what every creationist must deny

I just saw this youtube video, and I thought it was one of the best youtube videos i'veseen in a very long while

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies

I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

yeah, dude, because creationism makes so much more sense.

I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.Schwah

yeah, dude, because creationism makes so much more sense.

Ah, to stay on topic: I agree with the person who posted the vid on YouTube. To deny Evolution is like denying science.

So a person cannot believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously?Kritical_Strike

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.olion

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

[QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

and could you take the time to define the word "kind"?

[QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]So a person cannot believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously?MattUD1

Indeed. It's one thing to say, "I believe a god created the universe." It's quite another to say, "I believe God created the Universe in seven days approximately 6000 years ago and" yada yada yada.

As far as I'm concerned the only right answer is "How the hell would I know how the Universe was created?!!!"

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Kritical_Strike"]So a person cannot believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously?Schwah

Indeed. It's one thing to say, "I believe a god created the universe." It's quite another to say, "I believe God created the Universe in seven days approximately 6000 years ago and" yada yada yada.

As far as I'm concerned the only right answer is "How the hell would I know how the Universe was created?!!!"

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

sins_n_shadows

[QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

Cerussite

Do you see any creature produce another kind of animal, other than its own?

Dogs still produce dogs, with many different variations but there still dogs.

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.CptJSparrow

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

An example would be an animal producing an animal other than its kind.

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

sins_n_shadows

Do you see any creature produce another kind of animal, other than its own?

Dogs still produce dogs, with many different variations but there still dogs.

if you're going to use the biblical definition for "kind", then people certainly have observed animals and plants changing kinds. here's how.

God told noah to bring 2 of each kind of animal, "one and its mate" inplying that the animals can breed and produce offspring. Now, if 2 animals can produce offspring together, then they are a species. speciation is an observed and documented fact

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

sins_n_shadows

Do you see any creature produce another kind of animal, other than its own?

Dogs still produce dogs, with many different variations but there still dogs.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

An example would be an animal producing an animal other than its kind.

Right, another clueless creationist that thinks we have to witness a dog giving birth to a cat for evolution to be true....

How do you explain human chromosome number 2, ERVs, and the ascorbic-acid pseudogene in humans and chimps then?

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.olion

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

An example would be an animal producing an animal other than its kind.

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

notconspiracy

Do you see any creature produce another kind of animal, other than its own?

Dogs still produce dogs, with many different variations but there still dogs.

if you're going to use the biblical definition for "kind", then people certainly have observed animals and plants changing kinds. here's how.

God told noah to bring 2 of each kind of animal, "one and its mate" inplying that the animals can breed and produce offspring. Now, if 2 animals can produce offspring together, then they are a species. speciation is an observed and documented fact

If they can bring forth, then they are the same kind.

A horse and dog cannot bring forth, so they are not the same kind of animal.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Define macro-evolution, by your standard.sins_n_shadows

If they can bring forth, then they are the same kind.

A horse and dog cannot bring forth, so they are not the same kind of animal.

sins_n_shadows

Your argument=void.

[QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.DivergeUnify

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That is wrong. Mutations are one of the ways bacteria and virii become resistant to drugs. I wouldn't call that destroying the 'gene chain.'

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.bman784

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

An example would be an animal producing an animal other than its kind.

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

sins_n_shadows

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

If they can bring forth, then they are the same kind.

A horse and dog cannot bring forth, so they are not the same kind of animal.

Cerussite

Your argument=void.

Um... a horse, donkey, zebra, mule, etc. are all the same kind of animal.

If they can bring forth, then they are the same kind.

A horse and dog cannot bring forth, so they are not the same kind of animal.

sins_n_shadows

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

Cerussite

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

An example would be an animal producing an animal other than its kind.

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

1: based on the WMAP project of mapping out the CMBR (cosmic microwavebackground radiation), we know that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years, + or - 200 million years.

2: Based on the radiometric dating of meteorites and moon rocks with the rubidium-strontium dating, which yield dates of ~4.55 billion years, we can know for fairly certain that the earth is ~4.55 billion years

3: evolving from a rock is nothing more than a straw-man. right now, we have lots of theories on how life originated, but right now its a mystery. a gap in knowledge isn't proof of supernatural intervention

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

If they can bring forth, then they are the same kind.

A horse and dog cannot bring forth, so they are not the same kind of animal.

sins_n_shadows

Your argument=void.

Um... a horse, donkey, zebra, mule, etc. are all the same kind of animal.

Because your lack of definition is making this impossible. Are we talking about kingdom? Phylum? Clas? Order? Family? Genus? Species?

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

If they can bring forth, then they are the same kind.

A horse and dog cannot bring forth, so they are not the same kind of animal.

sins_n_shadows

Your argument=void.

Um... a horse, donkey, zebra, mule, etc. are all the same kind of animal.

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

sins_n_shadows

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Something tells me you didn't take 6th grade science...

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="olion"]

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]I don't see how anyone can believe in evolution.sins_n_shadows

Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Basically it just means that organisms in a species with traits that give them a better chance at surviving end up passing them on and making them more dominant.

For example, lets pretend there is a species of lizard that has red skin. Through a mutation of some sort (through chemicals or other source), a lizard is born with green skin. The green skin lets it blend in with its surroundings better, allowing it to survive and reproduce, getting offspring with some having green some having red. The red are more easy to spot, so they are at higher risk of dying, while the green ones reproduce. Over time the red ones die out, and the lizard is now only green.

Other things could also happen, such as the mutation happening inside a lizard population on an island, keeping the green skin allele contained. This would result in two close islands having lizards of different colored skins. Darwin observed things like this, such as the famous finches, or turtles that all had different shells depending on what island you went to.

That's just a variation within its own kind, its not macro-evolution which is a lie.

An example would be an animal producing an animal other than its kind.

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

sins_n_shadows

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

dainjah1010

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

sins_n_shadows

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

[QUOTE="dainjah1010"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

notconspiracy

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

I know miller-urey is outdated now, but they showed that organic amino-acids could be produced from inorganic material. All he asked was show some proof that non-living material could turn into living material. Which I think miller-urey experiment did and is probably the most well known.

[QUOTE="dainjah1010"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

notconspiracy

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

I know miller-urey is outdated now, but they showed that organic amino-acids could be produced from inorganic material. All he asked was show some proof that non-living material could turn into living material. Which I think miller-urey experiment did and is probably the most well known.

dainjah1010

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="dainjah1010"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

CptJSparrow

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

[QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

dainjah1010

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

[QUOTE="dainjah1010"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

DivergeUnify

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

also, even if you proved that life cannot come from non-living matter, it would have no bearing on the theory of evolution because evolution simply deals with how life changes over time due to natural selection and mutation

[QUOTE="dainjah1010"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

DivergeUnify

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

Argument from incredulity and confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="dainjah1010"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"][QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="sins_n_shadows"]

So you're saying that evolution happens so slow that no one can observe it?

Then wont you need faith to believe that the universe is 20 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion, and all the life forms today evolved from a rock 3 billion years ago?

dainjah1010

Okay show some proof that non-living material can turn into living material.

Ummm... Miller-Urey experiment?

Argument from incredulity and confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.

how is that an argument from personal incredulity?

I dunno, but that's what my 10th grade biology textbook says (written by Joseph Levine and Dr. Kenneth Miller)notconspiracy