Simple Question to Creationists

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ilovequestions's picture
@Travis Hedglin

@Travis Hedglin

I'm not saying that a cat today would have to give birth to a fish tomorrow. I'm saying that eventually new families would have to arise for macroevolution to be possible... otherwise, how did we get here? We obviously are different from bacteria, so that means somewhere along the line a new phyla/family/genus/etc. had to have evolved for us to be here.

Where are the new families? We see new species (I have no problem with that)... but evidence for MACRO (not micro) evolution is not dependent on new species evolving, but one kind (cat) of animal evolving into a completely different (but maybe with similar characteristics) kind (dog). Where is the evidence for that?

Evolutionists love to cite an E. Coli experiment that a popular scientist did (Richard Lewontin? Idk) as evidence for evolution. But in the end, the E. Coli were still... E. Coli. That's not macroevolution.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"I'm not saying that a cat

"I'm not saying that a cat today would have to give birth to a fish tomorrow."

Good.

"I'm saying that eventually new families would have to arise for macroevolution to be possible... otherwise, how did we get here?"

They have and will arise, although we have actually majorly impacted evolution ourselves, A family is a taxonomic rank between order and genus. Sometimes they are divided into one or more subfamiles, or intermediate ranks above the rank of genus. What does and does not belong to each family is determined by taxonomists, there is no exact agreement, with different taxonomists taking different positions. There are no hard rules that taxonomists follow in describing or recognizing a family. That is why I prefer Cladistics and particularly Phylogenetics, as they are much stricter systems with less in the way of overlap or discrepancy.

I am not entirely sure what you are even asking for, as yet, because it has already been explained that abrupt changes do not occur. We might be, and probably are, witness to divergent species today that will eventually become new families. Like dogs and walruses, if given enough time, they will diverge even further away from each other into new families.

"We obviously are different from bacteria, so that means somewhere along the line a new phyla/family/genus/etc. had to have evolved for us to be here."

For one, whatever we did evolve from primordially, would be completely different from modern bacteria. Also, there are many FAMILIES of bacteria:

family Rhizobiaceae, Rhizobiaceae - a small family of rod-shaped bacteria
Bacillaceae, family Bacillaceae - typically rod-shaped usually Gram-positive bacteria that produce endospores
family Myxophyceae, family Schizophyceae, Myxophyceae, Schizophyceae - former terms for Cyanophyceae
family Nostocaceae, Nostocaceae - blue-green algae
family Oscillatoriaceae, Oscillatoriaceae - blue green algae
family Pseudomonodaceae, Pseudomonodaceae - rod-shaped Gram-negative bacteria; include important plant and animal pathogens
Athiorhodaceae, family Athiorhodaceae - small motile sulphur bacteria
family Thiobacteriaceae, Thiobacteriaceae - free-living coccoid to rod-shaped bacteria that derive energy from oxidizing sulfur or sulfur compounds
family Spirillaceae, Spirillaceae - rigid spirally curved elongate bacteria
Bacteroidaceae, family Bacteroidaceae - family of bacteria living usually in the alimentary canal or on mucous surfaces of warm-blooded animals; sometimes associated with acute infective processes
Corynebacteriaceae, family Corynebacteriaceae - a large family of mostly Gram-positive and aerobic and nonmotile rod-shaped bacteria of the order Eubacteriales
Enterobacteriaceae, family Enterobacteriaceae - a large family of Gram-negative rod-shaped bacteria of the order Eubacteriales
family Rickettsiaceae, Rickettsiaceae - microorganism resembling bacteria inhabiting arthropod tissues but capable of causing disease in vertebrates
Chlamydiaceae, family Chlamydiaceae - Gram-negative parasites in warm-blooded vertebrates
family Mycoplasmataceae, Mycoplasmataceae - pleomorphic Gram-negative nonmotile microorganism similar to both viruses and bacteria; parasitic in mammals
Actinomycetaceae, family Actinomycetaceae - filamentous anaerobic bacteria
family Streptomycetaceae, Streptomycetaceae - higher bacteria typically aerobic soil saprophytes
family Mycobacteriaceae, Mycobacteriaceae - a family of bacteria
family Myxobacteriaceae, family Polyangiaceae, Myxobacteriaceae, Polyangiaceae - bacteria living mostly in soils and on dung
family Micrococcaceae, Micrococcaceae - spherical or elliptical usually aerobic eubacteria that produce yellow or orange or red pigment; includes toxin-producing forms as well as harmless commensals and saprophytes
family Lactobacillaceae, family Lactobacteriaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Lactobacteriaceae - lactic acid bacteria and important pathogens; bacteria that ferment carbohydrates chiefly into lactic acid
family Spirochaetaceae, Spirochaetaceae - large coarsely spiral bacteria; free-living in fresh or salt water or commensal in bodies of oysters
family Treponemataceae, Treponemataceae - small spirochetes some parasitic or pathogenic

So even your "family" idea is not so cut and dry as you might like it to be.

