Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And who's mind came up with that puzzle? Jesus?
Do you know the answer? Does the puzzle even pose a valid logical question?
Creationist questions evolution
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Do you know the answer? Does the puzzle even pose a valid logical question?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well that is possibly better as it has been my experience that folk are more pleasant getting their self medication from a plant.
I certainty respect your honesty on the positive assumption you are not offerring a ruse to hide a drinking problem.☺
Alex
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for the nice reply
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Jesus saves! But Gretzky scores on the rebound.
Ah, that explains it. Thanks.
Yep. For centuries religious types executed anyone who dared claim that the Earth was round, or that it moves, or that there were no such things as witches with supernatural powers, or that human bodies worked by basic chemical principles. Fortunately, most people nowadays no longer execute scientists they disagree with.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Unfortunately, the sentiment remains.....
And also unfortunately, is making a bit of a comeback. Anti-intellectualism and bothsiderism are resulting in more science than ever being discarded in favor of populist beliefs. The resurgence of the flat earthers, the Truther movement, climate change denial, anti-vaxxers and creationism are all examples. "Well, I'm not a scientist, but I think that (vaccines cause autism, the Earth is flat, we never went to the Moon) - and my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's!"Unfortunately, the sentiment remains.....
Jan Ardena:
I see now that your rejection of evolution is wilful blindness for religiously-motivated reasons. That explains your mental block on the topic.
Jan Ardena:
Given that you're not in a position where you're willing to learn about the science of evolution, whatever I write on the topic will most likely be ignored or dismissed by you. Nevertheless, some other readers might find answers to your questions useful, and they might help some people to perceive the failures of Creationism. Therefore, I will respond to some points you raise.
The problem, especially apparent in Creationists such as yourself, comes in assuming that the common-sense "types" are unmalleable, and that there are unbreachable boundaries between "types". Thus, something is either a dog or a duck, and there's no appreciation that there could be many intermediates between the two "types".
You have previously claimed that you believe that things evolve, but this kind of response from you exposes that claim as a lie, or else as a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for something to evolve.
Typically in evolution, big changes come about over very long periods of time - millions of years. Small changes accumulate over time to produce big differences between the start and end points.
It might be pointed out that dogs and ducks are not so very different, anyway. Both are warm-blooded animals with hearts, backbones, similar skeletal systems (in many respects), similar sense organs, etc. etc. They also, of course, share much of their DNA, as we would expect since the DNA controls how the body is constructed.
Where is the evidence for evolution? You've already been given the answer. It is in fossils, in DNA, in morphology, in biogeography... the list goes on and on. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the theory of evolution.
Given that you're not in a position where you're willing to learn about the science of evolution, whatever I write on the topic will most likely be ignored or dismissed by you. Nevertheless, some other readers might find answers to your questions useful, and they might help some people to perceive the failures of Creationism. Therefore, I will respond to some points you raise.
Sort of. The more important point is that the everyday classification of living things into distinct "types" is somewhat arbitary, being done mainly on the basis of superficial characteristics only - i.e. how things look at a casual glance. The "common sense" classification of animals into vague "types" is not systematic in the way that biological classification is systematic. It's more of a heuristic.
The problem, especially apparent in Creationists such as yourself, comes in assuming that the common-sense "types" are unmalleable, and that there are unbreachable boundaries between "types". Thus, something is either a dog or a duck, and there's no appreciation that there could be many intermediates between the two "types".
You use the word "kind" (another common Creationist word) in the same sense that I used the word "type" just above. Your error is your belief that "kinds" are fixed and unalterable.
You have previously claimed that you believe that things evolve, but this kind of response from you exposes that claim as a lie, or else as a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for something to evolve.
Typically in evolution, big changes come about over very long periods of time - millions of years. Small changes accumulate over time to produce big differences between the start and end points.
It might be pointed out that dogs and ducks are not so very different, anyway. Both are warm-blooded animals with hearts, backbones, similar skeletal systems (in many respects), similar sense organs, etc. etc. They also, of course, share much of their DNA, as we would expect since the DNA controls how the body is constructed.
Where is the evidence for evolution? You've already been given the answer. It is in fossils, in DNA, in morphology, in biogeography... the list goes on and on. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the theory of evolution.
Strange that we describe wolves and dogs as different "kinds", then, is it not?
