22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[RodeoX]

People "believe" in God, they "understand" evolution.

[1714854716]

1714854716

[1714854716]

1714854716

[1714854716]

1714854716

[1714854716]

1714854716

[1714854716]

1714854716

[Peter Lambert]

Another good one:

What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

It seems plausible that random mutations do occasionally write some "successful" new code in DNA, which is spread because the organism makes copies of itself. Evolution is correct as far as the physics is concerned, but it could also be correct in a world filled with qualia-deprived philosophical zombies where information does not exist and beings only 'live' due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If you understand biochemistry and molecular biology and related subjects, all these criticisms of evolution sound absurd.

There is a well-established process for increasing the size and diversity of the genome. Quite simply, DNA copying is an imperfect copying process, such that at random intervals there is a chance that the copy is imperfect. Such imperfections include cutting out portions of code, duplicating portions of code, or switching individual code elements. Sometimes the changes do not affect the organism, sometimes they are beneficial, sometimes they are detrimental.

Also remember that not all of the genetic code is operative; there are large sections of our genes which apparently do nothing. So changes can happen slowly to that section, then if another part changes to start executing that code it will make a big change in the organism.

[FalconFly]

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

[BitChick]

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions. 

[pedrog]

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions. 

There is no different whatsoever between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the same mechanism are in place, only the time frame being analyzed differs.

[BitChick]

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions. 

There is no different whatsoever between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the same mechanism are in place, only the time frame being analyzed differs.

One can be observed the other cannot.  One is fact the other is theory.  What used to be taught as a "theory" is now taught as fact.  People now believe a "theory" as fact.  People have faith in this theory above all other theories.

There are HUGE differences.

 

[Peter Lambert]

If you understand evolution as you say you do then give me the one answer I have been looking for here.  Give me an example in the fossil record of how a fish became a dog or any kind changing into another kind.  I want just ONE fossil that proves this.  But there isn't one.  There is no concrete evidence otherwise.  These so called "transitional fossils" are not enough evidence to support this.  The fossils that are found are one that show micro-evolution, which is basically adaptations that happen within a species but not outside of the species.  Changes do and can occur within a species for sure but dogs cannot mate with cats, and so on.  Also, mutations are not observed as beneficial in our world.  They lead to major problems, such as Down's syndrome and other serious issues. The only "solution" is to throw unobservable millions of years at the problem and then that is called good "science."  That is pure speculation without any evidence to support it.  The evidence supports that animals cannot mate outside of their own kinds and when changes do happen because of mutations problems occur.

Have you seen the study done by researchers at Michigan State University where they reproducibly saw the evolution of one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria when they carefully constrained the food sources available to the microbes?

To understand evolution, keep in mind it is generally a divergent process, so species A becomes species B and C, not a convergent one where species A and B join to make species C (except on the microscopic level, like how amoeba-like organisms joined with blue-green algae to form plants). An easily understood example is the split between the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo: they were one species until less than a million years ago, but then two populations were separated by the Congo river, with the bonobos on the south and the chimpanzees on the north. Neither can swim such a large river, and so the populations could not intermingle. The two areas have different climate and food options, and so the two populations diverged into two species.

OK, since you are about the same understanding level as a 6 year old, this is how I explain evolutionary paths to my daughter in 1st grade: If you go back in the fossil record, you will find a time when there were fish but no dogs (or any other land animals). There were many types of fish, some ray-finned fish like a goldfish, and some lobe-finned fish like the lungfish. Lobe-fins look like legs, in fact some of these creatures moved onto land and adapted to breathing air and walking and they became salamanders. Some of the salamanders stayed salamanders, but some of them developed scales and eggs with shells, which allowed them to live away from the water, those we call reptiles. Some of these reptiles stayed reptiles, some developed hair so they could stay warm and milk to feed their babies, these became mammals. The first mammals might have looked something like large shrews. Some of these survived by eating meat of other animals and developed into the carnivore class, like wolfs. At some point some wolves and people started living together and the people selectively chose the animals which were good companions and we now have the modern dog.

