Evolution Experiment: Creationists, Choose their Fate!

Motherofkittens

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2017
455
428
iowa
✟50,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
a) all you are describing is the production of variety of the same creature and
b) this is a bad choice to demonstrate evolution because...Triops in over 300 million years is still Triops (it never became something new).

No way can you have been "reading and doing science for 30 years". You would not have said anything so ridiculous. NO WAY.

That sounds like something little 10 year old me would say. And I was home schooled my whole life, have 17 brothers and sisters and one of the most fanatical Christian parents you can have. I was completely isolated from everything. I was in a bubble away from anything "worldly".

So much so, believe it or not, I wasn't even allowed to watch things like the "The Care Bears" (it is a movie cartoon series that is about the most innocent and childlike anything can be). Why? Because there is a villain and it was "too demonic" for us to watch. Yep.

You don't sound, excuse me being so foward, like a simple minded person. You either haven't done as you've said (I'm not saying this is you, but when I was a creationist, I definitely "lied for Jesus " and I know many others who did or do. Also, lots of plagiarism among creationists going on.) or you are unable to make yourself understand. It could also be that you don't understand, but I think that is the least likely of the posiblities.

I just find it so sad when people reject reality for no good reason. If you need the false belief, okay, I get it, I'll even go along with you and pretend, but most people actually don't need that crutch. Reality (or at least as close as we can come to it), although scary, frustrating and depressing, is still the most beautiful, wonderful and majestic thing we have.
 

Attachments

  • a4a53207-9027-485a-9c79-6dc071002783.jpg
    a4a53207-9027-485a-9c79-6dc071002783.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 4
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I decided to tally the votes thus far, and have put them in order of most to least:
Longer tails: 3 votes
More color: 2 votes
Wide bodies: 2 votes
Shorter tails: 1 vote
Less color: 0 votes
Narrow bodies: 0 votes

Definitely still room to shift the scoreboard here, for those that haven't selected 2 valid traits yet. In the event of a tie for second place or a 3+ way tie for first, I'll put the traits in a random number generator and have it pick from those that are in the tie.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Plus, I've been shown to be wrong on a few aspects of my position as well, with the most recent example being about how I thought Origin of Species was on the Nazi book burning list. It's actually not, a debate with a creationist prompted me to look up the list. I have a personal policy against my intrinsic stubbornness; if I or someone else presents a reliable source that sufficiently provides evidence against an idea I hold, or if something I have not personally fact checked is questioned, I will investigate on my own and admit fault when necessary. I gain nothing from denying the truth.

I looked up the list myself. While the Origin of Species isn't on it, the Evolution of Man by Ernst Haeckel is. Also the Nazis seemed to seriously have something against H.G. Wells.

So much so, believe it or not, I wasn't even allowed to watch things like the "The Care Bears" (it is a movie cartoon series that is about the most innocent and childlike anything can be). Why? Because there is a villain and it was "too demonic" for us to watch. Yep.

I've never understood this kind of reasoning. I mean, it's a villain, right? It's not portrayed positively and it loses in the end, so what's the problem?

I presume you were allowed to read the Bible, and the Bible features the most demonic villain of all time: Satan. But it doesn't praise him or suggest we should follow or imitate him.
 
Upvote 0

Motherofkittens

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2017
455
428
iowa
✟50,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I looked up the list myself. While the Origin of Species isn't on it, the Evolution of Man by Ernst Haeckel is. Also the Nazis seemed to seriously have something against H.G. Wells.



I've never understood this kind of reasoning. I mean, it's a villain, right? It's not portrayed positively and it loses in the end, so what's the problem?

I presume you were allowed to read the Bible, and the Bible features the most demonic villain of all time: Satan. But it doesn't praise him or suggest we should follow or imitate him.
Thanks for the info on that, I was gonna comment, but I guess I forgot. The Nazi's were not "evolutionists" ( not that it is realavent, even if there were) and genocide has been happening long before Darwin, was even born. It is even in the bible. Maybe Yahweh, is an "evolutionist". Could be.

This is what my church would say. The bible is a protected text, as God wrote it. It is holy. We can't interact with demonic portrayers of any kind, because they could "attach" to us. Do you know the meaning of "talisman "? It is just superstition. Also, a more practical reason is they don't want people to mimic them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I looked up the list myself. While the Origin of Species isn't on it, the Evolution of Man by Ernst Haeckel is. Also the Nazis seemed to seriously have something against H.G. Wells.
Ernst Haeckel is on the Nazi ban list due to a general restriction on the Nazi ban list: it was a social commentary on evolution. So, evolution texts were allowed, but social commentary and discussion about it wasn't.

