What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Paul James]

It misrepresents the arguments.

It's a lie and people who create and propagate it should be ashamed of themselves.

I really think that those who oppose Creationism would think anything supporting it would be a lie, so no surprises there.

 

[pitabread]

This is a canard. The fact that there are amphibians that can switch sexes is only evidence of what is possible in that species. They don't require cooperative sex organs. Sexual reproduction in other species does. And there is nothing in the fossil record that indicates anything other than species that do things one particular way, not that we can see them transitioning over time.

I'm simply making you aware of the fact that reproductive strategies in nature aren't as simple as you apparently think they are.

 

[Shemjaza]

I really think that those who oppose Creationism would think anything supporting it would be a lie, so no surprises there.

But it isn't supporting creationism. It is a representation of the arguments about intelligence and its detection... and it is a misrepresentation of it and thus a lie.

If you want to present an actual creationist system for detecting intelligent design, even a cute jokey one, I'd be happy look at and and think about it.

 

[Speedwell]

I really think that those who oppose Creationism would think anything supporting it would be a lie, so no surprises there.

It's not so much a lie, actually, but an attempt to parody what IDists mistakenly think the method of detecting design in objects is.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's not so much a lie, actually, but an attempt to parody what IDists mistakenly think the method of detecting design in objects is.

Nah, they've had it explained by experts for years. It's long since been knowing lies.

The ID organisations can disagree all the like, but when they have to misrepresent their opponents they show their true moral character.

 

[Paul James]

But it isn't supporting creationism. It is a representation of the arguments about intelligence and its detection... and it is a misrepresentation of it and thus a lie.

If you want to present an actual creationist system for detecting intelligent design, even a cute jokey one, I'd be happy look at and and think about it.

Creationism is a belief system based on the literal history of Genesis 1-3. Scientific discovery can only look at the evidence in the present and interpret it according to the Creation belief system.

Evolution is also a belief system, based on a set of theories about how origin may have happened. It can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions about what that evidence shows.

In either case, there is no direct observation of how it happened, no examination, no testing, and no replication in any laboratory. Therefore neither fits into the scientific method that is at the basis of true science.

So it all comes down to what people choose to believe.

 

[Shemjaza]

Creationism is a belief system based on the literal history of Genesis 1-3. Scientific discovery can only look at the evidence in the present and interpret it according to the Creation belief system.

This is true.

Evolution is also a belief system, based on a set of theories about how origin may have happened. It can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions about what that evidence shows.

This is false.

Evolution is a conclusion created from examining the evidence. The earliest attempts to creates the scientific theory of evolution were to explain the patterns found in the structure of modern life.

This pattern was since found to be replicated in both fossil remains and genetic structure.

It is a conclusion from evidence, not a belief structure to be defended.

In either case, there is no direct observation of how it happened, no examination, no testing, and no replication in any laboratory. Therefore neither fits into the scientific method that is at the basis of true science.

So it all comes down to what people choose to believe.

Also false.

The evidence for evolution can be directly examined, measured and checked.

The ultimate philosophical consequence of only direct observations of events being viable is that applied consistently it makes micro sciences dubious due to measuring tools being necessary intermediaries. If evidence for past events can't be trusted, there isn't a philosophical barrier to the universe being created last Thursday, just with false memories and evidence embedded.



BUT. All this is aside from the point.

You are distracting from the fact that you did not present a creationist idea or method of defining or detecting information... you presented an insult joke that lied about what people who oppose Intelligent Design proponents believe.

General statements about evolution and Creation are another issue. I believe honesty and politeness are important and I think you can do better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really think that those who oppose Creationism would think anything supporting it would be a lie, so no surprises there.

Actually supporting creationism is calling God a liar. That is one huge problem with it. All of the evidence clearly points to evolution. If life did not arise by evolution but as in the Genesis story then God hid all sorts of fake evidence on purpose to make it look as if life evolved. That is why a literal interpretation of Genesis is rejected by honest Christian scientists. And it does not take to much knowledge to see that creation "scientists" especially the ones that understand what they are doing, are lying. For example the PhD Geologist Steve Austin tried to refute radiometric dating with samples that he knew would give an incorrect date. Like any tool there are right ways to use radiometric dating and wrong ways to use it. Steve Austin, who has a PhD in geology, made errors that an undergrad would not make. It could not have been an accident. The man is bright enough to know why his samples were not appropriate for the method that he used, his paper even mention what he had to have known was wrong. I am sure that biologists get steamed at the few (are there any?) biologists that work for creationist sources. Dishonesty in the sciences is normally a career breaker. For creation scientists it is a must.

