Science vs. Evolution

[Ryal Kane]

I wonder if our hero will come back and admit he was mistaken abput how all other animals mature in a few weeks.

It seems harder than pulling teeth to get a creo to admit to one of them awful evos that they were wrong about anything.

There was an amazing thread here several years ago which went on and on when a creationist refused to admit he'd made a typo. So stick was he in his mindset that he couldn't even admit it and spent page after page in logical contortions to justify it.

 

[Hespera]

There was an amazing thread here several years ago which went on and on when a creationist refused to admit he'd made a typo. So stick was he in his mindset that he couldn't even admit it and spent page after page in logical contortions to justify it.

I am guessing that the same person could admit an error to a "fellow christian".

so what do you suppose is really going on with a person who cant admit same to a nasty pagan atheist evolutionist?

Stand by and see if our hero can admit to error here.

if not maybe he can explain the psychology of the inability / refusal?

 

[plindboe]

There was an amazing thread here several years ago which went on and on when a creationist refused to admit he'd made a typo. So stick was he in his mindset that he couldn't even admit it and spent page after page in logical contortions to justify it.

Reminds me of John's famous "I can sum it up in three words: Evolution is a lie" here on cf. When people pointed out that it was in fact four words, he said that he actually meant to say "Evolution's a lie" so it was really three words.

This is just a beautiful example of this inability to admit error that we find among these people. I wonder if it's because they believe that these debates are a struggle between good and evil, so to admit a mistake would basically be an admittance that Satan is correct about something. Pride probably also has a huge influence on this behaviour. Protecting the ego is more important than the truth.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Reminds me of John's famous "I can sum it up in three words: Evolution is a lie" here on cf. When people pointed out that it was in fact four words, he said that he actually meant to say "Evolution's a lie" so it was really three words.

This is just a beautiful example of this inability to admit error that we find among these people. I wonder if it's because they believe that these debates are a struggle between good and evil, so to admit a mistake would basically be an admittance that Satan is correct about something. Pride probably also has a huge influence on this behaviour. Protecting the ego is more important than the truth.

Peter

In a word, that is probably it.

 

[Freodin]

Reminds me of John's famous "I can sum it up in three words: Evolution is a lie" here on cf. When people pointed out that it was in fact four words, he said that he actually meant to say "Evolution's a lie" so it was really three words.

This is just a beautiful example of this inability to admit error that we find among these people. I wonder if it's because they believe that these debates are a struggle between good and evil, so to admit a mistake would basically be an admittance that Satan is correct about something. Pride probably also has a huge influence on this behaviour. Protecting the ego is more important than the truth.

Peter

Oh yeah, good old JohnR7. I remember his masterly tactics of denial and evasion. None of the others have ever come close.

What do you think happened to him? His second heart attack got him for good?

 

[AV1611VET]

Reminds me of John's famous "I can sum it up in three words: Evolution is a lie" here on cf.

36

 

[plindboe]

Oh yeah, good old JohnR7. I remember his masterly tactics of denial and evasion. None of the others have ever come close.

What do you think happened to him? His second heart attack got him for good?

Haven't seen him here for more than a year. Hope he's fine.

Not that I knew him personally, but I've lurked many of the discussions, so he has provided me with plenty of laughs and facepalms over the years.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Not that I knew him personally, but I've lurked many of the discussions, so he has provided me with plenty of laughs...

That works both ways, you know.

Like this doosey of a conversation, where I had you guys going for awhile: 20.

 

[tanzanos]

I am -- thank you.

Just out of curiosity, do you speak Greek?

If so, is it Classical Greek, Koine Greek, or something else?

In addition, are you what's called a 'Hellenist'? or 'Ionian'?

Yes I speak Greek. We speak demotic nowadays. In Greece all children have to do ancient Greek in school. Without Ancient Greek one cannot have a grasp of modern Greek. My country is called Hellenic republic. Hellenic in Greek means well.... Greek. Ionian is one who comes from the Ionian Islands. We do not differentiate between ourselves. We consider ourselves Hellenes. I actually come from Crete and my wife is Spartan.
I love the Greek language because it is like Lego blocks; You can do almost anything with it because its structure is based on logic. Something that I am sure will be perfect for computers to use as a lingua franca between silicon and humans. Actually Ancient Greek is more appropriate although extremely complicated. Latin is child's play compared to ancient Greek.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer to your question?

