Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 20:27:28 GMT
How do people who believe that God made the progenitors of all living things in the first seven days of Creation, and who deny that natural selection and evolution exist, account for the remarkable variety of genetically-determined physical features in people, such as eye color, hair color and texture, and skin color, to cite a few prominent examples?
Everyone acknowledges that physical traits can be passed from parents to children. Two blond parents, whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were all blond, will almost certainly have blond children themselves. If all people living today are descended from one man and one woman, Adam and Eve, who were created in the first seven days of Creation, and if there is no evolution underway, why do Koreans look so different than Nigerians?
Let's ask even further, how do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics if the progenitors of bacteria were created by God in the first seven days and there is no evolution?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2018 20:33:20 GMT
Most creationists at least accept "microevolution" (small incrimental changes in a species, which would include things like skin color, hair, eye color, etc), but reject "macroevolution" (a kind can never go outside it's own kind). Of course the notion of "something turning into something else" isn't exactly what evolution really even is to begin with and often leads to riddiculous creationist/ID arguments ("If evolution is real why don't chimps turn into humans?" type nonsense)
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 20:38:44 GMT
An individual chimp cannot turn into a human, but given the right environmental pressures and a long enough period of time, a population of chimps could turn into a group of humans, or could turn into a group of carrots, in theory.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 20:40:10 GMT
Most creationists at least accept "microevolution" (small incrimental changes in a species, which would include things like skin color, hair, eye color, etc), but reject "macroevolution" (a kind can never go outside it's own kind). Of course the notion of "something turning into something else" isn't exactly what evolution really even is to begin with and often leads to riddiculous creationist/ID arguments ("If evolution is real why don't chimps turn into humans?" type nonsense) Ok, so let's stipulate just for the sake of argument that a Creator created the first of everything, including the first people. Why wouldn't microevolution lead to macroevolution, given a long enough timeframe? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2018 20:45:18 GMT
Most creationists at least accept "microevolution" (small incrimental changes in a species, which would include things like skin color, hair, eye color, etc), but reject "macroevolution" (a kind can never go outside it's own kind). Of course the notion of "something turning into something else" isn't exactly what evolution really even is to begin with and often leads to riddiculous creationist/ID arguments ("If evolution is real why don't chimps turn into humans?" type nonsense) Ok, so let's stipulate just for the sake of argument that a Creator created the first of everything, including the first people. Why wouldn't microevolution lead to macroevolution, given a long enough timeframe? Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 20:52:09 GMT
Ok, so let's stipulate just for the sake of argument that a Creator created the first of everything, including the first people. Why wouldn't microevolution lead to macroevolution, given a long enough timeframe? Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. "We've never seen" cannot be a reasonable answer because nobody has lived a long enough period of time to have been witness to changes on this scale. And the other retort is nonresponsive. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2018 20:55:51 GMT
Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. "We've never seen" cannot be a reasonable answer because nobody has lived a long enough period of time to have been witness to changes on this scale. And the other retort is nonresponsive. I agree, but those are pretty much the main "arguments" Creationists give |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 29, 2018 21:01:11 GMT
Some religions have shown a change in stance. The Catholic Church is trying a bit to come off as an acceptor of evolution.
That said my litmus test for knowing actual stance of any religionist is in asking one question:
"Do you believe Adam was the first human being"?
If the answer is yes then the person is a creationist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 29, 2018 21:23:25 GMT
Ok, so let's stipulate just for the sake of argument that a Creator created the first of everything, including the first people. Why wouldn't microevolution lead to macroevolution, given a long enough timeframe? Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. You take both those hypothesis on pure faith, and you know you do. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2018 21:42:59 GMT
Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. You take both those hypothesis on pure faith, and you know you do. I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean "It requires pure faith to think those are feasible arguments" then sure. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 29, 2018 22:02:04 GMT
How do people who believe that God made the progenitors of all living things in the first seven days of Creation, and who deny that natural selection and evolution exist, account for the remarkable variety of genetically-determined physical features in people, such as eye color, hair color and texture, and skin color, to cite a few prominent examples? Everyone acknowledges that physical traits can be passed from parents to children. Two blond parents, whose parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were all blond, will almost certainly have blond children themselves. If all people living today are descended from one man and one woman, Adam and Eve, who were created in the first seven days of Creation, and if there is no evolution underway, why do Koreans look so different than Nigerians? Let's ask even further, how do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics if the progenitors of bacteria were created by God in the first seven days and there is no evolution? Apparently God is very clever and capable of anything.  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 29, 2018 22:23:09 GMT
Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. You take both those hypothesis on pure faith, and you know you do. What hypotheticals are you referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2018 22:53:11 GMT
Never thought creationists would be called upon to give an account for that.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 23:02:28 GMT
Ok, so let's stipulate just for the sake of argument that a Creator created the first of everything, including the first people. Why wouldn't microevolution lead to macroevolution, given a long enough timeframe? Usually "We've never seen a kind go turn into something else", or "You actually believe we used to be fish?" seem to be the Creationist "answers" to this type of question. It's like, if you accept that by putting one foot in front of the other, you can walk a block, then surely you must see that by continuing to do that, you could eventually walk 1,000 miles/kilometers if there is no obstruction blocking your path. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 23:04:04 GMT
Never thought creationists would be called upon to give an account for that.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 29, 2018 23:09:38 GMT
Never thought creationists would be called upon to give an account for that. Is that all? Your question was highly stupid. I've got dogs and cats, and I can tell them apart because they don't look alike. Should creationists have to account for that as well? |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 29, 2018 23:11:17 GMT
Is that all? Your question was highly stupid. I've got dogs and cats, and I can tell them apart because they don't look alike. Should creationists have to account for that as well? I was laughing with you, not at you, but now I realize that was a mistake. |
|
