Ever the Expert

[Jet Black]

John, do you agree that humans are mammals? If you do agree, why do you not agree that humans are also apes. We are classified as apes because we share characteristics with other apes, like chimps, bonobos and gorillas. We also have a number of characteristics which set us apart from chimps, bonobos and gorillas, just as gorillas have a number of traits which set them apart from chimps, bonobos and us. That is why we are humans, and apes, and mammals and eukaryotes. What is so hard to understand about this.

fact of the day: all ninjas are mammals.

 

[kingreaper]

fact of the day: all ninjas are mammals.

I know you were asking for this

I just know it

http://www.contractorpeon.com/dabombassgirl/archives/teenage mutant ninja turtles 2 .jpg

 

[The Seeker]

I don't think so, I put in huge amounts of research time, I present tons of scientific evidence.

You keep saying this. I have yet to see any of this evidence you keep talking about.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Dragar and Deamiter,

The examples you give can't withstand scrutiny or close inspection, and are increasingly desperate rationalizations, not coherent logic. But even if it wasn't, even if the rationalizations could be considered rationale, the creationist argument is still insane because all attempts at closer analysis are deliberately evaded. Questions are ignored, challenging evidence is brushed under the rug, and counter points clearly lost are simply snipped from the reply. And the harder you press for indepth analysis, the more likely it is that all relevant discussion will be immediately obscured by squishy subjective beliefs, sensationalist associations of evolutionists with material atheists, nazis, homos, commies, and baby-killers. Once you find some point that can't be rationalized away, then the conversation will turn hostile as you're told that your cognitave skills are the very reason you're going to burn in hell. Isn't that what HuManiTeE tried to imply?

Sure you can rationalize anything, and explain every every observation. But those explanations must also bear the same burden. And none of the creationist excuses do or can.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Actually, we keep trying to explain to you what the difference is between man and the apes. But evolutionists do not seem to think there is a difference. This is where so many evolutionists deny God, because the difference between man and the ape is the relationship they have with God.

No it isn't, as Ecclesiastes can attest.

Of course for those that do not have a relationship with God, then maybe they are right, they are little more than any other animal. Still, fallen man has a potention of being more than a ape, because they have the potential of having a living, walking, talking relationship with their creator. This is something the ape will never have.

Except that men are apes even by your own admission here. You said man has the "potential" to be more than [just] an ape, or more than any other animal. So you have just admitted that man is an animal, and the specific kind of animal that we are is an ape.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Also, creationists know that we live in a fallen world.

No. Many creationists believe in this fallen world, but no one knows that. Nor could they, since it isn't true. Remember that knowledge can be objectively demonstrated where mere beliefs can't be. Knowledge can also be verified within degrees of accuracy where beliefs can still be believed even after they're disproved.

 

[Ondoher]

I don't think so, I put in huge amounts of research time, I present tons of scientific evidence. But time and again evolutionists skim over the data and reject it because it does not fit into their pet theory.

I've not been here very long, so perhaps I've missed it. Could you repost some of it?

Also, creationists tend to look at the things that have been falsified or were just plain nonsense to begin with. Evolutionists tend to look at the things that have not yet been falsifed, but of course it is just a matter of time before evolutionary theory is thrown away and replaced with something else.

Like tissue and toilet paper, modern evolutionary theory is disposable and easy to replace.

This sounds a lot like empty rhetoric. Stuff like this has been said for 150 years: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

 

[Ondoher]

Actually, we keep trying to explain to you what the difference is between man and the apes. But evolutionists do not seem to think there is a difference. This is where so many evolutionists deny God, because the difference between man and the ape is the relationship they have with God.

Humans are apes, but like penguins differ from other birds, humans differ from other apes. To demonstrate that humans are apes, tell me all the characteristics that separate apes from other species, and then see if they apply also to humans.

Of course for those that do not have a relationship with God, then maybe they are right, they are little more than any other animal. Still, fallen man has a potention of being more than a ape, because they have the potential of having a living, walking, talking relationship with their creator. This is something the ape will never have.

