Creation

[Astridhere]

Naraoia I'll answer next post my quote function playes up.

 

[Astridhere]

Naraoia I apologise, but your post still did not load.

You appear to be educated, Surely you know what macroevolution is, yet you have posed the question to me. What evolutionists have observed is adaptation, or microevolution. These new adaptations are given a new species name. Scientists ASSUME that many microevolutions will turn some creature into a cat and a dog, two different kinds.

You also request a definition of kind. A kind is akin to a family group. You will be aware of the use of cladistics these days which basically is a creationists idea. Kind is defined by using discontinuity and baramins. Discontinuity demonstrates that humans have sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability. Therefore those creatures without these traits are discontinuous with mankind.

Under the evolutionary scenario there will be a consistent pattern of similarity forming a nested hierarchical structure stretching as far back as the phylogeny can be resolved (and ultimately as far back as the Last Universal Common Ancestor). Under the creationist scenario, on the other hand, the pattern of similarity would only be expected to stretch back as far as the point of the independent creation of kinds. There is no reason to expect there to be any consistent phylogenetic resolution beyond this point.

Thus we have a specific creationist prediction that can be tested - that molecular comparison studies will only obtain a consistent phylogenetic tree as far back as the point of creation, beyond which there will be no further resolvable pattern. As this directly contradicts the evolutionary prediction this provides a definitive means of determining which of the two scenarios is correct.

We now know that LUCA is dead, with HGT. So there goes one irrefuteable evidence for evolution and common descent. You also have no DNA from creatures millions of years old, so even evolutionists can only guess where extinct and debated species belong, especially given that most of them are single bones or fragments.

You request a definition of major change..seriously!!! Major may be seen in the development of a cecal valve in lizards due to a change in diet. This was a somatic change but quite remarkable and major. Hence major phenotype change is not tied to Mendellian inheritance.
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

You may defend Darwin as much as you wish Evos and creationists alike generally know he was simplistic and got alot of things wrong. Do you? or would you like it spelled out as well.

Who said Mendellian inheritance was the only way to evolve? Oh just EVERYBODY untill HGT and endogenisation was found..........

As for your goose link. Modern bird footprints were dated to 212myo that evos have had to make up all sorts of non plausible scenarios about to justify, like bird-like dinos with modern bird feet. I know, I know, homology and homoplasy explains it all, do you think? However really, what these bird footprints demonstrate is that your researchers have little clue what they are on about in relation to birds. These days many researchers are challenging the dino to bird thing anyway. So there goes evolutionary phylogeny and nested hierarchies because modern birds were here heaps before archaeopteryx.
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure 1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature


According to a creationists interpretation of the data and fossil evidence, these bird footprints are modern bird footprints that place birds closer than ever to the biblical account of being created after fish. They were thriving 212mya. There is no intermediate between a bird and another kind, such as a dinosaur. This is a creationist prediction that is being continually verified with increasing data. This is science rather than the ever changing face of evolutionary thinking that evolves in response to data rather than the data continually confirming prior thinking.

Another creationist prediction is that there will be no junk DNA. Even before the discovery of function for non coding dna, creationists never back flipped by saying 'oh well maybe God did make some junk stuff after all'. No, we have stuck to our prediction and we continue to be vindicated as time goes on.

Do not forget that evolution, ie natural selection, has now been seen to act on new stuff, like supposed virus-LIKE remnants and ghosts that comprise 8% of the genome, horizontally transferred, endogenized and also providing vital function.

Now you have epigentic inheritance that demonstrates that mutations and natural selection is not all there is to it. In fact I feel the veracity of any of your genomic research has fallen through the floor. The simplistic assumption that genes offer up a smorgasboard of traits that natural selction acts upon is now questionable!

So what you have is no demonstration of macroevolution only an assumption, genetic algorithms set up with the basic assumption of common descent predefined and put up as evidence, and are also unable to falsify creationist interpretations of the evidence that appear to be the more parsinomous and plausible than evolutionary interpretations, when the assumption of common descent is taken out of the equation.

Evolution is a theory in evolution itself with little if any predictive power. The evidence better aligns with creationist paradigms.
​

 

[Astridhere]

Naraoia

Creatures such as the marsupial mouse and the eutherian mouse look very similar, but they differ a great deal in their genetics and biochemistry.

