Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Kirkwhisper]

Montalban:

I just don't see it. I've seen plenty of creationists bring up the "car evolution" "analogy". I've never seen a creationist describe the relationship of cars to each other in any way similar to the evolutionary description of the relationship of living things to each other. I'm guessing that this is because the two don't match, although it could also be because creationists are lazy. Prove me wrong -- create the branched graph you claim exists in car model designs -- or prove me right, make excuses.

That's right. He doesn't see it. It should be easy for any intelligent person to make such a comparison (Intelligently engineered machinery as compared with other intelligently engineered machinery).

Sort of like this machinery:

...as compared to this:

Which one is more complex? Which one was intelligently engineered?

Answer: they were both intelligently engineered from scratch by the Creator and/or creators that made them. One is the DNA in every living organism and the other is the AE35 NASA communications device that was built by the production studio that made 2001 A Space Odyssey. However, the DNA is far more complex than Stanley Kubricks artist rendition, just as DNA is far more complex than any computer on earth. That's the point: Only God could have made it and it didn't take him 4 billion yrs to do it. He spoke and it was done! Psalm 33:9, "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

But then your counterpart says the unbelievable: "Prove me wrong -- create the branched graph you claim exists in car model designs.."

Talk about missing the point? Sometimes those, uh, persons....leave me with my mouth hanging open in stunned disbelief. The WHOLE POINT was that cars did not evolve. They were intelligently engineered throughout the entire existence of the car industry! Just like God did creating the various kinds of life as is mentioned in Genesis.

Apparently however, your opponent wants you to reproduce something like this:

Would this serve as proof for him? Almost certainly not and he will laugh at it when he sees it. But this is closer to proving car evolution than they will ever get in trying to prove biological evolution of one type of organism into another. It's a joke and I hope the other readers catch on to what a huge joke it is.

Best wishes, friend.

 

[philadiddle]

Well certainly designers often go off previous models - for economy of sharing the same parts.

I'd tend to go with 'lazy' as I personally can't be bothered coming up with a more complex chart that means exactly the same thing anyway - only that it has more branches.

It really has nothing to do with laziness, it's the knowledge that a branching nested hierarchy of automobiles is completely arbitrary. What's the base of the tree, do we start with 2 and 4 wheel drive, then divide it by number of doors, then by gas or diesel, then by class (van, compact car, jeep etc)? Or do we start by dividing by gas/diesel, then number of doors, then color of car? It is completely arbitrary.

The tree of life however isn't arbitrary. It fits pretty much just one way. Any type of "exception" like a blind mole in a group with two eyes shows signs of once having those traits.

 

[Montalban]

Yes but that isn't what Darwin said. Notice how you have to rearrange the statement to make it a tautology? You said it was about traits, not just survival. Could it be you want it to be a tautology to give you an excuse to dismiss evolution?

What Darwin said is a tautolgy - that which survives survives.

I've not re-arranged it at all.

You have, by thinking that 'fitness' removes the tautological nature of the statement. And for thinking 'traits' means something more

I've discussed the fact that no one can tell what those traits are, except by looking back and saying "Oh, being tall was the advantage!"

 

[Montalban]

It really has nothing to do with laziness, it's the knowledge that a branching nested hierarchy of automobiles is completely arbitrary.

No. It would be set out based on people thinking about it. It's not arbitrary

The tree of life however isn't arbitrary.

Actually it is! Nature doesn't actuall sit there and make a decision!

Unless you're saying nature has consciousness

 

[Assyrian]

How do we know the traits that allowed survival? By looking at the survivors. if something didn't survive then we know it didn't have traits that survives.

Survival is certainly one way of identifying these traits, but then again you might be able to predict that white furred baby seals would be able to do better on ice and snow than ones with brown fur. Even if you study which traits allowed survival after the fact, wouldn't you normally be able to tell, not just that the traits allowed them to survive, but why the traits allowed the to survive, why these traits were more suited to that particular environment than other traits?

It's the same how do we know eyeballs evolve? duh! because animals have eyeballs. Plants doesn't have eyeballs so we know they didn't evolve eyeballs.

No not quite the same question. It is more a question of why eyesight enables organisms to survive (helping them see predators, food, and members of the opposite sex) or why organisms that adapt to caves often lose their eyesight (it is a waste of resources when they don't need it).

 

[Assyrian]

What Darwin said is a tautolgy - that which survives survives.

I've not re-arranged it at all.

Survival of the fittest
that which survives survives.
​

Looks rearranged to me.

