The Creationist Explanaton

[sfs]

Just to clarify a couple of points: Common descent is so well established by so many lines of evidence, that denying it is really only possible by ignoring a great deal of evidence. (That's certainly the approach adopted by creationists who deny it.) That the changes that have occurred over the history of life are the result solely of mutation, natural selection and other known effects cannot be demonstrated, nor can we demonstrate that these processes are adequate to explain the history of life. There are, however, no obvious reasons why they aren't adequate, they clearly do work to change species and produce adaptation, and they are the only mechanism that's been offered. So a reasonable working theory is that they are indeed the sole causal processes involved.

 

[USincognito]

To put it another way, if the amount of time biological life has had to evolve on Earth was the water in an Olympic sized swimming pool, the time for the e.coli experiment represents less than a 10th of a cup of that water.

Or to use Sagan's calendar analogy, if the entire history of life on earth were represented by a calendar, the twenty years of Lenski's experiment would be the last second or so of Dec. 31st at 11:59pm - if that much.

 

[Speedwell]

...rather it is the apriori commitment to MN that obliges you to deny it. I can understand the reason for the denial but it is dishonest. .

And that is the end of the creationist argument--a slanderous falsehood. If that's all you've got, I think you're done here.

 

[dreadnought]

Complex ideas sometimes require a bit more than a Tweet. I mean, you read your Bible right? Couldn't it be summarized in two words - Sin bad.

Some people like to ramble.

 

[USincognito]

The answer given wasn't satisfactory.

It's a good think that the worthiness and validity of an answer is not determined by a satisfaction survey then.

 

[dreadnought]

Only if one has absolutely zero understanding of the subject. Well, perhaps also if one has some cockamamie straw man understanding of it. For one thing, people don't "believe in evolution". It's a scientific field and is accepted based on the evidence, not beliefs.

If asked, "Do you believe in God or do you believe in evolution?" I'd say, "I believe in God." That doesn't mean things don't evolve.

 

[dreadnought]

Well, good. What does that have to do with anything? In particular, what does it have to do with whether or not evolution is a good description of the history of biological diversity on Earth?

I was just trying to answer a question.

 

[dreadnought]

It's a good think that the worthiness and validity of an answer is not determined by a satisfaction survey then.

Amen.

 

[sfs]

I was just trying to answer a question.

I was telling you that you failed.

 

[dreadnought]

I was telling you that you failed.

I think it was a silly question.

 

[USincognito]

If evolution isn't about finding the perfect existence, then it's rather hard to believe in evolution, isn't it?

Only if one has absolutely zero understanding of the subject. Well, perhaps also if one has some cockamamie straw man understanding of it. For one thing, people don't "believe in evolution". It's a scientific field and is accepted based on the evidence, not beliefs.

If asked, "Do you believe in God or do you believe in evolution?" I'd say, "I believe in God." That doesn't mean things don't evolve.

Hmm, Isn't it a little early for Non Sequitur Saturday?

 

[sfs]

I think it was a silly question.

That's nice. You still failed to answer it. More importantly, your stated reason for refusing to accept evolution -- which is what prompted the silly question -- still doesn't make any sense. Perhaps your time would be better spent supporting your own stated positions than in multiple rounds of terse but pointless exchanges about irrelevancies.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

That's the terrible thing about conversations - you can't control what the other person says.

But as the originator of the thread I can ask that you refrain from discussing things that are off-topic, which I have done. We can pull a mod in if you'd like?

 

[dreadnought]

Hmm, Isn't it a little early for Non Sequitur Saturday?

It makes sense to me.

 

[dreadnought]

But as the originator of the thread I can ask that you refrain from discussing things that are off-topic, which I have done. We can pull a mod in if you'd like?

Sometimes one thing leads logically to another, and I was just responding to what someone had said to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to clarify a couple of points: Common descent is so well established by so many lines of evidence, that denying it is really only possible by ignoring a great deal of evidence.

And who sets the industry standard for all that evidence?

Scientists?

What about cause-and-effect evidence for God?

You know?

Like churches, holidays, martyrs, literature, and the like?

So many lines of evidence, all handwaved by unbelievers.

 

[pitabread]

Like churches, holidays, martyrs, literature, and the like?

So many lines of evidence, all handwaved by unbelievers.

Those are evidence for the existence of believers, not the existence of god. I don't think anyone is denying the existence of people who believe in god.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are evidence for the existence of believers, not the existence of god.

Thanks for the QED, but Jesus says otherwise:

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks for the QED, but Jesus says otherwise:

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

You must have quite the pantheon given the number of different gods that people have expressed belief in throughout human history. That is, following the consequences of your own logic.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must have quite the pantheon given the number of different gods that people have expressed belief in throughout human history. That is, following the consequences of your own logic.

You don't know all my "logic," do you?

Do you know what diabolical mimicry is?

Hint: It's the "logic" that allows me to be a monotheist, despite all the lines of cause-and-effect evidence I just gave.