A somewhat related note, I was once watching a documentary about dogs, they mentioned that the dog family has a stretch of genes where the physical characteristics are stored (size, shape, color), but unlike most animals the dogs have this section copied a whole bunch of times, causing a huge amount of variability. So many changes can be made to the dog physical appearance and bred to what is desired. This is why breeding dogs has led to such a huge variance in dog appearance in a single species, while other animals like cats or horses have a much smaller range of breed-able variance.

[BitChick]

If you understand evolution as you say you do then give me the one answer I have been looking for here.  Give me an example in the fossil record of how a fish became a dog or any kind changing into another kind.  I want just ONE fossil that proves this.  But there isn't one.  There is no concrete evidence otherwise.  These so called "transitional fossils" are not enough evidence to support this.  The fossils that are found are one that show micro-evolution, which is basically adaptations that happen within a species but not outside of the species.  Changes do and can occur within a species for sure but dogs cannot mate with cats, and so on.  Also, mutations are not observed as beneficial in our world.  They lead to major problems, such as Down's syndrome and other serious issues. The only "solution" is to throw unobservable millions of years at the problem and then that is called good "science."  That is pure speculation without any evidence to support it.  The evidence supports that animals cannot mate outside of their own kinds and when changes do happen because of mutations problems occur.

Have you seen the study done by researchers at Michigan State University where they reproducibly saw the evolution of one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria when they carefully constrained the food sources available to the microbes?

To understand evolution, keep in mind it is generally a divergent process, so species A becomes species B and C, not a convergent one where species A and B join to make species C (except on the microscopic level, like how amoeba-like organisms joined with blue-green algae to form plants).

OK, since you are about the same understanding level as a 6 year old, this is how I explain evolutionary paths to my daughter in 1st grade: If you go back in the fossil record, you will find a time when there were fish but no dogs (or any other land animals). There were many types of fish, some ray-finned fish like a goldfish, and some lobe-finned fish like the lungfish. Lobe-fins look like legs, in fact some of these creatures moved onto land and adapted to breathing air and walking and they became salamanders. Some of the salamanders stayed salamanders, but some of them developed scales and eggs with shells, which allowed them to live away from the water, those we call reptiles. Some of these reptiles stayed reptiles, some developed hair so they could stay warm and milk to feed their babies, these became mammals. The first mammals might have looked something like large shrews. Some of these survived by eating meat of other animals and developed into the carnivore class, like wolfs. At some point some wolves and people started living together and the people selectively chose the animals which were good companions and we now have the modern dog.

A somewhat related note, I was once watching a documentary about dogs, they mentioned that the dog family has a stretch of genes where the physical characteristics are stored (size, shape, color), but unlike most animals the dogs have this section copied a whole bunch of times, causing a huge amount of variability. So many changes can be made to the dog physical appearance and bred to what is desired. This is why breeding dogs has led to such a huge variance in dog appearance in a single species, while other animals like cats or horses have a much smaller range of breed-able variance.

In all of this the only real scientific data you can give me is one type of bacteria becoming another type of bacteria.  It is still bacteria.

And the changes in dogs?  They are still dogs.

I see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs anywhere.

[pedrog]

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions. 

There is no different whatsoever between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the same mechanism are in place, only the time frame being analyzed differs.

One can be observed the other cannot.  One is fact the other is theory.  What used to be taught as a "theory" is now taught as fact.  People now believe a "theory" as fact.  People have faith in this theory above all other theories.

There are HUGE differences.

You also lack understanding on what a scientific theory is, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Peter Lambert]

If you understand evolution as you say you do then give me the one answer I have been looking for here.  Give me an example in the fossil record of how a fish became a dog or any kind changing into another kind.  I want just ONE fossil that proves this.  But there isn't one.  There is no concrete evidence otherwise.  These so called "transitional fossils" are not enough evidence to support this.  The fossils that are found are one that show micro-evolution, which is basically adaptations that happen within a species but not outside of the species.  Changes do and can occur within a species for sure but dogs cannot mate with cats, and so on.  Also, mutations are not observed as beneficial in our world.  They lead to major problems, such as Down's syndrome and other serious issues. The only "solution" is to throw unobservable millions of years at the problem and then that is called good "science."  That is pure speculation without any evidence to support it.  The evidence supports that animals cannot mate outside of their own kinds and when changes do happen because of mutations problems occur.

