Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[Brightmoon]

Those are suppositions not evidence.

Bones are just bones...
Environment is just a location...
DNA shows nothing but the similarity that most animals have in common and doesn't show the evolution of species, genus, family, order, class, etc...
Behavioral patterns are grasping at straws to create a narrative, not evidence...

no offense, but that’s about the most ignorant pseudoscience assertion I’ve read on here and that’s saying a lot as creation “science” tends to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I live in NYC not Hicktown USA . The lady in the hijab is walking next to the flamboyant gay man in feathers and makeup. And no one is giving either a second glance. Ain’t happening , kid!

Sad isn't it that people are too complacent to care if their fellow human beings are perishing in sin...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

being a wiseass isn’t evidence either

That wasn't meant to be evidence... just hopeful

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Exactly, why would their teachers lie to them?

I wonder why Aztec society taught that sacrificing humans and ripping their hears out was a good thing? I'm sure I'd hear the same mantra from the Aztec plebs... "why would the priest lie to us that this is a wrong belief"... believe as you wish, after all we are permitted to be the architect of our own destruction

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It appears that you do not understand the meaning of the words "evidence" and "supposition". As Ana the 1st pointed out in post 10 the creationist response to meaningful evidence is to claim "that is not evidence", and there you are doing exactly that.

Because it isn't... if I say that I have a theory of invisibility and can't produce any evidence of such a theory, then it's just supposition. I can state that the evidence of such a theory is there but it's just invisible.... the same circular arguments used by evolutionists.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

no offense, but that’s about the most ignorant pseudoscience assertion I’ve read on here and that’s saying a lot as creation “science” tends to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

You show me a fossil and tell me it's 3.5 million years old... where's the evidence of that? You say it comes from strata that's 3.5 million years old. I ask how do you know that strata is 3.5 million years old? You confidently state that it's because you found a 3.5 million year old fossil in it... now that's true pseudoscience....lol

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because it isn't... if I say that I have a theory of invisibility and can't produce any evidence of such a theory, then it's just supposition. I can state that the evidence of such a theory is there but it's just invisible

I agree with this, but the evidence for evolution is very much visible. You claiming that it isn't visible is just odd. Perhaps we need to clarify what is meant by "evidence" and "supposition". Could you please provide the definitions you use?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You show me a fossil and tell me it's 3.5 million years old... where's the evidence of that? You say it comes from strata that's 3.5 million years old. I ask how do you know that strata is 3.5 million years old? You confidently state that it's because you found a 3.5 million year old fossil in it... now that's true pseudoscience....lol

That's a true strawman.

 

[Abraxos]

Here is a perfect example of the sort of nonsense that riles "evolutionists". Nobody is "brainwashed to believe in the evolutionary theory", and you know it. If you can't be honest in your arguments expect to be attacked for your dishonesty.

Oh, I'm being perfectly honest, I do see that the majority of laypeople that believe in the evolutionary theory are brainwashed, and it's never easy to try and convince someone that they are brainwashed. I'm not really making an argument, but an observation on how evolutionists are easily threatened when presented with the many problems with the molecules-to-man belief; and their shameful knee-jerk reactions are a defense and coping mechanism. (Your response to mine is a good example)

I'm actually interested in what you mean by attacking. Confront the argument, or attack the person for their assessment that the theory of evolution is a fraud?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, I'm being perfectly honest, I do see that the majority of laypeople that believe in the evolutionary theory are brainwashed, and it's never easy to try and convince someone that they are brainwashed.

That's not what you claimed. Your claim was that educating people about evolution is brainwashing. If you cannot support that assertion then let's dismiss it and never raise it again, OK?

I'm not really making an argument, but an observation on how evolutionists are easily threatened when presented with the many problems with the molecules-to-man belief; and their shameful knee-jerk reactions are a defense and coping mechanism. (Your response to mine is a good example)

As i just pointed out, you're actually making an assertion, not an observation. My response was not a knee-jerk reaction or coping mechanism, it was an observation

I'm actually interested in what you mean by attacking. Confront the argument, or attack the person for their assessment that the theory of evolution is a fraud?

Given that you don't listen when your argument is confronted and shown to be erroneous that really only leaves an attack on the honesty of the poster.

 

[Abraxos]

That's not what you claimed. Your claim was that educating people about evolution is brainwashing. If you cannot support that assertion then let's dismiss it and never raise it again, OK?


As i just pointed out, you're actually making an assertion, not an observation. My response was not a knee-jerk reaction or coping mechanism, it was an observation


Given that you don't listen when your argument is confronted and shown to be erroneous that really only leaves an attack on the honesty of the poster.

When you read the whole post in context, each of your points were actually addressed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Great, does that mean you'll no longer be posting this evolution falsehood on here?

Thanks for proving the point once more.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We share similarities with all animals...

I'm not talking about similarities.
I'm talking about DNA matches and the pattern they exist in.
It's how we determine ancestral and familial relationships.

once again, not evidence

Overwhelming evidence.
Again, it's how we determine ancestral and familial relationships when doing DNA testing.

It could just as well be evidence for a common Creator,

No. "common creator" doesn't predict these DNA patterns. The existance of such patterns isn't required at all for the "creator" hypothesis.

Common ancestry, does require such patterns. To the point that is those patterns aren't there, then common ancestry is wrong.

But these patterns ARE there.
So yes, they most definatly are (very strong) evidence for common ancestry. And not at all for "common design".

although I'm sure if I presented that, you would say that wasn't evidence.

You have nothing to present, because as I said already, the "creator" hypothesis doesn't predict these patterns at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm talking about DNA matches and the pattern they exist in.