"Where are the new families?"

In progress.

"We see new species (I have no problem with that)... but evidence for MACRO (not micro) evolution is not dependent on new species evolving"

Actually, yes, it is entirely dependent upon the evolution of new species. If there were no new species, change could never accumulate.

"but one kind (cat) of animal evolving into a completely different (but maybe with similar characteristics) kind (dog). Where is the evidence for that?"

Genetic and fossil record. The types of changes you are looking for cannot be observed quickly, so we must look at the rather vast record of life we have.

"Evolutionists love to cite an E. Coli experiment that a popular scientist did (Richard Lewontin? Idk) as evidence for evolution."

It is, as evolution is basically nothing but population mechanics.

"But in the end, the E. Coli were still... E. Coli. That's not macroevolution. "

Your problem with evolution isn't actually with evolution. I know, it is hard, but you have no particular problems with actual evolution. You dispute neither the process, nor the predictions, only that it has always occurred. The problem, as it were, is with your perception and not evolution. If I could poof you into the cambrian epoch, you would see a lot of new species, but no new families would magically evolve before your very eyes because you simply don't live that long. Mankind itself hasn't been around and recording long enough to really document the emergence of new branches, only twigs that may one day grow into them, but until they do it seems you will never accept that they can.

Miami Wolf's picture
"Where are the new families?"

"Where are the new families?" In progress.

That's like saying a mouse-like creature became us because... TBD

Travis Hedglin's picture
For one, asking where new

For one, asking where new families are is not even remotely similar to your equivocation. Secondly, "in progress" is a fantastic answer considering HOW evolution works. Every new species is a twig with the potential to become a new and distinct branch over a great amount of time, meaning it is in progress, as I actually did explain later. I am sorry it confused you.

Abeer's picture
and not to forget It started

and not to forget It started all over again from scratch after Noah's flood.........and still different human races came without evolution.... =P

The Pragmatic's picture
Yup.

Yup.
Noah's family restarted everything, according to creationists, about 4500 years ago.

Nyarlathotep's picture
K̶e̶n̶n̶y̶ Amber to be banned

K̶e̶n̶n̶y̶ Amber to be banned in next 24 hours:
Yes = -120
No = +110

Place your bets!

C. M. Allen's picture
I hope not, I rather like him

I hope not, I rather like him/her/it. In a mascot sort of way.

Abeer's picture
Well the very idea of this

Well the very idea of this topic was not to invite someone to teach us the adam and eve story
but to see how it is explained and justified even after such obvious questions........

I can honestly say that i read an explanation that I never had heard before and the whole debate has gone quite friendly......
as Ilovequestion was the only one defending.....every one was addressing him in their own way......with whatever they had to say

ofcourse you don't understand/get a lot of stuff and so do others.......this is why these forums are for ...to discuss

but to say why people are still debatng here and not to other topics..........?? really people can post to 10 topics or even more if they want to............cmon what are you selling here.......

if you dont understand then simply do not participate....whats the point of asking people to stop responding here?????

Ilovequestions's picture
Well, I had to take a little

Well, I had to take a little break from this forum because things got crazy busy in my life haha. But reading amber (Kenny?)... I'm just glad the rest of you have been really friendly :) So thanks for that.

I guess, to answer Amber, creationism does seem crazy to atheists. I understand that. However, intelligence and creationism don't have to be at odds. Many of the greatest scientists, from the whenever age to the 1700s and 1800s, were creationists. These people built the foundation for modern science. They may be wrong... but this didn't stop them from making amazing breakthroughs in science.

Roger Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Raymond Damadian, and many more... all these were literal six-day creationists* who were very intelligent and and did science the right way.

Bottom line: atheists often ridicule creationism without realizing that the science of today was built on the backs of these men. I don't ask you all to accept creationism, but respect is definitely warranted for a belief system that helped produce amazing scientists. The fact they believed in creationism did not stunt them at all.

Have any of you gotten an MRI? You can thank a creationist for that. Atheists often say "creationists can't do science." That has been PROVEN (strong word) to be EMPIRICALLY (another strong word) wrong.