It appears to me that evolutionists choose the traits, either genetic or morphological, apply that choice and then offer this up as evidence for evolution.

Anyone can CHOOSE their criteria, apply it, and get the results they want.

If I choose the creation of the variations of FOXP2 gene as a criterion, then only the creatures with the human version of the foxp2 gene will lob into the same hierarchy. If I choose sophisticated language likewise I can group mankind together. If I choose leg to hip joints likewise, erectus falls outside the group of mankind. If I choose the difference between a fur coat and the shorter hair on the human boby as a criterion, likewise all non human primates fall outside the group of mankind. It is arbitrary and a matter of the criteria one chooses to use. The criteria is a choice and is unfalsifiable, both for evolutionists and creationists alike.

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia I apologise, but your post still did not load.

No worries. Forum being a nuisance is not your fault

You appear to be educated,

Evolutionary biology degree, enduring love affair with fossils and evo-devo

Surely you know what macroevolution is, yet you have posed the question to me.

To be precise, I know several different definitions of macroevolution.

I posed the question to you because I don't want to talk past you. If I start posting examples that I consider macroevolution, only to learn that you meant something else, I've wasted our time.

What evolutionists have observed is adaptation, or microevolution.

Adaptation =/= microevolution. Microevolution is simply evolutionary change within a species. It could be adaptive, or it could be neutral. (I guess it could also be maladaptive, say deleterious alleles getting fixed in a population bottleneck)

These new adaptations are given a new species name.

New species names are given for various things, new adaptations being only one of the possibilities. Sometimes, they are proposed simply because genetic evidence indicates that two or more populations haven't interbred in a long time. (Giraffes come to mind.)

As far as I can tell, speciation and major change are not closely correlated.

Scientists ASSUME that many microevolutions will turn some creature into a cat and a dog, two different kinds.

Some certainly do, but whether macro = lots of micro is actually a debated issue. There are several respected figures who don't take that assumption for granted at all. Here's a book chapter discussing the question, and here's a recent paper.

However, that debate aside, macroevolution (by any definition) is still supported by huge amounts of evidence that are largely independent of one another. I don't know if you are familiar with my favourite TalkOrigins FAQ (the 29+ evidences one), but if you are not, I strongly suggest giving it a read. (Specifically, the part about nested hierarchies and the tree of life.)

(In addition, this book is largely about transitional fossils, which are one line of evidence for macroevolution. I have my beefs with parts of the book, but I really appreciate the fact that it discusses some great transitional series that are very rarely brought up in the crevo arena. Microfossils FTW.)

You also request a definition of kind. A kind is akin to a family group. You will be aware of the use of cladistics these days which basically is a creationists idea.

Excuse me? One of the central ideas of cladistics is that taxa should only be grouped together based on shared derived traits. There is no such thing as a "derived" trait without evolution.

Kind is defined by using discontinuity and baramins. Discontinuity demonstrates that humans have sophisticated speech and higher reasoning ability. Therefore those creatures without these traits are discontinuous with mankind.

Careful with the discontinuity line. ‘Cause it doesn’t work. (Also, hardly a week passes without a research paper that finds a form of this or that oh-so-sophisticated human ability in other animals. Our good old superiority complex doesn’t seem like a very scientific stance these days.)

Under the evolutionary scenario there will be a consistent pattern of similarity forming a nested hierarchical structure stretching as far back as the phylogeny can be resolved (and ultimately as far back as the Last Universal Common Ancestor). Under the creationist scenario, on the other hand, the pattern of similarity would only be expected to stretch back as far as the point of the independent creation of kinds. There is no reason to expect there to be any consistent phylogenetic resolution beyond this point.
Thus we have a specific creationist prediction that can be tested - that molecular comparison studies will only obtain a consistent phylogenetic tree as far back as the point of creation, beyond which there will be no further resolvable pattern. As this directly contradicts the evolutionary prediction this provides a definitive means of determining which of the two scenarios is correct.

It does not. First, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to require a single common ancestor. (I think that was a subject of a recent debate over Douglas Theobald’s Nature paper: do bacteria and the rest of life actually represent independent origins, and can we determine if they do?)