 

[Paul James]

This is true.


This is false.

Evolution is a conclusion created from examining the evidence. The earliest attempts to creates the scientific theory of evolution were to explain the patterns found in the structure of modern life.

This pattern was since found to be replicated in both fossil remains and genetic structure.

It is a conclusion from evidence, not a belief structure to be defended.


Also false.

The evidence for evolution can be directly examined, measured and checked.

The ultimate philosophical consequence of only direct observations of events being viable is that applied consistently it makes micro sciences dubious due to measuring tools being necessary intermediaries. If evidence for past events can't be trusted, there isn't a philosophical barrier to the universe being created last Thursday, just with false memories and evidence embedded.



BUT. All this is aside from the point.

You are distracting from the fact that you did not present a creationist idea or method of defining or detecting information... you presented an insult joke that lied about what people who oppose Intelligent Design proponents believe.

General statements about evolution and Creation are another issue. I believe honesty and politeness are important and I think you can do better.

There is only one set of available evidence. It is all to do with how the evidence is interpreted. But the fact remains, no one has ever been able to present observable evidence that can be examined, tested, and replicated, of any evolution of one type of organism or animal into another totally different type.

But the fossil evidence that is purported to be millions of years old shows fossilised sea life that is exactly the same as we see still alive today, and this shows that these organisms have never evolved, so based on that evidence, evolution for all the different types of sea life observed in the fossil remains stopped millions of years ago. So if it stopped for those, then it must have stopped for everything.

Authentic cave drawings that are supposed to show men living million of years ago show also domestic animals exactly the same as they are today, along with humans exactly the same, so we can conclude that domestic animal and human evolution ceased millions of years ago as well.

Also, there is no evidence of new stars being formed, and the only indication of how they might be is on just a computer simulation dreamed up by the programmer. None have ever been seen through a telescope, although supernova have been observed which show that the universe is decaying and the number of stars, with each supermova is decreasing, not increasing as you would expect with evolution. It seems that the universe is "de-evolving", which doesn't fit with evolutionary theory.

Also, when you call those who disagree with you liars, then you show intolerance, and this weakens and discredits your argument.

 

[pitabread]

There is only one set of available evidence. It is all to do with how the evidence is interpreted. But the fact remains, no one has ever been able to present observable evidence that can be examined, tested, and replicated, of any evolution of one type of organism or animal into another totally different type.

Organisms don't evolve from one type of organism into a totally different type though. Organisms are bound by inheritance and therefore will always be derivative of their ancestors.

What you appear to think evolution actually does is not what evolution actually does.

But the fossil evidence that is purported to be millions of years old shows fossilised sea life that is exactly the same as we see still alive today, and this shows that these organisms have never evolved, so based on that evidence, evolution for all the different types of sea life observed in the fossil remains stopped millions of years ago. So if it stopped for those, then it must have stopped for everything.

Evolution is not strictly confined to changing phenotypes. This is again a complete misconception of how evolution functions. In fact, it's been long known that there is discordance between genotype and phenotype. In other words, it's possible to have a bunch of genetic changes with little change in the phenotype of the organisms, and vise-versa it's possible to have small changes to genes have significant changes to an organism's phenotype.

Consequently, life has never stopped evolving. As long as organisms are reproducing, populations will evolve.

 

[Speedwell]

There is only one set of available evidence. It is all to do with how the evidence is interpreted. But the fact remains, no one has ever been able to present observable evidence that can be examined, tested, and replicated, of any evolution of one type of organism or animal into another totally different type.

Can you frame that in terms of standard taxonomy? What do you mean by a different "type?"

 

[Paul James]

Organisms don't evolve from one type of organism into a totally different type though. Organisms are bound by inheritance and therefore will always be derivative of their ancestors.

What you appear to think evolution actually does is not what evolution actually does.



Evolution is not strictly confined to changing phenotypes. This is again a complete misconception of how evolution functions. In fact, it's been long known that there is discordance between genotype and phenotype. In other words, it's possible to have a bunch of genetic changes with little change in the phenotype of the organisms, and vise-versa it's possible to have small changes to genes have significant changes to an organism's phenotype.