You have, by thinking that 'fitness' removes the tautological nature of the statement. And for thinking 'traits' means something more

It does. It is saying there are traits more more suited more 'fit' for an environment and organisms with those traits tend to survive.
Suitable traits lead to survival.

I've discussed the fact that no one can tell what those traits are, except by looking back and saying "Oh, being tall was the advantage!"

So you don't think some traits can be an advantage, having white fur if you live in the snow and ice? Being the better runner if you and your friend are being chased by leopards?

 

[Assyrian]

No. It would be set out based on people thinking about it. It's not arbitrary

So creationists just don't want to think about it?

 

[TasManOfGod]

What an incredibly ignorant statement. I made the point that we know that all motor vehicles were intelligently engineered and yet you come back with that?



By natural processes? On what planet? Man, if I were one of the other theistic evo's on this thread then I would be telling you to please BE QUIET! NOW! You many get a few PM's from your allies shortly, friend.


Gee, I wonder why? (scratch, scratch)

Nice graph, fella, but it has no more basis in reality than does the artwork of Haeckel.

You can post all the graphs and pretty pictures you wish but you will never depict any organism that can be linked to any other classifiably different organism. God's law of 'after his kind' stands.

Either you are (1) playing games by being facetious, or (2) you need to hit the books again, (hint: not Darwinist flavored nonsense).

And a happy New Year to you too

 

[Assyrian]

the best response

 

[Montalban]

Survival of the fittest
that which survives survives.
​

Looks rearranged to me.

That's what it means! I explained it. "Fitness" is that which survives.

Fitness = that which survives

Fitness to survive = that which survives.

That which survives survives.

Nothing re-arranged at all.

It does. It is saying there are traits more more suited more 'fit' for an environment and organisms with those traits tend to survive.
Suitable traits lead to survival.

Which means that which surives survives

What is a 'trait for fitness' is unknown. All one can know is that the animal itself was 'fit' to survive because it survived.

So you don't think some traits can be an advantage, having white fur if you live in the snow and ice?

Like Penguins? Seals? Eskimo?

Being the better runner if you and your friend are being chased by leopards?

Not all creatures escape leopards by out-running them. Some can fly away, others can go into burrows.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Suppose I challenge you with "ahpdji sjioasd msdew opwsasjop aojsdio asjiodpj!!!" Wouldn't you not respond to such a challenge? I don't know what you, or other creationists for that matter, consider to be "classifiably different type of organism" nor what you mean by "visibly transformed". My guess is you're asking for an example of something the theory of evolution says cannot happen.

But you made a purely nonsense 'statement' which cannot be responded to intelligently. By contrast, I gave you, in no uncertain terms, exactly what evolutionary theory has been touting by it's proponents for about 150 yrs and yet you pretend that it is not a legitimate request. Phooey! Who are you trying to fool here? The simple to complex scenario of evolutionary 'science' has been the leading feature of the theory along with the supposed attendant 'fossil evidence' that included from its outset piltdown man, Nebraska man, Coelecanth, Lucy, archeoraptor, and most recently the Yeti of the Far East. All of those were bonafide flub-ups by the 'scientists' you trust...rather than God's Word. But they couldn't do any better with the reality of the rest of the fossil record.

So, I've asked you repeatedly to give an example of what you think the theory of evolution predicts we should see, and you have yet to respond other than to repeat once more your gibberish of a challenge.

You need to grow up. Better yet, you need to hit the history books about Darwinian theory and just what your evolutionist forefathers said in regards to the development of life on earth. It's not what you obviously think it is.

But why is this so hard for you to figure out unless, that is, you were totally brainwashed Orwellian fashion in college and you have had the real facts (i.e. history) of 'evolution' kept from you?

You act as if the meaning of the theory is some big mystery to me:

...as if the 'simple to complex' scenario of living things has been replaced by your 'a change in allele frequency in populations', which, as I have pointed out at least twice, is like "defining a Lamborghini as a ......" must I say it again? Would it do any good for the likes of you?

For you, it's 'Never mind the facts (i.e. history) of the movement and the defintions my predecessors held to all those years':

Of course, every one of these artist conceptions is inadequate as we have shown for over four decades. They don't meet with reality when one considers the details...but you pretend. You pretend that I have not defined clearly just what it is that I challenge you with. Shall I charge you with outright lies in this matter? Tell the readers...since I don't expect to get an honest reply from you on any point we have discussed, so tell them since I am no longer even mildly interested in what you have to say.

I've debated other creationists before -- like them, you will undoubtedly modify your meaning of "classifiably different type of organism" each time your challenge seems to be answered. Rather than get into an endless debate about semantics, I asked for a specific example.

