Jump to content


Photo

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:01 AM

Why don't you try examining your own beliefs with a bit of objectivity for once ?

good point, and the very first question i'm going to ask is why, why does god create all of this.
to strut his stuff?
bored?
because he can?
is there any rational reason why?

#22 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:11 AM

Gould wasn't talking about transitions between phyla. There are major groups within phyla you know.

this is an assumption about what "gould meant" unless you have the document where he said it.

ever since goku mentioned "gould doesn't like being quoted", i've been searching for some of his work.
after reading some of this material, i've concluded that gould and koonin are pretty much on the same page.
and yes, gould suffered from the same smear campaigns as any other scientist that dissented from darwin.
and there is a large number of them.

#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:15 AM

 

 

Wibble: People have thought it through intelligently and nature speaks clearly and conclusively that naïve literal belief in Genesis is false

 

People have thought it through intelligently and nature speaks clearly and conclusively that naive abiogenesis sludge zapped lightning of false primordial, non-existent forms and millions of missing transitionals, is false. 

 

To make out that all people that accept evolution are people that think it, "through intelligently" would contradict the absurd, fallacious and half-witted arguments from atheists I come across every day on forums and all such places. I am not coming across any intelligence, Wibble, and I doubt you are even aware that you were implying a falsely dichotomous argument, that all intelligent people are evolutionist and all none-intelligent people are creationist. That is called a limited choice fallacy, which intelligent people like me, (a creationist), knows, but people like you, don't know.

 

The only sign of intelligence at this forum is Goku. (Fjuri too sometimes, when he isn't in a bad mood, but mostly he is in one)

 

 

 

 Wibble:  Oh no you won't because the Bible's true because the Bible says its true and it doesn't matter what nature shows you.

 

A blatant strawman fallacy for no creationist argues it but perhaps a very few and few they are. Only atheistic, stereotypical and therefore fictional versions of creationist, argue that "the bible is true because it says it is", which is an absurd over-simplification of our arguments. Nor is there an implied incongruity between what nature shows and what the bible says. (begging the question, fallacy.) First prove your claim nature contradicts what the bible says. It seems to me nature contradicts what evolution says, for there are no transitionals, there are no primordial forms, and it is clear that evolution only exists between the ears of evolutionists, and that there is no way life could create itself, which is simply an argument from credulity, fallacy.

 

Your attempts to contrive scientific minutia in an attempt to bolster evolution, is as transparent as your fallacious arguments. Reading a few articles doesn't make you a PHD, Wibble, and us cavemen. The amateur evolutionists, some at this site, regularly do not show a high level of intelligence in their evaluations. Not that I believe evolutionists can't think it through intelligently, but they are as prone to error as anyone else, just like creationists. 

 

Truly informed atheists don't argue your dichotomy. Schrafinator, an intelligent atheist I debated for many years, and Parasomnium, at EvC forum were intelligent, therefore they could acknowledge mine and would argue against the silly dichotomy that all creationists are Bubba from Texas with an IQ of 12.

 

Perhaps you should just cool off, Blitzking's comments were clearly a response to Driewerf's use of insulting words, if you read closely, he was mirroring his own words, so it is understandable why Blitzking was annoyed, he wasn't trying to genuinely insult, he was just responding by using the same epithets Driewerf used, because Driewerf's original post (#2) in this thread, was an unprovoked and unnecessary personal assault so there may be some heat from that. Everyone should calm down now and let that go.



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:22 AM

 

 

What If: good point, and the very first question i'm going to ask is why, why does god create all of this.
to strut his stuff?
bored?
because he can?
is there any rational reason why? 

 

It's a good question but I notice when you ask these questions they seem to be rhetorical. You already have your answers in your own mind, and nothing can change that you believe it would be absurd for God to have created life.

 

So do you really want an answer? It seems to me that basically you are not asking these questions but rather STATING them as questions but what you are really doing is saying that it is absurd God created life as it wouldn't make sense, that He would be showing off, or that there isn't any good reason He would.

 

So you state it as a question but really you are arguing that God creating life isn't a realistic scenario, IMHO.

 

Instead shall we focus on the original topic? Evolution seems to be an impossible thing, there seems to be no genuinely rational reason to accept it. Can you give me one?

