Simple Question to Creationists

154 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mitch's picture
Ilovequestions, you haven't

Ilovequestions, you haven't answered.

What stops you?

Night1's picture
We can't, why? Because we don

We can't, why? Because we don't know. We can't just take a peak in the past and see what he was like. Do you know what the first man of evolution looked exactly like?

The Pragmatic's picture


Just curious, what denomination of Christianity do you adhere to? What version of the Bible do you read?


I looked up the word "Image". (If that is a correct translation from the original language.)

Image: (wikipedia)
An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject - usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it.

Image: (
1. a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.
2. an optical counterpart or appearance of an object, as is produced by reflection from a mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and their reception on a surface.
3. a mental representation; idea; conception.
4. Psychology. a mental representation of something previously perceived, in the absence of the original stimulus.
5. form; appearance; semblance: We are all created in G̲o̲d̲'̲s̲ i̲m̲a̲g̲e̲.
6. counterpart; copy: That child is the image of his mother.

Image: (
a. A representation of the form of a person or object, such as a painting or photograph.
b. A sculptured likeness.
2. Physics An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.

I especially noticed that actually uses "God's image" as an example in No 5.

Miami Wolf's picture
"perfect genes" implies the

"perfect genes" implies the ability to prosper both at the colds of the arctic and the heat of the equator as well as the rain-forrest and the desert. It implies being both fast and strong and both tall and small. It requires night vision as well as the ability to look upon the breadths of the texas panhandle in full-on daylight and to detect polar bear and small lizard as hazards. In short; there can be no such thing as one perfect genome provided by one perfect couplet.

The Pragmatic's picture
Sure there can, haven't you

Sure there can, haven't you seen Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection? :D

Nyarlathotep's picture
ilovequestions - "I believe

ilovequestions - "I believe in microevolution, or s̲p̲e̲c̲i̲a̲t̲i̲o̲n̲. This has been observable and repeated countless times."

Speciation is the idea that new species are created by evolution! So it looks like you accept the whole thing! You are an 'evolutionist'! (yes I know it is a horrible term).

Ilovequestions's picture
For me, a new species is not

For me, a new species is not evidence of evolution. You have Saint Bernards and Poodles... but both are still dogs. Speciation is simply the new formation of a species... of a preexisting type of animal (cats, dogs, etc.). All of Darwin's finches... were still finches.

I guess for me, macroevolution (speaking in taxonomical, or classification, terms) would be a new FAMILY of animals. A new species happens all the time. And genuses too, probably.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "For me, a

Ilovequestions - "For me, a new species is not evidence of evolution."

I guess you have forgotten how the evolution argument all started. Remember Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species"? If you think evolution can create new species, the argument is over: you accept evolution; case closed.

Ilovequestions's picture


I have no problem with microevolution because we SEE it EVERYDAY. That is extremely scientific.

However, we have NOT seen one animal kind (cat) turn into another animal kind (bird). That is macroevolution.

I'm totally fine with new species being created. But you have to admit that evolution goes way beyond simply stating one species of dog can breed to become another species of... yep, still dog.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"I'm totally fine with new

"I'm totally fine with new species being created."

Then you are totally fine with evolution.

"But you have to admit that evolution goes way beyond simply stating one species of dog can breed to become another species of... yep, still dog."

Nope, it actually doesn't. The difference between any new species and what it evolved from is always miniscule, you have to go back through hundreds of such speciation events to find an ancestor very different than the new species. Evolution states that like will give birth to like with modification, but the input changes over generations, making the cumulative changes over vast generations add up to appreciable change. Making your argument equivalent to saying you CAN count by two's, but only until 100, you can't count by two's after that. There is no reason to assume that change isn't cumulative, none whatsoever, meaning you have essentially handed us the argument by agreeing with descent with modification.

Night1's picture
So, a cat can somehow grow

So, a cat can somehow grow wings and feathers? How unbelievable is that?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "stating one

Ilovequestions - "stating one species of dog can breed to become another species of... yep, still dog."

I don't even know what to say to that. Uhhh all dogs are the same species. Yes, a saint bernard and a chihuahua are the same species. At this point I have no idea what you really believe on this subject since this entire time you've been laboring under the very false idea that different breeds of dogs are different species. Could you maybe start again, now that you know that?

