For creationists: give me your arguments against evolution.

[bhsmte]

If you want to offend people and goad then into beheading you.
Freedom of speech is actually an insult to nature and evolution.

Unless of course, you agree with that speech.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why do you need faith when evolution is supported by evidence?

The problem that you have is that you will never allow evidence to be considered.

We can't get to the evidence. The premise is just too farfetched. Implicit in creationism is that we cannot understand it, and, the more science tries to explain evolution the more fantastic it becomes. Even the mysterious force of 'natural selection' is right out of a science fiction story; a mindless, purposeless process that out of millions of choices gets it right every time on time.

Haven't you ever been offered a proposition and after just a brief look said "no thanks"? There's much more to rejecting evolution than meets the eye. For one thing in order to accept evolution the Christian has to abandon some really good moral ideas.

 

[justlookinla]

You're guilty of the red herring fallacy.

It's not fallacious pointing out the fact that "evolution" isn't a monolithic term.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can't get to the evidence.

Got it for you.

The premise is just too farfetched. Implicit in creationism is that we cannot understand it, and, the more science tries to explain evolution the more fantastic it becomes. Even the mysterious force of 'natural selection' is right out of a science fiction story; a mindless, purposeless process that out of millions of choices gets it right every time on time.

Scientists do understand it, and they apply it in their work. Sorry, but your inability to understand science is not universal.

Haven't you ever been offered a proposition and after just a brief look said "no thanks"? There's much more to rejecting evolution than meets the eye. For one thing in order to accept evolution the Christian has to abandon some really good moral ideas.

For one thing, you are wrong. Millions of christians accept evolution and find no need to abandon any good moral ideas. Millions of atheists also have good moral ideas and accept evolution. Good moral ideas and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not fallacious pointing out the fact that "evolution" isn't a monolithic term.

Red herring.

 

[justlookinla]

Got it for you.

Similar design. I'm surprised you're still attempting to pass this off as some sort of evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Red herring.

Evasion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Similar design. I'm surprised you're still attempting to pass this off as some sort of evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism.

I am still surprised that you think transitional fossils should not share any features with any other species.

Can you please tell us why an evolutionary transitional should share nothing with any other species?

 

[justlookinla]

For one thing, you are wrong. Millions of christians accept evolution and find no need to abandon any good moral ideas. Millions of atheists also have good moral ideas and accept evolution. Good moral ideas and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Here you go attempting to use "evolution" as a monolithic term again when of course it's not. Not one Christian accepts the brand of evolution which teaches that humanity is the result of only a random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life from from long long ago. That's the message of the brand of evolution which atheistic Darwinist creationists promote and is juust one of the various uses of the term "evolution".

 

[Loudmouth]

Evasion.

You are inventing a problem that doesn't exist in order to avoid the evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

I am still surprised that you think transitional fossils should not share any features with any other species.

Are you suggesting that the image is offering proof of transitional fossils?

Can you please tell us why an evolutionary transitional should share nothing with any other species?

Can you tell us why various life forms shouldn't share common design?

 

[justlookinla]

You are inventing a problem that doesn't exist in order to avoid the evidence.

The problem arises only when one attempts to use "evolution" as a monolithic term.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you suggesting that the image is offering proof of transitional fossils?

They have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. They are transitional by definition.

Can you tell us why various life forms shouldn't share common design?

Can you tell us why common design would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy of shared features?

Lines of Evidence: Nested Hierarchies

A nested hierarchy is the only pattern of shared features that evolution can produce, and it is the pattern that we do observe. Can you name a single reason why a common designer would be forced to put shared features into a nested hierarchy? Cars share features, but don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings share features, but they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings share features, but they dont' fall into a nested hierarchy. Why would life be any different if it were designed by a common designer?

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem arises only when one attempts to use "evolution" as a monolithic term.

I am attempting to use the scientific term, which is not monolithic.

 

[justlookinla]

They have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. They are transitional by definition.

They offer similar design, by definition also. Your claim that they are transitional, that A 'turned into' L (not sure what happened to the image with A thorough N) is nothing more than speculation.

Can you tell us why common design would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy of shared features?

Lines of Evidence: Nested Hierarchies

A nested hierarchy is the only pattern of shared features that evolution can produce, and it is the pattern that we do observe. Can you name a single reason why a common designer would be forced to put shared features into a nested hierarchy? Cars share features, but don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Buildings share features, but they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings share features, but they dont' fall into a nested hierarchy. Why would life be any different if it were designed by a common designer?

You'd have to ask the designer about that. I don't pretend to know why the creator/designer of the Boeing 777 did what he did, much less the creator/designer of an incomprehensibly more complex creation.

 

[justlookinla]

I am attempting to use the scientific term, which is not monolithic.

The term "evolution" has several applications/meanings/conclusions. It's not monolithic.

I suspect you're attempting to use it in the sense that atheistic Darwinist creationists use it, which isn't the only use of the term. You need to explain your use of it instead of simply claiming that Christians embrace evolution. Again, it depends on what you mean by "evolution".

 

[Loudmouth]

They offer similar design, by definition also. Your claim that they are transitional, that A 'turned into' L (not sure what happened to the image with A thorough N) is nothing more than speculation.

Transitional does not mean ancestral. Let me repeat. Transitional does not mean ancestral.

Please read that until you understand it. I am getting tired of repeating it.

You'd have to ask the designer about that. I don't pretend to know why the creator/designer of the Boeing 777 did what he did, much less the creator/designer of an incomprehensibly more complex creation.

Airplanes do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

You are the one claiming that life was designed. YOU. If you can't back that up, then don't claim it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The term "evolution" has several applications/meanings/conclusions. It's not monolithic.

I suspect you're attempting to use it in the sense that atheistic Darwinist creationists use it, which isn't the only use of the term. You need to explain your use of it instead of simply claiming that Christians embrace evolution. Again, it depends on what you mean by "evolution".

Are you a satanist evolutionist?

 

[justlookinla]

Transitional does not mean ancestral. Let me repeat. Transitional does not mean ancestral.

Please read that until you understand it. I am getting tired of repeating it.

From Wikipedia...

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group." (Herron, Scott Freeman, Jon C. (2004). Evolutionary analysis (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. p. 816.)​

Note the word "ancestral". I'm not sure what guru you follow in your belief system, but it appears that you're out of step with others definition of transitional fossil.

Airplanes do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

You are the one claiming that life was designed. YOU. If you can't back that up, then don't claim it.

I claim that a designer is required for complex creations such as a Boeing 777 and the human body....there is no other explanation. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you a satanist evolutionist?

No.