 

:P



#25 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:36 AM

and I doubt you are even aware that you were implying a falsely dichotomous argument, that all intelligent people are evolutionist and all none-intelligent people are creationist. That is called a limited choice fallacy, which intelligent people like me, (a creationist), knows, but people like you, don't know.

Why don't you ever apply your "logic" to your own side ? (see BK's post below). I never said that creationists can't be intelligent did I, that was your false inference. However, it is possible to be intelligent and dogmatic.

 

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." -AiG

 

"People need to think it through intelligently." :yes:

 
You have just described the very ESSENCIAL problem with the whole Naturalistic worldview in a nutshell... :yoda:
 
 
People DO need to think it through intelligently.... :think:
 
HOWEVER
 
If people DID just that, This website wouldn't exist... :kaffeetrinker:



#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:50 AM

 

 

Wibble: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." -AiG

 

But you imply in a very binary type way, that this means that all creationists are from AIG. It just seems you are stuck in the rut of an implied dichotomy, that people are either literalist YECs or evolutionists.

 

I can understand if you read BK's comments and were a bit riled, I am not saying his post was perfect but I think he was annoyed and was defending against Driewerf's attack.

 

As for this quote by AIG, it does say, "perceived". The person that wrote this seems to understand affirmation-of-the-consequent, that any evidence, no matter how seemingly strong, can't break the scripture because all such evidence is part of inductive reasoning, which doesn't provide proof, but is largely based on a tally of historical, circumstantial, fractured evidence.

 

So although this may seem like a tremendously religious, and dogmatic assertion, when you think about it all they are really saying is that the evidence people think contradicts scripture, although may seem to contradict it, doesn't really contradict it.

 

For example it may seem like if I am innocent of murder, my fingerprints at the scene of a crime, contradict my claim of innocence but if it is proved later on that I was always commonly at that scene in daily life, then the evidence didn't really contradict my innocence but merely it was, "perceived" that it did.

 



#27 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:55 AM

Gould said..

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Yup, I especially like this part where he freely admits that we DONT observe MACRO "Evolution" in the fossil record any more than we see it today!! Only "MICRO" "Evolution.. That is EXACTLY What he is saying here.. The problem is, Variation and Adaptation IS NOT EVOLUTION in any way shape or form!! Dishonest Atheists have pulled a "Bait and Switch"/ Slick Marketing Ploy and included their deceptive little word "Micro"Evolution into each and every public school biology textbook in order to indoctrinate and brainwash the naive, gullible kids into believing that there is such a thing as Evolution that is observable if we just slip in the purposely duplicitous word MicroEvolution and sell it to the public....

Finches beaks, Dog Variation, Moth Colors, Bear Coat Lengths and Bacterial Resistance are NOT EVOLUTION...

 

My take on Gould's quote is that MICRO evolution is NOT observed at the "species level" within the fossil record, but transitional forms at the MACRO level is observed and even "abundant".

 

Also recall that Darwin originally came up with ToE by looking at things like finch beaks; IIRC much of his ground work into ToE revolved around islands, and islands are evolutionarily interesting as they usually have unique species which are often similar to the corresponding closest mainland species. Essentially Darwin inferred what creationists today call "micro" evolution, and then went on to hypothesize "macro" evolution while predicting things like transitional species if his macro theory was true, and ironically your Gould quote is claiming an "abundance" of these transitional forms at the "macro" level or "between larger groups".
 



#28 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:53 AM

People have thought it through intelligently and nature speaks clearly and conclusively that naïve literal belief in Genesis is false. Your style of incredulous ranting, circular reasoning and constant ad hominem attacks is not worthy of mature debate.
Why don't you try examining your own beliefs with a bit of objectivity for once ? Oh no you won't because the Bible's true because the Bible says its true and it doesn't matter what nature shows you.



Meh... You avoid debating me because you KNOW you cannot provide any Evidence to support your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Spontaneous Generation followed by UCA for all Flora and Fauna that CONFORMS TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.. Heck I will even let you violate the scientific law of Biogenesis with one hand tied behind my back and GIVE YOU ABIOGENESIS!! Now.. If you think that I am wrong with that statement, please BRING IT ON.. I will be here waiting sir.

You are just frustrated because you are on the losing end of this discussion.. Dont take it personal.. Many others have tried and every single time have failed just like you have on this thread.. Some of them have realized that I am right and have come over from the dark side and embraced the truth, many of them make baseless accusations about my "Style" just like you did, and others just go away with their tail between their legs but defiant as ever.. Which one will you be?