Second, the lack of a resolvable pattern is a feature of both of your contrasting hypotheses. And we know it’s perfectly possible to get unresolvable phylogenies from evolution. It’s perfectly possible to get well-resolved wrong phylogenies from evolution, given certain conditions (see same article). How do you tell whether you’re faced with a limitation of the data or the moment of creation?

In fact, if “kinds” were created independently, there is no reason to expect their sequences to be comparable at all. We know it’s possible for two proteins to do the same job without any sequence or structural similarity whatsoever – why do you then expect to find homologues between kinds at all?

We now know that LUCA is dead, with HGT. So there goes one irrefuteable evidence for evolution and common descent.

I’m not sure how the existence of HGT refutes evidence for common descent where levels of HGT are low. Unless you want to argue that the “created kinds” are on the level of kingdoms or above (e.g. animals don’t engage in all that much HGT, except with viruses), this isn’t going to help you.

Also, LUCA is not dead. She had a genetic code.

You also have no DNA from creatures millions of years old, so even evolutionists can only guess where extinct and debated species belong, especially given that most of them are single bones or fragments.

The old “you weren’t there” argument? Come on, you can do better than that. And while molecular phylogenetics may not be able to touch non-avian dinosaurs, we do know where Neandertals and mammoths belong. Surprisingly enough, pretty much where their bare bones put them.

Also, while most fossils may be fragmentary, that doesn’t mean we don’t have plenty of absolutely amazing ones, many of which are transitional. (Just look at all the Cambrian stem arthropods that we know from good material, from Aysheaia to anomalocaridids.)

You request a definition of major change..seriously!!!

For the same reason I requested a definition of macroevolution. Seriously.

Major may be seen in the development of a cecal valve in lizards due to a change in diet. This was a somatic change but quite remarkable and major. Hence major phenotype change is not tied to Mendellian inheritance.
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

I can’t dispute that, and I recall that a large part of the Podarcis phenomenon was phenotypic plasticity. The problem is that (1) there are things you can only get from genetic innovation (most obviously, new genes...), and (2) there are novelties that are known beyond reasonable doubt to result from genetic innovation (nylonases, insect abdomens)

You may defend Darwin as much as you wish Evos and creationists alike generally know he was simplistic and got alot of things wrong.

I wasn’t defending Darwin, I was criticising your (mis)use of “Darwinian”.

Do you? or would you like it spelled out as well.

Now what did I do to deserve that?

FWIW, I read Origin.

Who said Mendellian inheritance was the only way to evolve? Oh just EVERYBODY untill HGT and endogenisation was found..........

Which was a while ago, wasn’t it?

As for your goose link. Modern bird footprints were dated to 212myo that evos have had to make up all sorts of non plausible scenarios about to justify, like bird-like dinos with modern bird feet.

What the heck does this have to do with the fact that bar-headed geese’s adaptation to high altitudes involved GENETIC changes?

I know, I know, homology and homoplasy explains it all, do you think? However really, what these bird footprints demonstrate is that your researchers have little clue what they are on about in relation to birds. These days many researchers are challenging the dino to bird thing anyway.

That “many” would be about... Alan Feduccia, John Ruben and Larry Martin. I may have missed a few, but they are a drop in the ocean. And I’ve seen the second of those... erm... quoted to say things about a paper of his that weren’t exactly true in a press release (said paper is absolutely shredded by Darren Naish here). As for the tracks: I don’t know what to say about their birdness, since I don’t know much about dinosaur/bird feet. I'll pass on this one. (Where are the vertebrate palaeontologists when I need them?)

So there goes evolutionary phylogeny and nested hierarchies because modern birds were here heaps before archaeopteryx.

I never understood this. The BANDits don’t dispute that birds are a product of evolution, they just disagree about who their ancestors were and when they arose (and most people in the field don’t think they have much of a case). In fact, there’s a hypothesis that Archie and other maniraptorans descended from birds, not the other way round (Naish also discusses this at length). How does an alternative evolutionary hypothesis suddenly become an argument against evolution?

According to a creationists interpretation of the data and fossil evidence, these bird footprints are modern bird footprints that place birds closer than ever to the biblical account of being created after fish. They were thriving 212mya.

So now they were only created 300, not 360 million years after fish?

