Suggestion for creationists: Don't make arguments on the basis of not knowing certain species exist

[pitabread]

In another thread a creationist attempted to make the argument that hoofed animals wouldn't spend time anywhere near water. This was in a rather vain attempt to dispute the argument that hoofed terrestrial mammals were ancestral to modern whales.

Naturally this is immediately refuted by the mere existence of animals like hippos and moose, which live semi-aquatic lifestyles.

Similarly in an older a thread, a creationist tried to argue against whale evolution by claiming that half-flipper/half-feet would result in a useless appendage and therefore such evolution was impossible.

This is likewise refuted by the existence of eared seals, a group of modern species that feature half-flippers/half-feet.

Here's a suggestion: if you are going to make an argument that a particular biological form or behavior is impossible, at least verify first that it doesn't exist. Claiming something is impossible and then being refuted by the existence of the very thing you are claiming shouldn't exist... well, that's just silly.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Creationists often vehemently defend biblical 'kinds', which leads to this sort of discourse.

What the average creationist does not consider, however, is what process went into developing each 'kind'.

After all, every living thing is made from the same building blocks, so to speak.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

So here's a suggestion: if you are going to make an argument that a particular biological form or behavior is impossible, at least verify first that it doesn't actually exist. Because claiming something is impossible and then being refuted by the existence of the very thing you are claiming shouldn't exist... well, that's just silly.

Somehow I think any creationist that would make a claim like that is going to be impervious to the common sense you are offering in the thread.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But if their definition of 'argument' is 'emotional noises that confirm my biases', they're batting a thousand.

 

[pitabread]

Somehow I think any creationist that would make a claim like that is going to be impervious to the common sense you are offering in the thread.

Unfortunately it seems that prediction has turned out to be all too true. In the case of the poster in the other thread, they've doubled down on their arguments despite the existence of animals demonstrating the contrary.

I just don't get it. :/

 

[Albion]

IMO, all arguments that are based on the existence of a few people somewhere or other who don't understand the critical issues that are involved...

are useless except to the people who think they've scored some sort of "home run" by relying upon them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a suggestion: if you are going to make an argument that a particular biological form or behavior is impossible, at least verify first that it doesn't exist.

Good advice.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I bring up satyrs, straw-eating lions, whale fish, dragons, or any of the other cryptids that flummoxes Linnaeus' taxonomic system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good advice.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I bring up satyrs, straw-eating lions, whale fish, dragons, or any of the other cryptids that flummoxes Linnaeus' taxonomic system.

Actually it would not flummox Linnaeus' system, since he existed before the knowledge of evolution and was a creationist, even though even he knew that humans were apes. It would flummox the modern system if they existed. But they don't so they are not a problem. In fact that is a valid test of evolution. The appearance of various chimera (chimera can be used as a general term for animals made up of parts of other animals) would refute the theory of evolution. It would not refute creationism. Funny how we do not find any chimera in the real world.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact that is a valid test of evolution. The appearance of various chimera (chimera can be used as a general term for animals made up of parts of other animals) would refute the theory of evolution. It would not refute creationism. Funny how we do not find any chimera in the real world.

Interesting.

Are you saying the Bible has animals in It that refute evolution?

 

[Arc F1]

In another thread a creationist attempted to make the argument that hoofed animals wouldn't spend time anywhere near water. This was in a rather vain attempt to dispute the argument that hoofed terrestrial mammals were ancestral to modern whales.

Naturally this is immediately refuted by the mere existence of animals like hippos and moose, which live semi-aquatic lifestyles.

Similarly in an older a thread, a creationist tried to argue against whale evolution by claiming that half-flipper/half-feet would result in a useless appendage and therefore such evolution was impossible.

This is likewise refuted by the existence of eared seals, a group of modern species that feature half-flippers/half-feet.

Here's a suggestion: if you are going to make an argument that a particular biological form or behavior is impossible, at least verify first that it doesn't exist. Claiming something is impossible and then being refuted by the existence of the very thing you are claiming shouldn't exist... well, that's just silly.

I just point to the only proof I need and that's the Bible. God created them and it was good. How he created them doesn't matter.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Actually it would not flummox Linnaeus' system, since he existed before the knowledge of evolution and was a creationist, even though even he knew that humans were apes.

John Wesley, contemporary of Linnaeus, wrote extensively and popularly on Nature and to some extent medicine. He in effect stated that there are all but innumerable links/similarities between humans and apes.

Since he could quote parts of the Bible in the original language, whilst preaching and holding that "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature/creation [Original language, 'species']" we may assume he not only believed that humans have features in common with apes, humans are as descended from apes as you are descended from Flash Gordon.
Any relationship to ape-like creatures will be by transformation, not natural birth.

 

[AV1611VET]

John Wesley, contemporary of Linnaeus, wrote extensively and popularly on Nature and to some extent medicine.

So did Solomon.

He in effect stated that there are all but innumerable links/similarities between humans and apes.

I'm sure Solomon noticed similarities as well.

After all, he had apes imported.

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

And he concluded:

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice he calls evolution an "invention" -- not a "discovery" as evolutionists would like you to think?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting.

Are you saying the Bible has animals in It that refute evolution?

A dragon, if it had 6 limbs (four feet and two wings) and was not a bug or an alien, but something clearly lizard-y, would probably destroy evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

A dragon, if it had 6 limbs (four feet and two wings) and was not a bug or an alien, but something clearly lizard-y, would probably destroy evolution.

How about a dinosaur that's a mammal?

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

 

[Speedwell]

How about a dinosaur that's a mammal?

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Job 40:16 is not about a dinosaur. It refers to Behemoth, one of the three great beasts of Hebrew folklore, along with Leviathan and Ziz.

 

[AV1611VET]

Job 40:16 is not about a dinosaur. It refers to Behemoth, one of the three great beasts of Hebrew folklore, along with Leviathan and Ziz.

Is that what they teach in college?

 

[Speedwell]

Is that what they teach in college?

It comes from the ancient Rabbinic Commentary and the folklore of related cultures. Amongst Christians, the belief that Behemoth must be a dinosaur is pretty much limited to Fundamentalist Evangelicals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that what they teach in college?

It comes from the ancient Rabbinic Commentary and the folklore of related cultures. Amongst Christians, the belief that Behemoth must be a dinosaur is pretty much limited to Fundamentalist Evangelicals.

Is that what they teach in college?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How about a dinosaur that's a mammal?

I'd rather see the dragon, but yes I would be excited to see your behemoth as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting.

Are you saying the Bible has animals in It that refute evolution?

No, since the Bible describes them so poorly. Most could be living creatures. One thing to remember is that people exaggerate in stories.