Have you seen the study done by researchers at Michigan State University where they reproducibly saw the evolution of one type of bacteria into another type of bacteria when they carefully constrained the food sources available to the microbes?

To understand evolution, keep in mind it is generally a divergent process, so species A becomes species B and C, not a convergent one where species A and B join to make species C (except on the microscopic level, like how amoeba-like organisms joined with blue-green algae to form plants).

OK, since you are about the same understanding level as a 6 year old, this is how I explain evolutionary paths to my daughter in 1st grade: If you go back in the fossil record, you will find a time when there were fish but no dogs (or any other land animals). There were many types of fish, some ray-finned fish like a goldfish, and some lobe-finned fish like the lungfish. Lobe-fins look like legs, in fact some of these creatures moved onto land and adapted to breathing air and walking and they became salamanders. Some of the salamanders stayed salamanders, but some of them developed scales and eggs with shells, which allowed them to live away from the water, those we call reptiles. Some of these reptiles stayed reptiles, some developed hair so they could stay warm and milk to feed their babies, these became mammals. The first mammals might have looked something like large shrews. Some of these survived by eating meat of other animals and developed into the carnivore class, like wolfs. At some point some wolves and people started living together and the people selectively chose the animals which were good companions and we now have the modern dog.

In all of this the only real scientific data you can give me is one type of bacteria becoming another type of bacteria.  It is still bacteria.

I see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs anywhere.

I mentioned that study as an example of people observing evolution. Evolution is such a long term process that observing it directly is very hard to do. Instead, we must look at related evidence: fossil record and genetics. The fossil record does not show every animal that ever lived, most animals leave no trace behind, but clearly there is an order in which species appeared and disappeared. But you can look at the genetics of current animals: by finding commonalities and differences you can group animals in clades, species A and B have this sequence in common, but species C does not, so A and B are more closely related to each other than C. Thus we can build a genetic tree showing which animals are related to each other. Amazingly, this tree matches what we observed from the fossil record! We see fossils which have characteristics of A and B from the same time we see a fossil which resembles species C, so that supports the theory that A and B are related.

tldr: you see no observable evidence for fish becoming dogs because you are not looking at all the evidence.

[BitChick]

Micro-evolution is observable.  I believe in "micro-evolution" or otherwise known as adaptation.  

Here is a video that shows the amazing "well documented" human evolution fossils from NOVA which is basically the shaving down of a fossil to make it "fit" the idea of how humans probably evolved. A creationist would never get away with shaving down a fossil to make it fit their belief.  I am not sure why evolutionist are allowed to.  This is supposed to be good "science" BTW:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w   Another video worth a watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc

There, you did it again.

If you believe something, you know nothing about it. Either you know or you don't (and hopefully assign realistic probabilities to achieve at least a maximum confidence corridor when basing decisions on these).
When it comes to reality, stop believing and replace it with knowledge. I know it's hard work but that's the only way.

OK.  I KNOW that micro-evolution is observable therefore there is scientific evidence to back it up.  Macro-evolution does not have the same evidence at all.  To "believe" that just because there are changes within a species that we can now say that evolution happened outside the species because we can see slight changes within a species is entirely speculative without any observable evidence to support it.  It is all assumptions. 

There is no different whatsoever between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, the same mechanism are in place, only the time frame being analyzed differs.

One can be observed the other cannot.  One is fact the other is theory.  What used to be taught as a "theory" is now taught as fact.  People now believe a "theory" as fact.  People have faith in this theory above all other theories.

There are HUGE differences.

You also lack understanding on what a scientific theory is, here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A theory is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

How is macro-evolution repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation?  

This is why I keep asking for just ONE transitional fossil that shows how a fish became a dog, or cat or anything other than a fish?  I do not get anything that is repeatedly confirmed through observation for that at all.

I am not even sure it should even be a "theory" at all.  The evidence is so weak to support it.

[Peter Lambert]

A theory is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

How is macro-evolution repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation?  

This is why I keep asking for just ONE transitional fossil that shows how a fish became a dog, or cat or anything other than a fish?  I do not get anything that is repeatedly confirmed through observation for that at all.