I did a lot of digging around to find that out.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is what my church would say. The bible is a protected text, as God wrote it. It is holy. We can't interact with demonic portrayers of any kind, because they could "attach" to us. Do you know the meaning of "talisman "? It is just superstition. Also, a more practical reason is they don't want people to mimic them.

Would people mimic Satan after reading about him in the Bible? No, the Bible teaches us how to avoid Satan. And from what I have seen most children's media attempts to instill good values in its audience, so the villains of such media are portrayed as being the opposite of what the audience should want to be.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Now, before the Triops eggs arrive, I felt like it was good to go over the other materials one would need to perform this experiment themselves well ahead of time.
Here is a list:
1. Three 10 gallon aquariums (approximately 38 liter tanks for those using the metric system). Label 1 CONTROL, 1 EXPERIMENTAL, and leave the 3rd aside as a place for the Triops you "weed out" to live out the rest of their days instead of killing them. Technically, the third tank is optional, but I would rather Triops not be put in the garbage because they didn't have the "right traits" to survive in the experimental environment.
2. Tropical fish beta pellets and/or algae wafers. Triops are bottom feeders that will eat just about anything, but it is easiest to feed them something that can be given in small increments when they are small. The easiest way to kill Triops is overfeeding.
3. Triops eggs. I am using the species Triops cancriformis, but other people that wish to perform the experiment don't need to restrict themselves to that species. I had to order the eggs from another country in order to get mine. If you order a Triops kit, it is almost guaranteed that the eggs you will get are from the species Triops longicaudatus, which does require slightly warmer temperatures than the species I am taking care of.
4. Mud from a clean, freshwater pond or mature aquarium water from a freshwater tank. This is to ensure that the microbial biome of the tanks is healthy for the Triops. While this isn't absolutely necessary, this will reduce the risk of any Triops dying from bacterial infections. You only need a small amount in order to make gallons of water become an imitation pond. I have a sandwich bag half full of pond mud, and that's enough to last me for a few years. Make sure to leave the container open so that not only anaerobic bacteria survive.
5. Aquarium safe sand, and enough of it to cover the bottom of each tank as a layer 1.5 inches tall (4 centimeters).
6. Some calcium carbonate powder or a few limestone pebbles. This is for when the Triops are very young, as a small amount helps their shells develop well. If your water has a pH below 6, use baking soda to increase the pH to between 7-9, which is the ideal range for Triops. If you don't know the pH of your water, no worries, since pet stores often test aquarium water for free if you bring them a sample. Use distilled or rainwater for your Triops, since some chemicals common in tap water can be harmful to them.
7. A light source that can shine down on the tank for 8 hours a day. You could just put the tanks near a lamp, if you want, or buy an aquarium light. Just don't try putting a tank by a window for it to get natural light, as this will cook your Triops.
8. A thermometer for the tank. It is best for the most common species that the tank temperature not get below 70 degrees F (21 degrees C).

And there you have it, the absolute bare minimum you will need to perform this experiment. However, I am not just doing the bare minimum, I am adding some other things to help with the comfort of the animals and make managing them a bit easier. Here are some optional things I am adding.
1. Marimo balls, a couple per tank. While only Triops native to Japan have any chance of interacting with these in the wild, it seems that all species of Triops like these balls of moss. The Triops even passively defend them by consuming diseased bits.
2. Some hatching bins. While I could just drain the tanks after all the adults die of natural causes, and allow the eggs to dry out over the course of 6 weeks, and then refill the tanks partially to stimulate the eggs to hatch, this wastes a lot of time. So instead, I am going to collect some of the eggs directly, put them in a warm, dry place to dry quickly, and have them hatch and start to grow in hatching bins while the adults of the previous generation remain in the tanks. I actually have enough spare bins that, if need be, I can have 3-4 generations alive at once.
3. Some water filters. I'm actually deliberating on adding these myself, since they aren't necessary. However, they do keep the tanks cleaner and introduce some extra oxygen into the tanks by churning the water, so it is worth mentioning that it is beneficial to have them.
4. 50 watt tank heaters. Now, these I definitely will not be using, since the species I am raising can survive temperatures lower than the water will be getting. However, for people raising a different species, the tank heater calculation is 5 watts per gallon of water, thus for 10 gallon tanks filled up, you'd need 50 watt tank heaters. Also, under no circumstances should you let the tank heater be turned on without it being under water. They will explode.

And that's it. Seems like a lot, but it's actually pretty minimal for animals in an aquarium. Which, sadly, does mean your first pet fish probably died due to improper care and not because they have naturally short lifespans... or ick. Lots of fish from pet stores have ick.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No way can you have been "reading and doing science for 30 years". You would not have said anything so ridiculous. NO WAY.