BTW Nature and the Bible compliment each other very nicely thank you..



Now.. Please repeat after me..

A Frog CANNOT turn into a prince with neither a kiss nor time..

A Frog CANNOT turn into a prince with neither a kiss nor time

A Frog CANNOT turn into a prince with neither a kiss nor time

A Frog CANNOT turn into a prince with neither a kiss nor time


Believe me.. It will be liberating if you do so..
Also, dont forget the name of the website you are on..


"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

R Dawkins

#29 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:13 PM

So do you really want an answer?

yes, i would really like to have an answer to the question as to why.
the next question would be, why is his creations imperfect.
the third question would be, why punish me for your mistake.
these are valid questions mike.
 
 

So you state it as a question but really you are arguing that God creating life isn't a realistic scenario, IMHO.


correct, simply because NOBODY has been able to adequately answer the questions that i ask.
the very same thing applies to abiogenesis, NOBODY has been able to adequately answer the question.
so, who or what has the edge in the above scenario?
another very serious drawback in the above is that we CANNOT use the same standards for both god and science.
i don't mean any disrespect, but god blowing on a piece of dirt and it turning into a frog or tree is the most absurd thing i've ever heard.
you are correct mike, people aren't stupid.
i would imagine that the overwhelming majority of people have these very same questions, but the devout religious tends to ignore them.

the only thing i can assume, and it's the safest course of action, is that i do not have all the answers. 

Instead shall we focus on the original topic? Evolution seems to be an impossible thing, there seems to be no genuinely rational reason to accept it. Can you give me one?

it seems like "evolution" is a lot more rational than the alternatives, which brings up the question of "do we know what the alternatives are."

#30 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:53 PM

the pattern we were told to find for the last 120 years doesn't exist.
there are very few examples - some would say none - of one species gradually shading into another.
- niles eldridge.

if you read goulds paper on the "spandrels of san marcos" you get the definite feeling there is a close parallel between what gould is saying and epigenetics, but at the time goulds paper was published epigenetics wasn't considered evolution.

#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:15 PM

 

 

What If: yes, i would really like to have an answer to the question as to why.
the next question would be, why is his creations imperfect.
the third question would be, why punish me for your mistake.
these are valid questions mike.

 

Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean there aren't any. The creation started without mistakes, there aren't any designer mistakes, every organism is viable, even all fossils show viable anatomies. If evolution were true there would be endless scores of fossilised mistakes.

 

I have explained these things before, but like I say, nothing will budge your mind as you keep telling yourself there aren't answers, but diseases can be proven to have arisen in time, malfunctions and detrimental mutations can be proven to have arisen in time. If they have a beginning in time that is after the creation, then they can't have been created at creation. (sound logic.)

 

But I can't force you to appreciate sound logic, so keep believing that mad cow disease was created by God if you want to.

 

 

 

What If: i don't mean any disrespect, but god blowing on a piece of dirt and it turning into a frog or tree is the most absurd thing i've ever heard

 

But if you misrepresent the miraculous to as a simplified representation of an event then it will sound absurd. Many things sound absurd until we know they are true, and many things are counter-intuitive. For example had they never discovered the giant squid or an octopus then it would be much more fitting that such creatures belong in monster movies. Dinosaurs should be impossible, they seem like monsters from monster movies, it seems absurd that their muscles could even take the weight of their bones, and all the other anatomical problems they would seem to imply, yet we find their bones.

 

So I think the problem is you are conflating the miraculous with magic. Obviously God has to do something beyond our grasp, He accumulates amino acids, all of a homo-chiral form, so that proteins can form, He assembles all of the elements. He has all of the knowledge of the anatomy He is about to create because He invented it, just like Davinci knew he would carve David from that large rock, yet if you looked at the type of rock he done it from and looked at the David statue you would proclaim; "absurd, there is no way that a man can hammer away with a chisel and shazam, there is a flawless man made from stone." See, you can make it sound simplistic, but that David statue began in Davinci's mind, he saw it before he carved it, and it is the same with God's creative acts, He already created amino acids on purpose, to get proteins, He already made the atoms chiral, so proteins could form from left handed versions of aminos, He already foreseen everything, and it was in His mind. It was all orchestrated, the breath of life He blew into man is the reference to that unique human spirit, as proven by all of our abilities which go beyond mere animal life.