*The common rebuttal I get when I mention a list of brilliant creationist scientists is this: "these men were only creationists because that was the only scientifically respected belief system at the time". This may or may not be true, but that doesn't change the fact that creationists can and have done brilliant science. Being a creationist definitely doesn't make one dumb or stupid, and does not prevent one from being an amazing scientist.

The Pragmatic's picture
Again, a completely incorrect

Again, a completely incorrect assumption about atheists: "Bottom line: atheists often ridicule creationism without realizing that the science of today was built on the backs of these men."

No one questions that science in the Christian part of the world comes from people who were Christians. I don't understand why you would even get such an idea? This is just prejudice you have of atheists.

It's well known both that since everyone in those parts were Christians, who else would have done any science? And that many people did not say anything if they were agnostics or atheists, as that would have dire consequences.
But it's also well known how the church have fought almost every major scientific discovery, people were ostracized, fined, jailed, killed, etc.

So I fail to see why anyone should embrace total disconnection from reality and total ignorance in creationism.

Mitch's picture
Scientist despite religion...

Scientist despite religion... not because of it.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Mitch

@Mitch

That ignores all the scientists that decided to get into science BECAUSE of their love for God. Here's a quote from James Clerk Maxwell's first teacher:

"His knowledge of Scripture, from his earliest boyhood, was extraordinarily extensive and minute....These things were not known merely by rote. They occupied his imagination, and sank deeper than anybody knew."

Campbell, L. and W. Garnett. 1882. The Life of James Clerk Maxwell: With Selections from His Correspondence and Occasional Writings. London: Macmillan and Co., 32.

So many of these people (Newton and Antony van Leeewenhoek and so many others) said that the fact that God made the world inspired them to discover it. They were deeply, deeply religious, and credited their faith for their drive to learn.

"Scientists despite religion... not because of it."

I think not, my friend

Mitch's picture
Actually, there is no

Actually, there is no contradiction in my statement. There is no basis for modern scientific method - which I am aware of - to be found anywhere in the bible.

And the church was renowned for persecuting curious believers. In fact, questioning was often considered a sign of weak faith. Still is, to some. Consider Galileo Galilei: He was religiously devout - and was persecuted anyway for his observations!

Ilovequestions's picture
@Mitch

@Mitch

There may be no verse that explicitly states the scientific method, but that's not my point.

Also, if you've read my comments in the past, I will never ignore all the wrongs the church has done.

But for you to state that they were scientists "despite religion... not because of it", that's simply false. Their works of literature are filled with wonder and admiration and a love for God, and they credit this for inspiring them to want to learn more about this world.

Mitch's picture
"That... scientists that

"That... scientists that decided to get into science BECAUSE of their love for God." Here is an excellent point you'd do well to remeber: in your own words "get into science BECAUSE"... not through.

Religion has not historically (or modernly) facilitated, promoted, augmented, or endorsed scientific pursuits. So, while wonder/inspiration of god may have been given as reason for some to persue science, religion - or faith - has never been kindly to the practice of science itself.

In fact, religion has been down-right hostile. And as one who doesn't deny the wrong-doings of the church, you surely understand the harm religion has caused. How can you square your faith, with knowing that what you defend has done great harm?

Scientist despite, not because.

Ilovequestions's picture
@Mitch

@Mitch

1) "Here is an excellent point you'd do well to remeber: in your own words "get into science BECAUSE"... not through."

I don't totally understand what you are trying to say here. I'm saying that WITHOUT THEIR RELIGION, these men wouldn't have had the inspiration to do what they did. Religion wasn't the "medium" (through) for which they did science... but no one is saying that. You don't go to the Bible to learn how to balance chemical equations. That's not the point.

2) "Religion has not historically (or modernly) facilitated, promoted, augmented, or endorsed scientific pursuits."

I actually think atheists (who love science and reason and all that) need to thank Christianity for the science we have today. Let's have a history lesson:

When Rome fell due to the barbarians, the known world entered the Dark Ages. Knowledge and learning (which was valued by the Romans and Greeks) fell by the wayside because life simply wasn't safe. People were focused on survival, not thriving.

You know the institution which was the SOLE defender, protector, preserver, and teacher of knowledge? That's right, the church. It was the only place where learning was possible in a very dangerous world. All the learned men were there and they tried to teach others. It stayed this way until CHRISTIANITY recovered enough to make the known world safe again.

So while the church's track record isn't perfect when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge, atheists don't like to acknowledge that without the church, the Dark Ages would've been much, much darker.

