22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[jcoin200]

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.

Exactly. You can observe tons of examples of "horizontal" (different dog breeds for example) fossil variation, but none at all that would show an indication of change from one kind to another. There just isn't any physical evidence to back up the Darwinian Theory.

[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.    

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

This is not a matter of religious sect or denomination.  Berlinski's critique of modern evolutionary theory could be applied to any of the lab based sciences.  This includes biology, chemistry, and physics.  He says evolution is wrong because it cannot be mathematically modeled.  He says one can not create a simple model that yields the variety of life forms we see in the world around us today.  What he fails to understand is that the mechanism of genetics is not a rigid phenomenon.  The Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel, realized this back in the late 1800's.  Heritability is a matter of probabilities.  Therefore, the odds of creating a computer model that can predict the outcome of a massive number of probabilities, combined with selective forces, yielding what we observe around us today is pretty much a mathematical impossibility. (Perhaps quantum computation could solve this problem).  

Ultimately, any result that is measured has a certain level of uncertainty, whether it is the mass of a subatomic particle, or the allelic frequency of a certain gene within a population.  This is due to the inherent imprecision within the measuring tool and the uncertainty of human observation.  Yet, people are still willing to trust the results of such tests when it comes to things like crash tests on cars or the safety of wireless internet and cell phone usage.  By Berlinski's logic, because we cannot mathematically prove every possible outcome of a car crash, we should never drive a car, or that radio waves definitively don't cause adverse health effects, we should not use mobile devices.    

[e4xit]

Micro-evolution (very small changes in a small time scale) x Long time period = Evolution.

There is no "dogs turning into fish" or other such (to use your language) 'kinds' turning into 'kinds.

Look, read this, even Pope Benedict XVI thinks creationism is absurd because "there is so much scientific proof in favour of evolution":
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html

Enjoy your epiphany on the house.

I will admit that he does say afterwards that the true origins of life and the universe are still open to elements of creationism, but this is not something any evolutionary scientist can scientifically refute, and no-one does.

What they will refute is asinine beliefs that the world is only 6000 years old (WE ******* KNOW IT ISNT) and that evolution did not happen (apart from "micro-evolution") because fossils. The same rubbish you have been indoctrinated with and are repeating here.

[hilariousandco]

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.

Exactly. You can observe tons of examples of "horizontal" (different dog breeds for example) fossil variation, but none at all that would show an indication of change from one kind to another. There just isn't any physical evidence to back up the Darwinian Theory.

So you want us to somehow dig up a fossilised video or something showing one species morphing in to another? Think about what you're saying.

[Lethn]

Unless we somehow manage to confirm the existence of god religious people will be backed further and further into a corner as their logic gets proven wrong each time until eventually they'll either be forced to accept what they've been indoctrinated to believe is wrong or they'll go inquisition on us and kill all the non-believers. Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

Also, even if god did exist, he's a son of a bitch who has a lot to answer for regarding letting millions of people suffer under his watch and it is awfully convenient that when people started to question why god would let people suffer Satan was suddenly invented to explain this, I feel sorry for him because he seems like a scapegoat for gods' incompetence.

[happygeorge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvqiDft0swA

[happygeorge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvqiDft0swA

People in every corner of our beautiful (flat) Earth will soon start accepting Bitcoin... This is a God given FACT!

If you don't believe this, what do you believe?

[TonyZX]

There are many people with many different opinions. I like the way the are trying to prove their faith of evolution "to the other side"

[cp1]

Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

That would actually be quite nice and a real change form current religions which seem to be super hateful and judging.

[hilariousandco]

Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

That would actually be quite nice and a real change form current religions which seem to be super hateful and judging.

They're only copying their maker  . And I don't think god and Jesus want us to love people more than them apparently.

[RodeoX]

Exactly. You can observe tons of examples of "horizontal" (different dog breeds for example) fossil variation, but none at all that would show an indication of change from one kind to another. There just isn't any physical evidence to back up the Darwinian Theory.

Where did you hear that? In over 150 years there has not been a single finding that is not consistent with evolutionary theory. That is why modern biology and medicine is based on it. There are literally millions of fossils that confirm evolution. Even the DNA in your body contains a physical record of your family going straight back to the earliest life on Earth. Not only is there a vast amount of physical evidence, there is no contradictory evidence.   

[Peter Lambert]

Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

That would actually be quite nice and a real change form current religions which seem to be super hateful and judging.