 

If man can make a man from stone with his limited intellect, an omniscient God can create life, and assemble the parts needed.

 

I also think your questions presume the mistake of anthropopathism and anthropomorphism. You make the mistake of thinking God would do something to show off, as though God is a man with pride. This is a simplistic viewpoint of an omnipotent God. God does everything for God-sized reasons. He says in the bible He created the earth to be inhabited, which is why there are millions of viably designed species. God creates because He is the Creator, He creates all beautiful things, He makes wonderful worlds we never lay eyes on, what is man that He is mindful of him? If God wanted something, would He tell you? No indeed, we are as ants that live for a short time then pass away, therefore we must take hold of everything He says.



#32 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:24 PM

Meh... You avoid debating me because you KNOW you cannot provide any Evidence to support your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Spontaneous Generation followed by UCA for all Flora and Fauna that CONFORMS TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.. Heck I will even let you violate the scientific law of Biogenesis with one hand tied behind my back and GIVE YOU ABIOGENESIS!! Now.. If you think that I am wrong with that statement, please BRING IT ON.. I will be here waiting sir.

You are just frustrated because you are on the losing end of this discussion.. Dont take it personal.. Many others have tried and every single time have failed just like you have on this thread.. Some of them have realized that I am right and have come over from the dark side and embraced the truth, many of them make baseless accusations about my "Style" just like you did, and others just go away with their tail between their legs but defiant as ever.. Which one will you be?


I haven’t been involved in any debate on this particular thread so not sure how you can even assert that I’m “on the losing end of this discussion”.

Baseless accusations about your style ? So it wasn’t you that started a topic stating that people who accept evolution are mentally retarded (or words to that effect) ?

I don’t make much effort to engage with you on here because you provide little substance in your posts, mainly arguments from personal incredulity and very repetitive ones at that. I prefer creationists like Indydave (who has disappeared for some reason) because at least he will engage with the topic in hand and try to present a scientific rebuttal.
 

BTW Nature and the Bible compliment each other very nicely thank you..


*snorts loudly*

 

Now.. Please repeat after me..

A Frog CANNOT turn into a prince with neither a kiss nor time..


Believe me.. It will be liberating if you do so..
Also, dont forget the name of the website you are on..


I don’t and never did believe that a frog turned into a prince. However, multiple lines of evidence (fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology etc.) supports the inference that humans are ultimately derived from a tetrapod ancestor, which also gave rise to frogs.

Of course we don't have a gradual line of fossils from something like Tiktaalik to humans but the pattern of first emergence of fossil types through time fits evolution. And before you claim a circular argument, no matter how much we look in the geological strata, we never find a reptile, mammal, primate, human fossil out of place. For example, we can make the prediction that no mammal will ever be found in the Carboniferous, and every time we look in fresh deposits (creationists can look too), this prediction always holds.

Talking of frogs, why are they (and other amphibians) virtually absent on oceanic islands (that is,formed by volcanic activity, like the Galapagos, Hawaii etc.), even when the habitat is perfect for them (as shown when introduced by humans) but present on continental islands, often with great diversity and high endemism (e.g, Madagascar) ?

If you don’t understand why I’m asking the question, island biogeography is great evidence for evolution and requires special pleading to fit creation.
 



#33 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:29 PM

And before you claim a circular argument, no matter how much we look in the geological strata, we never find a reptile, mammal, primate, human fossil out of place.

careful with your choice of words.
i have shown that evidence concerning evolution will definitely be ignored if it doesn't fit the theory.
i have also shown how "allusions to ID" WILL be revised out of manuscripts.
as for your quote above, the correct phrasing should be:
there are no published results which show blah blah blah.

whether they have been found or not is another story.

#34 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:53 PM

My take on Gould's quote is that MICRO evolution is NOT observed at the "species level" within the fossil record, but transitional forms at the MACRO level is observed and even "abundant".

Also recall that Darwin originally came up with ToE by looking at things like finch beaks; IIRC much of his ground work into ToE revolved around islands, and islands are evolutionarily interesting as they usually have unique species which are often similar to the corresponding closest mainland species. Essentially Darwin inferred what creationists today call "micro" evolution, and then went on to hypothesize "macro" evolution while predicting things like transitional species if his macro theory was true, and ironically your Gould quote is claiming an "abundance" of these transitional forms at the "macro" level or "between larger groups".