There is no intermediate between a bird and another kind, such as a dinosaur. This is a creationist prediction that is being continually verified with increasing data.

Phil Senter disagrees. Using creationist methods, no less.

This is science rather than the ever changing face of evolutionary thinking that evolves in response to data rather than the data continually confirming prior thinking.

Sorry? Did you just say that science should not evolve in response to data?

Another creationist prediction is that there will be no junk DNA. Even before the discovery of function for non coding dna, creationists never back flipped by saying 'oh well maybe God did make some junk stuff after all'. No, we have stuck to our prediction and we continue to be vindicated as time goes on.

(1) OK, then, tell me about the function of Alu elements. Or heck, the two hundred thousand or what human endogenous retroviruses that aren’t active and did not give us syncytin... (2) How is a lack of junk DNA incompatible with evolution? There are various ways to falsify the ToE, but this is not one of them as far as I'm aware.

After all, it was the existence of "junk" DNA that surprised budding genomicists in the first place.

Do not forget that evolution, ie natural selection,

and genetic drift and HGT and developmental bias and... Friendly advice: don’t ever equate evolution with natural selection if you want to sound like you understand it.

... has now been seen to act on new stuff, like supposed virus-LIKE remnants and ghosts that comprise 8% of the genome, horizontally transferred, endogenized and also providing vital function.

What vital function do dead retroviruses provide?

Pufferfish seem to do quite well with a fraction of the junk DNA that we have. (Also: haha. Virus-LIKE indeed.)

Now you have epigentic inheritance that demonstrates that mutations and natural selection is not all there is to it. In fact I feel the veracity of any of your genomic research has fallen through the floor. The simplistic assumption that genes offer up a smorgasboard of traits that natural selction acts upon is now questionable!

Good to see you’re up to date on evolutionary theory...

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia

Creatures such as the marsupial mouse and the eutherian mouse look very similar, but they differ a great deal in their genetics and biochemistry.

It appears to me that evolutionists choose the traits, either genetic or morphological, apply that choice and then offer this up as evidence for evolution.

Anyone can CHOOSE their criteria, apply it, and get the results they want.

This is why people in the phylogenetics business always always always consider multiple characters, avoid superficial similarities (e.g. "insects and birds have wings") and try to exclude ones that are known to be prone to convergence. E.g. we know from thousands of years of animal breeding experience that things like the length of limbs evolve easily in response to selection. It would be pretty stupid to use "long legs" as a character to unite greyhounds and horses to the exclusion of dachshunds. Similarly, it's not wise to use simple amino acid repeats to group together two proteins, because we know that short tandem repeats evolve easily by slippage during DNA replication.

If I choose the creation of the variations of FOXP2 gene as a criterion, then only the creatures with the human version of the foxp2 gene will lob into the same hierarchy. If I choose sophisticated language likewise I can group mankind together. If I choose leg to hip joints likewise, erectus falls outside the group of mankind. If I choose the difference between a fur coat and the shorter hair on the human boby as a criterion, likewise all non human primates fall outside the group of mankind. It is arbitrary and a matter of the criteria one chooses to use. The criteria is a choice and is unfalsifiable, both for evolutionists and creationists alike.

What you talked about here is actually a different problem from the previous one. All non-human primates fall outside the group of mankind anyway. These traits you list only change where you draw various boxes on the same family tree. E.g. if your criterion for being "human" is sophisticated language, then maybe only one species is "human". If it's "habitual or obligate bipedalism", then australopiths are also human. However, summing over many characters, we still have, say, Neandertals as our closest relatives, H. erectus a little farther, and australopiths still farther away. The only thing that changes is what you call each branch.

 

[Zaius137]

“we know from thousands of years of animal breeding experience that things like the length of limbs evolve easily in response to selection.”

How ironic that Darwinists ignored Mendelian inheritance for forty years. The real science languished on the shelf while Darwin enjoyed the scientific spotlight. Hybridization is not evolution… You are still making that same mistake.

I am someone who prefers the empirical evidence over speculative nonsense. Evolution is a chameleon able to change its strips as its suits. As soon as real objections are put forth there is always some magic thrown in to push the debate down the road. Real problems like the origin of life have never been explained by evolutionist. Oh yes Evolution once tried to explain the origin of life.
</SPAN>

 

[Greg1234]

“we know from thousands of years of animal breeding experience that things like the length of limbs evolve easily in response to selection.”

