Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

Status
Not open for further replies.

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Addendum

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.
 
Last edited:

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against it.
Not having knowledge of evolution is a feature of creationism not a bug. Organizations like DI, AIG, and ICR actively use scare tactics like telling school age kids that they risk salvation if they read a book on "atheist dawinism." They know that knowledge of evolution creates cognitive dissonance which is blamed for driving many young people out if the church.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Well first off the theory of evolution says nothing about how that first organism came into being E.G. how life formed. So the title of the thread is grossly misleading and not even in the same ball park. Origin of life is still a mystery a theory among people who don't believe in a creator.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Well first off the theory of evolution says nothing about how that first organism came into being E.G. how life formed. So the title of the thread is grossly misleading and not even in the same ball park. Origin of life is still a mystery a theory among people who don't believe in a creator.

I'm not talking about the origin of life. I'm talking about the process of biological evolution. The title of the thread is perfectly appropriate.
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not talking about the origin of life. I'm talking about the process of biological evolution. The title of the thread is correct.

right and has nothing to do with creationist, which is the belief that life started by a creator, evolution doesn't even teach life from a ball of soup. You yourself have no idea how life formed yet your convinced is humorous.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
right and has nothing to do with creationist, which is the belief that life started by a creator, evolution doesn't even teach life from a ball of soup.

Many creationists believe that individual species (or "kinds") were created individually as opposed to having evolved from common ancestors. Those are the creationists I am addressing in the thread topic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Many creationists believe that individual species (or "kinds") were created individually as opposed to having evolved from common ancestors. Those are the creationists I am addressing in the thread topic.

yea and there are many species and processes that evolution has no solid leads to how they had formed or how the process is done in nature. my example about the mantis shrimp is like no other creature on earth. how does evolution explain the one of kind animals and there are many.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
yea and there are many species and processes that evolution has no solid leads to how they had formed or how the process is done in nature. my example about the mantis shrimp is like no other creature on earth. how does evolution explain the one of kind animals and there are many.

If one wishes to learn about the evolution of specific species or specific biological functions and forms, one can always research that topic.

Have you reviewed the scientific literature on the evolution of the mantis shrimp? What does the scientific literature say on the topic?
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If one wishes to learn about the evolution of specific species or specific biological functions and forms, one can always research that topic.

Have you reviewed the scientific literature on the evolution of the mantis shrimp? What does the scientific literature say on the topic?

i have and there is no answer for the tough questions just endless theories.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
i have and there is no answer for the tough questions just endless theories.

What did you research specifically? Which journals? Which texts?

Btw, if you're looking for definitive answers in science in the same manner as you would in religion, you won't find that. Science is not about definitive answers; rather it's about formulating explanations for observable phenomena based on our best understanding at a point in time.

Lack of knowledge of everything in science isn't a weakness. It's the reason science exists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
there are none on the mantis shrimp

A quick search on Google Scholar for "evolution" and "mantis shrimp" returns over 4500 results. You might want to look again.

(A further search for "Stomatopoda evolution" returns about 4200 results.)
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I will post one but really its fancy talk about something they cannot explain, the bunch is only one amazing aspect of the mantis. the eye is beyond evolution understanding, suggestions?

How Mantis Shrimp Evolved Many Shapes with Same Powerful Punch

The team took careful measurements and calculated each specimen’s ability to transmit muscular force and motion to the part of the claw that swings out to smash or spear their prey -- a mechanical property known as kinematic transmission.When the researchers mapped their measurements onto the mantis shrimp family tree, they discovered that certain parts of the claw were more strongly associated with changes in strike mechanics than others -- enabling the other parts to evolve relatively independently without compromising the mantis shrimp’s award-winning wallop.“This research sheds new light on how these amazing movements evolved,” Anderson said. It suggests that mantis shrimp claws were able to evolve so many shapes because their mechanical properties are more affected by changes in some parts than others -- a pattern the researchers call “mechanical sensitivity.”The results appear in the Feb. 25 issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (IOS-1149748).
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A quick search on Google Scholar for "evolution" and "mantis shrimp" returns over 4500 results. You might want to look again.

(A further search for "Stomatopoda evolution" returns about 4200 results.)

and every single one is a theory or a suggestion why because they have no idea.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I will post one but really its fancy talk about something they cannot explain, the bunch is only one amazing aspect of the mantis. the eye is beyond evolution understanding, suggestions?

How Mantis Shrimp Evolved Many Shapes with Same Powerful Punch

The team took careful measurements and calculated each specimen’s ability to transmit muscular force and motion to the part of the claw that swings out to smash or spear their prey -- a mechanical property known as kinematic transmission.When the researchers mapped their measurements onto the mantis shrimp family tree, they discovered that certain parts of the claw were more strongly associated with changes in strike mechanics than others -- enabling the other parts to evolve relatively independently without compromising the mantis shrimp’s award-winning wallop.“This research sheds new light on how these amazing movements evolved,” Anderson said. It suggests that mantis shrimp claws were able to evolve so many shapes because their mechanical properties are more affected by changes in some parts than others -- a pattern the researchers call “mechanical sensitivity.”The results appear in the Feb. 25 issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (IOS-1149748).

If you want to talk about mantis shrimp evolution, please just start a new thread. I'd rather not derail this topic any further, thanks.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
and every single one is a theory or a suggestion why because they have no idea.

You're reinforcing the thesis I posted in the OP, although in this case it seems to be a more fundamental gap in the understanding of science as a means of gathering knowledge.

I've added an addendum to the post accordingly.
 
Upvote 0

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
how did the barrel eye fish evolve with eye balls like tree tops, by theory only according to evolution.
Macropinna_microstoma_MBARI.jpg
 
Upvote 0

lsume

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 14, 2017
1,491
696
70
Florida
✟417,518.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.
It seems that many think that if they come to Christ, they are doing God a favor. That thinking is, of course, incorrect. If God chose to create all life by evolution, it would still be a miracle. However, since they can’t seem to find any missing links where a species made the jump, it’s highly unlikely that evolution was how it was done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary987
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
how did the barrel eye fish evolve with eye balls like tree tops, by theory only according to evolution.
View attachment 300232

Please stop derailing the thread. If you want to ask questions about how specific things evolved, start a new topic for that.

If you continue to derail the thread, I will start reporting your posts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BeyondET

Earth Treasures
Supporter
Jul 17, 2018
2,878
600
Virginia
✟128,812.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You're reinforcing the thesis I posted in the OP, although in this case it seems to be a more fundamental gap in the understanding of science as a means of gathering knowledge.

I've added an addendum to the post accordingly.

evolution is not science its a theory people call it a science but its not.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Gary987
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.