That sounds like something little 10 year old me would say. And I was home schooled my whole life, have 17 brothers and sisters and one of the most fanatical Christian parents you can have. I was completely isolated from everything. I was in a bubble away from anything "worldly".

So much so, believe it or not, I wasn't even allowed to watch things like the "The Care Bears" (it is a movie cartoon series that is about the most innocent and childlike anything can be). Why? Because there is a villain and it was "too demonic" for us to watch. Yep.

You don't sound, excuse me being so foward, like a simple minded person. You either haven't done as you've said (I'm not saying this is you, but when I was a creationist, I definitely "lied for Jesus " and I know many others who did or do. Also, lots of plagiarism among creationists going on.) or you are unable to make yourself understand. It could also be that you don't understand, but I think that is the least likely of the posiblities.

I just find it so sad when people reject reality for no good reason. If you need the false belief, okay, I get it, I'll even go along with you and pretend, but most people actually don't need that crutch. Reality (or at least as close as we can come to it), although scary, frustrating and depressing, is still the most beautiful, wonderful and majestic thing we have.

Despite the FACT that my post had nothing to do with Jesus and made no point about Creationism or what Creationists believe somehow you have managed to twist the point I had made into that. WOW what an emotional button you have (sorry...really...I did not mean to press it)....

ALL the actual data shows us IS that this millions of years process has only provided newer varieties. Take the earliest birds for example (since I already proved this with bats). The earliest avians (Triassic period) which predate the so called archaeopteryx (Jurrasic period) were birds. No one doubts this. YES the few fossils we have of avians (birds) have teeth and perhaps a claw or three on their wing joint. Most of the fossilized samples were grounded birds who could not fly away.

Now after millions and millions of years we have 1000s of varieties of birds all who have variations from one another in their genomes (but they are all still avians). Even within a subspecies (like the passerines called Darwin's finches) world wide we have over 1500 varieties but the are ALL STILL BIRDS. They never (NO NOT EVER) became something other.

Oh yes some have smaller feet others wider some have long beaks some shorter and so on which are ALL earmarks of VARIETY.

(caps are non-emotional and used for emphasis only)

So on the one hand we have the actual data (as just summarized), and then we have what Mayr calls "the historical narrative" which is attached to the real data. The narrative 'hypothesis based explanation' is an interpretation MADE TO FIT the pre-drawn conclusion (YECs often do the same thing) but the reality remains. They are all still avians nothing more....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Are you a creationist? Are you skeptical of the theory of evolution?

So, any creationists want to have some fun with evolution?

Sarah your being silly, this has nothing to do with the controversy regarding Darwinian and Creationism debate. Creationists do not dispute evolution as a natural phenomenon, they dispute the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As Hitler said in Mein Kampf (chapter 3) "Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species."

See more in The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914, by Historians Alfred Kelly, and Edgar B. Graves, to explore the roots of Nazi philosophy (albeit predominately Eugenic, but which came directly from Darwin's friends and family as THE social application of Darwin's evolutionary theory).

Do we who know evolution believe in such application now? Most do not but this was the root (and sadly it had its offshoots). Just consider what evolutionist anthropologists in the early 1900s did to poor Ota Benga! What they, as the foremost authorities, called him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As Hitler said in chapter 3 "Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species."
Yea there's nothing Darwinian about that.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yea there's nothing Darwinian about that.

LOL! And we can always investigate the work done by Eugen Fischer, a German biologist, who was a prominent researcher in genetics and it's application to racial hygiene, or Fritz Lenz the German geneticist who also believed in applying evolution to society. Changing the gene pool having a definite effect on a species? Glad to know no evolutionists believe that is possible. Aren't you?
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,280
1,525
76
England
✟233,773.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
a) all you are describing is the production of variety of the same creature and
b) this is a bad choice to demonstrate evolution because...Triops in over 300 million years is still Triops (it never became something new).
How do you know this? The fact that some of the descendants of the Carboniferous Triops of 300 million years ago are still Triops doesn't necessarily mean that none of the descendants of these 300 Myr old Triops evolved into something different. This is a serious question; is it possible that some living non-Triops crustaceans are descended from Carboniferous Triops?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Sarah your being silly, this has nothing to do with the controversy regarding Darwinian and Creationism debate. Creationists do not dispute evolution as a natural phenomenon, they dispute the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.
Dude, I have debated plenty of creationists that do dispute evolution as a natural phenomenon. Justatruthseeker doesn't even think new breeds of dogs can arise via mutation and artificial selection. Feel free to participate in the evolution experiment... or not.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟336,823.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Creationists do not dispute evolution as a natural phenomenon, they dispute the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

