Wherein I catch a professional creationist in a lie, pt.3

[Brightmoon]

I can't think of any creatures that walk on fins on land.

mudskippers!

 

[Brightmoon]

Tiktaalik couldn’t walk on land. It’s belly muscles weren’t strong enough to keep its guts in against gravity. it used its fins to dig through mud and vegetation and clamber over rocks exactly like modern frog fish do .
Frogfish do walk ;they swim poorly

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- even my evolution experiment thread, in which I actually performed an experiment and documented results? Were my Triops trolling people? Dismissing all atheists as trolls serves you none.

How did that experiment go?

 

[tas8831]

This thread is a troll. Anytime an atheist evolutionist opens a topic about creationism or evolution on a Christian website it's a troll.

You mean you would rather that lies told by Christian creationists stand without challenge? I thought you people were supposed to be about ethics and morality and truth and all that - I guess that garbage is a distant second to being a 'warrior for Christ.'

You can see it coming a mile away.

And yet you feel compelled to comment as though you can add to the discussion. Awfully prideful for the guy who once wrote his true reasons for dismissing evolution (besides the dopey Scriptural ones):


"My basis for not believing it is that I don't understand it."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You mean you would rather that lies told by Christian creationists stand without challenge? I thought you people were supposed to be about ethics and morality and truth and all that - I guess that garbage is a distant second to being a 'warrior for Christ.'


And yet you feel compelled to comment as though you can add to the discussion. Awfully prideful for the guy who once wrote his true reasons for dismissing evolution (besides the dopey Scriptural ones):


"My basis for not believing it is that I don't understand it."

I know 'not understandable' when I see it.

No one understands it, so I'm in good company (except for those who say they do understand it).

 

[tas8831]

Anytime an atheist evolutionist opens a topic about creationism or evolution on a Christian website it's a troll.

By the way - this may be a Christian website, but we are in the forum called "Creation & evolution", which is a sub-forum of the "Physical & Life Science" section, which is open to non-Christians.

I know you folks prefer your special little bubble chambers, where you are all perfect and holy and righteous and everyone not in your bubble are evil leftists Yahweh-haters, but that little circle echo chamber only cultivates the Dunning-Kruger effect and paranoia we see in YEC-types.

 

[tas8831]

I know 'not understandable' when I see it.

No one understands it, so I'm in good company (except for those who say they do understand it).

Add projection to your hypocrisy, Dunning-Kruger effect, and egotism.

"My basis for not believing it is that I don't understand it."

That ^^^^^ you make clear in every one of your posts in which you have convinced yourself you actually learned all there is to know with your Google keyword searches.

I thought pride was a sin? I guess not when one is busy witnessing and making a martyr of himself.

 

[com7fy8]

You mean you would rather that lies told by Christian creationists stand without challenge? I thought you people were supposed to be about ethics and morality and truth and all that - I guess that garbage is a distant second to being a 'warrior for Christ.'

I understand that people can believe in God as the Creator of all things, and when they look for evidence by means of what they consider to be science, they can be wishful so they are ready to accept even what is not real evidence.

But this does not prove evolution . . . just because certain folks can produce false evidence and reasoning against it!!

The Bible says God made all things, and I understand God is able to do that plus more; so it is not a problem for me.

As for evolution, I do have a few ideas which the Bible does not go into. Among other things, in case you care to deal with these > I mean, no links please, but what to you personally really understand and feel?

Yes, I accept some sort of complexity idea. I mean > there are living things which would need more than one mutation showing up at the same time and supporting one another in order to be viable. And the chances of even one mutation happening is supposed to be not much, so that it can be thousands of years before even one new one viable shows up; so the chances of three or four or more mutually needy mutations all coming to be all at once could be not much. And there are thousands, even millions of living beings that would need various mutation combinations by chance developing with each other > the statistical probability of all that just happening is . . . not likely??