What about those who do have a relationship with god, but still accept the evidence of ther world around them (theistic evolutionists).

 

[DJ_Ghost]

[

the bible is the only evidence we need , it is GODS PERFECT WORD, however I will refrain from making this post too long and detailed since I seem to offend everyone and break the rules I guess.

I think I have mentioned this before, but this is not the case. God did not pen the bible himself, he left it to humans to do. Humans are fallible, to claim that they are not, to claim that any one is not, is skirting with a terrible heresy. No prophet is infallible, only God is infallible. The bible was not only penned by men, it was translated by them, which scriptures should be included in it was a decision taken by men, and the bible when read is interpreted by men. Therefore it is at least 3 steps removed from God and 3 steps removed from the only source of infallibility, to claim otherwise is to idolize the bible, by which I mean to make it an Idol and place it above God himself. This is something that we must not do.

All the evidence is in GOds Word.

Yes but humans have to interprate that, and besides which the world is also Gods word.

Ghost

 

[Sphere]

i dont trust sources from mans fallible thinking becuase tis non christian and naturaly because of our sin nature.

Yet you trust the bible--written by man.

it is anti-God and atheist. If the evidence contradicts the bible, it is false. Simple as that,

What an intelligent position of debate presented here. Very pathetic, and disturbing to say the least.

I wish people were more unbias and open minded to this possibility.

Comedy gold, please read what you just said in the previous sentence.

We must approach the evidence with an open mind and the possiblity that God created the universe useing Creationism

You preach about an open mind, yet openly admit to dismissing any evidence brought forward regardless of its proven content because it contradicts the bible?

These nonsensical rants need to stop. Its a slap in the face to everyone who puts forward the time and effort to present a logical argument based on evidence only to have them dismissed by the utterly ignorant and stubborn. Sorry, this nonsense needs to stop.

 

[Dragar]

The examples you give can't withstand scrutiny or close inspection, and are increasingly desperate rationalizations, not coherent logic.

I agree they are increasingly 'desperate', and ad hoc. That does not alter the fact they still explain the evidence.

But even if it wasn't, even if the rationalizations could be considered rationale, the creationist argument is still insane because all attempts at closer analysis are deliberately evaded. Questions are ignored, challenging evidence is brushed under the rug, and counter points clearly lost are simply snipped from the reply.

I agree. But when you start with the conclusion 'evolution is false', and no amount of evidence is going to change matters, what do you expect?

And the harder you press for indepth analysis, the more likely it is that all relevant discussion will be immediately obscured by squishy subjective beliefs, sensationalist associations of evolutionists with material atheists, nazis, homos, commies, and baby-killers. Once you find some point that can't be rationalized away, then the conversation will turn hostile as you're told that your cognitave skills are the very reason you're going to burn in hell. Isn't that what HuManiTeE tried to imply?

It could well be.

But consider this: very often the creationist will believe that someone who believes in evolution will go to hell. If they start questioning creationism, their immediate reaction will be one of fear - what will happen if they end up believing evolution? They'll go to hell!

So they pull back, out of fear.

Note my BS in Armchair psychology, by the way.

Sure you can rationalize anything, and explain every every observation. But those explanations must also bear the same burden. And none of the creationist excuses do or can.

But this technique won't persuade anyone. A world-view is only altered when it becomes logically incoherent. But you can almost always - especially with a 'magical' entity like God, that has no rules - rationalise away observations, even positing some unknown reason if you must.

Consider, for instance, Ptolomy and his epicycles. Maybe then you will see my point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could you cite a few?

The elusive common ancestor of man.
The development of intelligence.
These are two that come to mind right now.

Which is what the PRATT list is all about. The arguments presented by creationists in an attempt to falsify evolution tend to be either:

- Quote mining, which doesn't effect the evidence.
- Misunderstandings, like the 2LoT argument.
- Wrong, like claims of mammoths with fresh daisies in their mouths.
- Irrelevant, like Cosmological or Astrophyical issues.

The same applies to their few observations that supposedly evidence YEC (the most egregious being the fossils on mountains proves the Flood).

