Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

What mentality created this?

A satirical one similar to one that pretends a silly Christianity to mock it.

 

[sjastro]

What mentality created this?

A self portrait.

 

[chad kincham]

The whole of the Stromatolite fields of north Ontario and Quebec would like a word.

Baloney. There are no two celled, three celled, hundred celled, thousand celled transitional forms that would need to exist for gradualistic evolution to have occurred.
It jumps from single cell life to multiple- trillion cell animals, with no transitions in between.
And there’s no way for a single celled amoeba that splits in two to reproduce, to gradually develop sexual reproduction by evolving into two different sexes.
Imagine an amoeba evolving a microscopic penis, and all related equipment, while at the same time another amoeba grows a vagina in parallel evolution, and just by chance the male and female happen to end up with compatible reproduction systems, within a close enough proximity to get together and reproduce offspring, and within the time period that both sexes are fertile?
That’s a simplistic fairy tale for atheists, and not scientific fact or possibility.

 

[renniks]

No.
Its a monotreme mammal, as far removed from beavers as from goats.
All Mammal. No bird

Yes I know.

 

[renniks]

Of course way back in time (I don't know off the top of my head--you could look it up) the feline and the canine had a common ancestor.

Prove it.

 

[Astrid]

Back up your rhetoric- show me the transitional fossil evidence you claim exists, from single cell life to sexually reproducing multi-trillion celled life.

There is none.

Are you aware of algae thar can exist as single cells
or join with others to form into a cooperating unit?

You of course know that your question is one that would take pages to
answer, while I know that your mind is set, and nothing I say could
ever get through. Kind of limits my enthusiasm for making a
lot of effort.

I asked about algae to see if you know even the simplest
basics of biology related to your question. Properly,
you should be a whiz, as you claim to know more than any
biologist on earth.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, I say that's not evolution. That's adaptation.
You can take the same information and put it into a different model and not conclude that everything started with a single cell and evolved into the variety we have now. In fact, there's always been vast variety from the start. I can observe animals adapting to their environment changes. I cannot observe a bird gradually transitioning to a dinosaur. Or a feline transitioning to a canine.

Common descent is a conclusion from the data, not evolution.

Evolution is just that populations change over time.

You dont even understand the very basics of biology.

 

[sjastro]

Are you aware of algae thar can exist as single cells
or join with others to form into a cooperating unit?

You of course know that your question is one that would take pages to
answer, while I know that your mind is set, and nothing I say could
ever get through. Kind of limits my enthusiasm for making a
lot of effort.

I asked about algae to see if you know even the simplest
basics of biology related to your question. Properly,
you should be a whiz, as you claim to know more than any
biologist on earth.

I learnt about Volvox in high school biology (many years ago) and how it was a transition between a single cell organism and a multicellular single organism.

 

[chad kincham]

Are you aware of algae thar can exist as single cells
or join with others to form into a cooperating unit?

You of course know that your question is one that would take pages to
answer, while I know that your mind is set, and nothing I say could
ever get through. Kind of limits my enthusiasm for making a
lot of effort.

I asked about algae to see if you know even the simplest
basics of biology related to your question. Properly,
you should be a whiz, as you claim to know more than any
biologist on earth.

Don’t make me laugh. A cooperating unit is not an animal that sexually reproduces, it’s still a colony of individual organisms that divide in half to replicate.

You might as well claim a bee colony is an example of a sexually reproducing animal.

That’s a good example of the simplistic tripe that is foisted off on gullible pseudo-intellectuals as being real science, though.

 

[Astrid]

Don’t make me laugh. A cooperating unit is not an animal that sexually reproduces, it’s still a colony of individual organisms that divide in half to replicate.

You might as well claim a bee colony is an example of a sexually reproducing animal.

That’s a good example of the simplistic tripe that is foisted off on gullible pseudo-intellectuals as being real science, though.

As you are not asking your question in good faith
and only wish to be crude, discussion over.

 

[Astrid]

I learnt about Volvox in high school biology (many years ago) and how it was a transition between a single cell organism and a multicellular single organism.

I wouldn't say its accurate to call Volvox transitional
as such, but an example of how single cells can exist
as singly or as part of an advantageous unit.. Filamentous
algae do the same in an even simpler way

There are many other algae that can live as single cells or
as a part of a colony.
FTM giant kelp is also algae.

You may recall also from intro to biol. that sponges
are colonies of cooperating cells that can also exist as
individuals. Hydra are slightly more complex.
Living organisms such as these are not necessarily the
same as the earliest multicellular organisms, but show that
the move from single cell to multi is not the huge step
that the lower rungs of creationists imagine.

Beyond the first level of multicellularity are organisms
that well exemplify how it is a step by step process.
Readily available info for all but the most adamantly
ignorent.
Creationists also think the origin of sexual reproduction is a big mystery
all the while unaware that single cell organisms also engage
in DNA exchange- again, basic biology but those who drop
out by 7th grade and have been militantly ignorant ever since
won't have heard of it.

If there is a God he might be miffed at those who so crudely
disregard and deny his works, but perhaps pity would be
more apt.

 

[Speedwell]

Prove it.

Very funny.

 

[Astrid]

Common descent is a conclusion from the data, not evolution.

Evolution is just that populations change over time.

You dont even understand the very basics of biology.

A lot of creationists think that researchers are as
intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the
faith based predetermined conclusion.

 

[renniks]

Very funny.

I don't find it funny. If it's not proven, I don't believe it. Works for the athiest in regards to God, why should it not work for me in regard to "science"? If I can't see it, why would I believe it's true?

 

[renniks]

A lot of creationists think that researchers are as
intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the
faith based predetermined conclusion.

If it's just change over time, we can all agree it happens and there's no discussion, then. No creationist org is saying that things don't change over time.

 

[AV1611VET]

A lot of creationists think that researchers are as
intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the
faith based predetermined conclusion.

Kinda like finding a tooth, and the next thing you know, you have this:

Complete with his own scientific name, long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, cloudy skies, a river, horses, camels, trees w/o foliage (as if it's winter), green grass (as if it's summer); and all from a single tooth.

Translation: researchers are intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the faith based predetermined conclusion.

 

[Astrid]

If it's just change over time, we can all agree it happens and there's no discussion, then. No creationist org is saying that things don't change over time.

You have a habit of making the most irrelevant reponses!

The double negative about creo.org leaves me not
knowing what you are saying.

Change over time...so what are you even arguing
about ?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't find it funny. If it's not proven, I don't believe it. Works for the athiest in regards to God, why should it not work for me in regard to "science"? If I can't see it, why would I believe it's true?

What I thought was funny was your insistence that I "prove it" after we have gone over and over the point that scientific theories are never proven.

 

[Speedwell]

Kinda like finding a tooth, and the next thing you know, you have this:

Complete with his own scientific name, long hair, goofy expression, animals in the background, cloudy skies, a river, horses, camels, trees w/o foliage (as if it's winter), green grass (as if it's summer); and all from a single tooth.

Translation: researchers are intellectually dishonest as they are, starting with
a conclusion and force fitting any data to confirm the faith based predetermined conclusion.

It was a conjecture based on a mistaken identification of a fossil, spun into a big story by non-scientists and then discovered and corrected by scientists. Your self-serving misinterpretation of the event weakens your position.

 

[Mr Laurier]

What mentality created this?

A human one