And, by they way, have there been enough billions of years for living beings only by physical means to by chance produce all the mutations which living beings would need in order to produce all the various creatures now on this earth? I am curious > if each mutation would need even thousands of years of chance time to come into existence, how much time would it take to bring forth all mutations that would be needed . . . for all insects, plants, and others? And, like I offer . . . by laws of chance, certain ones would need to appear in the right timing with others, so they could support each other.

Another item is I understand that there was all past eternity during which scientific principles could have produced a big bang. If a big bang was done by material means only, by material which acts by scientific principles which always act the same way and are therefore predictable > why would they not have so acted at some point before or after when the bang was supposed to happen, in all eternity??

I know you folks prefer your special little bubble chambers, where you are all perfect and holy and righteous and everyone not in your bubble are evil leftists Yahweh-haters, but that little circle echo chamber only cultivates the Dunning-Kruger effect and paranoia we see in YEC-types.

It is more challenging and interesting to really get to know each individual and let him or her speak for oneself

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I understand that people can believe in God as the Creator of all things, and when they look for evidence by means of what they consider to be science, they can be wishful so they are ready to accept even what is not real evidence.

But this does not prove evolution . . . just because certain folks can produce false evidence and reasoning against it!!

The Bible says God made all things, and I understand God is able to do that plus more; so it is not a problem for me.

As for evolution, I do have a few ideas which the Bible does not go into. Among other things, in case you care to deal with these > I mean, no links please, but what to you personally really understand and feel?

Yes, I accept some sort of complexity idea. I mean > there are living things which would need more than one mutation showing up at the same time and supporting one another in order to be viable. And the chances of even one mutation happening is supposed to be not much, so that it can be thousands of years before even one new one viable shows up; so the chances of three or four or more mutually needy mutations all coming to be all at once could be not much. And there are thousands, even millions of living beings that would need various mutation combinations by chance developing with each other > the statistical probability of all that just happening is . . . not likely??

And, by they way, have there been enough billions of years for living beings only by physical means to by chance produce all the mutations which living beings would need in order to produce all the various creatures now on this earth? I am curious > if each mutation would need even thousands of years of chance time to come into existence, how much time would it take to bring forth all mutations that would be needed . . . for all insects, plants, and others? And, like I offer . . . by laws of chance, certain ones would need to appear in the right timing with others, so they could support each other.

Another item is I understand that there was all past eternity during which scientific principles could have produced a big bang. If a big bang was done by material means only, by material which acts by scientific principles which always act the same way and are therefore predictable > why would they not have so acted at some point before or after when the bang was supposed to happen, in all eternity??

It is more challenging and interesting to really get to know each individual and let him or her speak for oneself

Nice post. I agree that the odds of evolution are so small as to be incalculable, while the odds of special creation are 1:1.

 

[Brightmoon]

I understand that people can believe in God as the Creator of all things, and when they look for evidence by means of what they consider to be science, they can be wishful so they are ready to accept even what is not real evidence.

But this does not prove evolution . . . just because certain folks can produce false evidence and reasoning against it!!

The Bible says God made all things, and I understand God is able to do that plus more; so it is not a problem for me.

As for evolution, I do have a few ideas which the Bible does not go into. Among other things, in case you care to deal with these > I mean, no links please, but what to you personally really understand and feel?

Yes, I accept some sort of complexity idea. I mean > there are living things which would need more than one mutation showing up at the same time and supporting one another in order to be viable. And the chances of even one mutation happening is supposed to be not much, so that it can be thousands of years before even one new one viable shows up; so the chances of three or four or more mutually needy mutations all coming to be all at once could be not much. And there are thousands, even millions of living beings that would need various mutation combinations by chance developing with each other > the statistical probability of all that just happening is . . . not likely??

And, by they way, have there been enough billions of years for living beings only by physical means to by chance produce all the mutations which living beings would need in order to produce all the various creatures now on this earth? I am curious > if each mutation would need even thousands of years of chance time to come into existence, how much time would it take to bring forth all mutations that would be needed . . . for all insects, plants, and others? And, like I offer . . . by laws of chance, certain ones would need to appear in the right timing with others, so they could support each other.