How ironic that Darwinists ignored Mendelian inheritance for forty years. The real science languished on the shelf while Darwin enjoyed the scientific spotlight. Hybridization is not evolution… You are still making that same mistake.

I am someone who prefers the empirical evidence over speculative nonsense. Evolution is a chameleon able to change its strips as its suits. As soon as real objections are put forth there is always some magic thrown in to push the debate down the road. Real problems like the origin of life have never been explained by evolutionist. Oh yes Evolution once tried to explain the origin of life.
</SPAN>

They've taken up outposts behind Father Time, but we're coming, if not already there. The days of whether a radio turning on is an increase or decrease in information will be replaced by the limitations of that adaptive feature which can be exposed in a relatively short amount of time. It will then cap off the anomalous fossils and artifacts, sudden appearances and stasis, the upside down "tree of life", shared genes in "unrelated" organisms and the predominant loss of function cases plaguing experimentation.

 

[Naraoia]

“we know from thousands of years of animal breeding experience that things like the length of limbs evolve easily in response to selection.”

How ironic that Darwinists ignored Mendelian inheritance for forty years. The real science languished on the shelf while Darwin enjoyed the scientific spotlight. Hybridization is not evolution… You are still making that same mistake.

I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? Do you know what hybridisation or evolution is, in the first place?

Look, I'll help.

Evolution is descent with (heritable) modification. (More technically, evolution is any change in the allele frequencis of a population.) It can come about by a variety of processes that generate (mutation, horizontal gene transfer), constrain (developmental bias) or sort (natural selection, genetic drift) variation. The theory of evolution further includes the hypothesis of (near-)universal common descent via such processes.

Hybridisation is reproduction between members of different lineages. Usually, "lineages" means biological species, but the word can be used at different levels above or beyond species depending on the precise subject you're discussing. (Hybridisation also has a different meaning in molecular biology, but I don't suppose you're interested in that)

In light of that, your above comment simply doesn't make sense. Of course hybridisation is not evolution. Look at their definitions, they are different! Hybridisation can, however, lead to evolution. (I believe I gave you an example elsewhere, but here it is again for convenience.)

What's with Mendelian inheritance anyway? It hasn't been a problem for evolution since the Modern Synthesis

By the way, thanks for ignoring the fact that I was addressing a specific point Astrid raised. In case you no longer remember, she suggested that systematics was nothing more than cherry-picking the similarities we like. I humoured her (I think I was really quite civil in that response) and explained some of the ways in which it's not.

Do you have anything to add to that discussion?

I am someone who prefers the empirical evidence over speculative nonsense. Evolution is a chameleon able to change its strips as its suits. As soon as real objections are put forth there is always some magic thrown in to push the debate down the road.

Translate: as soon as ignorant objections are raised, the people who actually understand evolution always dig out something you never thought of that completely demolishes the objection.

Real problems like the origin of life have never been explained by evolutionist. Oh yes Evolution once tried to explain the origin of life.

Life could have originated by spontaneous generation for all it matters to evolutionary theory. The fact remains that imperfect replicators inevitably evolve, and all life is related.

 

[Zaius137]

That is what is wrong with the new synthesis; evolution did grok the entire theory of Mendelian genetics and claimed it as its own. Of course if you recognized that fact it might put a bit of tarnish on that golden statue of Darwin&#8230; maybe it is not real gold.

"The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the current consensus. The previous development of population genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology."

From the Wiki.

Mendelian genetics was not accepted science for over forty years; Mendel died without any recognition and was only posthumously recognized as the founder of modern genetics. Evolution dogma had a great deal to do with that besides ignoring Edward Blyth&#8217;s contribution to Natural Selection (before Darwin).

 

[Zaius137]

Sorry I did not mean to interrupt&#8230;

&#8220;By the way, thanks for ignoring the fact that I was addressing a specific point Astrid raised. In case you no longer remember, she suggested that systematics was nothing more than cherry-picking the similarities we like. I humoured her (I think I was really quite civil in that response) and explained some of the ways in which it's not.&#8221;

Spontaneous generation&#8230; please take that up to your own shame.



