Evolution is a Fact

[TheReasoner]

I didn't move any goal post. The only thing I've ever talked about is the evolutionary origin of man VERSUS God's account of how He said that He Created man. You should be able to guess which one I believe. I think the chickens are still dancing, but I'll check again. Yep - they're still dancing.

False dilemma. If you believe God created the universe the creation itself offers a detailed description of how He created it. Whereas the bible can be perceived from a plethora of viewpoints and certain parts of it can easily be seen as parables simplifying a complex truth so we can relate to them more easily (i.e without a phd or three.). Examples of this include the parable of the sheep and the goats, the parable of the good samaritan, likening heaven with a mustard seed and the parable in Genesis on the creation of the world. Is this true? Yes. At least I think it is. But that does not mean it is true the way I read it. The parable of creation describes important truths like God's love for us, God being the creator, God loving us, us being sinners and sin being something to avoid. Just to draw forth some important truths found in the parable. What it does not say, and this is verified by every field in the natural sciences (physics, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry etc.), is exactly how He created it all. This is really not important when it comes to our relationships, how we lead our lives, right and wrong etcetera.

So the dilemma is false. There may be a conflict between your subjective analysis of the bible and reality, but this is a conflict between your own interpretation of the bible and the natural sciences. Not between God and science.

 

[Cabal]

I didn't move any goal post. The only thing I've ever talked about is the evolutionary origin of man VERSUS God's account of how He said that He Created man. You should be able to guess which one I believe. I think the chickens are still dancing, but I'll check again. Yep - they're still dancing.

Incorrect.

By pointing out these hoaxes, you attempted to use them to dismiss all of evolutionary origins by stating that these hoaxes are typical of the discipline.

They are not. Conflating the two is intellectually dishonest.

Now, please retract - I'd hate for you to be bearing false witness - speaking of which, you realise what bad witness it is when you peddle lies (and old lies at that)?

 

[nhisname]

And this is exactly why I avoid directly interacting with Creationists. They already "Know the Truth". Any extra information you give them will simply be thrown away.

No not thrown away I'm filing it away.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No not thrown away I'm filing it away.

In the round filing basket no doubt.

 

[Sanguis]

No not thrown away I'm filing it away.

Filing it away under what?

"Evil atheist science lies!"? Perhaps your "Blasphemy!" folder?

We both know, as a creationist, you're not open to anything that contradicts your interpretation of a story book. Physical evidence and reasoned logic obviously mean nothing to you, just don't pretend you're even trying to learn. We know you'll just scurry off to answersingenesis and look up the relevant creationist falsehood that matches what the evidence is.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Filing it away under what?

"Evil atheist science lies!"? Perhaps your "Blasphemy!" folder?

We both know, as a creationist, you're not open to anything that contradicts your interpretation of a story book. Physical evidence and reasoned logic obviously mean nothing to you, just don't pretend you're even trying to learn. We know you'll just scurry off to answersingenesis and look up the relevant creationist falsehood that matches what the evidence is.

I suspect it will be filed under "PRATTs"

 

[hangback]

I'll try my best. If we evolved from something with no source of intelligence were did we get our basic human needs met from ?? Aren't things learned and taught by our parents? Who taught them? Same thing with animals.

This is just so sad, you really don't stand a chance my love, creationism has made sure you didn't get an education and it has just eaten you up, my heart goes out to you.

 

[MoonLancer]

Alot of these ideas to me supports a common design theory, designs that work.....designs needs a designer!

So how does one test for a designer? or is this where your designer hypothesis ends?

 

[MoonLancer]

Incorrect.

By pointing out these hoaxes, you attempted to use them to dismiss all of evolutionary origins by stating that these hoaxes are typical of the discipline.

They are not. Conflating the two is intellectually dishonest.

Now, please retract - I'd hate for you to be bearing false witness - speaking of which, you realise what bad witness it is when you peddle lies (and old lies at that)?

well its not moving the goal posts but it is a fallacy. I forget which one though.

 

[MoonLancer]

No not thrown away I'm filing it away.

could you please respond to some of my posts that i took the time write?

 

[Sanguis]

So how does one test for a designer? or is this where your designer hypothesis ends?

Makes you wonder what kind of designer makes the human jaw too small to fit all of their teeth in, properly, or why the designer made our spine upright, when spines function best when used like a clothes line, with the organs hanging off of it.

Walking upright makes us very prone to back problems, in later life.

Not to mention the huge plethora of various bits and bobs of our anatomy that don't even do anything anymore, like the appendix, or the coccyx.

Then there's light having to pass through the blood vessels in the backs of our eyes, before the light sensitive cells pick them up.

A hugely flawed design, by an allegedly flawless designer.

 

[MoonLancer]

Makes you wonder what kind of designer makes the human jaw too small to fit all of their teeth in, properly, or why the designer made our spine upright, when spines function best when used like a clothes line, with the organs hanging off of it.

