Creationist questions evolution

[davewhite04]

OK, but this is a science board.

I certainly grant that, here in the Religion subforum, there will be as many religious realities as there are people. But that does not mean it is immune to rational analysis and logic.

Belief will always be more powerful then logic or reason. With no belief you have nothing. Imagine if you didn't have the belief to write your question, you wouldn't of wrote it. Whether you admit it or not, everyone believes in themselves, just some battles you lose, like losing the confidence in yourself..

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you list three of the sources you have consulted? I hope you've done more than read a few creationist web pages.

I can. But that would be a waste of time for me.

Sure. I certainly don't have the time or the energy or the inclination to teach you basic biology from scratch on a discussion forum.

I don’t need you’re dodgy teaching to understand what is termed microevolution. So why do you think I need you’re dodgy teaching for the Darwinian story?

Despite your protestations, the basic errors you keep throwing up, along with the Creationist talking points, all strongly point to a mere thoughtless regurgitation of said talking points, so far.

There are no errors.
So far, Darwinian evolution is an article of faith. There is no evidence for it, unless you can provide some now.

I find. Basically, what you call macro-evolution is usually the result of a long-enough string of micro-evolutions. The reason you think there's a distinction is because of your assumption that there are fixed "kinds" that are essentially immune to evolution.

There are no distinctions James.
You need to provide real evidence, if you want this idea to be accepted.

No. Just because we call a particular wolf/dog ancestor a "dawn wolf" or an "ancient Siberian wolf", that doesn't mean that species belonged to the wolf "kind" - your idea of the fixed,

Did the wolf ancestor look like a wolf? Is that what you’re saying?
I’m only interested in something that nobody could possibly characterise it as a wolf. Just like the crackpot idea of whale evolution.

You question was answered previously. If you want to push further back in time to earlier ancestor species, you can do the research yourself.

I’m not doing reasearch on your religion.
Either tell me what creature the wolf/dog evolved from, or don’t.
Personally I know you can’t, so I’m not going to hold my breath.

But you've had these discussions before on this forum, have you not? We've talked about the evolution of whales and horses, haven't we? We've also talked about human evolution from earlier hominids. What new information do you require that hasn't already been presented to you? You've been pointed in directions where you could find out more for yourself, if you were truly interested. Didn't you investigate anything beyond what you saw here?

We’re having this discussion now. I am asking the question now.
If you cannot answer the questions, not only does it show the nature of those previous discussions, but it puts to bed, right now, that Darwinian evolution, is nothing more than a religion. It’s done. Get over it.

If you want to delve into one of these areas, I'd be happy to help you

Help yourself James.

Mind you, as I already said, my time is limited. I'm not going to do literature searches on your behalf.

My time is also limited.
So just produce this evidence, without all the dialogue.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

I can. But that would be a waste of time for me.

If you cannot answer the question, not only does it show the nature of those previous discussions, but it puts to bed, right now, the idea that your religious creationist beliefs have any basis other than blind belief.

I don’t need you’re dodgy teaching to understand what is termed microevolution.

"Macroerosion" is the same as "microerosion." It is just bigger and happens over a longer time frame.
"Macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution." It is just more significant and happens over a longer time frame.

So far, Darwinian evolution is an article of faith. There is no evidence for it, unless you can provide some now.

Here is some concrete evidence, organisms that have evolved and speciated during recorded history:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)

You can deny science all you like. It's much harder to deny that an organism exists when it is sitting there staring at you.

Did the wolf ancestor look like a wolf? Is that what you’re saying?
I’m only interested in something that nobody could possibly characterise it as a wolf.

Easy. A chihuahua.

Either tell me what creature the wolf/dog evolved from, or don’t.

Easy. A creature called Canis Lepophagus. We have the fossil proof.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This one's really tedious.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you cannot answer the question, not only does it show the nature of those previous discussions, but it puts to bed, right now, the idea that your religious creationist beliefs have any basis other than blind belief.

Given that you are an atheist, and Darwinian evolution is your religion, I accept that it is difficult to come up with your own written material, hence the plagiarising.

"Macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution." It is just more significant and happens over a longer time frame.

So the religion stipulates.
Now all you have to do is show that it takes place.

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)

Not good enough.
I’m talking about something becoming an entirely different creature. Something like whale evolution.

You can deny science all you like. It's much harder to deny that an organism exists when it is sitting there staring at you.

Darwinian evolution isn’t science, as it cannot be observed. Get over it.

Easy. A chihuahua.

Try again

Easy. A creature called Canis Lepophagus. We have the fossil proof.

If a five year old were asked to describe a picture of this dog/wolf, do you think they would see it as a dog? If not. What would they describe it as?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This one's really tedious.

Good!
You wouldn’t want to deal with some who’s all compliant and stuff. Would you?

Then again, maybe you would.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes I could. I used to be a (successful) proposal writer for Indian tribes.