Another item is I understand that there was all past eternity during which scientific principles could have produced a big bang. If a big bang was done by material means only, by material which acts by scientific principles which always act the same way and are therefore predictable > why would they not have so acted at some point before or after when the bang was supposed to happen, in all eternity??

It is more challenging and interesting to really get to know each individual and let him or her speak for oneself

This is exactly what Tas was complaining about . ( takes deep breath) YOU DONT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE ! There got it off my chest . You’ve learned all your pseudoscience from a creationist source and even when REPEATEDLY being told that mainstream science pays no attention to creationist pseudoscience and uses different definitions; you still think refuting the ignorant creationist pseudoscience version of evolution is refuting the real mainstream version that the international scientific community actually uses.

 

[com7fy8]

You’ve learned all your pseudoscience from a creationist source and even when REPEATEDLY being told that mainstream science pays no attention to creationist pseudoscience and uses different definitions; you still think refuting the ignorant creationist pseudoscience version of evolution is refuting the real mainstream version that the international scientific community actually uses.

But you can explain here what you understand that to be. I don't even know what the "creationists" you mean are saying. I was taught that evolution involves selection of mutations of DNA which are survivable, and it can take thousands of years for a given species to get yet another viable mutation. I was taught this by ones who believe evolution is scientific; they did not teach us that such a manner of evolution was produced by God.

So, you are welcome to explain here whatever you are talking about.

I am talking about the evolution idea that first there was a big bang, then molecules interacting with sunlight and electrical events of the early earth formed into the first living cell. Then that cell developed DNA which with reproduction at times mutated, often into nonviable entities, but at times into viable and improved forms of the DNA. And it could be thousands of years before a new viable form developed for a given species so the ones having an improvement of DNA would be favored to continue.

So, how do you differ from this, if you do? This is what my comments above were referring to as being evolutionary theory. This is not what I consider to be God creating. So, it is not what I call a creationist theory. And if it has not been proven, it is not established by the scientific method, and so it is at best maybe a hypothesis, and not even a scientifically established theory.

 

[Speedwell]

But you can explain here what you understand that to be. I don't even know what the "creationists" you mean are saying. I was taught that evolution involves selection of mutations of DNA which are survivable, and it can take thousands of years for a given species to get yet another viable mutation. I was taught this by ones who believe evolution is scientific; they did not teach us that such a manner of evolution was produced by God. .

Too bad you were taught wrong. This wasn't a college-level class in Genetics, I hope.
Evolution actually proceeds by constant randomly distributed variation which is fueled by mutations, among other things.

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution is a natural process and the opposite of evolution isn’t creationism, it’s extinction. I’ll agree, you were given information about science that was, at a minimum , inadequate and erroneous . Creation by a deity is a belief not a fact . Science works on facts. ( note that I’m not an atheist as this has NOTHING to do with religious beliefs or the lack thereof . )

 

[Brightmoon]

com7fy8, post: 72992345, member: 331347"]But you can explain here what you understand that to be. I don't even know what the "creationists" you mean are saying. I was taught that evolution involves selection of mutations of DNA which are survivable, and it can take thousands of years for a given species to get yet another viable mutation. I was taught this by ones who believe evolution is scientific; they did not teach us that such a manner of evolution was produced by God.

I’d say from thousands to billions of years as it took bacteria over 3 billion years to evolve into multicellular organisms. As far as beneficial mutations, the next generation could have one or more. That doesnt take thousands of years

So, you are welcome to explain here whatever you are talking about.

I am talking about the evolution idea that first there was a big bang, then molecules interacting with sunlight and electrical events of the early earth formed into the first living cell. Then that cell developed DNA which with reproduction at times mutated, often into nonviable entities, but at times into viable and improved forms of the DNA. And it could be thousands of years before a new viable form developed for a given species so the ones having an improvement of DNA would be favored to continue.

