22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[the joint]

....

Question #9




Etc, etc.... Enjoy!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?sub=2976539_2391851

I must say intelligent design was a creative way to avoid admitting they were wrong. 

Chance is another way to say 'unknown causation.'

[1714259676]

1714259676

[1714259676]

1714259676

[1714259676]

1714259676

[1714259676]

1714259676

[1714259676]

1714259676

[the joint]

Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

The fossil record does not produce a fossil for every individual. As was shown in the microbe study I linked earlier in the thread, a number of changes in the genetic record can develope without changing the organism, but then they can be switched on all at once.

IIUC: Fish did not evolve from exoskeletal invertebrates. Something like flatworms -> roundworms -> segmented worms -> chordates -> vertebrates.

Have you noticed that there are transitional animals still alive today? Like the coelecanth, which is a lobe-finned fish, transitional between the fish and tetrapods.

How do you account for vestigial organs, if not a sort of transitional evolution?

There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Lol at expecting there to be fossils of microscopic bacteria. Do you want some fossils of oxygen as well?

Actually, there are plenty of fossils of microbes. But not all microbes form fossils. Many animals leave very few fossils. Like frogs: there are very few fossils of frogs, but the few fossil frogs found show that they have been around a long time.

I would point out that, independent of other evidence, it's an unsound leap to claim the fossil record is evidence of evolution.  Evidence is "that which is apparent," and using the fewest assumptions, we could at best say fossils are evidence of...fossils.

As soon as we interject even a single assumption, e.g. a particular fossil was once a living thing, we immediately jump from "sound" to "plausible."  Science seeks to gain the most accurate understanding of something by changing as many of these plausible assumptions to sound ones as is possible through logical deductions based on evidence (e.g. things that have DNA were alive, this fossil has DNA, this fossil was alive).  What science can't do is prove its own assumptions.  Because philosophy *is* capable of exploring these and other assumptions, we quickly find that there is a lot that can be known that is beyond the scope of science. This is commonly known as 'the problem of induction' in science; science cannot explore beyond its empirical limits even though its own assumptions reside there.  Science cleverly states conclusions to a certain degree of probability to avoid this problem, but it's unfortunate how almost every scientist -- and certainly all of those I've met -- dismiss the problem of induction as an afterthought.

In short, here are the scientific methods weaknesses that make absolute scientific proof an impossibility:
1) Science cannot escape the problem of induction.
2) Science cannot incorporate a purely abstract proof into any theory it produces.
3) Science cannot account for rare cases (e.g. brute forcing a private key)
4) Science cannot account for extremely small (e.g. quantum-level) or extremely large (e.g. the Universe as a a single system) cases.

It's interesting to note that a known probability of brute forcing a private key is born of a purely abstract, mathatical proof, and that this proof acts as the foundation upon which scientific tests can be performed.  But, conclusions produced by those tests could never produce a known probability of an event.  Actually, it would be impossible for science to ascribe a known probability to *any* event, for even if you simulated a billion coin-flips, you're conclusion would include a degree of uncertainty (and no peer-reviewed journal would publish claims of absolute certainty).

[oldmarsh]

There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

Lol at expecting there to be fossils of microscopic bacteria. Do you want some fossils of oxygen as well?

Strange...

[crazynoggin]

The Bill Nye debate was essentially a scientist versus a priest. Obviously the priest is not going to listen to anything that contradicts the book he was born/raised to believe and a real scientist is not going to allow a book of fairy tales to dictate how he understands the world. The difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution is a theory and creationism is a fantasy based on the evidence we have gathered. There is no evidence to support a hypothesis such as creationism while there is actual evidence to support current theories of evolution (which is why it is called a theory).

Essentially the difference between a creationist and and an evolutionist, is that a creationist wouldn't accept anything other, even all the evidence disproving their beliefs hit them square in the face. While most evolutionists would flock to creationism if a magical sky fairy came down and showed everyone how he/she created the world and the universe.

[cp1]

Math requires information.  Watch the video.  It discusses math quite a bit as well as "language" and really is compelling.   I can't do it justice.  My brain does not have enough "information" in it.  I am humbly aware of my limitations but I feel fairly confident that most of you on this board will be able to follow it fine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

You admit that you don't understand this video, yet you believe it?  It must be terrifying going through life without any critical thinking skills.  How can you be content that you can't reason whether a fairy tail is true or whether science is true?  Why don't you try to learn anything?  I just don't get it.  Do you think Miller Light tastes great and is less filling?  Have you bought a timeshare?  How do you function in life without being able to process information correctly?

[BitChick]

Math requires information.  Watch the video.  It discusses math quite a bit as well as "language" and really is compelling.   I can't do it justice.  My brain does not have enough "information" in it.  I am humbly aware of my limitations but I feel fairly confident that most of you on this board will be able to follow it fine.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/beginning-was-information/beginning-was-information

You admit that you don't understand this video, yet you believe it?  It must be terrifying going through life without any critical thinking skills.  How can you be content that you can't reason whether a fairy tail is true or whether science is true?  Why don't you try to learn anything?  I just don't get it.  Do you think Miller Light tastes great and is less filling?  Have you bought a timeshare?  How do you function in life without being able to process information correctly?