Travis Hedglin's picture
I think you have some

I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings of evolution, as you seem to think that descent with modification would mean that the offspring would be in a different family or genus as its ancestor. That isn't how it works. We are firmly entrenched in the SAME kingdom, phyla, family, genus, etc as our ancestors where. Our oldest ancestors would be Eukaryota, we are still technically Eukaryote, as opposed to Prokaryote. We are also still dueterostomed, chordates, mammalian, upright tetrapods, primates, etc. Evolution doesn't take away from what those ancestors were, or what we inherited from them, it adds to it. Let us take canids, since you brought them up.

Most already know, or at least suspect, that wolves and domesticated dogs share a common ancestor, I would hope. Let us say that the current paradigm, wolves being predators in the wild and dogs being domesticated pets, continues unabated for a million years. All this time wolves will continue to evolve to be better predators and eat meat, and dogs will continue to be selectively bred and eat mainly feed we make from corn and other complex starches and carbohydrates. Eventually, over successive generations of descent with modification, their morphology will continue to change until they no longer look anything alike. They also, will no longer even share the same diet. Now, looking back at the division that originally caused the divergence from wolf to domestic dog, would you even recognize it as a significant evolutionary event? Probably not, because they would both still be canids, much like we and dogs are still mammals.

The problem here isn't with the actual theory of evolution, it is with your perspective, it prohibits your ability to see beyond the species that currently exist. You think a dog is a dog is a dog, but if you go far enough back they were a basal ancestor which diverged in multiple distinct directions. Dogs, bears, and walruses are all related because they all share that same basal ancestor. Further, if all these different subdivisions of "dog" are give the space and time to evolve independent of each other, they will always be "dog" but will diverge in multiple distinct directions as well. It is simply a foregone conclusion considering population mechanics and time, whether anyone likes it or not, and no amount of creationist hand-waving will make it disappear.

Further Information:

Technical Canid information starts around 4:50 or so.

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."


"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.

Night1's picture
No, the don't. Each species

No, the don't. Each species may contain a small amount of genetic diversity. But it doesn't contain that much.

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

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

The Pragmatic's picture
Chillax Kenny...

Chillax Kenny...

C. M. Allen's picture
"I know in atheist republic

"I know in atheist republic we are supposed to be "cordial" to Christians, Moslems and other ridiculous points of view."

No we aren't. But if you notice, ilovequestions poses some thoughtful questions and is relatively reasonable in both argument style and acceptance of evidence. Just because his perceptions seem off-kilter to some of us is no reason to ignore an honest argument.

"It is embarrassing for me to respond to creationists who believe in Adam and Eve, the talking snake or the earth is 6000 years old."

Then don't.

And I reiterate: not doing a real good job of pretending you aren't kenny/reality/christopher/ddawkins/alleycat/schweiger/whatever-else-you-call-yourself.

Travis Hedglin's picture
I realize you find certain

I realize you find certain questions beneath your towering intellect, probably because of a Dunning-Kruger Effect, but the rest of us genuinely like sharing information. If you don't, groovy, but criticizing others for what you can't even bother to do is just sad. It is said that those that can't do, teach, but it is apparent that those that cannot either do or teach just complain about the doers and teachers.

CyberLN's picture
You call your comments smart,

You call your comments smart, perceptive, enlightened, interesting, and powerful and in the same breath say ILC is ridiculous.

Hmmmm.....I'll just sit here quietly for a few minutes and ponder about that.

All done pondering.

Yep, that's funny.

Mitch's picture
Didn't you say you are a

Didn't you say you are a liberal? I'd have thought that would mean you're tolerant, and considerate, of differing views.

C. M. Allen's picture
"I don't pretend to be

"I don't pretend to be anything but what I am..."

Does that include you being Kenny Schweiger?

Mitch's picture

Liberal: to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

How can you be open to new behaviors, without first considering - and then tolerating - those new behaviors?

I think you have more in common with the dichotomous Bill O'Reilly than you think.

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.

The Pragmatic's picture
I don't want you banned

I don't want you banned either. I think you have been able to stay on a good level for quite some time now (as "reality"). Just simmer down a bit :)


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.