So, how do you differ from this, if you do? This is what my comments above were referring to as being evolutionary theory. This is not what I consider to be God creating. So, it is not what I call a creationist theory. And if it has not been proven, it is not established by the scientific method, and so it is at best maybe a hypothesis, and not even a scientifically established theory.

This is actually (in italics) a very very very common lie indulged in by creationist organizations. In order to be science, you’d first have to show physical evidence that deities of any type exist ( good luck with that) Then you’d have to have a mechanism and evidence that this deity created anything. Then you’d have to have evidence that this deity created the universe or parts of the universe as we know it . You’d have to do all of that before scientists can accept God-did-it as an answer to how did this happen. ( Honestly, scientists cannot answer how deities did anything ) . Since there are natural processes which explain very well :
1how the universe formed
2 how the solar system formed
3how life originated( abiogenesis)
4how life diversified ( the theories of evolution)
5 how old the earth is
6 how old the solar system is
and 7 how old the universe is , there’s no need for speculative ideas involving deities and supernatural causation. When you learn science in middle school, the first thing you learn is that it cannot address phenomena that’s truly supernatural

 

[tas8831]

But this does not prove evolution . . . just because certain folks can produce false evidence and reasoning against it!!

That is not and never was the point.

The point is that the false evidence against evoliution is used by Christian creationists to argue against evolution, and it only shows their desperation (and character). There is plenty of evidence FOR evolution.

The Bible says God made all things, and I understand God is able to do that plus more; so it is not a problem for me.

I don't understand that, for there is no real reason to. I don't disbelieve because I don't understand it (like OldWiseGuy), I disbelieve it because there is nothing to understand - there is no actual evidence for the biblical miracles or for creation.

I mean > there are living things which would need more than one mutation showing up at the same time and supporting one another in order to be viable.

How do you know this?

And the chances of even one mutation happening is supposed to be not much, so that it can be thousands of years before even one new one viable shows up; so the chances of three or four or more mutually needy mutations all coming to be all at once could be not much. And there are thousands, even millions of living beings that would need various mutation combinations by chance developing with each other > the statistical probability of all that just happening is . . . not likely??

The statistical probability of creationists using bogus statistics is 100%.

And, by they way, have there been enough billions of years for living beings only by physical means to by chance produce all the mutations which living beings would need in order to produce all the various creatures now on this earth? I am curious > if each mutation would need even thousands of years of chance time to come into existence, how much time would it take to bring forth all mutations that would be needed . . . for all insects, plants, and others? And, like I offer . . . by laws of chance, certain ones would need to appear in the right timing with others, so they could support each other.

I don't know - tell me how many mutations are required for these things and how you know.

I have concluded that creationists that insist on some huge number of specific mutations for this or that to occur simply do not understand how genes influence form and function - even the professional ones.

Another item is I understand that there was all past eternity during which scientific principles could have produced a big bang. If a big bang was done by material means only, by material which acts by scientific principles which always act the same way and are therefore predictable > why would they not have so acted at some point before or after when the bang was supposed to happen, in all eternity??

The Big Bang is cosmology and is irrelevant to evolution.

It is more challenging and interesting to really get to know each individual and let him or her speak for oneself

Not really.

Especially if they already have a track record.

 

[com7fy8]

tell me how many mutations are required for these things and how you know.

Thank you for taking the time to tell me what you have to say.

It is just an impression I get, that a very high-level functioning thing in an organism would need more than one gene to produce it all.

 

[Brightmoon]

( Snip)

The point is that the false evidence against evolution is used by Christian creationists to argue against evolution, and it only shows their desperation (and character). There is plenty of evidence FOR evolution.


I don't understand that, for there is no real reason to. I don't disbelieve because I don't understand it (like OldWiseGuy), I disbelieve it because there is nothing to understand - there is no actual evidence for the biblical miracles or for creation.