For the same period of time I mentioned above, I watched neo-Darwinians deliberately change defintions with a clever twist on words to escape the harsh reality of their false position: Evolution itself has changed as I already pointed out. 'Entropy' changed from 'a measure of disorder' to 'dissipation'. 'spontaneous generation' changed to 'chemical evolution' and that has changed in recent times to 'abiogenesis'...further obscuring the real meaning in the mind of the unsuspecting general public. 'Species' has changed so many times that now one could claim that over a dozen different meanings depending on what one is promoting. How convenient.

AND YOU.......are a part of that Orwellian effort. Proud of yourself?

I don't have to change anything, O assuming one. The game is still the same for me as it was in 1968 when I began to see how stupid the theory was to begin with and that its proponents really had no evidence to support their fairy tale.

 

[Montalban]

So creationists just don't want to think about it?

You miss the point. Someone is arguing that what happens in nature isn't arbitrary.

It is, that's the nature of nature.

Conversely they suggested that a thought out collection of cars to show evolution is arbitrary.

It could only be if a person had some kind of random car name generator and it spewed out names randomly

 

[Montalban]

Survival is certainly one way of identifying these traits, but then again you might be able to predict that white furred baby seals would be able to do better on ice and snow than ones with brown fur.

Having white fur made them targeted by seal fur hunters so having white fur was not an advantage.

Those wishing to save them threw green dye on the seal cubs.

So one should be arguing that having green fur would be an advantage!

And of course you example against your own argument about having white fur anyway, because this is only a temporary covering for them, so they lose that 'advantage' and still survive.

But it's circular reasoning to suppose that whatever it is that they have is an advantage

 

[Montalban]

I like the example of the typing monkeys

 

[philadiddle]

No. It would be set out based on people thinking about it. It's not arbitrary

I demonstrated how it is arbitrary. You have not demonstrated how it is objective.

Actually it is! Nature doesn't actuall sit there and make a decision!

Unless you're saying nature has consciousness

Your statement is meaningless. Show me how the tree of life that we get from taxonomy, biogeography, paleontology, and phylogeny is arbitrary and show me how it can be different.

 

[Montalban]

I demonstrated how it is arbitrary. You have not demonstrated how it is objective.

If a person thought it out then it isn't arbitrary. It is however possibly 'subjective'.

Your statement is meaningless. Show me how the tree of life that we get from taxonomy, biogeography, paleontology, and phylogeny is arbitrary and show me how it can be different.

Species change all the time!!!

Once they considered we evolved from Neanderthal. Then that Neanderthal was a distinct branch. Now they're saying that they're a sub-species of modern man - because we could breed with them.

However I wasn't saying that 'the tree of life' as set out in a diagram isn't arbitrary.

I was saying that nature selecting is.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

A tautology is ultimately a meaingless phrase.

If you're happy with that, so be it.

What it actually means is 'that which survives survives' or 'survival of the surviviest'.

'Fitness' to survive is simply whatever traits that allow something to survive. And you can only know that retrospectively

This is what we mean when we say "evolution is blind". A trait does not determine whether an animal will successfully breed - the fact that it successfully bred meant the trait was useful. We cannot predict the future, we can only judge by looking at the results.

I remember having this same pointless conversaion several months ago.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

This is what we mean when we say "evolution is blind". A trait does not determine whether an animal will successfully breed - the fact that it successfully bred meant the trait was useful. We cannot predict the future, we can only judge by looking at the results.

I remember having this same pointless conversaion several months ago.

But the only results you will get are extinctions, not evolutionary changes.

Don't buy that? Then check out the DNR website and look up 'extinctions' as compared to 'new organisms'.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

But the only results you will get are extinctions, not evolutionary changes.

Don't buy that? Then check out the DNR website and look up 'extinctions' as compared to 'new organisms'.

Unless a sudden, unexpected catastrophy comes along (an asteroid crashing into Earth for example), animals which manage to breed successfully obviously aren't on the road to extinction.

I'm not sure which DNR website you mean either. I'm guessing it's not "Do Not Resuscitate'.

 

[shernren]

I'm not arguing that evolution didn't happen.

I said I am suspicious of a theory that requires fraudulent explanations.

My suspicions don't have to be based on 'fact' of evolution at all. They're based on the arguments presented to me.

So you're not arguing that we shouldn't accept evolution, you're just arguing that we shouldn't accept evolution because some of the evidence for it in the past turned out to be fradulent.

Excellent. I like your logic. Maybe you should learn what a contradiction is, though, before you start holding forth on tautologies. Learning things in the proper order and all that - which as an expert on scientific pedagogy I'm sure you'll know a lot about.