Without the church, what would've happened to everything that had been learned up until that time?

3) "How can you square your faith, with knowing that what you defend has done great harm?"

I don't follow other Christians and the example they have set (good or bad). Yes, some have done bad things in the name of Christianity.

But again, I follow Christianity and the example set by Jesus Christ, not other Christians.

4) "Scientist despite, not because".

Still incorrect. Christianity has inspired so many to do great things in science.

CyberLN's picture
"I'm saying that WITHOUT

"I'm saying that WITHOUT THEIR RELIGION, these men wouldn't have had the inspiration to do what they did."

How do you know this? Even they couldn't know it.

The rest of your post is incredibly Euro-centric. Neither Europe nor Christianity are the centers of the universe (that honor actually belongs to the Fremont neighborhood in Seattle). A great deal of knowledge, science, literature, and learning were developed, used, and available in places other than Europe.

Neither did the whole world need Christianity to be safe, as you have said, I imagine most of the world was doing no worse (and perhaps far better) than Europe in the Middle Ages.

Ilovequestions's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

1) "How do you know this? Even they couldn't know it."

I'm just going off their words. They credit their faith for their love of learning... I'm not going to call them liars!

2) "Neither Europe nor Christianity are the centers of the universe (that honor actually belongs to the Fremont neighborhood in Seattle)"

Notice, I said "known" world in my post. Of course there were Native Americans and the Chinese and others and everything they had learned... but the science of today (which is what we are talking about) isn't reliant on them! The fact of the matter is the church was the sole preserver of EVERYTHING the Greeks and Romans had learned.

The Dark Ages didn't pertain to the Native Americans, Chinese, etc. So I wasn't talking about them when I mentioned the Dark Ages.

The church did so much to keep learning going in a time when the known world (i.e. the Roman lands and areas they influenced) was in chaos after the fall of Rome.

CyberLN's picture
You used the term 'known

You used the term 'known world' a few times. In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Again, Euro-centric...known to whom?

The science of today isn't reliant on anyone other than Europeans? Try things like gun powder, paper, the compass, the differential gear, the first seismological detector, matches, the parachute, suspension bridges, brain surgery, zero, and movable-type printing just to name a few.

Your knowledge of Middle Ages European history is also pretty weak. Most Greek and Latin literature was saved by those in what became the Ottoman Empire and didn't make its way back into Europe until after the 4th crusade.

C. M. Allen's picture
"Notice, I said "known" world

"Notice, I said "known" world in my post. Of course there were Native Americans and the Chinese and others and everything they had learned... but the science of today (which is what we are talking about) isn't reliant on them!"

I can hardly believe what I am reading. You seem like a relatively well-educated person - do you really believe this? You are correct in saying that the Church was responsible for the safeguarding of much (not all) of classical age wisdom, and the monastic tradition established in the middle dark ages contributed to the expansion of human knowledge; but actual advancements in science and exploration were predominantly made by followers of Islam (who also happened to live in continental Europe at the time) until they also entered a dark age of religious idiocracy.

And further more, to say China was not part of the known world even from a Euro-centric viewpoint is... is... I can't even think of a word for it. It's ridiculous.

Ilovequestions's picture
@The pragmatic

@The pragmatic

Maybe you haven't heard what I have heard. I've heard atheists (not all obviously, but many) like Amber say things like:

"Creationists can't do science."
"Creationism stunts science."
"Creationists can't be scientists".
Etc.

My post was in response to that clearly, obviously wrong stance.

ImFree's picture
Creationist scientists are a

Creationist scientists are a minority in the scientific community. Creationists like Answers in Genesis created their own journal because they are a group shunned by orthodox science and do not want their claims peer reviewed by the scientific community. They know their work won’t hold up to scrutiny and circumvent the system.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
If we allow an evil book to

If we allow an evil book to be thought as science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMyjKQ725E

ImFree's picture
The problem with creation

The problem with creation scientist's credibility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6aU7zakKBs

The Pragmatic's picture
@Ilovequestions

@Ilovequestions

You seem to keep filling in the blanks with what you want to be true.
Christians who did science back in the day and creationists of today are completely different breeds. It's not even remotely comparable. Being a creationist today, is choosing to be ignorant. At least as long as you live where you can get education or access information easily.

Creationist science is not science, it's the opposite of science.
They want a specific conclusion, so they go and look for anything they can find to support it. All the already available evidence that does not support the desired conclusion is either discarded or they try a variety of different tactics, undermining, discrediting, warping and so on.
This is worse than just being intellectually dishonest, it's actually trying to thwart science.