I am not even sure it should even be a "theory" at all.  The evidence is so weak to support it.

macro-evolution is repeated confirmed by the fossil record and by molecular genetics studies.

[FalconFly]

I shall add something that the OP also seems missing (education ? Come on...)

Both the mentioned fish and the dog are already relatively high in the evolution chain/tree. That means a fish has actually never turned into a dog, as both are developed indivdual species with distinct genetic footprints and different compexity.

So looking for a fossil of a fish that later developed into a dog (regardless of time involved) is futile. A dog is a mammal, not a fish.
You'd need a willing laboratory and some sort of frankenstein experiment to either make a dog breathe water or make a fish bark

Anyway, I stand by what I wrote earlier. This is not a serious discussion.
The Thread title should rather read 22 funny Messages from convinced believers** to people who actually have an education
** self-contradictory, but that little detail never bothered a believer

[BitChick]

A theory is repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

How is macro-evolution repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation?  

This is why I keep asking for just ONE transitional fossil that shows how a fish became a dog, or cat or anything other than a fish?  I do not get anything that is repeatedly confirmed through observation for that at all.

I am not even sure it should even be a "theory" at all.  The evidence is so weak to support it.

macro-evolution is repeated confirmed by the fossil record and by molecular genetics studies.

I see no evidence in the fossil record to confirm macro-evolution by honest observation.

The fossil record leaves an inescapable impression on the honest observer. It certainly doesn't communicate the macroevolutionary picture. The record of the past written in stone contains no evidence that any particular animal ever morphed into a fundamentally different type of animal. No trend can be found of gradual, Darwinian alteration through mutation and natural selection. These processes occur, but they are not mechanisms for true evolution of basic body styles.

Nor do we see punctuated equilibrium transforming them rapidly. Without a doubt, we see sudden changes in dominant fossil shapes as we ascend the geologic column, but this is not macroevolution. The species changes touted by punctuated equilibrium that we do see are either common variation of individual offspring, or adaptation of a population to differing conditions. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't even address the larger changes needed for meaningful evolution.

[cbeast]

All of them have the same answer: "Because you are too dumb to use Google." Sorry if I am repeating another post.

[Slab Squathrust]

So looking for a fossil of a fish that later developed into a dog (regardless of time involved) is futile. A dog is a mammal, not a fish.
You'd need a willing laboratory and some sort of frankenstein experiment to either make a dog breathe water or make a fish bark

You wouldn't even need to go to such an extreme.  A simple embryology text would suffice.  If you compare the embryologic morphology of a chicken to say that of a human, it is difficult to tell the two apart until the later stages of gestation.  These two organisms are very far apart from an evolutionary standpoint, yet they both use similar mechanisms of development.  This conserved process suggests a common ancestor.  Genetic sequence analysis lends further evidence to this assertion.  These two organisms will share a much larger component of their DNA than say a human and a sponge (technically an animal).  This correlates with a diversion much more recently than the pre diploblast (sponge)/pre triploblast (all other animals) split.  

[cp1]

I see no evidence in the fossil record to confirm macro-evolution by honest observation.

What scientific degree do you hold that makes you an expert to confirm or deny evolution?

[Slab Squathrust]

I see no evidence in the fossil record to confirm macro-evolution by honest observation.

What scientific degree do you hold that makes you an expert to confirm or deny evolution?

A degree should not be required to support or refute scientific evidence.  That being said, Ms. Bitchick has provided substantially little data to support her claim.   

[Stousers]

There is only one universal response to all of these questions.... Bahahaha

[BitChick]

I see no evidence in the fossil record to confirm macro-evolution by honest observation.

What scientific degree do you hold that makes you an expert to confirm or deny evolution?

A degree should not be required to support or refute scientific evidence.  That being said, Ms. Bitchick has provided substantially little data to support her claim.   

I confess I am limited in my expertise.  Hence why at the beginning of this thread this video was posted:  Dr. Berlinski is a professor at Princeton.  He is Jewish so he does not have the same "Christian" angle that I confess colors my worldview if you want to call it that. 

Plenty of things to think about here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740