As Darwin himself was well aware, people like yourself are very familiar with artificial selection. It is virtually impossible to deny that evolution occurs via that route. From there, it is a relatively small conceptual leap to appreciating that natural selection occurs. I realise that this is a leap you, personally, are very afraid to take for religious reasons, so for you education in biology probably ends here, sadly.
Why not look it up for yourself, if you're really interested? I don't think you really want to know.
Drawing pictures like that helps make sense of the evidence. Don't mistake the map for the territory.
In the fossils. In the morphology. In the DNA. And so on. All the evidence points to the same conclusion.
Your "kind" category that you label "human being" is not one that remains constant over geological time, just like all the other "kinds" you think are unchangeable. Change accumulates over time. You are less like your grandfather than your father. You are even less like your great grandfather. Trace back thousands of generations and you'll find that you're quite a bit different to Australopithecus. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? (Don't answer. I know why.)
Jan Ardena:
Recall when I gave you a specific demonstration by simple example of how new information could arise spontaneously in a genome? Recall how you ignored my posts and never acknowledged the point? But you read those posts, nonetheless. I even directed you back to them when it appeared you had overlooked them. At this point, you can't keep pretending you didn't see them.
It's no good burying your head in the sand singing "la la I can't hear you!" Honesty would demand that you address the issue head on. You can't keep pretending.
Your idea that God created the human "kind" in one act of creation, and that we've all remained essentially unchanged ever since that event 6000 years ago, flies in the face of modern science. It is superstitious rubbish. It's time to grow up, Jan.
There's no other conclusion that makes sense, apart from God as the Great Deceiver, perhaps. Do you believe your God created all the fossils there with intent to deceive us all into thinking evolution happened? There's no doubt he could do that, if he exists as you describe. But why? That can only be explained by your theology, not by science.
Tut tut, Jan. You know this is dishonest.
Recall when I gave you a specific demonstration by simple example of how new information could arise spontaneously in a genome? Recall how you ignored my posts and never acknowledged the point? But you read those posts, nonetheless. I even directed you back to them when it appeared you had overlooked them. At this point, you can't keep pretending you didn't see them.
It's no good burying your head in the sand singing "la la I can't hear you!" Honesty would demand that you address the issue head on. You can't keep pretending.
Obviously, as I explained to you previously with examples. It's not a hard concept to grasp, yet you refuse to even acknowledge that I showed you this. Why? (Don't answer, I know why.)
No. A dawn-wolf was not a wolf. Your error, again, is in believing in unmalleable, fixed "kinds". Modern wolves could not breed with dawn-wolves, were they still alive today. Hence, different species. You cannot avoid the issue by attempting to jam dawn-wolves into your vague "kind" category labelled "wolf". As explained previously, your common-sense "kind" idea, based on superficialities, does not work as a scientific system of classification. You need something better.
Let's face it: the Garden of Eden story, Adam and Eve and all that, is a myth, not science. It's no more true that the Creationist notion that the earth is 6000 years old.
Your idea that God created the human "kind" in one act of creation, and that we've all remained essentially unchanged ever since that event 6000 years ago, flies in the face of modern science. It is superstitious rubbish. It's time to grow up, Jan.
Last edited:
What alternative do you propose?
Earlier in this thread you stated that you believe neither in Creationism nor evolution. So what do you believe, and why?
Accurately, and in my own words.
Try it. Try "regurgitating" an accurate statement about Darwinian evolution (either the theory or the fact), in your own words, on this forum. You haven't managed that yet, even once, as far as I can recall.
Look at this weird language, for example:
So?
You appear to be thinking that Darwinian evolution involves a one step change from one kind of animal into a completely different kind of animal. That's wrong, it doesn't.
Unless you are talking about something like insect metamorphosis, in which case you are wrong about the verification.
Many creatures have evolved from distant ancestors quite different from themselves, as recorded in the rocks and the genetic relationships and the taxonomies and so forth, of course. That is by now (vast troves of evidence and data of many kinds, none in disagreement) an almost unavoidable deduction from evidence, not a "belief".
That is not at all the same thing as a creature "transforming itself" into an entirely different creature, which is creationist babble.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Write4U said:
Just to add to the long list of proofs;
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
No, I posted this several years ago for the first time. I maintain a library of remarkable documents. You managed to look foolish once again, by making unsupported assumptions which invariably are being falsified by more knowledgeable people.