"Essentially Darwin inferred what creationists today call "micro" evolution,"

Not THIS Creationist.. If you were paying attention you would have seen my post from yesterday on the subject in this very thread..

"My take on Gould's quote is that MICRO evolution is NOT observed at the "species level" within the fossil record, but transitional forms at the MACRO level is observed and even "abundant".

Is that "take" supposed to surprise us?


"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."

(Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

#35 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,050 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:55 PM

Not THIS Creationist.. If you were paying attention you would have seen my post from yesterday on the subject in this very thread..

 

When I first started debating creationists online they used to refuse any type of evolution whatsoever, and when the internet creationist warriors learned that populations do in fact change over time they had to address it. So they took the scientific term of "micro evolution" and came up with their own definition which basically expanded the definition to any evolutionary change up to the "kind" level which most professional creations say is around the "family" taxonomic rank. Other creationists thought that this type of language was too compromising, and so went one step further and replaced "micro evolution" with "adaptation", even though "adaptation" has a whole other definition in biology.

 

In biology micro evolution is often framed as "changes in allele frequency", and it doesn't denote whether the change is good or bad - as you probably know if a mutation is not neutral or nearly-neutral then the mutation is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. So, if someone has a harmful mutation this harmful mutation will be represented in the allele frequency of the population, and thus it is "micro evolution" by standard biology definitions, but would you also consider this an "adaptation" as I understand the relationship between standard biology terms and creationist terminology? If this is not adaptation then what do you call it, devolution?

 

"My take on Gould's quote is that MICRO evolution is NOT observed at the "species level" within the fossil record, but transitional forms at the MACRO level is observed and even "abundant".

Is that "take" supposed to surprise us?


"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."

(Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

 

Well that take is obviously what Gould was saying; I don't know how you went from "transitional forms.... are abundant between larger groups" to, "he freely admits that we DON'T observe MACRO "Evolution" in the fossil record". Unless I'm missing something Gould was saying the exact opposite.

I kind of agree evolutionary theory has this reverence about it, but I also think this reverence is more of a reaction to fundamentalist's a priori rejection of ToE and the (perceived) coupling of fundamentalism and pseudo-science. There are smart creationists out there, and some even have legitimate scientific credentials, but I think it is clear that the more you know about the subject the harder it is to continue believing in creationism. If you read Todd Wood's blog for example, perhaps the most qualified creationist to speak about evolution (YEC, PhD in biochem), he all but says evolution is sound science and that he rejects evolution irrespective of scientific facts/understanding in favor of his religious interpretation of the Bible.

 

I suspect most creationists with scientific backgrounds are so entrenched in creationism that their bias simply doesn't allow them to see the facts straight, but I suppose creationists would say the same thing about evolutionists.


  • Blitzking likes this

#36 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:40 AM

When I first started debating creationists online they used to refuse any type of evolution whatsoever, and when the internet creationist warriors learned that populations do in fact change over time they had to address it. So they took the scientific term of "micro evolution" and came up with their own definition which basically expanded the definition to any evolutionary change up to the "kind" level which most professional creations say is around the "family" taxonomic rank. Other creationists thought that this type of language was too compromising, and so went one step further and replaced "micro evolution" with "adaptation", even though "adaptation" has a whole other definition in biology.

 

In biology micro evolution is often framed as "changes in allele frequency", and it doesn't denote whether the change is good or bad - as you probably know if a mutation is not neutral or nearly-neutral then the mutation is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. So, if someone has a harmful mutation this harmful mutation will be represented in the allele frequency of the population, and thus it is "micro evolution" by standard biology definitions, but would you also consider this an "adaptation" as I understand the relationship between standard biology terms and creationist terminology? If this is not adaptation then what do you call it, devolution?

 

 

Well that take is obviously what Gould was saying; I don't know how you went from "transitional forms.... are abundant between larger groups" to, "he freely admits that we DON'T observe MACRO "Evolution" in the fossil record". Unless I'm missing something Gould was saying the exact opposite.

