Thread: A New Argument on Creationism

Very nice. You're thoughts really aren't that unique. The evidence you
provided has been used for years.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a species evolved
into another species. Virtually everything that evolutionists (I no
longer call them scientists) use is extrapolation.

I don't argue Creationism, per se. I simply show that the evidence
for evolution, i.e. species evolving into other species, doesn't exist.

Oh, be prepared for some of the most unscientific hate-speech
you've ever encountered. As with homosexuality, facts don't matter
too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

Flame on!

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

As with homosexuality, facts don't matter
too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

Flame on!

It's nice that you finally agree with me. LOL

But dogs do all share a fairly recent common ancestor.

And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.


Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.

Originally Posted by HewenttoJared

And none of the articles you posted demonstrates a lack of transition. Findin a more detailed, bushy tree is very strong evidence of Darwinism, as any of those authors would tell you.

Also, you're misreading Darwin fairly badly. Or at least the person feeding you those quotes is. Darwin wrote honestly, and he addressed objections by first repeating them(you quoted this part), then dismantling them(you did not quote this part). To quote him in this way is at best a demonstration that you don't grok his book. At worst, it's outright deception.

The articles clearly do show a weakening of the transitional forms. Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis living side by side? That's a HUGE blow to the human evolutionary 'tree', as is the fact that scientists are now being forced to call it a messy bush. And an article titled "Move Over Lucy, And Kiss The Missing Link Goodbye", from no less than National Geographic? That shows just how serious the findings that Ardipithecus walked upright were, with National Geographic recognizing it casts into doubt the placement of 'Lucy' in the human lineage. Knocking off Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tugenesis from the human lineage is key as well, and the finding of Homo Habilis, 'Hobbit Man', as yet another offshoot, after it was originally heralded as a missing link, just adds to the growing mix of debunked transitional forms.

As for Darwin, I read the book for myself - if you think I'm taking him out of context, explain how so. He did state concerns about his theory because he was honest, from what I can tell. I didn't bother going over his 'dismantling' of them because he didn't dismantle them, or he wouldn't have called them serious concerns. He thought the fossil record's lack of transitional forms would be fixed after a few decades and better understanding of the fossil record - which never happened. He thought sterility due to interspeciary breeding was a lack of familiarity with animal interspeciary breeding - now that familiarity is available to us, and we can recognize that sterility as a huge objection to Darwinian evolutionary theory. If you think he dismantled his posed objections, then explain how so.

No, it really isn't a huge blow to their status as demonstrating transition. And if you think it is you need to read some very fundamental work on the entire theory, because something is wrong with the version of it that exists in your head.

And that Lucy article only demonstrates that our ancestors were not exactly like chimps. That is not damning at all to the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, and in fact supports the notion thoroughly. These articles are about revisions in the details of our immediate family tree., but that doesn't mean they don't completely support the idea that we have a family tree.

Notice how the article doesn't use the term "debunked transitional form". But you do. Why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

Very nice. You're thoughts really aren't that unique. The evidence you provided has been used for years.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that a species evolved into another species. Virtually everything that evolutionists (I no longer call them scientists) use is extrapolation.

I don't argue Creationism, per se. I simply show that the evidence for evolution, i.e. species evolving into other species, doesn't exist.

Oh, be prepared for some of the most unscientific hate-speech you've ever encountered. As with homosexuality, facts don't matter too much and takes a backseat to wishful thinking.

Flame on!

It's been used for years by ME. I haven't heard anyone before, online or elsewhere, bring up Darwin's comments on parent species. I also haven't seen publicized much, at least in Creationist circles, the new weakening of transitional forms we've discovered over the past decade. If you know someone else who's been making these points, I'd love to see a link or source for this, I'd always thought they were unique. :S

Concerning Creationism, I don't think it OR evolution should be taught in science classrooms. The Brothers Winn, i.e. WhatYouOughtToKnow.com, make this point very well, suggesting both should be taught in philosophy classes or something. My interest is not in disproving evolution, which I think is likely impossible, but rather, in showing that Creationism can have a reasonable basis as a competing theory to Evolution, if considered in the form of Parent Species that Darwin acknowledged.

It's become too common for liberals to superioristically write off as intellectually inferior those who so much as consider Creationism plausible, as though it's been disproved the same way the earth being flat has. Yet evolution is still very much a theory, and one that has been weakening as we gather more evidence. The classic bait and switch occurred, with people inferring that because there was evidence for microevolution, small adaptations within species, that macroevolution, a theoretical belief that interspeciary evolution occurs and all species have a common ancestor, was rock-solidly proven. I intend to argue that the evidence is increasingly pointing the other way, towards the parent species, i.e. microevolution, that Darwin recognized as the competing alternative to his theory of a common ancestor, i.e. macroevolution.

I simply want to show this is not a finished debate, and that there is evidence for the other side as well, that microevolution, parent species, may be considered a reasoned, plausible theory along with evolution.

But your musings on the theory demonstrate that you do not mind blabbing about scientific realities that you have never bothered to fully master. Thats why we use creationism as a litmus test.

Originally Posted by HewenttoJared

And that Lucy article only demonstrates that our ancestors were not exactly like chimps. That is not damning at all to the idea that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor, and in fact supports the notion thoroughly. These articles are about revisions in the details of our immediate family tree., but that doesn't mean they don't completely support the idea that we have a family tree.

Notice how the article doesn't use the term "debunked transitional form". But you do. Why do you think that is?

