Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="In situ" data-source="post: 69544160" data-attributes="member: 331194"><p>And when biologist present the evidence for evolution, they are forced to simply the evidence (all of life) to small chunks and simple examples so we, non-experts, can understand. These simplification are what creationist attacks and claims are wrong...</p><p></p><p>A classical example of this is the "transitional" fossil. This expression is used a pedagogic tool, it is a simplified construct to explain evolution (which is not about individuals but populations dynamics). The point is, <u>no</u> organism is a transition but instead every organism is a complete full formed and functional organism in its own right. But this creationist does not acknowledge but claims a transition is some kind of "freak" organisms composed of two different "kinds" of organism. This is incorrect and only serves to confuses the understanding of what evolution actually means and is about.</p><p>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And there is reason why they do that...</p><p></p><p>When talking with creationists, I would not recommend to use the word 'hierarchy' but instead 'set' to avoid confusion. A creationists is "taught" the idea that a hierarchy is presupposed. If you say 'set' instead of 'hierarchy', then it leave the option open in the discussion to explain how the hierarchy is not assumed but derived from a nested set. We, not creationists, know why it is a hierarchy so we don't talk about it as a set, nor do we need to justify it all the time. However, if you discuss the pattern of life with a creationist that does not know why it is hierarchy, but believe you have assume it, then you will fail even before you started.</p><p></p><p>Remember the very same nested hierarchy was a big mystery before Darwin explained it. Creationists still experience this mystery. They know it exists, but they cannot explain it nor explain it away. So they "ignore" it as the mystery it is, in other words they accept it exists but they don't accept that it is a real hierarchy, but believe it is constructed, i.e. assumed.</p><p></p><p>In other words creationist "ignore" the (only) evidence - but not willfully.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="In situ, post: 69544160, member: 331194"] And when biologist present the evidence for evolution, they are forced to simply the evidence (all of life) to small chunks and simple examples so we, non-experts, can understand. These simplification are what creationist attacks and claims are wrong... A classical example of this is the "transitional" fossil. This expression is used a pedagogic tool, it is a simplified construct to explain evolution (which is not about individuals but populations dynamics). The point is, [U]no[/U] organism is a transition but instead every organism is a complete full formed and functional organism in its own right. But this creationist does not acknowledge but claims a transition is some kind of "freak" organisms composed of two different "kinds" of organism. This is incorrect and only serves to confuses the understanding of what evolution actually means and is about. . And there is reason why they do that... When talking with creationists, I would not recommend to use the word 'hierarchy' but instead 'set' to avoid confusion. A creationists is "taught" the idea that a hierarchy is presupposed. If you say 'set' instead of 'hierarchy', then it leave the option open in the discussion to explain how the hierarchy is not assumed but derived from a nested set. We, not creationists, know why it is a hierarchy so we don't talk about it as a set, nor do we need to justify it all the time. However, if you discuss the pattern of life with a creationist that does not know why it is hierarchy, but believe you have assume it, then you will fail even before you started. Remember the very same nested hierarchy was a big mystery before Darwin explained it. Creationists still experience this mystery. They know it exists, but they cannot explain it nor explain it away. So they "ignore" it as the mystery it is, in other words they accept it exists but they don't accept that it is a real hierarchy, but believe it is constructed, i.e. assumed. In other words creationist "ignore" the (only) evidence - but not willfully. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity
Top
Bottom