But I am not very ambitious, so to me it's not worth the effort. I like an informal setting, without any pre-conditions.
Must be the jazz musician in me. Improvisation on a theme.....

Are you a musician ?
What is your main instrument ?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

Given that you are an atheist

Wrong again!

So the religion stipulates.

Nope. Simple logic.

"Microerosion" uses exactly the same processes as "macroerosion." In a short time frame you get a gulley in your back yard. In a medium time frame you get the Delaware Water Gap. In a long time frame you get the Grand Canyon.

"Microevolution" uses exactly the same processes as "macroevolution." In a short time you get a modern human from an ancestor that looks a lot like us. In a medium time frame you get a modern human from an ancestor that looks like an ape. In a long time frame you get a modern human from an ancestor that looks like a shrew.

Now all you have to do is show that it takes place.

Done.

I’m talking about something becoming an entirely different creature. Something like whale evolution.

In that case - whale evolution, from indohyus to humpback whale. And we even have all the fossils to prove it.

Darwinian evolution isn’t science, as it cannot be observed. Get over it.

I listed a bunch of examples above where we DID observe it. You lose again!

If a five year old were asked to describe a picture of this dog/wolf, do you think they would see it as a dog? If not. What would they describe it as?

Probably as a coyote. (It was about the same size, and both coyotes and wolves evolved from it.)

 

[kx000]

If we have always been
There are no new things
You can only learn new things
It follows that learning is obsolete in a singularity

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good!
You wouldn’t want to deal with some who’s all compliant and stuff. Would you?

Then again, maybe you would.

Jan.

You are just babbling, so there's nothing for me to "would".

 

[Jan Ardena]

What is clear from this thread is that Jan believes that evolution is a threat to his religion,

I don’t recall discussing “my religion” with you.
Secondly, let’s say my religion was Christianity, how would something that is a natural phenomenon, be a threat to it.
Would you see “evolution” as it currently scientifically observed (micro), a potential threat, to my religion?

The Christian fundamentalist ones hold that evolution goes against the sacred text of the bible,

Actually, evolution, as currently observed, fits exactly with the“sacred” text of the bible.

Therefore, one must be careful never to learn anything about evolution. Indeed, one must actively try to suppress the teaching of evolution as far as one is able. It's a holy duty.

“Evolution” is not really a consideration, as it works naturally.
Darwinian evolution is a concoction, which has turned into a religion. If it is true (), show it. That’s all I’m asking.

It's an understandable self-protection mechanism. If you really, honestly, believe that your place in the afterlife is threatened by accepting certain scientific facts, then of course you're going to get that science as far away from yourself as possible, and fight it where you see it. Evolution is "atheist science", which is a sin against God. Or something like that.

Not condescending at all! No!

This, of course, is true.

Yeah! Because we need to “establish a god exists”! That’s how it works in atheist land. Hey

It's understandable that Creationists do so poorly at trying to refute evolution, given that they are unwilling to learn anything about it for reasons given above. What is more puzzling, as you say, is that these religious people who come to a science forum to argue about evolution apparently have nothing to show us about their gods. Ask them directly for evidence and they run away and hide.

*shakes head*

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are just babbling, so there's nothing for me to "would".

I’m not babbling.
And furthermore, you know it.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're babbling. You're an attention seeker, just a child.

 

[davewhite04]

... Just like the crackpot idea of whale evolution.

I thought that was elegant.

 

[davewhite04]

Jan:

Imagine, for a second, how amazing the World has been in the past! Amazing creatures! And terrifying ones! Man? that's a work in progress. But the animals. Free your imagination of whatever God stuff you've stuffed up there and imagine again!

 

[davewhite04]

Jan:

Imagine, for a second, how amazing the World has been in the past! Amazing creatures! And terrifying ones! Man? that's a work in progress. But the animals. Free your imagination of whatever God stuff you've stuffed up there and imagine again!

Jan: Imagining too much might do your head in though. It does mine, especially evolution.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah! Because we need to “establish a god exists”! That’s how it works in atheist land. Hey

Correct, which is a subset of Rational land. Here's why:

There are an infinite number of things we could talk about in a hypothetical manner without first establishing that they exist.

But to have a meaningful conversation about God - or the life cycle of unicorns - we would first want to establish that they're not just fiction. Otherwise it's all hypothetical.

 

[davewhite04]

I mean, did the world become a less terrifying one(animal wise) when man showed up and wrote about there exploits.

 

[DaveC426913]

Belief will always be more powerful then logic or reason. With no belief you have nothing. Imagine if you didn't have the belief to write your question, you wouldn't of wrote it. Whether you admit it or not, everyone believes in themselves, just some battles you lose, like losing the confidence in yourself..

Sure. The difference is: believing in things that can be checked.

Things that can't be checked we leave to philosophers. Here on a science board, we don't try to assert beliefs we can't verify.

 

[DaveC426913]

I mean, did the world become a less terrifying one(animal wise) when man showed up and wrote about there exploits.

Yes. We no longer write "Hyere Be Dragons" on our maps.