Ignorance is not stupidity. But it is stupid to choose to be ignorant, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

If I may ask a simple question, do you think that the Earth is flat?

Ilovequestions's picture
@The pragmatic

@The pragmatic

1) "They want a specific conclusion, so they go and look for anything they can find to support it."

If so, that's unfortunate. But let's look at your side and see if it's any better:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

You tell me, does that sound like someone who "want(s) a specific conclusion, so (he) go(es) and look(s) for anything (he) can find to support it"?

This is from Richard Lewontin... you can go check his credentials.

Let's go through parts of this quote:
a) willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense
b) We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs
c) in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life
d) in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories (!!)

So you tell me, as someone who accused my side of taking a position AND THEN trying to find evidence, if your side is any better.

You know why atheistic scientists believe what they do? "because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism", and "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated".

Why the blind acceptance to a position that, by this genius' own admission, goes against common sense, is absurd, and is supported by a community of scientists that is perfectly content with accepting unsubstantiated just-so stories? He answers:

"we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"... biased much?

Remember, these aren't my words.

2) do you think that the Earth is flat?

No.

The Pragmatic's picture
I'll havet to address the

I'll have to address the rest later. No time now.

2) So, why don't you think the Earth is flat?
It says so in the Bible, and it was the creationists position? Why change it?

Ilovequestions's picture
@The Pragmatic

@The Pragmatic

Have you ever said "sunrise" or "sunset"? If so, you are no better. The sun doesn't rise or set, silly-willy :)

Have you ever called a moon a "half-moon" or a "quarter-moon"? If so, that's incorrect! The moon is never half, or a quarter, of itself. It's always a full moon whether or not you can see all of it.

The fact of the matter is that an author is allowed to describe things from his or her perspective at the moment, which is what the Bible authors do. You allow yourself to speak from your own perspective (sunrise/sunset), and yet you don't allow Bible authors to do the same.

If you are going to be ticky-tacky like that, hopefully you have never said the above things (or ANYTHING similar), because that would be hypocritical.

The Pragmatic's picture
@Ilovequestions

@Ilovequestions

Answer to the first point in your previous post:

1)
And again, you are completely missing the point.

I can cut-and-paste quoted opinions from people too. But that doesn't change reality, now does it?

The point here is this:

Since ALLOWS criticism. It ALLOWS new ideas.
You just have to support them with something substantial that can pass peer review.

Creationism has a book with all the answers already written down.
Creationist "scientists" are looking for something to fit these answers.
If it doesn't fit, it's discarded, skewed, distorted or undermined.

Huge difference, major difference.

2)
"Have you ever said "sunrise" or "sunset"? If so, you are no better. The sun doesn't rise or set, silly-willy :)"

Wait just a minute?! So now you want to go and do the word-twist? I thought you believe in creation because that is what the bible says? But if the bible states that the world is flat, you suddenly go "ticky-tacky"?!
I don't have a problem with terms like half-moon. Why would it be hypocritical to use the language as it is. This is beneath you and it's such a ridiculous argument that it's not worth to continue debating it.

"The fact of the matter is that an author is allowed to describe things from his or her perspective at the moment, which is what the Bible authors do"

Ah, very, very interesting.
Are you saying that the writers of the bible were ordinary men, writing with only the knowledge of ordinary men? No divine source of knowledge? Because that is what it sounds like.
This is quite obvious you getting desperate, by the fact that you don't have a sensible response as to why you don't think that the Earth is flat.

Do you have a real answer to why you don't think the Earth is flat?
No, better yet, I'll tell you the answer:

The Creationists have ACCEPTED the science and the overwhelming proof that the earth is a sphere, a planet.
You have also accepted that it's the Sun and not the Earth that is the centre of our solar system.

This is called moving the goal post.
Creationists are now at the point where they are being divided as most are accepting micro-evolution. Because the evidence is piling up.
You keep denying macro evolution, because despite the overwhelming evidence in comparative anatomy, embryology & development, the fossil record, DNA comparisons, species distribution, etc. it cannot be observed due to the extremely slow process.
You also have the abiogenisis argument. But there to, progress is continuously being made.

In uneducated areas, there are still Muslim mullahs that strongly declare that the earth is flat, and call it blasphemy when they are shown pictures. Christian creationists are almost still left in that arcane view of the world.

You are clinging on to what you can, continuously moving the goal post when there is no choice.
Accepting only what is necessary.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.