Walking upright makes us very prone to back problems, in later life.

Not to mention the huge plethora of various bits and bobs of our anatomy that don't even do anything anymore, like the appendix, or the coccyx.

Then there's light having to pass through the blood vessels in the backs of our eyes, before the light sensitive cells pick them up.

A hugely flawed design, by an allegedly flawless designer.

why would anyone build a playground next to a sewage dump? that's not a very intelligent designer

 

[TheOutsider]

False dilemma. If you believe God created the universe the creation itself offers a detailed description of how He created it. Whereas the bible can be perceived from a plethora of viewpoints and certain parts of it can easily be seen as parables simplifying a complex truth so we can relate to them more easily (i.e without a phd or three.). Examples of this include the parable of the sheep and the goats, the parable of the good samaritan, likening heaven with a mustard seed and the parable in Genesis on the creation of the world. Is this true? Yes. At least I think it is. But that does not mean it is true the way I read it. The parable of creation describes important truths like God's love for us, God being the creator, God loving us, us being sinners and sin being something to avoid. Just to draw forth some important truths found in the parable. What it does not say, and this is verified by every field in the natural sciences (physics, biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry etc.), is exactly how He created it all. This is really not important when it comes to our relationships, how we lead our lives, right and wrong etcetera.

So the dilemma is false. There may be a conflict between your subjective analysis of the bible and reality, but this is a conflict between your own interpretation of the bible and the natural sciences. Not between God and science.

It's nice that you are trying but it won't make any difference. He's already eaten the menu and is going back for seconds.

No not thrown away I'm filing it away.

I hope you are being honest about that and some of this starts to sink in. Do your own research on credible science websites while you are at it. All of this information is there for you to comb through.

well its not moving the goal posts but it is a fallacy. I forget which one though.

Either biased sample or hasty generalization, I'd say. Smells a bit like red herring too.

 

[Cabal]

well its not moving the goal posts but it is a fallacy. I forget which one though.

You're quite right, it's not. More like a strawman or, as TheOutsider said, biased sample or hasty generalisation.

I do apologise, some posters here make so many logical fallacies so often it gets a tad confusing

 

[Loudmouth]

But we will never change species right. We will always be what we are right now. Human. When did an ape change from being an ape to being human? Also if we have the same ancestory can an ape carry a human child and vice versa?

We (you and I) will never change species because we were born with all of the DNA we will ever have. In order for a new species to form you need several generations.

Next, we are still apes just as we are still eukaryotes, still vertebrates, still mammals, and still primates.

Thirdly, the mutations accumulated in our lineage and other ape lineages probably precludes hybrids between species, although I have never seen anything conclusive on the topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you don't have any history or records to back this up how can you possibly be sure?

We do have that record. It is our genome. Our genome is a product of 3 billion years of evolution and it has recorded that process. By comparing our genome to that of other species we can look at the changes that have occurred in our lineage in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

I found a piece of wood that had gotten hard and rock like, is that like a fossil or does it need to be in the ground to fossilize. Also how long does it take for something to fossilze?

Any previously living organism found in the ground can be called a fossil. There are many processes that result in fossilization. It can be as simple as burial where most of the original organic material is still present. Then there is the process of permineralization where the organic material is replaced by minerals in the surrounding soil.

 

[Loudmouth]

Alot of these ideas to me supports a common design theory, designs that work.....designs needs a designer!

Then how do you explain the nested hierarchy? Why don't we see bats with feathers or birds with three middle ear bones? No designer I am aware of produces designs that fall into a nested hierarchy. However, this is the only pattern of homology that evolution can produce (at least in metazoans who do not participate in vertical gene transfer).

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is simple: the evidence for the evolutionary origin of man is missing.

I found it for you:

Read again what I said about the tooth. I said that I read about it recently, not that it happened recently. I might have it in my notes somewhere, but it's really just one of many examples of the common M.O. Add vivid imagination and sloppy work to the M.O.

You mean the MO of creationists. This tooth was never seriously considered to be a hominid fossil by any scientist, but creationists know that their audience will never check so they continue to spread the myth that it was taken seriously.

The claimed evolutionary origin of man is a major embarrassment to the scientific community, and it's going to be a larger embarrassment in the future. The case is falling apart - not getting better. The more that real science learns - the more that the evolutionary origin of man falls on its face. It's elevated to a cross between comedy and fairy tale, but the die-hards are hanging on by a thread to save face and reputation.

Then please explain the ERV evidence found in this paper:

Inaugural Article: Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't move any goal post. The only thing I've ever talked about is the evolutionary origin of man VERSUS God's account of how He said that He Created man. You should be able to guess which one I believe. I think the chickens are still dancing, but I'll check again. Yep - they're still dancing.

I think you are still avoiding the DNA and fossil evidence. Here, let me check . . .

Yep, still avoiding it.