I kind of agree evolutionary theory has this reverence about it, but I also think this reverence is more of a reaction to fundamentalist's a priori rejection of ToE and the (perceived) coupling of fundamentalism and pseudo-science. There are smart creationists out there, and some even have legitimate scientific credentials, but I think it is clear that the more you know about the subject the harder it is to continue believing in creationism. If you read Todd Wood's blog for example, perhaps the most qualified creationist to speak about evolution (YEC, PhD in biochem), he all but says evolution is sound science and that he rejects evolution irrespective of scientific facts/understanding in favor of his religious interpretation of the Bible.

 

I suspect most creationists with scientific backgrounds are so entrenched in creationism that their bias simply doesn't allow them to see the facts straight, but I suppose creationists would say the same thing about evolutionists.

 

"And when the internet creationist warriors learned that populations do in fact change over time they had to address it."

 

WHY??? "Change over time" is MEANINGLESS.. And is NOT Evolution in any way shape or form..  For example, If a Finches Beak gets larger and thicker during a drought and changes back to pre drought size after the drought is over that is Evolution??   Or if a Moth gets darker during an industrial revolution with more air pollution and lighter when methods are implemented to reduce air pollution That is Evolution??   Or if a fish who lives in the lower depths of the caverns loses its ability to see, That is Evolution??  ALL are examples of "Change over time" but WHAT HAS EVOLVED??? :think:  Nothing.. They are examples of , And you hit the nail on the head..  CHANGES IN ALLELE FREQUENCY!!  Some genes even possibly end up getting switched off to the point of no return and are eliminated from the gene pool, but, again, THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!

 

"If this is not adaptation then what do you call it, devolution?"

 

BINGO!!! I believe sir that you are starting to catch on! Life on this planet is Not Evolving it is Devolving!!  :yes:

Very good, I am going to give a like to this post just for that!! 



#37 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 01:08 AM

When I first started debating creationists online they used to refuse any type of evolution whatsoever, and when the internet creationist warriors learned that populations do in fact change over time they had to address it. So they took the scientific term of "micro evolution" and came up with their own definition which basically expanded the definition to any evolutionary change up to the "kind" level which most professional creations say is around the "family" taxonomic rank. Other creationists thought that this type of language was too compromising, and so went one step further and replaced "micro evolution" with "adaptation", even though "adaptation" has a whole other definition in biology.

 

In biology micro evolution is often framed as "changes in allele frequency", and it doesn't denote whether the change is good or bad - as you probably know if a mutation is not neutral or nearly-neutral then the mutation is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. So, if someone has a harmful mutation this harmful mutation will be represented in the allele frequency of the population, and thus it is "micro evolution" by standard biology definitions, but would you also consider this an "adaptation" as I understand the relationship between standard biology terms and creationist terminology? If this is not adaptation then what do you call it, devolution?

 

 

Well that take is obviously what Gould was saying; I don't know how you went from "transitional forms.... are abundant between larger groups" to, "he freely admits that we DON'T observe MACRO "Evolution" in the fossil record". Unless I'm missing something Gould was saying the exact opposite.

I kind of agree evolutionary theory has this reverence about it, but I also think this reverence is more of a reaction to fundamentalist's a priori rejection of ToE and the (perceived) coupling of fundamentalism and pseudo-science. There are smart creationists out there, and some even have legitimate scientific credentials, but I think it is clear that the more you know about the subject the harder it is to continue believing in creationism. If you read Todd Wood's blog for example, perhaps the most qualified creationist to speak about evolution (YEC, PhD in biochem), he all but says evolution is sound science and that he rejects evolution irrespective of scientific facts/understanding in favor of his religious interpretation of the Bible.

 

I suspect most creationists with scientific backgrounds are so entrenched in creationism that their bias simply doesn't allow them to see the facts straight, but I suppose creationists would say the same thing about evolutionists.

 

"Unless I'm missing something Gould was saying the exact opposite."

 

Yes, you are missing something about Gould's quote.. Is was a response to this quote he made..

 

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace,"

 

 

Oh, funny you brought up Todd Wood..He made himself a poster boy for

the Oval Earther movement with a really stupid article.. Here is a letter I

wrote to him. I rightly called him out for his nonsensical article, He hasn't

written back.I also wrote a few emails to Ken Ham and asked him to explain

why he allowed Todd to post such deceptive foolish nonsense on his website..

I even made a few complaints about it on the AIG Facebook page..