By the way I think you spelled &#8220;humoured&#8221; wrong&#8230; humored&#8230;

 

[Naraoia]

That is what is wrong with the new synthesis; evolution did grok the entire theory of Mendelian genetics and claimed it as its own. Of course if you recognized that fact it might put a bit of tarnish on that golden statue of Darwin… maybe it is not real gold.

Huh?? What fact am I suppose to recognise? That after a good long while, someone finally realised that genetics and evolution get along just fine?

"The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the current consensus.

The previous development ofpopulation genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology."

From the Wiki.

Yeah, I thought I said the same thing. What is the problem again?

Mendelian genetics was not accepted science for over forty years; Mendel died without any recognition and was only posthumously recognized as the founder of modern genetics. Evolution dogma had a great deal to do with that besides ignoring Edward Blyth’s contribution to Natural Selection (before Darwin).

Aaaaaand your point is? Are you somehow under the impression that I... worship Charles Darwin?

Sorry I did not mean to interrupt…

Interruptions are fine. Irrelevant interruptions can get a bit annoying.

Also, try to use quote tags, pretty please!

Spontaneous generation… please take that up to your own shame.

Whatever does that mean?

By the way I think you spelled “humoured” wrong… humored…

I didn't spell it wrong, I spelled it British. Welcome to the world beyond the USA.

 

[Zaius137]

Wow where did you learn English in Hungary?

Usage notes
§ Nowadays, this spelling is much less common than humorous, even in regions where the spelling humour is overwhelmingly preferred.

From the Wiki&#8230;.

 

[Zaius137]

Naraoia&#8230;

&#8220;Spontaneous generation&#8230; please take that up to your own shame&#8221;.
Whatever does that mean?

Here is another English word&#8230; obtuse&#8230;

ob·tuse Adjective

1. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

 

[Naraoia]

Wow where did you learn English in Hungary?

Um... at school?

FWIW, I've also lived in Scotland for five years.

Usage notes

§ Nowadays, this spelling is much less common than humorous, even in regions where the spelling humour is overwhelmingly preferred.

That was not the word I used, though I said I humoured someone (verb), not that something was humourous (adjective that even I wouldn't spell like that).

Look, I'm as pedantic about my spelling as it gets. Trust me, I usually know what I'm doing

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia…

“Spontaneous generation… please take that up to your own shame”.
Whatever does that mean?

Here is another English word… obtuse…

ob·tuse Adjective

1. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

I wouldn't have to play obtuse if you didn't respond to me with cryptic remarks that sound a lot like insults.

So, once again: what did you want to say about spontaneous generation?

 

[Astridhere]

Trying this again...

I think we see a lot of debates about evolution in here, but not many threads scrutinizing creation in the same way.

I'd like to try something here. This thread is going to be a one on one, which means the first creationist (using the standard definition, if you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry about it) who pops in here to state their case will be the one that I talk to. Everyone else can talk in non-participant commentaries, I don't want this thread getting cluttered.

Here is the conversation. You as the creationist state a case for creationism and/or intelligent design, I will argue against it. Both of us will stay away from talking about evolution as much as possible. For the purposes of this conversation, if your argument for creation is a criticism of evolution, it will not be considered valid, likewise if my argument against creation is an argument for evolution, it will not be considered valid. I want to keep evolution out of this as much as possible. I don't know how successful this will be, but I just want to try something new.
For the record, while it certainly isn't prohibited, I will not be very receptive to evidence given from holy texts, please keep that in mind.

So again, if you are not a creationist or come in after one has already posted, kindly defer to non-participent commentaries, otherwise fire away, I'm listening.

So you want to face off 100 years of changed thinking against a creationist.

What standard will you use when we proffer evidence for either side. Are you going to offer data/evidence or are you going to offer non plausible scenarios as your evidence. If all you are going to use is non plausible scenarios then it really isn't worth a creationists time to debate with you.

For example if I say creation predicts there are no intermediates between chimp and human and this has been substantiated. Then I offer the Laetolli footprints dated to 3.7mya to demonstrate that mankind were here before any proposed intermediates are you going to offer the non plausible scenario that a curved fingered 3.5ft tree climbing ape, no longer in the human line, only 700 thousand years younger than Ardi, with ape feet, was responsible for the Laetolli footprints. This is what I mean by saying it is a waste of a creationists time to face off against evolutionists standard of evidence.