Just out of curiosity, how can one of those DNA sites that tell you where you came from tell me ... say ... that I came from Genghis Khan, when they don't have Genghis Khan's DNA?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You show me a fossil and tell me it's 3.5 million years old... where's the evidence of that?

You think that ages of fossils are just invented out of thin air?
The evidence? How about a bunch of labs around the world independently dating those artefacts and all coming up with the same answer, using multiple different dating methods?

Tip: to be a good creationist, now is the time to start talking nonsense about how radiometric dating is false, implying that scientists don't understand how atoms work (eventhough plenty of working technology is literally based on our understanding of how atoms work).

You say it comes from strata that's 3.5 million years old. I ask how do you know that strata is 3.5 million years old?

Dating methods.

You confidently state that it's because you found a 3.5 million year old fossil in it... now that's true pseudoscience....lol

Or a true strawman.

 

[Brightmoon]

As I have stated in another post, Darwin himself in some writings linked abiogenesis to evolution. After all, isn't non living chemicals combining to produce live an evolutionary process in itself ?

Nevertheless, I discuss abiogenesis, as abiogenesis, and macro evolution as macro evolution. That way, their illusion that they aren't logically linked is maintained.

Don';t extrapolate and state as fact what I do, when you don't know, at all.

Abiogenesis is a separate field of science from Evolution just as geology isn’t biology. You don’t need to understand geology to do biology but it helps if you’re studying something that involves both like paleontology . So you don’t NEED to understand Abiogenesis to understand evolution

Sad isn't it that people are too complacent to care if their fellow human beings are perishing in sin...

I’d rather look at odd costumes and clothing. More fun that way!

You show me a fossil and tell me it's 3.5 million years old... where's the evidence of that? You say it comes from strata that's 3.5 million years old. I ask how do you know that strata is 3.5 million years old? You confidently state that it's because you found a 3.5 million year old fossil in it... now that's true pseudoscience....lol

you can date fossils by the igneous layers they’re sandwiched between if they’re in sedimentary rocks. If the organisms died in an ash fall the layers can probably be dated directly .not sure why you didn’t know this . This is middle school stuff

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just out of curiosity, how can one of those DNA sites that tell you where you came from tell me ... say ... that I came from Genghis Khan, when they don't have Genghis Khan's DNA?

Pay attention.

I am talking about determining common ancestry between 2 extant creatures.
I'm NOT talking about identifying a specific individual as the long-dead ancester of 2 extant creatures.

And it is done through matching DNA sequences and the patterns they fall into.
And we can do that, because we understand how biological reproduction works (what with the passing on of DNA and all that)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Sad isn't it that people are too complacent to care if their fellow human beings are perishing in sin...

How do you know this? What if it's YOU who is perishing in sin?

I wonder why Aztec society taught that sacrificing humans and ripping their hears out was a good thing? I'm sure I'd hear the same mantra from the Aztec plebs... "why would the priest lie to us that this is a wrong belief"... believe as you wish, after all we are permitted to be the architect of our own destruction

The Aztecs weren't alone in human sacrifice - just like Abraham all too willing to sacrifice his Son, or Jeptha sacrificing his Daughter, or for that matter, anyone observing Exodus 22:28 yet not the Second set of the Ten Commandments offered forth by an unchanging God, who for some reason decided to change the Ten Commandments.

You show me a fossil and tell me it's 3.5 million years old... where's the evidence of that? You say it comes from strata that's 3.5 million years old. I ask how do you know that strata is 3.5 million years old? You confidently state that it's because you found a 3.5 million year old fossil in it... now that's true pseudoscience....lol

lol! Strawman much? Every fossil will be dated several different ways before its age is settled on. Index fossils are nothing more than a starting point - the fossil will still have to be dated in a number of other ways before it will be declared to be a certain age. Do you ever read any other book beside the Bible??

 

[Brightmoon]

Oh, I'm being perfectly honest, I do see that the majority of laypeople that believe in the evolutionary theory are brainwashed, and it's never easy to try and convince someone that they are brainwashed. I'm not really making an argument, but an observation on how evolutionists are easily threatened when presented with the many problems with the molecules-to-man belief; and their shameful knee-jerk reactions are a defense and coping mechanism. (Your response to mine is a good example)

I'm actually interested in what you mean by attacking. Confront the argument, or attack the person for their assessment that the theory of evolution is a fraud?

. That kind of ironic as creation “ science “ assertions have so many problems that most scientifically literate people dismiss them as fantasies.

For example, Noah’s Flood and the fountains of the deep. VS. simple science facts like F=ma and geological layering. These mean that there should be very highly visible evidence of the Flood. Yet there isn’t a single vestige.
You can go through every single creationist assertion about nature and you’ll bump into the same problem, either No evidence or an impossible situation where every creationist assertion contradicts known science facts or even other creationist assertions . This is why creationism seen as either fantasies or pseudoscience by scientists. The ball is in the creationist court as far as coming up with evidence. By the way , denial and lies don’t count as evidence.

You don’t have this problem with mainstream science and the few times that it does happen is only means that we have some missing information. ( the Out of Africa hypothesis and the Multiregional hypothesis of human evolution, for example. The missing information was that Homo sapiens have interbred with other species of humans . So both hypotheses were correct and are now tied together but when first proposed we didn’t have that information .

 

[AV1611VET]

I am talking about determining common ancestry between 2 extant creatures.
I'm NOT talking about identifying a specific individual as the long-dead ancester of 2 extant creatures.

I wasn't challenging your post.

I'm legitimately curious as to how DNA sites do that.

My wife always says, "How can they tell you're from [whatever line] if they don't have [that line's] DNA?"

I think it's a good question.

If I sent my DNA in, and they came back and said I came from Genghis Khan ... how did they determine that?

Do they have Genghis Khan's DNA stored somewhere?