I haven't heard back from anyone... Safe to say that you are barking up the

wrong tree if you think I am going to be impressed with something Todd Wood

wrote...LOL  you can peddle that fish somewhere else (with all due respect) :burp:

 

 

Hi Todd, I have been studying the subject of "Evolution" for many years now and am confident that I know as much or more about the subject of origins than 99% of the humans on this planet.
 When I saw your assertion in your article about "Gobs and Gobs of "evidence" for "Evolution" It really caught my attention to say the least, I would love for you to PLEASE give me a few examples of what this "Evidence" is, because up until now "Evolutionists have been hiding it from Creationists and telling us that we just dont understand how "evolution works" and need to "Trust Science"

 Just to clarify, When you use the word "Evolution" in your context, one should assume that you are referring to UCA all flora and fauna and NOT merely variation and adaptation like moth colors, finch beaks, bacterial resistance, and dog variety, Correct?   BTW the word "Micro" Evolution is a marketing ploy / Bait and Switch deception used to fool people that is "Evolution" WHEN IT IS NOT.

Just a reminder.  Wishful Speculation, Hopeful Assumptions, Unverified Speculation, Myths, Legends, and Circular Reasoning should not be acceptable to Anyone when it comes to Evidence that must conform to the Scientific Method to be considered Empirical Science (Or do you not agree with that?)

 

    BTW, I am also curious about the "amazing explanatory power" that "Evolution" has.. 

    For example, Evolution can explain why we should expect "Evolution to Occur...

    Instantly ("Hopeful Monsters" or "Saltation")
    Rapidly. (Punctuated Equilibrium)

    Slowly.. (decent with minuscule modifications over MOYs)
    Never.... (400 Million Year Old Living Fossils)

    Yup.... How very impressive is the "Amazing explanatory power of Evolution" Indeed..

    HERE IS WHAT YOU WROTE FOR REFERENCE..

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true"

 



#38 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 April 2017 - 10:57 AM

Heck I will even let you violate the scientific law of Biogenesis with one hand tied behind my back and GIVE YOU ABIOGENESIS!!

Can you describe the experiments that proved the scientific law of Biogenesis and explain what bearing it has on a modern theory of abiogenesis?

#39 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 April 2017 - 11:32 AM

good point, and the very first question i'm going to ask is why, why does god create all of this.to strut his stuff?bored?because he can?is there any rational reason why?


"Is their any rational reason why"

Yes, but I am sure it is above your paygrade..

It seems pretty clear that God wanted to create a situation that allows for the temporary housing of as many spirits as possible to give them the opportunity to either seek him out, love and appreciate his majesty, or reject him and do their own thing.. He gave man Free Will to choose, he does not force man to love him as he is omniscient and knows forced love is meaningless love.. The entire creation is absolutely brilliant and allows the opportunity for as many potential souls as these tents even regenerate new ones as to give as many as possible the opportunity.. Being that God lives OUTSIDE of time that be created, your great grandfather and your great grandchildren all live in the same dimension to him.. I wonder how many people have been given the opportunity to love their creator since Adam and Eve? 200 Billion? And the nature that God created for our wonderment is pretty ingenious indeed... Have you ever been to New England in October?
Such jaw dropping majestic splendor and Atheists want to try to sit there and tell me that it is just a product of chaotic, mindless, chance as are my eyes to behold it? LOL

No, Atheists are not mentally retarded, but they are Insane...

#40 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:50 PM

In biology micro evolution is often framed as "changes in allele frequency", and it doesn't denote whether the change is good or bad - as you probably know if a mutation is not neutral or nearly-neutral then the mutation is more likely to be harmful than beneficial.

statistics seems to suggest the ratio should be 50-50.
have any idea why it would be skewed to the "harmful" side?

also, is this (changes in allele frequency) another phrase like natural selection/genetic drift?
we were told for YEARS how natural selection was the end all be all of lifes diversity, only to find out that there is ZERO evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.
 

I kind of agree evolutionary theory has this reverence about it, . . .

there is nothing "reverent" about a pack of people that ignores valid evidence because it didn't fit their conceptions.
there is nothing "reverent" in scientists being sued, or having their careers blunted, because they speak out about these frauds.
there is nothing "reverent" in forcing religion out of our schools, and yes, this was a DIRECT result of evolutionary theory and those that adamantly stand behind it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users