What about if I offer evidence that the earth is the centre of the universe, and has the perfect address for life to be sustained and is by no means an ordinary planet at all but one obviously created for the purpose of further creating life. Are you then going to face off with rhemes of convoluted theoretical scenarios that involve dark matter and energy both of which scientists know nothing about? Are you going to proffer big bang theory that makes no sense at the singularity. Or will you accept a theory that makes sense and has no need for this mysterious dark matter?

On the Popular Science website (popsci.com), dated 9/25/2009, is an article titled “Mathematicians’ Alternate Model of the Universe Explains Away the Need For Dark Energy” — subheading: “An alternative theory eliminates dark energy by placing Earth at the center of expansion.”

Personally, regardless of how it turns out, I think one element of all of this is just rich. In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?
Mathematicians&#8217; theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route


I say it is fruitless to debate evolutionists as they often are unable to differentiate the evidence/data from the scenario or interpretation of the evidence...so there is no point even trying.

 

[USincognito]

I say it is fruitless to debate evolutionists as they often are unable to differentiate the evidence/data from the scenario or interpretation of the evidence...so there is no point even trying.

Says the woman who for three weeks, despite repeated correction, claimed that Salem and a modern H. sapiens skeleton was "Lucy".

Oh the irony...

 

[Astridhere]

As all can see USincognito has no satisfactory defence to a couple of pretty basic evidences for creation.


Nor has USincognito assisted Wedjat in determining the standard of proof required in this one to one debate. Some choose to be non compliant with the request to not spam the thread with rubbish.

If the best you can do is refute evidence of mankind coexisting with afarensis is to offer a curved fingered ape then there is really no point taking up any debate as any non plausible scenario appears to suffice as an explanation/interpretation of the data.

Likewise, as usual, USincognito has done nothing to further the discussion about my wave theory evidence that puts earth at the centre of the universe as opposed to producing non credible singularities, dark matter and dark energy you know nothing about. Some show their calibre by having nothing more than brainless ridicule as an example of personal credibility.

Dark matter and dark energy gives the stuff that makes the big bang less ridiculous than it would otherwise look, a little like HGT breathes life into falsified theories of common descent relating to LUCA.

Wedjat wants a one to one.

Wedjat...What standard of evidence are you prepared to debate on? Are you asking for a better standard of credibility and substantiation than you, yourself, can provide? Are you able to accept that there can be more than one interpretation of the data/evidence? If not, an informative and progressive discussion will not ensue thereby being fruitless.


Let's start with just one example..In the beginning...although there are many more.

101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life

Earth being in the centre of the universe, at the perfect address in this solar system, is powerful evidence for the special creation of the earth for the specific purpose of the creation of life. Our perfect address was sufficient evidence in itself. However wave theory also places earth at the centre of the universe providing further support to its claim for special creation. Water on earth being unlike that on comets and the moon is additional support for special creation.

Mathematicians&#8217; theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

This is a very credible theory pubished and peer reviewed. Given the singularity does not add up and there is no understanding of dark matter and dark energy that apparently comprises 96% of all matter yet big bang is still accepted, I'd say wave theory is at least as credible as big bang theory despite any opposers.

Earth being the centre of the universe is not supportive of earth being just a random planet with no special purpose where luck is evoked as the explanation for positioning and abiogenesis. Earth being in the centre of the universe is strong support that earth is special and different and an excellent and credible foundation to base the creationist paradigm on.

 

[Zaius137]

Naraoia...

Take it up in an argument for the affirmative&#8230;
(PIW) and (RNA world view) are ridiculous. I would just love to see you defend them successfully.. Take it up as a challenge.

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia...

Take it up in an argument for the affirmative…
(PIW) and (RNA world view) are ridiculous. I would just love to see you defend them successfully.. Take it up as a challenge.

I would love to see you attack them successfully first (What is "PIW", anyway?)

That said, I did not even allude to the RNA world in that spontaneous generation comment. I was trying to say that where life came from is completely irrelevant to the truth of evolution.

I hadn't realised you completely missed the point.

Let me remind you that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are quite different ideas...