More like "nothing like chimps". Your subtle word variation is false. To quote the article:

"This find is far more important than Lucy," said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. "It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between."

They do say, "The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree." They also say, "If White and his team are right that Ardi walked upright as well as climbed trees, the environmental evidence would seem to strike the death knell for the "savanna hypothesis"—a long-standing notion that our ancestors first stood up in response to their move onto an open grassland environment."

You're talking about the destruction of a longstanding hypothesis that humans came from chimp lookalikes, and the way humans began walking upright - the Savanna Hypothesis. Stuff that's been getting taught about basic human evolution in science classes for decades has been instantly shown to be false. You and many of the scientists making these discoveries would love to just write them off as revisions, and avoid focusing on how it weakens evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, that is the end result.

Yes, and it is replaced with the idea that humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was something else. It is most definitely NOT replaced with the notion that we do not share a common ancestor. It's an interesting detail, to be sure, but it doesn't in any way reduce the evidence for evolution.

If someone was teaching the Savannah hypothesis as fact then that was a mistake. It was a reasonable option, but its never been an established fact, like the spherical earth or evolution.

To be perfectly frank your notion of parent species is just a misreading of that term. Darwinism has parent species, the modern synthesis has parent species, even Lamarckism has parent species. Perhaps you should find a new term for whatever it is you are describing.

Originally Posted by HewenttoJared

Yes, and it is replaced with the idea that humans and chimps shared an ancestor that was something else. It is most definitely NOT replaced with the notion that we do not share a common ancestor. It's an interesting detail, to be sure, but it doesn't in any way reduce the evidence for evolution.

If someone was teaching the Savannah hypothesis as fact then that was a mistake. It was a reasonable option, but its never been an established fact, like the spherical earth or evolution.

Of course it's not replaced by such a theory, because that would be contrary to the atheistic beliefs of most scientists. The scientific method only ensures objective evaluation of a theory, it does not remove bias from the choosing of the theory. That is why the scientific community will only consider theories that fit an anti-Biblical worldview, that held by the majority of them, since they're liberal. That's why a century + later, we still haven't given consideration to the alternate theory of parent species. There is no honesty in considering other theories, no matter how weakened evolution becomes in terms of evidence. It will always just be 'revised' rather than reconsidered.

Parent species is not an alternative theory. It's a term, with a meaning, used by any theory. Whatever it is that you are describing as an alternative theory you need to find a new term.

The suggestion that someone could master the basic concepts of evolutionary theory without knowing this is preposterous. Would you trust a mechanic that wasn't sure what engines are for?

Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua

Of course it's not replaced by such a theory, because that would be
contrary to the atheistic beliefs of most scientists.

Since when have most scientists been atheistic? Do you mean as
not believing in God or trying to be objective? Is there a valid poll?

There's one thing that can't be denied and that's the fact that
humans and chimps don't have the same ancestry. Chimps come from
chimps and vice versa.

Another fact that can't be denied is that every species, without
exception, comes after it's own kind. This is something those in the
religion of evolution can't stand. Take the chimp, for instance. There
isn't a species that proceeded it and evolved into the current species
and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of a chimp evolving into
another species.

We must keep in mind that when evolutionists talk about evolution
they really mean a species becoming different species regardless of
the fact that every single shred of evidence points to the contrary.
They try to convolute the word by saying it means any change,
which is really adaptation, but that is rarely, if ever, the case.

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

There's one thing that can't be denied and that's the fact that
humans and chimps don't have the same ancestry. Chimps come from
chimps and vice versa.

Another fact that can't be denied is that every species, without
exception, comes after it's own kind. This is something those in the
religion of evolution can't stand. Take the chimp, for instance. There
isn't a species that proceeded it and evolved into the current species
and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of a chimp evolving into
another species.

We must keep in mind that when evolutionists talk about evolution
they really mean a species becoming different species regardless of
the fact that every single shred of evidence points to the contrary.
They try to convolute the word by saying it means any change,
which is really adaptation, but that is rarely, if ever, the case.

So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth? Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what was necessary for survival.

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

Since when have most scientists been atheistic? Do you mean as
not believing in God or trying to be objective? Is there a valid poll?

Yes, polls and studies have shown that most scientists don't believe in God or doubt, just like most medical professionals do believe in God. Here's a 1996 study:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I probably should have used the term agnostic though, as more might be that than atheists.

so you're saying most intelligent people doubt there is a God?

Originally Posted by Roadhawg

So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth? Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what was necessary for survival.

Actually, I think he believes it is 10,000 years old.

Originally Posted by USG'60

Actually, I think he believes it is 10,000 years old.

Living in the dark ages with that kind of thinking

Originally Posted by Roadhawg

So you think that one day God just plopped man down on the Earth?
Do you also believe the earth is just 66 thousand years old?

What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Roadhawg

Many creatures have evolved from what they once were into
something else, mostly if not entirely, due to surviving in the
environment they were in. Some lost tails while others developed what
was necessary for survival.

There's no evidence of any of that happening. None. It's all
speculation while attempting to take similarities of different species
and extrapolating that information into species evolving into other
species. This, according to the facts obtained by science, has never
happened and they're champing at the bit to find just one instance.

Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua

I probably should have used the term agnostic though, as more might
be that than atheists.

That would have been better and accurate.

Originally Posted by Prunepicker

What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion.

What that means is that he DOES believe it is ten thousand yr old, and that it happened just like the bible says but he also knows that all of us with educations would decend on him like vultures. He loves to ridicule but hates receiving it ......like the rest of us, I reckon. :-)