Consequently, life has never stopped evolving. As long as organisms are reproducing, populations will evolve.

What you may be talking about is genetic mutation rather than evolution. Also reproduction within the same organism type is not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

What you may be talking about is genetic mutation rather than evolution. Also reproduction within the same organism type is not evolution.

An odd distinction. Genetic mutation contributes to the random variation which is acted upon by natural selection. That's how evolution works.

What do you mean by a different "type?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you may be talking about is genetic mutation rather than evolution. Also reproduction within the same organism type is not evolution.

That is incorrect. Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Don't listen to creationist sources. Their job is to lie to the uneducated.

Repeat after me: Change of kind is a creationist strawman.

That is why you are still an ape. There was no 'change of kind from ape'. In fact if you say "I am not an ape" You are also saying "I am not a human being".

 

[Paul James]

Can you frame that in terms of standard taxonomy? What do you mean by a different "type?"

A cat is a type of animal. A dog is another type of animal. English is a bit limited in the choice of words that can be used. The KJV uses "kinds" to say the same thing. So I could say that a cat is a kind of animal, and a dog is another kind of animal, and so a black cat is a type of cat, and a ginger cat is another type of the same cat kind.

A black cat and a white cat can produce a black and white cat, which is another type of cat. But a dog, mating with a cat, cannot produce another kind of animal such as a dog/cat. But a horse can mate with a donkey and produce a mule, but then the mule is just another type of horse, not another animal kind.

Also, genetic changes within types of animals happens through mating and reproduction, and not by time and chance. It would be deciding when I got married (many years ago) to wait for time and chance to have our child, rather than going about it the normal way, and then discovering that instead of having our normal daughter she gave birth to a cat instead! But if she did, it would be happening under normal evolutionary theory which involves nothing but time and chance.

 

[Shemjaza]

There is only one set of available evidence. It is all to do with how the evidence is interpreted. But the fact remains, no one has ever been able to present observable evidence that can be examined, tested, and replicated, of any evolution of one type of organism or animal into another totally different type.

Can you describe what you mean by "type" and the time involved? Do you have a specific example that you think evolutionary science proposes without evidence?

Because we can absolutely replicate the evidence for species diversifying from multiple families using multiple methods.

But the fossil evidence that is purported to be millions of years old shows fossilised sea life that is exactly the same as we see still alive today, and this shows that these organisms have never evolved, so based on that evidence, evolution for all the different types of sea life observed in the fossil remains stopped millions of years ago. So if it stopped for those, then it must have stopped for everything.

This is not true... there are many, many examples of fossilised sea life that is different to modern sea life.

Also, evolution is much much slower for populations who are well adapted to their environment. Like the basic structure of a fish is very effective and radically diverting from it will be uncommon unless they move into a very different environment like shallows or light-less caves.

Authentic cave drawings that are supposed to show men living million of years ago show also domestic animals exactly the same as they are today, along with humans exactly the same, so we can conclude that domestic animal and human evolution ceased millions of years ago as well.

I don't think this is true. Do you have a reference for cave paintings of domesticated animals from millions of years ago?

The oldest cave paintings I've ever heard of are thousands of years old.

Also, there is no evidence of new stars being formed, and the only indication of how they might be is on just a computer simulation dreamed up by the programmer. None have ever been seen through a telescope, although supernova have been observed which show that the universe is decaying and the number of stars, with each supermova is decreasing, not increasing as you would expect with evolution. It seems that the universe is "de-evolving", which doesn't fit with evolutionary theory.

Star nurseries and partially formed solar systems are visible in the skies.

Those simulations were based on data collected and further examinations has given supporting evidence for those simulations.

It's also 100% irrelevant to the evolution of life on Earth. Stars on the scale of the Sun take billions of years to break down, so plenty of time for evolution and extinction of life.

Also, when you call those who disagree with you liars, then you show intolerance, and this weakens and discredits your argument.

I do not call those tho disagree with me liars. I call out examples when someone posts lies.

This was not presenting their own idea or opinion, it was a lying misrepresentation of their opponents beliefs.

I have repeatedly stated that I am comfortable discussing different ideas, even different standards of evidence and fact... but actual misrepresentation of your opponents beliefs is dishonest and immoral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A cat is a type of animal. A dog is another type of animal. English is a bit limited in the choice of words that can be used. The KJV uses "kinds" to say the same thing. So I could say that a cat is a kind of animal, and a dog is another kind of animal, and so a black cat is a type of cat, and a ginger cat is another type of the same cat kind.

