The Delusions of Richard Dawkins

[Tomk80]

How do you know? Its a honest question.

Because after 10 years I have yet to encounter a creationist who is fully aware of the evidence supporting evolution, or who can accurately explain how evolution works in the first place. I can buy a college level textbook on evolution, see what it says, and then compare that to what creationists say. I did, and had to conclude that the statements made by creationists about evolution, both on this board as well as by professional creationists like the people from Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, are not in line with what these college level textbooks actually state about evolution. Since they are not up to scratch with regards to a basic, college level understanding of evolution, they have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

Nuttypiglet is a case in point.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Just because something is accepted doesn't mean it is true unless if proven with actual facts. Not assumptions; seen to many of those.

It's accepted because of the overwhelming evidence and facts; it's why it's called a theory.

The only people I've ever seen rail against ToE are the those who are fully ignorant of it.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

True, but how do we know for sure? If we assume for a Ex) A Creationist knows nothing of Evolution, wouldn't that make the Evolutionist be the one who knows nothing? In realty, yes, both parties know something. However, excluding information is being close-minded.

We know for sure because science is done the world over, and they all reach the same conclusion, ToE. Conversely, creationists do no research, and aren't educated in science at the level to have an opinion that matters to anyone other than unsuspecting Christians who actually believe what they're told.

 

[CabVet]

How do you know? Its a honest question.

If you hang around this forum (or any other creationism vs. evolution discussion) you will know too.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Because after 10 years I have yet to encounter a creationist who is fully aware of the evidence supporting evolution, or who can accurately explain how evolution works in the first place. I can buy a college level textbook on evolution, see what it says, and then compare that to what creationists say. I did, and had to conclude that the statements made by creationists about evolution, both on this board as well as by professional creationists like the people from Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research, are not in line with what these college level textbooks actually state about evolution. Since they are not up to scratch with regards to a basic, college level understanding of evolution, they have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

Nuttypiglet is a case in point.

I see. And most college text books are very much dated and still contain so called evidence which has been proved wrong. It wasn't that long ago that claims were being made that the whole lineage of ancestry for the modern horse was complete. What happened to that? The problem with evolution is that it boils down to one simple thing, interpretation. You see what you want to see. While you see an ape like skull, I see a fragment of a jawbone and a bucket full of clay. Where you see dinosaurs turning to birds, I see dinosaurs becoming extinct. Where you see a tiny fish forming every life form on land, I see fantasy. Even richard dawkins is becoming more desperate because he's now trying to find 'bad design' examples. What's his latest idea? oh yes, a neck artery isn't it? Believe me I have looked at evolution, I have visited many museums, and I just can't see what you see.

 

[CabVet]

I see. And most college text books are very much dated and still contain so called evidence which has been proved wrong.

Please provide one example of an outdated book being used in a college evolution course today.

 

[nuttypiglet]

What would be the point? YOU are continually pointed out dated issues which no longer apply, along with other evolution believers which in itself shows outdated education. There is enough proof right there. Your request is just silly, it would depend which country and area you are referring to.

 

[CJmarshal]

What would be the point? YOU are continually pointed out dated issues which no longer apply, along with other evolution believers which in itself shows outdated education. There is enough proof right there. Your request is just silly, it would depend which country and area you are referring to.

Why do they no longer apply? I don't get it you can say that anything can no longer apply if you want but if you want to be taken seriously you kinda got to give a reason.

 

[CabVet]

What would be the point?

The point would be to show that you are not making a false accusation. Can you provide one example? Yes, or no?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes I COULD and even museums are out of date with displays and misinterpreting facts with lots of imagination.

 

[CabVet]

Yes I COULD and even museums are out of date with displays and misinterpreting facts with lots of imagination.

I am not even going to get into museums yet. Just give me one example of a textbook.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well marine biologists have put the whale pelvis to rest, years ago.

What do you mean by "have put the whale pelvis to rest"?

Last I checked, whales do not walk on land using legs supported by that pelvis. Therefore, the whale pelvis is vestigial.

The human appendix has been put to rest.

The human appendix does not house commensal microorganisms used to digest cellulose. The human appendix is vestigial.

The human tail bone has been put to rest.

The human tail bone does not support a tail. It is vestigial.

Any other old false evidence you would like to present us with?

How is this false evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem with evolution is that it boils down to one simple thing, interpretation.

That would be the same "problem" that every single theory in science has, even those that you already accept. The Germ Theory of Disease is based on interpretation of the evidence. Atomic Theory is based on interpretation of the evidence. Every single theory in science is based on the interpretation of evidence.

What you need to do is show that this interpretation is wrong, or even show that you understand the interpretation to begin with.

While you see an ape like skull, I see a fragment of a jawbone and a bucket full of clay.

So you admit to ignoring the evidence. That's not a very good start.

Where you see a tiny fish forming every life form on land, I see fantasy.

So what features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being a terrestrial tetrapod intermediate?

 

[nuttypiglet]

What do you mean by "have put the whale pelvis to rest"?

Last I checked, whales do not walk on land using legs supported by that pelvis. Therefore, the whale pelvis is vestigial.



The human appendix does not house commensal microorganisms used to digest cellulose. The human appendix is vestigial.



The human tail bone does not support a tail. It is vestigial.



How is this false evidence?

A whale has a heart, does that make it related to insects? Again it's just ridiculous interpretation.
I suggest you actually read something about the human appendix, it has nothing to do with digesting plant matter.
Human tail bone? ask a surgeon what the tail bone is for and how you would struggle without it. Let me give a clue, look at the muscle groups attached to it.

 

[Loudmouth]

A whale has a heart, does that make it related to insects? Again it's just ridiculous interpretation.

So you are saying that if two species share a common ancestor that they should not share any features?

I suggest you actually read something about the human appendix, it has nothing to do with digesting plant matter.

That's right. That is why it is considered vestigial because it no longer serves that primary function as part of a caecum.

Human tail bone? ask a surgeon what the tail bone is for and how you would struggle without it. Let me give a clue, look at the muscle groups attached to it.

A vestigial organ can still have rudimentary functions. How many times do we need to say this?

"An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."--Charles Darwin, 1859

 

[nuttypiglet]

Yes but we know the functions they have today, but you are 'ASSUMING' they had different functions in the past. Can we say that the eye sockets used to be storage holes for berries then?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes but we know the functions they have today, but you are 'ASSUMING' they had different functions in the past.

No, I am pointing to the function of the same organ in other species.

Can we say that the eye sockets used to be storage holes for berries then?

I can point to millions of species where the primary function of eye sockets is to house and protect a functioning eye.

In the same way, I can point to many, many herbivorous species with large caecums where the primary function is to house commensal bacteria that are important for plant digestion. I can then point to the much reduced and rudimentary organ in humans and show that it does not have that function, but only has a vestige of function compared to the same organ in other species.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Yes but we know the functions they have today, but you are 'ASSUMING' they had different functions in the past. Can we say that the eye sockets used to be storage holes for berries then?

Yes, as a creationist, you're free to assume this.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Thank you, so you are at least admitting that 'assumption' exists on both sides.

 

[CabVet]

Thank you, so you are at least admitting that 'assumption' exists on both sides.

Can you name ONE wrong assumption of evolution and explain why it is wrong? Or are these assumptions in the same category as the errors on the evolution textbooks (and by that I mean non-existent)?