then asked me a yes or no question, i replyed with yes.

which is NOT an answer to the question asked by BJ, but rather an answer to the question you IMPLIED he asked - whcih would have been: do you believe in the biblical days?

you then said that i should belive that the earth is old and had a long time for life to devolp. pehpas i sould have been clearer and mentioned that i ment advanced life, which in hindsight it looks like i didn't menion in my post, and almost gave an impression to the contrary, sorry for the misscomunication

a billion species of bacteria and a huge number of bilaterally organized mollusks does not count as advanced for you?

so basically you believe in evolution despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary

I ahve not seen a shred of evidence against it. Lots of people have tried to bring some forth - but it was usually hearsay, preachers talk that is palin wrong and easily disproven.

because he felt like it. just because an intelligent designer does something doesn't mean it has to amke sense to us

well, there we are - you finally admit there is no REASON in this. That is a fair statement, most creationists refuse to give.

perhaps the orriginal whale's appearance was what the intelligent designer thought was best for him in the begining, is no longer best for him now.

hm, how funny that he follows the exact things one can prdict from the ToE to happen. Very weird.
he must he trying to trick us to believe in evolution!

because that's the intelligent designer's way of making things different, a pretty boring world if everything looked the same

but why never hugely different? why always jsut small steps?

because it doesn't make sense to me (i'll explain ina later post)

your explanation doesn't make more sense, actually I am waiting fot the next post...

sorry i'm not sure of the question, may i (politely) ask you to rephrase?

you agreed there is variation.
you also seem to agree that newly 'created' species are extremely close to earlier ones.
I claim that often the difference is so small that variation alone should easily be able to cover it, if added a few times.

under these circumstances, if varaiton and selection are enough to explain speciation, why do you claim it doesn't happen?

 

[carlosMM]

on the moths:
this is an example of SELECTION at work. In this case, selection favors first the white moth, then the dark ones, then the white ones again today.

why is it selection?

those who do not get eaten as often produce more offsprings. these tend to be of the same outside appearance.

the favorably colored ones are SELECTED for continued breeding by natural forces.

no need to find anew word for that!

what is missing (yet) is speciation!
how ould it come to be?

let us assume that ALL black moths get eaten at one time but two that also have a genetic defect which makes them smell different. ALL of them. No more black baby moths that smell he same as the white ones.

minor variation, right?


moths find their sexual partners by smell.

suddenly, you have a reproducing white group and a tiny reproducing black group.

Any change in any of the two groups genepool will further differentiate them.

the finches:
you simply didn't get the point: again, this is not an example that is supposed to show speciation! Again, only selection from a given gene pool is shown!

 

[ybbor]

on the moths:
this is an example of SELECTION at work. In this case, selection favors first the white moth, then the dark ones, then the white ones again today but it does not show a species adapting to cope with the selecttion

why is it selection?

those who do not get eaten as often produce more offsprings. these tend to be of the same outside appearance.

the favorably colored ones are SELECTED for continued breeding by natural forces.

no need to find anew word for that!

what is missing (yet) is speciation!
how ould it come to be?

let us assume that ALL black moths get eaten at one time but two that also have a genetic defect which makes them smell different. ALL of them. No more black baby moths that smell he same as the white ones.

minor variation, right?


moths find their sexual partners by smell.

suddenly, you have a reproducing white group and a tiny reproducing black group.

Any change in any of the two groups genepool will further differentiate them.

the finches:
you simply didn't get the point: again, this is not an example that is supposed to show speciation! Again, only selection from a given gene pool is shown!

but it does not show a species adapting to cope with the selecttion, it just shows selection

 

[carlosMM]

but it does not show a species adapting to cope with the selecttion, it just shows selection

indeed! the mutations in question were there beforehand (as 'damage' inc ase of the moths and as nearly harmles variation in the finches).

As I said: this is NOT to show anything but variation being a factor in survival (selection).

 

[Phydeaux]

indeed! the mutations in question were there beforehand (as 'damage' inc ase of the moths and as nearly harmles variation in the finches).

As I said: this is NOT to show anything but variation being a factor in survival (selection).

I think his point was to show that this is not evolution, and he has done so... Why would you bring this up if this doesn't have any thing to do with the way things evolve?

 

[carlosMM]

I think his point was to show that this is not evolution, and he has done so... Why would you bring this up if this doesn't have any thing to do with the way things evolve?

you get my to stare openmouthed at the screen with your post fairly regularly!

evolution requires mutation, leading to variation, and a natural selection.

these examples prove the latter.

 

[ybbor]

no, it shows selection, but that by itself doesn't show darwinism. stuff exists, that is an end claim of intelligent design, however, pointing out that stuff exists in no way advances intelligent design's claims in any way

 

[Phydeaux]

you get my to stare openmouthed at the screen with your post fairly regularly!

evolution requires mutation, leading to variation, and a natural selection.

these examples prove the latter.

It also needs long ages, but long ages can not explain how things evolve. Natural selection helps to explain how the changes live after the changes, but it in it's self doesn't not explain how the changes got there (or the way it evolved), so you can not use it for evidence for evolution. I don't know of any creationist that doesn't believe, in natural selection, unless they mean by it that they do not believe that natural selection could in it's self cause some thing to evolve.

 

[Perfection]

Looking at the fossil record I can not see evidence for evolution (as in one living thing changing slowly into all the living things we see to day). There are too many gaps, although you may be able could come up with an explanation for the gaps, it still does not prove the theory.

Too many! I'd say if anything there is not enough! Every time we find a transitional fossil it turns one gap into two smaller gaps! The more gaps the better!

There are also some things that go against evolution in the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion,

It went against strict-Darwinian evolution, but is explanable with punctuated equilibrium.

and Bighorn Basin.

I am unfamiliar with that, please elaborate

Also just because some thing has not been seen in the fossil record for millions years does not mean that they could not have lived with man, there is evidence against that, such as the Coelacanth which was not seen for 65 million years, there are also stories of them, and drawings of them. So it could be that at least one kind of dino could be living to day.

However they aren't the same species as the ancient varieties, so to allege that they lived the whole time god must of recreated them or they evolved.

What does this have to do with Evolution? Just because "99,99% of all species" are gone does not mean there must be evolution, it just means they are gone, and nothing else.

But it does make you think why would it by intelligently designed just to be wiped out again, and why doesn't god ever reuse extinct species? If we just say "god did it" dogmatically and can't speculate on how god would go about doing it then we can't use it to make testible thoeries rendering creationism unscientific, dogmatic, and unable to explain why things are the way they are other than "because god wanted them to be that way".

 

[Smidlee]

so?

does that mean you stipulate to massive changes in a animals appearance and behaviour through mutation and selection?

and what does the fact that mthere might be a little blurp about it in the bible have to do with scientifically proven facts?

Jacob probably got his knowledge from the Egyptians. Egyptians no doubt know a lot about nature and gravity without any modern icons as Newton and Darwin. it's amazing the Egyptians built the pyramids without Newton's law of gravity.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread