Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Loudmouth]

We don't know enough details on the Flood.
Science does very poor with historical facts.
Any that are suggested are often disputed later.

So there is no evidence I can show you which would change your mind?

 

[Loudmouth]

OK. Millions MUST DIE so beneficial changes can occur. Is that better?

It would only be better if organisms with the beneficial changes were immortal. They are not. All organisms die. What the theory states is that organisms with a beneficial mutation tend to have more offspring, and those offspring tend to have more offspring of their own. This is what occurs, not what must occur. This is no different than stating that people tend to fall when there is nothing supporting them. This in no way indicates that we should be pushing people off of tall buildings.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet there are species that do not die. So much for your conclusions ...

Species and organism are not synonyms.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've seen young mothers push their kids in strollers out into traffic. I have a theory about lawyer commercials using the word "ought" that ties in with that. That's pretty close to your example.

So you are saying that if you accept the theory of gravity that you are compelled to push people off of tall buildings?

 

[Loudmouth]

Any increase in information is a perpetual motion machine.

Not, it isn't. You are confusing thermodynamics with information theory.

 

[Phred]

Any increase in information is a perpetual motion machine. More out than in. Any instance of this working would result in "an explosion" of information. Cancer might count if you look at it weird. But it's pretty self defeating. Not too sharp.

Nope. You're wrong. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

That's called "evidence". Those are called "sources". They back up the evidence and prevent you from just dismissing it.

You're wrong.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Nope. You're wrong. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

That's called "evidence". Those are called "sources". They back up the evidence and prevent you from just dismissing it.

You're wrong.

When the rubber hits the road, cdesign proponentsists so often find themselves under the wheels.

 

[AV1611VET]

When the rubber hits the road, cdesign proponentsists so often find themselves under the wheels.

What is a 'cdesign proponentsist'?

 

[Skaloop]

What is a 'cdesign proponentsist'?

Cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

"Investigations subsequent to the case showed that, in one particular case, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists" but in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".[1][2] This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don't accept transitional forms. It's possibly this aspect alone that has promoted the meme to be as famous as it is. "

 

[AV1611VET]

Cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki

-- Mamma mamma mia!

Thanks, Skaloop, for the info.

This reinforces my assertion that Intelligent Design has done nothing but make creationism look bad.

Intelligent Design can take a hike -- and I have said so before.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Investigations subsequent to the case showed that, in one particular case, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists" but in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".[1][2] This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don't accept transitional forms. It's possibly this aspect alone that has promoted the meme to be as famous as it is. "

Yup -- read it.

Well, for the record, I'm glad Intelligent Design got vegomaticked.

Now maybe we can get back to creationism and defend it correctly, eh?

 

[Loudmouth]

This reinforces my assertion that Intelligent Design has done nothing but make creationism look bad.

ID certainly couldn't make it look worse. It is actually ID proponents that are trying to run away from the creaitonist moniker, and for good reason.

 

[Doveaman]

What he should probably know is all life on earth eventually will die. Humans won't be on earth quadrillions of years from now. The sun will have expanded to the size of a red giant, and will swallow everything in its path, including us.

Didn't your pastor teach you that Jesus will return to an earth inhabited by people?

Or are you an imposter?

 

[Doveaman]

"Investigations subsequent to the case showed that, in one particular case, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists" but in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".

Seeing that "design proponents" has 16 letters with a gap and the word "creationists" only has 12 letters with no gap, shouldn't the word "creationists" be entirely pasted over?

5 letters from "creationists" being exposed is a bit of a stretch.

This seems more likely:

design proponents
ocreationists

dcreationistsnents

 

[mpok1519]

Didn't your pastor teach you that Jesus will return to an earth inhabited by people?

Or are you an imposter?

I didn't have a pastor. I had a reverend.

I interpret scripture differently than you. I don't have to interpret our species as having been propogated by two individuals, resulting in inevitable incest. The Bible contains maaaaany metaphors.

 

[Skaloop]

Seeing that "design proponents" has 16 letters with a gap and the word "creationists" only has 12 letters with no gap, shouldn't the word "creationists" be entirely pasted over?

5 letters from "creationists" being exposed is a bit of a stretch.

This seems more likely:

design proponents
ocreationists

dcreationistsnents

No, because creationists was there, and someone wanted to change it to design proponents. So they attempted to highlight creationists so they could just paste-replace it. But they only highlighted a portion of it; the 'reation' part. So the c-------ists part was left behind, with design proponents stuck into it. Hence, cdesign proponentsists.

 

[Nostromo]

Seeing that "design proponents" has 16 letters with a gap and the word "creationists" only has 12 letters with no gap, shouldn't the word "creationists" be entirely pasted over?

I'm guessing they hired someone like you to make the alterations.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm guessing they hired someone like you to make the alterations.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Yup -- read it.

Well, for the record, I'm glad Intelligent Design got vegomaticked.

Now maybe we can get back to creationism and defend it correctly, eh?

More like it's a transitional spelling.