I can understand it to a certain degree.  I get the point that information has to come from somewhere. It is pretty technical though.  But the explanation of how a robot cannot function without a computer program is true. We as humans could not function without our DNA. In the same way we would just be physical blobs of matter if we did not have information "coded" in us on how our bodies should function.  Where did this information come from? The video gives some pretty detailed explanation on how information had to come from somewhere.  It is a bit dry, but the science is excellent and I thought that there would be some intelligent readers on this forum that would really like it.

Have you watched the video?  Let me know what you think.  Maybe it is easy for you to understand?  You seem to think you are smarter than me so it should be easy for you to get!  If you don't agree with anything in it please enlighten me as to what does not make sense, otherwise you have not even taken the time to try, which shows I am at least trying to understand.

In response to your derogatory comments: Never bought a timeshare, but I have many friends with them and I love using them whenever they don't want it.   BitchicksHusband actually made a guy cry that was trying to sell us one because he got so frustrated with us. (He was trying to tell us that we had "pride of ownership" and my husband said that we considered pride a bad thing and that it was stupid to buy something for the "pride" of it if it was cheaper to rent it and the guy was so ticked he just took off from our table.)The manager said he had "never seen that happen before" and that the guy was his "top salesman" so I guess we can think for ourselves.  But I digress. . .

Edit: From the video link in question (and because I was challenged to show my understanding) here are the conclusions that we should consider (from part 3):

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.
2) Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude that the Sender must be supremely intelligent
3)Since the Sender must have encoded (stored) information the DNA molecules, constructed the biomecular biomachines for the encoding, decoding and synthesizing process and designed all of the features for the original life forms, the Sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful
4) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, we conclude that the Sender must have a non-material component (Spirit)
5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

[FalconFly]

You didn't score anything -- we're not even playing on the same board.

I'm not going to debate against someone who adamantly claims he understands the arguments I present when he clearly does not.

The reason that it's clear you have no idea what I'm trying to say is because you pulled the "he said something that doesn't epitomize the glory of the scientific method, so he obviously must hate anything and everything resulting from the scientific method" straw man of of your you-know-what.

I'm very glad we're not on the same board, as this means my communications skills are all good.
I like your last sentence, as it gives away all your bias. Keep it if you like of couse, but seriously, keep it for yourself unless you enjoy presenting yourself like a fool in public.
You said what you said in public. I you feel misunderstood - seriously rethink your most basic communication skills. They're non-existant on that case (for whatever reasons).

To me, that isolated case is closed anyway.

[C10H15N]

...making them millions of dollars and allowing them to go ahead with their Noah's Ark reconstruction...

You mean first time construction of their fairy-tale boat.    

[jcoin200]

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

What do you mean half-species? Are you really asking for a fish with legs or wings or something?

That is what evolutionists allege happened.  Really it shouldn't be that hard to find ONE fossil, considering they say the transition from fish to amphibians was over 100 million years+.

Then I would also like to see the half reptile half mammal, since evolutionists also allege that reptiles became mammals over 100 million years.  100 million years of "evolution" should produce some fossil evidence, right??

Then I guess these mammals would have had to then move back into the oceans and become whales, since you do know whales are mammals right?

Also how did these reptile/mammals just become warm blooded?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you voted for obama too...

[Akka]

Furthermore please explain this.  I am dying to know where these transitional half species fossils can be found.

What do you mean half-species? Are you really asking for a fish with legs or wings or something?

That is what evolutionists allege happened.  Really it shouldn't be that hard to find ONE fossil, considering they say the transition from fish to amphibians was over 100 million years+.

Then I would also like to see the half reptile half mammal, since evolutionists also allege that reptiles became mammals over 100 million years.  100 million years of "evolution" should produce some fossil evidence, right??

Then I guess these mammals would have had to then move back into the oceans and become whales, since you do know whales are mammals right?

Also how did these reptile/mammals just become warm blooded?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you voted for obama too...

No one claims evolution works like this. You know, 100 Million Years means Millions of Generations each barely noticeable different to the one before. There are no sudden cages like a reptile suddenly lays an egg and a bird hatches. I'm really shocked that this seems to be so hard to understand.

You understand aging? No child goes to bed and wakes up as a full grown adult. Each day it's barely noticeable older than the day before.  But you still believe in aging, do you?

[the joint]

You didn't score anything -- we're not even playing on the same board.

I'm not going to debate against someone who adamantly claims he understands the arguments I present when he clearly does not.

The reason that it's clear you have no idea what I'm trying to say is because you pulled the "he said something that doesn't epitomize the glory of the scientific method, so he obviously must hate anything and everything resulting from the scientific method" straw man of of your you-know-what.

