Re: Amazing thing (Creationist Sub-forum)

[Dannager]

It's time for yet another round of "It Came from the Creationist Sub-forum!"

The original thread, located here, provides an excellent opportunity to correct some more misconceptions. Oh, and to point out that evolutionists are willing to correct creationists because other creationists won't do it themselves. Let's have at it!

Oh, this thing called evolution is really amazing, it has amazing abilities which no earthly living things have.

Actually, all earthly living things participate in evolution!

Nothing in nature have similar power as it has.
Nothing in nature have similar creativity as it has.
Nothing in nature have similar kindness as it has.

Well that's very sweet of you, grammatical minefield aside. But unfortunately, the above is a lot like saying "Nothing in my sandwich is as tasty as the sandwich part."

Look, it has produced amazing things like:

(1) delicious fruits: Orange, banana, mango, etc.

They are tasty! Though I'm mostly a citrus fan, myself.

(2) medicinal plants

Incredibly handy, those.

(3) music

Er, no, I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't have anything to do with producing music (unless you want to count certain songbirds as producing music, but that can get a little grating on the ears).

(4) tasty meat and seafood: chicken, beef, duck, lamb, lobster, prawn, etc.

Mmmm, delicious protein.

(5) beautiful scenery

Yes, we humans do like to wax poetic when it comes to mountain vistas and brilliant sunsets. Oh, wait. I almost forgot that you said evolution produced these things. See, that would be wrong. Evolution is a biological process, and thus has nothing to do with the formation of natural geography.

(6) turned non-living things into living things.

Oooh, I'm sorry. Wrong again. You see, that's a different process, completely independent of evolution, known as abiogenesis. Evolution had no hand in turning non-living things into living things, I'm afraid.

(7) turned genderless cells into living things of 2 genders.

Yep, for some lifeforms. Most, however, don't have a gender.

(8) divided all living things into masculine and feminine, including sub-divisions of the human race.

Mmmm, I'm afraid that would be wrong as well. You see, the majority of life on earth doesn't have a gender and actually reproduces asexually.

Hmm, really more incomprehensible than anything else.

Only if you haven't studied evolutionary theory. A good sit-down with a biology text on evolution is a great way to better understand how evolution works. Which, by the way, you could really use, given how incorrect you were about some of the basics of evolution, above.

In daily life, to create any thing, we need input (like raw material), but evolution doesn't need input.

On the contrary, evolution requires a population of creatures in order to function! It also requires an environment with some form of selective pressure. Goodness, you sure do seem to have a lot of misconceptions about evolution.

In daily life, to design any beautiful thing, we need artistic sense and brainstorming, but evolution can create beautiful things without these.

Actually, most of the things we consider beautiful are based on natural phenomenon. Beauty is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder.

In daily life, to design sophisticated machines, we need engineering skills and brainstorming, but evolution can create sophisticated machines (e.g. human eyes, brains, etc) without these.

I know, it's fantastic! This is why a lot of production companies now use evolutionary physics models (for instance) to design more efficient machines!

In daily life, to maintain/improve anything we need efforts, otherwise things decay, but evolution can improve things without efforts.

Oh, hardly. Why, evolution requires that the creatures involved reproduce! As a healthy male member of the human race, I can assure you that reproduction alone takes a phenomenal amount of effort!

All things are supposed to have evolved without plans, but yet all animals have distinct shapes and characters.

And distinct shapes and characters (whatever "characters" means here) do not require plans in any way at all!

Hmmm, really amazing, it sounds like it is out of this world.

It is a pretty amazing process, I have to agree. I'm constantly astonished by what it has accomplished.

It belongs to nature but yet got god-like powers.

Yes, but conveniently enough nature belongs to God. See how that works?

