RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 7/28/2017 5:50:25 PM

Milesnmiles

Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

First, why should I say anything more to you, I have repetedly told you that although I believe in creation but I am not a "Creationist" and have told you why, yet you continue to call me a "Creationist".

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML It would be most satisfying coming from the work of a creationist scholar of course.

So, it appears that you aren't really listening to what I am saying to you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Creationism "scientists" have no original research to support their claims. They are almost entirely focused on criticism of evolution.
Kinda of like Evolutionary "scientists" keep trying to remove God from everyone's life.

Your answer is interesting and revealing, Miles. It shows that you have no reply to my point that creationists lack any original research (expanded here) or observations of their own but rest their entire system of belief on criticisms of the evidence for evolution. Particularly, you seem to want us to present every "missing link" and if we were able to do that (never mind that soft tissue is rarely fossilized) you still would not be satisfied, but would move the goal posts further back. So, instead of answering my comment directly you deflect into a totally unrelated accusation.

Your answer here is also interesting and revealing. Somehow you think I rest my "entire system of belief on criticisms of the evidence for evolution", my system of belief began long before your "evidence for evolution" and will exist long after your "theory of Evolution" is a forgotten memory.

As for missing links, some would be nice but as you so nicely point out "soft tissue is rarely fossilized" thus the fossil record is a bit skimpy on "missing links", once again Evolution has a "good excuse" for not coming up with the evidence that they say should be everywhere.

Next you nicely point out by inference that Science is dominated by "Evolutionary scientists", I thought science was science and didn't take sides. Which means my "totally unrelated accusation" wasn't so "totally unrelated" after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Let's examine the accusation that we lack any record of evolutionary relationships:

Probably along with the transition to flight the transition from water dwelling to land dwelling is another major sequence of events. What would be needed? Evidence of the emergence of "appendages" for locomotion on land and the emergence of an air breathing organ.

In the 1930s a fish long thought to exist only in the fossil record was caught off the coast of Africa. The Coelacanth has lobed fins fore and aft and caudal. These fleshy fins, precursors to terrestrial appendages, are found in other evolutionary lines of fish and in salamanders. Examination of the coelacanth's genome ruled it out as a direct ancestor to the salamander, even though it has a single vestigial lung.

There are a number of species of lung fish both fossil and living, that demonstrate various combinations of terrestrial appendages and functional lungs, who spend most of their lives in water.

There are a number of species of salamanders that vary in gills/lungs and fins/appendages, and in their habitats, but spend much of their lives on "wet" land.

It seems pretty clear that the transition from sea dwelling to land dwelling has been well demonstrated in the organs of these lung fish and salamanders. Now you may wish to say they all exhibit the same genome. You probably could find the answer to that question in some scientific publication. I doubt you could find the answer in the publications of some creationist cults. If you do, please give me a nudge as I would be most interested in seeing the creationist's DNA evidence.

Can you offer a rebuttal to the evidence for the transition of life from sea to land as I have displayed it?

Sure.

But first let me say I am totally amazed at all the assumptions you make and still call it science. You start with the assumption that creatures transitioned from water to land and so any creature that lives both in and out of water is a "transition' creature.

You ever stop to think that a Creator would know that there would be vast amounts of water/land transition and that he might create animals that could live in those areas and even create some that could transition back and forth between land and water.

Then, you bring up the Coelacanth and act like you don't know that before it was found to be still alive it was a prime example of a "transition" creature that went extinct thousands of years ago and that "evolutionary scientists" had to go scrambling for excuses for why it still exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Regards, Miles

Back at ya.

(in reply to vincentML)