But rather than trying to ignore evidence of evolution by mutation, why don't you give some thought to the facts staring you in the face. This chromosome fusion is a perfect example of an evolutionary process, and clearly establishes the fact that chimpanzees are close cousins to humans.
p.s. "must of took you" is properly written as "must have taken you."
Normally I don't ridicule other posters for minor misspellings, but as you insist on making yourself look foolish by trying to make me look foolish, I'll be glad to assist. Keep 'em coming.......
[/quote]
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It appears that only you see what you want to see. Everyone else is in agreement that there is plenty to see, but nothing that even remotely resembles a scriptural god.
And you refuse to see anything that disturbs your preconceptions.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The main point to remember is that for all their refusal to understand The Theory of Evolution and determination to display ignorance at a level that must call into question their sanity, the creationist is faced with a most inconvenient reality, that being that it does not matter if the Theory of Evolution is wrong or right they are still left with no proof of a god.
Take The Theory of Evolution away and we are no closer to establishing that a god exists.
They argue against evolution hoping that a victory can help prove god...well it does not.
Creationist insist there is a god but can not provide one piece of evidence in support...not a single piece of evidence...that is the sad and sorry place in which they find themselves imprisoned.
And look at how dishonesty is their standard method of promoting their unsupportable notion.
If they are so right why the need to lie and be dishonest. WHY.
Why the need to believe one book is gods word when it is so full of error.
You could think that any book of science would be more appropriately seen as gods word because of their correctness and clarity and demonstration of how things really work.
So why do they hold onto all their superstitious nonsense...well firstly they are highly superstitious and secondly they hold a fear of death that turns them into cowards and a fear of eternal punishement that causes them to accept superstition without question.
I can see why they need religion but I cant see why they are so dishonest.
And like many things the bad folk stuff it for the good...the greedy con artist telly evangalists spoil it for the decent ministers monks and priests who may be doing good deeds to help folk rather than rip them off...there must also be some religious folk who hold some degree of rational thought...but the talking in tounges mob cause folk like me to think all believers are fools and or crazy.
And to Jan...he cant be who he pretends to be...he seems to do little more than troll ...but thats ok as for old folk like me to have someone to argue with and know that I always win is wonderful.
The site needs Jan to keep folk like me interested.
But the absense of evolution does not help prove the existence of a mythical character...there is nothing that can make mythical character real.
Alex
Take The Theory of Evolution away and we are no closer to establishing that a god exists.
They argue against evolution hoping that a victory can help prove god...well it does not.
Creationist insist there is a god but can not provide one piece of evidence in support...not a single piece of evidence...that is the sad and sorry place in which they find themselves imprisoned.
And look at how dishonesty is their standard method of promoting their unsupportable notion.
If they are so right why the need to lie and be dishonest. WHY.
Why the need to believe one book is gods word when it is so full of error.
You could think that any book of science would be more appropriately seen as gods word because of their correctness and clarity and demonstration of how things really work.
So why do they hold onto all their superstitious nonsense...well firstly they are highly superstitious and secondly they hold a fear of death that turns them into cowards and a fear of eternal punishement that causes them to accept superstition without question.
I can see why they need religion but I cant see why they are so dishonest.
And like many things the bad folk stuff it for the good...the greedy con artist telly evangalists spoil it for the decent ministers monks and priests who may be doing good deeds to help folk rather than rip them off...there must also be some religious folk who hold some degree of rational thought...but the talking in tounges mob cause folk like me to think all believers are fools and or crazy.
And to Jan...he cant be who he pretends to be...he seems to do little more than troll ...but thats ok as for old folk like me to have someone to argue with and know that I always win is wonderful.
The site needs Jan to keep folk like me interested.
But the absense of evolution does not help prove the existence of a mythical character...there is nothing that can make mythical character real.
Alex
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Intelligent design using evolution, if I was held up by a nuclear weapon up my nose.
Christianity is in danger because of Luke's genealogy... this is why it's important to them.
They're kinda opposites. Like saying you believe in anarchy via a controlling, totalitarian government.
That's the sum total of your response to everything I wrote to you above?
What a disappointment you turned out to be, Jan. An apparently intelligent guy with self-imposed blinders so severe that you are unable to function as a fully rounded, educated person.
I'd venture a guess that this has been a limiting factor in your life, but thinking about it I think it probably hasn't been. No doubt you've chosen a path where you can push all the inconvenient truths to one side most of the time, and get by that way.