Also Democritus (circa 640 bc)was the first to come up with the idea that all life originated from the sea and evolved into the many life forms we have today including humans.

Fascinating stuff!

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope this is a satisfactory answer to your question?

Yes -- thanks for the 411.

Reps in the mail.

You seem to have a good command of the English language as well.

 

[Cassiterides]

That's an easy one -- An ironic case of our greatest asset also being our greatest weakness.

Human brains are remarkable more advanced than other animals, but at a cost -- they don't fully develop for years; some say until our late teens.

Evolutionists assert Humans are the result of evolution reinforcing characteristics that offer survival advantage, yet clearly a Human baby disproves this. It is helpless for years after birth.

You would think, had we been designed by some all-powerful God who valued us over all other life in the universe, that He would've engineered some sort of work-around for that one, but nope -- we had to do it ourselves.

God created the family to provide for the child. There is no way evolution can account for this.

(P.S. six or seven years to mature? Tell me you don't have kids!)

I meant survive on their own, like other animals. What would the age be? Probably around 10 then. Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution.

 

[Hespera]

Evolutionists assert Humans are the result of evolution reinforcing characteristics that offer survival advantage, yet clearly a Human baby disproves this. It is helpless for years after bir

Still saying "evolutionist". Ok, theocreologist, use the word.

There is a huge survival advantage to having high intelligence and a large brain. Try using yours! The slow development of the human child is a result of the large brain, and the time it takes to develop.

The only thing being "proved" here is that you are quite ignorant and very easily satisfied with your "proof".



God created the family to provide for the child. There is no way evolution can account for this.

"god" didnt create anything. But regardless of that, "family" is hardly unique to humans. Social insects! the family provides for the child, and an indivudual cannot survive on its own. many mammals have a cohesive family that cares for the young. Didnt you know?

Evolution accounts for it just fine. Announcing that it doesnt counts for zero.


I meant survive on their own, like other animals. What would the age be? Probably around 10 then. Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution.

Survive on their own? Nobody can "survive on his own".
Even if you managed to never see another person you rely of what others made, and the knowledge you got from others.

Same is true of many animals.

Now, you claimed that ALL other animals grow up in a matter of weeks and that only humans require years of parental care. This is wrong, you were told it was wrong, but you dont seem to have accepted it that you were wrong.

That you made a false statement.

It is quite important that you accept that you were wrong.

it shows a little humility for one, but more important, it will show that you have the capacity to learn, grow, and recognize it when you are wrong.

There is absolutely no point in discussion with you if you cant ever admit to being wrong. i wont do it, and I doubt anyone else will.


oh ps i love this line "Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution"

Does this mean that you admit you dont know what evolution is but you know its wrong? That has been the pattern so far.

 

[Cassiterides]

they may not be copy paste but the are all so far very tiresomely familiar.

Ok then i'll give you another. If evolution is true why do Humans have opposite sexes required for reproduction? Arn't micro-organisms sexless? Evolutionists claim we evolved from micro-organisms or something as small right? So what happened? If evolution is all about disgarding the bad for survival why did sexes evolve? Why can't we just reproduce like micro-organisms?

You do not yet have a point against evolution, tho you have shown that there is a lot you need to learn, or you wont even bring up such points.

Point above?

I will politely ask you again, not to talk about "evolutionists". its not a suitable word, and you are better off without it anyway because it brands you in ways you may not really want.

Obviously evolutionist is a word, since not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

The main thing with people is the very large brain. That is our only seriously unique feature. Other animals can out do us in every other physical regard.

Yet, when it comes to the Neanderthal with his huge cc (cranial capacity) evolutionists then say large brain does not equate to intelligence...

now, to my mind, and in all of the hard sciences... physics, chemistry,etc...there is no reasonable doubt as to the validity of the ToE.
your doubts are not reasonable doubts. they are errors on your part.