I am just talking about the six days of Creation as the Bible relates.

Of course there are areas of incompleteness. Xeno's paradox aside, we could always use more fossils to help fill in the gaps. There remain questions about the precise mechanisms of evolution, and whether views like gradualism, punctuated equillibrium or a third option are correct, but the basic theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin remains unfalsified.

What is the theory proposed by Darwin if not gradualism?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is disstressing to me is that the number of creationists who react exactly as predicted by the OP. Are they really blind?

However, I've seen the same in another thread started by oncedeceived, where he complained about being put in a box. In stead of people asking why he thinks he does not belong in the box, or explaining why they put him there in the first place, they started demarcating the box oncedeceived was put in and asserting why he was wrong (without knowing at that time what his specific problem with the box was). To me, the reaction looked remarkably similar.

There you go, exactly my point. By the way I am female.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not all possible observations may be accounted for by evolution, but that comes with falsifiability. However, to my knowledge, all observations that have been made, have supported and not falsified evolution.

If you can think of examples of observations which are incompatible with evolution, then I would like to hear of them.

It is not that I am really citing observations that are incompatible as much as not observed at all. Those things that evolution (as defined) claim that are not observable at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, I approached from the YEC perspective. This meant that I had to take the time to undo the damage that teaching had been done in order to accept the overwhelming nature of the evidence.

Of those YEC's who truly approach the evidence afresh with an open mind, 88.34% end up abandoning YEC.

[entirely made up statistic]

I am not claiming YEC. Just Creationism.

YEC doesn't equal Creationism.

 

[Ondoher]

The elusive common ancestor of man.
The development of intelligence.
These are two that come to mind right now.

Neither of those pose a problem for the theory of evolution. We have quite an array of transitional fossils from our last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. We'd never really hope to find a fossil of the species that was the progenitor of both lineages. Nor would we know for certain if we did.

Also, given the relative intelligence of our closest relatives (the apes), I fail to see how the increase in human intelligence is not simply explained as a selective advantage.

I am just talking about the six days of Creation as the Bible relates.

What is the theory proposed by Darwin if not gradualism?

Even Darwin didn't believe in strict gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium just calls specific attenition to the mechanisms that drive periods of stasis followed by geologically sudden periods of speciation.

Darwin's greatest contribution was the mechanisms of natural selection and sexual selection. Both of these have been incorporated into the modern synthesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Neither of those pose a problem for the theory of evolution. We have quite an array of transitional fossils from our last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. We'd never really hope to find a fossil of the species that was the progenitor of both lineages. Nor would we know for certain if we did.

Now wait a minute, I didn't say that these examples created a problem per se for evolution, I was giving these as an example of what was said in the previous post.

Also, given the relative intelligence of our closest relatives (the apes), I fail to see how the increase in human intelligence is not simply explained as a selective advantage.

But you failing to see really isn't significant to me any more than me saying that it makes perfect sense for any argument I might give...right?

I was simply showing that there are gaps in the evolutionary model and if there are gaps in the Creationists model most people claim that you can't "fail to see" how this gap may be filled. See my point?

Even Darwin didn't believe in strict gradualism. Punctuated equilibrium just calls specific attenition to the mechanisms that drive periods of stasis followed by geologically sudden periods of speciation.

Really? I think that Darwin most certainly believed in strict gradualism, perhaps you can give me an example that was contray to that?

Darwin's greatest contribution was the mechanisms of natural selection and sexual selection. Both of these have been incorporated into the modern synthesis.

Yes, but the original theory did not incorporate punctuated equilibrium in fact it was a slow process that Darwin presented. But yes, Darwin's original premise of natural selection and sexual selection have been.

 

[Ondoher]

Now wait a minute, I didn't say that these examples created a problem per se for evolution, I was giving these as an example of what was said in the previous post.

True, the origin comment was "Now hold on there, you can't account for all observations in the evolution area either." So, what was actually asked for was stuff we have observed but cannot explain. Neither of your examples seem to fit. Something hypothetical that would fit would be a whale with feathers.