I dunno about that, I've seen creationists flat out claim that evolution is not an observable phenomenon.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Changing the gene pool having a definite effect on a species? Glad to know no evolutionists believe that is possible. Aren't you?
Actually, changing the gene pool demonstrably does have a long term impact on a species, ourselves included. We just have an ethical issue with how the Nazis tried to do it, as well as a procedural issue with it. Any time you try to breed for specific traits in a population, you inevitably lose some genetic diversity. The genetic diversity lost could include genes for resistances to diseases that don't yet exist, which puts the population at a greater risk of being eliminated through illness.

Plus, you wouldn't actually have to kill anyone to improve the overall health of humanity; all one would have to do is look at the patterns of inheritance for various genetic diseases. People with the autosomal dominant or X-linked recessive deadly diseases could simply be informed, and this would likely influence their reproductive choices (most people would have fewer kids of their own free will if they risked passing down Huntington's disease, for example). Otherwise, a great way to reduce recessive diseases is to have kids with people as genetically dissimilar to you as humanly possible, and one of the easiest ways to tell if someone has a different genetic background than you is to note if their race is different. That's right, racial purity is complete garbage, as far as evolution is concerned.

Now we are getting close to the technology necessary to remove the most harmful genes from a person's genome while they are still developing, subverting genetic risk via lineage entirely. And once removed, they won't risk passing it down to future generations either.

So, the Nazi way is unnecessarily cruel, and counterproductive. What they were actually doing would have just produced a genetic bottleneck, reducing some genetic diseases, but ultimately making way for others to become more common and increase damage from future epidemics, at the cost of an extreme loss of life.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No way can you have been "reading and doing science for 30 years". You would not have said anything so ridiculous. NO WAY.

That sounds like something little 10 year old me would say. And I was home schooled my whole life, have 17 brothers and sisters and one of the most fanatical Christian parents you can have. I was completely isolated from everything. I was in a bubble away from anything "worldly".

So much so, believe it or not, I wasn't even allowed to watch things like the "The Care Bears" (it is a movie cartoon series that is about the most innocent and childlike anything can be). Why? Because there is a villain and it was "too demonic" for us to watch. Yep.

You don't sound, excuse me being so foward, like a simple minded person. You either haven't done as you've said (I'm not saying this is you, but when I was a creationist, I definitely "lied for Jesus " and I know many others who did or do. Also, lots of plagiarism among creationists going on.) or you are unable to make yourself understand. It could also be that you don't understand, but I think that is the least likely of the posiblities.

I just find it so sad when people reject reality for no good reason. If you need the false belief, okay, I get it, I'll even go along with you and pretend, but most people actually don't need that crutch. Reality (or at least as close as we can come to it), although scary, frustrating and depressing, is still the most beautiful, wonderful and majestic thing we have.
Just for you MOK.

 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How do you know this? The fact that some of the descendants of the Carboniferous Triops of 300 million years ago are still Triops doesn't necessarily mean that none of the descendants of these 300 Myr old Triops evolved into something different. This is a serious question; is it possible that some living non-Triops crustaceans are descended from Carboniferous Triops?

a) its Triops cancriformis
b) there is a huge difference between possibility and the assumption that they it happened
c) I deny NO possibility (therefore they could have become other forms of "crustaceans", but not fish or amphibians or reptiles etc.) but I see no evidence that even this transformation has in fact occurred.

However, as I said, the evidence indicates the early avian common ancestors produced all the current varieties of avians, so yes, it IS "possible" they COULD BE an early variety common to other more current varieties of "crustaceans".
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How do you know this? The fact that some of the descendants of the Carboniferous Triops of 300 million years ago are still Triops doesn't necessarily mean that none of the descendants of these 300 Myr old Triops evolved into something different. This is a serious question; is it possible that some living non-Triops crustaceans are descended from Carboniferous Triops?

"How do you know this?"

I am basing this OPINION on the OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE record demonstrated by millions of years of speciation and natural selection and the present varieties of Triops.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Dude, I have debated plenty of creationists that do dispute evolution as a natural phenomenon. Justatruthseeker doesn't even think new breeds of dogs can arise via mutation and artificial selection. Feel free to participate in the evolution experiment... or not.

I have to agree Sarah, I have also debated and discussed such things with many creationists who are as dogmatic that such things NEVER happened as there are evolutionists who are as dogmatic that fish DID IN FACT become amphibians that became reptiles that became mammals and so on. It is very difficult to open the closed mind.
 
Upvote 0