Well you never answered my question, and all you do is repeat 'evolution is fact' or 'valid' without showing any evidence for it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evolutionists assert Humans are the result of evolution reinforcing characteristics that offer survival advantage, yet clearly a Human baby disproves this. It is helpless for years after birth.

But a human adult proves it -- those babies who live to maturity survive quite well.

God created the family to provide for the child. There is no way evolution can account for this.

Except the way I just described.

I meant survive on their own, like other animals.

You mean some other animals -- as has already been explained to you, not every creture matures as quickly as you think it does. In fact, many primates (who, not coincidentally, are closest to us, evolutionarily speaking) are also quite helpless for quite some time after birth.

What would the age be? Probably around 10 then.

You think a ten-year old would be able to survive in the wilderness? Now I know you don't (and shouldn't) have children!

Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution.

Actually, it's a flaw in the species -- in a perfect world, we'd slide out of the birth canal fully matured and ready to do calculus, but that's not the case, is it?

Biologists (using evolution as a foundation) can explain this -- Creationists shrug their shoulders and mutter "TheFallDidIt."

 

[Hespera]

Ok then i'll give you another. If evolution is true why do Humans have opposite sexes required for reproduction? Arn't micro-organisms sexless? Evolutionists claim we evolved from micro-organisms or something as small right? So what happened? If evolution is all about disgarding the bad for survival why did sexes evolve? Why can't we just reproduce like micro-organisms?

Sexual reproduction occurs in micro organisms. A distinct male / female dimorphism starts to occur in multicellular organisms. What is it that you dont understand?

Sexual reproduction does provide for a tremendous survival advantage. Are you unaware of that? Do you have any idea what the function and advantage of sexual reproduction is? I dont want to take time explaining it if you do.

You are asking questions that are pre-beginner biology.

i said earlier you are putting the cart before the horse, you simply dont begin to have the level of understanding it takes to even ask a good question, let alone disprove evolution.




Point above?

not even close, no.

Obviously evolutionist is a word, since not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

I know it is a word, So is "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]". What scientists do or dont agree on has nothing to do with the existence or non existence of a word.

I dont like to be called a "chink" or an "evolutionist', and if you dont know why I can explain it. i did ask politely if you would refrain from using the "evolutionist" word.

Now, you raised a more important point, that "not all scientists agree with evolution". And that is true.

You left out the rest of the sentence tho. Which is that scientists who do not agree with evolution has religious, not scientific reasons, and not a one of them can produce any actual DATA that would be the reason for the disagreement. So its an emotional issue, not a scientific one. Let me know that you understand this.




Yet, when it comes to the Neanderthal with his huge cc (cranial capacity) evolutionists then say large brain does not equate to intelligence...

No. Either you made this up, or you are repeating someone elses false statement.

Please let me know that you realize that you are wrong about this.

And that the large brain or the neanderthal was essential to their survival.




Well you never answered my question, and all you do is repeat 'evolution is fact' or 'valid' without showing any evidence for it.

Pants on fire. I did NOT say "evolution is a fact"

As for no evidence??? good grief. i have taken, i hope not wasted, quite a bit of time explaining things.

But if i failed to answer a valid question please let me know what it was and I will do my best to explain whatever it is.

Shall i, btw, list the questions that you didnt answer?

 

[Split Rock]

Evolutionists assert Humans are the result of evolution reinforcing characteristics that offer survival advantage, yet clearly a Human baby disproves this. It is helpless for years after birth.

There were two ways to deal with the increased brain size of our ancestors: 1. Change the skeletal structure of the female so that she could accomodate the increased size of the baby's head, or 2. Give birth to a less mature baby and care for it longer. Evolution chose 2. over 1. This may be becasue it was a simpler way to go, or becasue of the physical constraints on the skeletal structure of the human body, or both. In any case, the fact of the matter is that human babies do survive, and that is what matters.

God created the family to provide for the child. There is no way evolution can account for this.

Wrong. Behavior is shaped by evolution, just as physical morphology is. Maternal instincts and emotional bonding between couples are behavioral characteristics of humans shaped by evolution. They exist so that babies can survive and produce children of their own and thus continue the species.