A black cat and a white cat can produce a black and white cat, which is another type of cat. But a dog, mating with a cat, cannot produce another kind of animal such as a dog/cat. But a horse can mate with a donkey and produce a mule, but then the mule is just another type of horse, not another animal kind.

Also, genetic changes within types of animals happens through mating and reproduction, and not by time and chance. It would be deciding when I got married (many years ago) to wait for time and chance to have our child, rather than going about it the normal way, and then discovering that instead of having our normal daughter she gave birth to a cat instead! But if she did, it would be happening under normal evolutionary theory which involves nothing but time and chance.

The problem with the Bible is that it is not a science book. If one uses it that way it gets a lot wrong. For example, there never were just two people. Populations evolve, not individuals. If you rely on the Bible for terminology you will be confused. And "kind" is a word that no creationist can form a working definition of. They cannot come to an agreement on how one would tell if two populations were of the same "kind" or not.

 

[Paul James]

Can you describe what you mean by "type" and the time involved? Do you have a specific example that you think evolutionary science proposes without evidence?

Because we can absolutely replicate the evidence for species diversifying from multiple families using multiple methods.



This is not true... there are many, many examples of fossilised sea life that is different to modern sea life.

Also, evolution is much much slower for populations who are well adapted to their environment. Like the basic structure of a fish is very effective and radically diverting from it will be uncommon unless they move into a very different environment like shallows or light-less caves.


I don't think this is true. Do you have a reference for cave paintings of domesticated animals from millions of years ago?

The oldest cave paintings I've ever heard of are thousands of years old.


Star nurseries and partially formed solar systems are visible in the skies.

Those simulations were based on data collected and further examinations has given supporting evidence for those simulations.

It's also 100% irrelevant to the evolution of life on Earth. Stars on the scale of the Sun take billions of years to break down, so plenty of time for evolution and extinction of life.


I do not call those tho disagree with me liars. I call out examples when someone posts lies.

This was not presenting their own idea or opinion, it was a lying misrepresentation of their opponents beliefs.

I have repeatedly stated that I am comfortable discussing different ideas, even different standards of evidence and fact... but actual misrepresentation of your opponents beliefs is dishonest and immoral.

Because you are implying that I am dishonest and immoral, that ends our conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you are implying that I am dishonest and immoral, that ends our conversation.

No, he did not say that you are a liar. But you have posted lies. You have gotten your claims from creationist sources and they are well known to be liars. That is why no one with a whit of scientific education gives them the least bit of credence. I do get angry at creationist sites because the lie to the uneducated. Then they look foolish when they repeat those lies as if they were fact.

 

[Speedwell]

A cat is a type of animal. A dog is another type of animal. English is a bit limited in the choice of words that can be used. The KJV uses "kinds" to say the same thing. So I could say that a cat is a kind of animal, and a dog is another kind of animal, and so a black cat is a type of cat, and a ginger cat is another type of the same cat kind.

A cat is any member of the Family Felidae. The domestic cat, which is what I presume you are talking about, is Felis Catus, a member of the subfamily Felinae.
A dog is any member of the family Canidae. The domestic Dog is Canis Lupis Familiaris., a subspecies of Canis Lupus. So you see, the English language is not limited in it's ability to characterize these creatures quite specifically. How does your "type" fit into that?

A black cat and a white cat can produce a black and white cat, which is another type of cat. But a dog, mating with a cat, cannot produce another kind of animal such as a dog/cat.

Dogs and cats cannot mate and produce offsprng. That's how we know they are different species,

But a horse can mate with a donkey and produce a mule, but then the mule is just another type of horse, not another animal kind.

A mule is a sterile hybrid, not a "different type of horse."

Also, genetic changes within types of animals happens through mating and reproduction, and not by time and chance. It would be deciding when I got married (many years ago) to wait for time and chance to have our child, rather than going about it the normal way, and then discovering that instead of having our normal daughter she gave birth to a cat instead! But if she did, it would be happening under normal evolutionary theory which involves nothing but time and chance.

If that happened, the theory of evolution would be sunk for sure. I suppose you will be insulted if I told you how uninformed you sound. I know you don't think the theory of evolution is true, but you really ought to find out what it claims--rightly or wrongly--before you criticize it. What you are arguing against is not the theory of evolution, it's just something you imagine the theory of evolution to be.