But you failing to see really isn't significant to me any more than me saying that it makes perfect sense for any argument I might give...right?

I was kind of hoping you'd follow it up with a comment about how it being a selective advantage was not an adequate explanation.

I was simply showing that there are gaps in the evolutionary model and if there are gaps in the Creationists model most people claim that you can't "fail to see" how this gap may be filled. See my point?

It isn't necessarily the gaps, although sometimes it is, like the inability to explain things like microfossil stratigraphy or shared pseudogenes. It is usually one of two other things: 1) when creationism makes testable predictions, they always fail to confirm. 2) although creationism fails its testable predictions, ad hoc explanations like "god did it that way" can always be invoked to overcome these objections. This makes creationism very poor science.

Really? I think that Darwin most certainly believed in strict gradualism, perhaps you can give me an example that was contray to that?

This quote from chapter 15 of "On the Origins of Species" sounds an awful lot like punctuated equilibrium.

Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local--both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.


​

Yes, but the original theory did not incorporate punctuated equilibrium in fact it was a slow process that Darwin presented. But yes, Darwin's original premise of natural selection and sexual selection have been.

It also did not incorporate modern genetics and other things unknown during Darwin's lifetime. But many of its ideas have held up well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

True, the origin comment was "Now hold on there, you can't account for all observations in the evolution area either." So, what was actually asked for was stuff we have observed but cannot explain. Neither of your examples seem to fit. Something hypothetical that would fit would be a whale with feathers.

Okay, true enough. Although, I think intelligence can be observed but has not been explained.

I can think of common extreme characteristics that are observed that are not commonly linked perhaps as another.

I was kind of hoping you'd follow it up with a comment about how it being a selective advantage was not an adequate explanation.

Sorry to disappoint you.

It isn't necessarily the gaps, although sometimes it is, like the inability to explain things like microfossil stratigraphy or shared pseudogenes. It is usually one of two other things: 1) when creationism makes testable predictions, they always fail to confirm.

Such as?

2) although creationism fails its testable predictions, ad hoc explanations like "god did it that way" can always be invoked to overcome these objections. This makes creationism very poor science.

Ah, but how many times have you said something like what you just said previously....I fail to see how? This is true with people who support evolution and deny God, they use the same invocation when faced with untestable criteria.

This quote from chapter 15 of "On the Origins of Species" sounds an awful lot like punctuated equilibrium.

Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local--both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.


​

Could be, but it doesn't really say that. You are projecting your idea into what he was saying.

It also did not incorporate modern genetics and other things unknown during Darwin's lifetime. But many of its ideas have held up well.

Yes, that is true but there are times when one idea is held up based on assumptions from an a priori conclusion of an another idea.

 

[Ondoher]

Okay, true enough. Although, I think intelligence can be observed but has not been explained.

I can think of common extreme characteristics that are observed that are not commonly linked perhaps as another.

Intelligence is expained by mutation and natural selection. Some examples of these common extreme characteristics would be nice.

Sorry to disappoint you.

I'm sorry too.

Such as?

Here is one of my favorites. If special creation, followed by rapid diversfication within kinds, is true, then all life should be naturally arranged as a series of unrelated nested hierarchies of species, each of these trees representing a species radiation from the original kind which lies at its root. What we actually find is that all life is really arranged as a single nested hierarchy of species, which is a prediction of evolution.

Ah, but how many times have you said something like what you just said previously....I fail to see how? This is true with people who support evolution and deny God, they use the same invocation when faced with untestable criteria.

When I make an ad hoc argument, let me know.

Could be, but it doesn't really say that. You are projecting your idea into what he was saying.

Let's break it down.

and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form.


​

This says that species are relatively static for long periods of time, and then undergo geologically rapid periods of change. Just like PE.

It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local--both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely.


​

This says that change will usually be a local event, and then that change will radiate out to the rest of the population, making the change appear to be sudden in the geological record.


So, how is this dramatically unlike PE and how does it support strict gradualism?

Yes, that is true but there are times when one idea is held up based on assumptions from an a priori conclusion of an another idea.

Maybe, but evolution is not one of those.