How about Jediism?

Taken to the other extreme are the Priests of Wall (do they still exist?) or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Lethn]

Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

That would actually be quite nice and a real change form current religions which seem to be super hateful and judging.

To be honest, this is why I respect Buddhism a lot and maybe Zoroastrianism ( Sun Worship ) they're both for the most part pretty neutral in their belief systems which is why you don't often hear about people like this blowing themselves up or persecuting certain people, because the beliefs tend to be pretty clear cut as well and you can discount any psychopaths who try to use the religion for their own ends or as an excuse to kill people.

[hilariousandco]

Failing that, they could always just ignore the whole creationist b.s. and found a real religion based on being nice to one another that has no creator gods that demand stupid things of them despite never making a properly documented appearance.

That would actually be quite nice and a real change form current religions which seem to be super hateful and judging.

To be honest, this is why I respect Buddhism a lot and maybe Zoroastrianism ( Sun Worship ) they're both for the most part pretty neutral in their belief systems which is why you don't often hear about people like this blowing themselves up or persecuting certain people, because the beliefs tend to be pretty clear cut as well and you can discount any psychopaths who try to use the religion for their own ends or as an excuse to kill people.

I don't think you need any religious tag to live a decent life. Maybe just be a humanist or altruist instead.

[Lethn]

I don't have a religion lol I'm talking about the people who do seem to need it though

[BitchicksHusband]

Bitchick, do you acknowledge dinosaur fossils?

Yes.  We call them by their other name, dragons.  Large, reptilian creatures that were acknowledged by every culture on earth before they went extinct and became a "myth".  Once their bones were found, because dragons were a "myth" nobody could call them that and so a new mythology of "dinosaur" was born.

Do you acknowledge the age of these fossils?   if so, how do these fossil records fit in with what *you* believe to have happened in the history of the world?

If by age, you mean the observable evidence that they are young enough to have red blood cells still in the marrow and usable DNA, then yes.  I believe they were created with all the other land animals and man on Day 6.  Two of each kind were passengers on Noah's Ark.  And they were seen after the flood by every nation from Daniel, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar, Chinese emperors, Europeans, American Natives, etc.  The last known sighting of a small dragon was in 1611.

The Chinese, in fact, were very confused when westerners came along and told them that their family business handed down for hundreds of years of selling dragons and dragon bones was impossible.  In fact, there isn't even a separate word in Chinese.  They have the same word for both.

Do you understand how a fossil is created?

Do *you*?  In observational experiments, the only way we have been able to replicate fossils is with lots of water and soil similar to concrete (at some level).  Bones that sit out in the sun become brittle in about a year or so and do not fossilize.

And how do you get fossils with a meal still in their belly or in the process of eating another animal if it wasn't a cataclysmic process?

Do you understand how unlikely it is that a fossil will be created?

During a flood, it's much more likely.  And we should expect to see lots of fossils all at once, which we do see.  And they should be mixed around, which we do see.  And we would expect to see marine fossils in Kansas, which we do see.

Do you know how long dinosaurs roamed the earth for compared to land mammals?

Lets see.  The Jewish year which purports to count from creation is 5774.  That sounds about right.  There's no reason to think they can't count.  So 5774-(2014-1611) = 5371.  So compared to other land animals, 5371/5774 = 93% of the time.

These are serious questions I have always wanted to ask a creationist, but sadly I have not met such a vocal (identifiable) one as yourself till now

Bitchick deferred these questions to me, but if you want to know the Creationist position on anything you can go to www.answersingenesis.com/get-answers

There are topics down the left hand side.  For instance, clicking "Dinosaurs" takes you here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

[cp1]

Another source for serious evidence about creationism is here: http://www.kidsgen.com/fables_and_fairytales

[BTCWizard]

Bitchick, do you acknowledge dinosaur fossils?

Yes.  We call them by their other name, dragons.  Large, reptilian creatures that were acknowledged by every culture on earth before they went extinct and became a "myth".  Once their bones were found, because dragons were a "myth" nobody could call them that and so a new mythology of "dinosaur" was born.

Do you acknowledge the age of these fossils?   if so, how do these fossil records fit in with what *you* believe to have happened in the history of the world?