( snip)



The statistical probability of creationists using bogus statistics is 100%.


I don't know - tell me how many mutations are required for these things and how you know.

I have concluded that creationists that insist on some huge number of specific mutations for this or that to occur simply do not understand how genes influence form and function - even the professional ones.


The Big Bang is cosmology and is irrelevant to evolution.

( snip)

.

BINGO!!!!

 

[Brightmoon]

Thank you for taking the time to tell me what you have to say.

It is just an impression I get, that a very high-level functioning thing in an organism would need more than one gene to produce it all.

obviously!
What I don’t understand is why you think that this cannot evolve. Multicellular eucaryotes don’t look like bacteria at all yet we do have a common ancestry . In fact the mitochondria inside your cell, which you cannot live without, are symbiotic purple bacteria (alpha proteobacteria)

 

[com7fy8]

What I don’t understand is why you think that this cannot evolve.

I guess, from your standpoint, we could say it simply is my prejudice that God made it all.

My devotional appreciation, which is not scientific proof, of course, is that the universe and living things are made by God and this is why they are so beyond our ability to understand it all. Because God's ways are "past finding out" (Romans 11:33), and these ways of His are working in medical things and animal behavior and so this is why humans never really figure things out

So, by the way, I think God has created it all, plus He now is in and through it all, with His ways "past finding out" managing how our bodies work and other things.

So, you might say this is my prejudice and simply how I see things. I don't think it is in reach of our logic and physical science, then.

But I have had thoughts.

One is if there is nothing in existence but what is physical, then atoms and molecules have interacted, by scientific and therefore predictable principles, to produce a big bang, then to eventually yield by evolution human beings. And then what has happened? We humans, if only physical factors are working, have evolved into atheists, theistic evolutionists, and Bible fundamentalists and Muslims and others . . . as the product of evolution's physical interaction of atoms and molecules.

And it would mean that atoms and molecules alone have yielded humans with atheist and Christian fundamental and other moral systems. And it would mean that my body's physical function all by itself has brought me from being a perpetual bully and perverted person, to being a goody-goody two-shoes Roman Catholic, to being a Bible fundamentalist who was criticizing everyone including other fundies, to now experiencing God correcting me to do what He personally guides me to do in His peace while having hope for any and all people to personally share with God through Jesus.

This . . . so far in my seventy-plus years on this earth . . . is how I have developed. If people think that mutations of genes have produced me and my experience . . . I'll bet they haven't figured out how. I simply believe God has changed me; I have been selfish and negative and nasty and critical, but I have experienced God's love to be kind and personal and caring and sharing and gentle and quiet and not conceited to pick and choose who is good enough for me to love. Molecules and psychiatric medications did not do this.

So, of course, I am coming from my experience, and how I would say my character has been changed. I find that we tend to believe what fits with our character and how we want things to be.

There are people who want comparison and competition, and evolution seems to fit with this. So, this is what I consider > that we humans can tend to believe what fits with what we want or how we choose to see things.

So, after how I have been changed, my prejudice has changed with it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How did that experiment go?

They got notably longer tails in less than 10 generations, and I even hatched one individual that was 5 cm long (a centimeter longer than the high end of the size range given for the species, and almost 1.5 cm larger than the largest individual of the F1 generation). Unfortunately, I have to put it on hold until I move out of my grandmother's house, because she won't tolerate the things any longer and she was interfering by throwing away dead bodies before I could measure them by generation 3.

However, this experiment, limited though it was, succeeded in providing evidence that contradicts claims made by extremists like Justa, who think that useful, new traits cannot arise in populations via mutation at all, no matter how minor they are. But my Triops reproduce via parthenogenesis and none of the original ones had tails nearly as long as the ones present in the most recent generation, so mutation is the only feasible way that trait could have come into existence within that population.

It's not debatable that the longer tails are useful, since the recent generation consisted of far better swimmers than the F1 generation.