No one saw it,

Oh? I can look out my window right now and see a handful of people milling about, each of them a product of evolution. Heck, look in the mirror if you'd like!

no one saw it in action,

My word, no! We see evolution in action all the time. In fact, if you've ever seen a creature being born, you've seen it in action! Everyday events aside, though, we have many, many observed instances of evolution that are all very well-documented.

no footprints at all,

Er...we do have quite a few footprints.

no evidence,

Ah, the misstatement of the evening! Why, we have so much evidence for evolution we practically don't know what to do with it all! In fact, it's so well-evidenced that it forms the foundation of the entire field of biology and if there's anyone out there concerned about evidence, it's scientists!

it is totally untrackable.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'm pretty sure it's false anyway.

But some people don't call it religion or fairy tale, but science.

Well, good! It is science! It would be silly for them to call it religion or a fairy tale.

But, for me, it is a scientific theory which is built upon the STRONGEST faith of all !

I'm not sure why you would ever take a scientific theory on faith. That's bad science, and not something that I would encourage. Rather, I would suggest that you examine the evidence for evolution, and accept evolutionary theory based on that.

A good place to start taking a look at how evolution actually works is here, at Berkeley's science department!

 

[Galle]

You have to wonder why people like tomc would even bother to argue against evolution when it's patently obvious they have no idea what it even is, let alone why it's so bad. You get the feeling that creationists just argue out of a need to support their own anti-scientific beliefs, as if by tearing down science they build up creationism.

And like you said at the beginning of your post, why is it that creationists are so completely unwilling to correct each other? Do they not realize that allowing strawmen, half-truths and outright lies to propogate do not make them look good? It seems as though their only concern is that they are on the same "side", as if they can take evolution down by collective disbelief rather than contrary facts.

 

[Dannager]

And like you said at the beginning of your post, why is it that creationists are so completely unwilling to correct each other? Do they not realize that allowing strawmen, half-truths and outright lies to propogate do not make them look good? It seems as though their only concern is that they are on the same "side", as if they can take evolution down by collective disbelief rather than contrary facts.

Well put. A creationist responded to the thread in the creationist-only section to say nothing but "Yes. It requires more faith than its adherents have realized." That's all. I can't imagine any of the TEs here letting a fellow TE's post with so much false information slide by like that. It just wouldn't happen. They would kindly point out the mistakes made and make sure that they were corrected. Creationists, on the other hand, are seen engaging in senseless back-patting. This would be more acceptable if the creationists in question didn't know better, but they do.

 

[busterdog]

If one were to take tomc's perspective regarding his view of authority of scripture and of creation science, you would come to the same place. We already know where the basic division is on the authority of scripture and on creation science. Its not a secret around here.

Was there something else here?

I think Tomc lines up pretty well with the basic premise. Go Tomc.

 

[random_guy]

You have to wonder why people like tomc would even bother to argue against evolution when it's patently obvious they have no idea what it even is, let alone why it's so bad. You get the feeling that creationists just argue out of a need to support their own anti-scientific beliefs, as if by tearing down science they build up creationism.

And like you said at the beginning of your post, why is it that creationists are so completely unwilling to correct each other? Do they not realize that allowing strawmen, half-truths and outright lies to propogate do not make them look good? It seems as though their only concern is that they are on the same "side", as if they can take evolution down by collective disbelief rather than contrary facts.

Don't you know?

Strawman arguments are valid arguments.

Straight from the Creationist's mouth.

 

[Mallon]

A creationist responded to the thread in the creationist-only section to say nothing but "Yes. It requires more faith than its adherents have realized." That's all.

If I didn't stay in school and actually learn about the evidence in support of evolution, I might suppose accepting it requires faith, too.
It's very easy to slander something you do not understand.

 

[Deamiter]

If one were to take tomc's perspective regarding his view of authority of scripture and of creation science, you would come to the same place. We already know where the basic division is on the authority of scripture and on creation science. Its not a secret around here.

Was there something else here?

I think Tomc lines up pretty well with the basic premise. Go Tomc.

If the basic premise is that evolution is wrong, then of course he lines up well! But whyever would you allow him to misrepresent evolution?

I mean, creationism might be right and you're totally welcome to that belief, but why allow each other to mangle a scientific theory when you (as a regular here) know that many of these statements about 'what evolution claims' have never ONCE been claimed by an evolutionist?