If by age, you mean the observable evidence that they are young enough to have red blood cells still in the marrow and usable DNA, then yes.  I believe they were created with all the other land animals and man on Day 6.  Two of each kind were passengers on Noah's Ark.  And they were seen after the flood by every nation from Daniel, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar, Chinese emperors, Europeans, American Natives, etc.  The last known sighting of a small dragon was in 1611.

The Chinese, in fact, were very confused when westerners came along and told them that their family business handed down for hundreds of years of selling dragons and dragon bones was impossible.  In fact, there isn't even a separate word in Chinese.  They have the same word for both.

Do you understand how a fossil is created?

Do *you*?  In observational experiments, the only way we have been able to replicate fossils is with lots of water and soil similar to concrete (at some level).  Bones that sit out in the sun become brittle in about a year or so and do not fossilize.

And how do you get fossils with a meal still in their belly or in the process of eating another animal if it wasn't a cataclysmic process?

Do you understand how unlikely it is that a fossil will be created?

During a flood, it's much more likely.  And we should expect to see lots of fossils all at once, which we do see.  And they should be mixed around, which we do see.  And we would expect to see marine fossils in Kansas, which we do see.

Do you know how long dinosaurs roamed the earth for compared to land mammals?

Lets see.  The Jewish year which purports to count from creation is 5774.  That sounds about right.  There's no reason to think they can't count.  So 5774-(2014-1611) = 5371.  So compared to other land animals, 5371/5774 = 93% of the time.

These are serious questions I have always wanted to ask a creationist, but sadly I have not met such a vocal (identifiable) one as yourself till now

Bitchick deferred these questions to me, but if you want to know the Creationist position on anything you can go to www.answersingenesis.com/get-answers

There are topics down the left hand side.  For instance, clicking "Dinosaurs" takes you here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

Thanks for the laugh, but if you're not trolling, you have serious mental issues.

Dinosaurs and all other animals were created on the 6th day and 2 by 2 we sat on a big ark. You know how something like that would end? With lots of blood.

[FalconFly]

If by age, you mean the observable evidence that they are young enough to have red blood cells still in the marrow and usable DNA, then yes.  I believe they were created with all the other land animals and man on Day 6.  Two of each kind were passengers on Noah's Ark.  And they were seen after the flood by every nation from Daniel, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar, Chinese emperors, Europeans, American Natives, etc.  The last known sighting of a small dragon was in 1611.

Hilarious, really hilarious, thanks for the laugh. That stuff made my day

Now seriously, since we've spent some time talking about genetics... Are you aware (rhetorical question, since I'm 100% certain you have no clue whatsoever) that 2 individual members of a species cannot procreate beyond a small number of inbred generations before dying out due to deterioating genetic fitness ?

It's due to the genetic effect called homozygosity, leading to the following (Wikipedia quote) :

- Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
- Increased genetic disorders
- Fluctuating facial asymmetry
- Lower birth rate
- Higher infant mortality
- Slower growth rate
- Smaller adult size
- Loss of immune system function

So whenever you hear someone (anyone) talking about "Adam and Eve" or Noah's Ark - you know they are talking pure BS. And any stories and myths that originated from these fables are identical BS.

An actual Dragon (as displayed by ancient or modern drawings or descriptions) has never existed outside the fantasy of human storytellers and naturally not a single piece of evidence exists.
(my best guess is that thousands of years ago people found the remains of a pterodactyl or similar bones and - lacking any scientific skills or knowledge but lots of superstition at that time - started the rumors of "dragons" which made it into today's fantasy stories over time)

I guess if you're into Dragons, you also believe in elves, orcs, hobbits etc. and likely are a frequent World of Warcraft player with severe personality disorders....

PS.
The last sighting of the Loch Ness monster in the UK was in 2011...
Still, we all know that Loch Ness monster never existed, but that detail doesn't matter, right?  

PPS.
The old saying (now considered "politically incorrect") still holds true :
There's some smart people and there's a whole lot of dumb people roaming the earth. The dumb however, generally seem to multiply in greater numbers. Always has been that way.

While it may seem harsh to say - it's unfortunately 100% correct - and in the end, it always boils down to that simple fact of life.

[pedrog]

This has evolved into a level of crazy I'm not used to seeing outside threads started by Actor_Tom_Truong

On the other hand I would pay good money to see a movie where a pair of Tyrannosaurs murderstomp their way around Noah's ark. It will be called "Forty days of TERROR" and you read about it here first.

I'll watch that movie, pitch that to Asylum, they'll do it, hehe.

http://www.theasylum.cc/