I meant survive on their own, like other animals. What would the age be? Probably around 10 then. Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution.

Since babies do survive, there is no "flaw."

 

[tanzanos]

Originally Posted by Cassiterides

I meant survive on their own, like other animals. What would the age be? Probably around 10 then. Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution.​

Have you ever seen a baby kangaroo when it is born? it is still in the embryonic stage. You do realise that pride is a sin in Christianity and Islam? You have been proven wrong on this particular issue and yet you insist. This is either pride in its fullest or pure trolling! Which is it?

​

 

[Split Rock]

Ok then i'll give you another. If evolution is true why do Humans have opposite sexes required for reproduction? Arn't micro-organisms sexless? Evolutionists claim we evolved from micro-organisms or something as small right? So what happened? If evolution is all about disgarding the bad for survival why did sexes evolve? Why can't we just reproduce like micro-organisms?

You want us to reproduce by binary fission?????

Obviously evolutionist is a word, since not all scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

Saying not all scientists agree with evolution, is like saying not all doctors agree that germs cause illness. The vast majority do accept evolution. I am a biologist. We do not refer to ourselves as "evolutionists" vs. "non-evolutionists." For all intends and purposes, there are no "nonevolutionists" who do biological research.

Yet, when it comes to the Neanderthal with his huge cc (cranial capacity) evolutionists then say large brain does not equate to intelligence...

Most biologists and paleontologists accept the idea that Neanderthals were pretty much as intelligent as we are. The size of the brain is important, but so is the complexity of the brain.

Well you never answered my question, and all you do is repeat 'evolution is fact' or 'valid' without showing any evidence for it.

The evidence is overwhelming. Which do you wish to hear about? Here is a really good website on evolution and the evidence for it: Understanding Evolution

 

[plindboe]

Evolutionists assert Humans are the result of evolution reinforcing characteristics that offer survival advantage, yet clearly a Human baby disproves this. It is helpless for years after birth.

God created the family to provide for the child. There is no way evolution can account for this.

I meant survive on their own, like other animals. What would the age be? Probably around 10 then. Whatever the case this is clearly a flaw in evolution.

Cassiterides, I recommend that you think more about the words you use. An intellectually honest way to make the argument you're currently making would be to say:

"I can't personally see how the theory of evolution can explain why humans are so helpless during the first years of life, compared to most other animals, and therefore I find the theory unsatisfactory, at least in this case. Can anyone offer some thoughts about why it is so, from an evolutionary standpoint?"

You see the different between this and what you're currently doing is? Humility. Openmindedness. Intellectual honesty. Logical thinking.

When you essentially say that "I don't see how evolution can explain this, therefore it's false" you are not only making a logical fallacy. You're setting yourself up as an omniscient authority. You're saying that "I'm right and nothing you say can convince me otherwise".

Is such arrogant behaviour really what you want people to associate with christianity? Isn't it likely that such behaviour would rather drive people away from your religion?

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Cassiterides, I recommend that you think more about the words you use. An intellectually honest way to make the argument you're currently making would be to say:

"I can't personally see how the theory of evolution can explain why humans are so helpless during the first years of life, compared to most other animals, and therefore I find the theory unsatisfactory, at least in this case. Can anyone offer some thoughts about why it is so, from an evolutionary standpoint?"

You see the different between this and what you're currently doing is? Humility. Openmindedness. Intellectual honesty. Logical thinking.

When you essentially say that "I don't see how evolution can explain this, therefore it's false" you are not only making a logical fallacy. You're setting yourself up as an omniscient authority. You're saying that "I'm right and nothing you say can convince me otherwise".

Is such arrogant behaviour really what you want people to associate with christianity? Isn't it likely that such behaviour would rather drive people away from your religion?

Peter

I often wodner if the religion makes people think and believe in totally irrational ways, or if the tendency toward magical thinking came first and the religion fits right in.

And if they had this arrogant attitude that they cant be wrong first, or if thinking that 'god" is behind their every thought keeps them from seeing that they can be and usually are, wrong.


Which ever of those it is, if that is religion, I want nothing to do with it..