I'm very glad we're not on the same board, as this means my communications skills are all good.
I like your last sentence, as it gives away all your bias. Keep it if you like of couse, but seriously, keep it for yourself unless you enjoy presenting yourself like a fool in public.
You said what you said in public. I you feel misunderstood - seriously rethink your most basic communication skills. They're non-existant on that case (for whatever reasons).

To me, that isolated case is closed anyway.

Referring to bold highlights:

1) No, it doesn't.  Communication skills maybe, but good at logical deductions, no.

2) Do you know what a straw man is?  I'm telling you its a straw man, and yet you still managed  to come up with more nonsense.  If pointing out your logical fallacies implies bias, then I'm biased as f***.

[C10H15N]

Please.  Scientifically accurate explanations only serve to confuse creationists who, if they had the mental capacity to understand what you were saying, would not be creationists.

You are attempting to teach tensor calculus to a turnip. 

[BitChick]

So no one is going to comment on these laws of nature I posted above that show that evolution cannot be true? (This should be easy for some of you to counter apparently based on your comments above)  This is from a video by Dr. Werner Gitt  "In the Beginning was Information: See http://vimeo.com/22652852

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.
2) Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude that the Sender must be supremely intelligent
3)Since the Sender must have encoded (stored) information in the DNA molecules, constructed the biomecular biomachines for the encoding, decoding and synthesizing process and designed all of the features for the original life forms, the Sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful
4) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, we conclude that the Sender must have a non-material component (Spirit)
5) Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude that man's nature must have a non-material component (Spirit)
6) Since information is non-material entity we conclude that the assumption "The universe is composed solely of mass and energy" is false.
7) Since biological information originates from an intelligent sender and all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (no sender) we conclude all theories or concepts of chemical or biological evolution are false.

[C10H15N]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

[BitChick]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

[C10H15N]

What I see is a blathering creationist using the same old pseudo science talking points that have be refuted time and time again.

Anyone interested in a point by point rebuttal, can head to YouTube and watch the "Why People Laugh at Creationists" series by Thunderf00t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D

[BitChick]

What I see is a blathering creationist using the same old pseudo science talking points that have be refuted time and time again.

Anyone interested in a point by point rebuttal, can head to YouTube and watch the "Why People Laugh at Creationists" series by Thunderf00t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D

I have been accused of just posting videos and not discussing the issues here so I went ahead and went into detail then and posted logical and scientific conclusions that are difficult to refute.  The least you could do is show me some respect by trying to have an intelligent discussion about them but instead you resort to name calling.  And as for the "same old pseudo science" the laws of nature that intelligence had to have a source is not something anyone had brought up yet.  We have talked about fossils, or lack of them in the record, already but this coding of intelligence I figured should cause a good discussion for many of the posters on this forum.

[Akka]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.


Why do you conclude, there must be an intelligent sender?

[BitChick]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

Did you not see my post directly above yours?  There are laws that show that that information had to come from an intelligent source.  Who is doing the "twisting" and "corrupting?"   There is plenty of logic and reason to support intelligent design.  If you are so sure of your position just give me an explanation of why you do not agree with my points above.  Otherwise I will assume that you are not using your reason and logic to counter them.

Actually you only make one point:

1) Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude there must be a Sender.

all other points assume that point 1 is true and therefore don't stand on their own.

Your conclusion that there must be a sender is also your premise. There must be a sender. And your other arguments proof the sender by a proof that is only possible when you already assume that there is a sender.


TL.DR. The argument that there must be an intelligent sender for information to exist is just pulled out of thin air, with no proof that it is true or any arguments to back it up. Without this assumption the rest of the arguments are totally hollow.

How does a robot work?  If we take away the computer chip the robot is useless.  We can look at the laws of nature and see that without information things will not function.  Without DNA, all living creatures would not be able to do anything either.  So this is a major point.  There is information encoded in us.  There had to be a sender of this information.  Who that "Sender" is can be debatable, of course.

[jcoin200]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

OK, then how can you logically explain these FACTS:

-All the major plant groups (‘divisions’) also appear out of nowhere – mosses, ferns, horsetails, cycads, ginkgos, conifers, gnetophytes, monocots and so on. There is no gradual evolutionary progression leading up to these forms.

-There is no satisfactory explanation for the existence of large amounts of water on the primeval Earth. During the formation of the Solar System, Earth is believed to have been red-hot and therefore could not have hosted liquid water, yet the very oldest mineral evidence shows that continents and liquid water were already present.

-About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms. “The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.” (Bergman, Jerry, “The Search for Evidence Concerning the Origin of Fish,” CRSQ, vol. 47, 2011, p. 291. )

-There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).  They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  There is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16).  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria.  Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.  Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days.  In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition.  There is much variation in fruit flies.  There are many mutations.  But they never turn into anything new.  They always remain fruit flies.  Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Use your beloved logic and look at what is actually available for physical evidence.  There is none to say one species "evolved" ffrom one to another.