Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Loudmouth]

I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.

Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because the theory does not have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of germs?

 

[USincognito]

The Messel pit from which Ida was unearthed, had an anoxic environment and lack of current at low depths.

I logged off CF about 7am CST and wish I'd added this spoiler. I have not checked any of the messages posted since then, but I had a suspicion that KWCrazy would completely ignore the point I was making in citing the Messel pit and myopically focus on Creationist propaganda regarding Ida.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because the theory does not have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of germs?

No ... and I don't reject evolution, either; I reject macroevolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

YEC logic=
Conspiracy nut=YEC: Where did the hamburger come from?
Answerer: I don't know.
Conspiracy nut=YEC: Then it doesn't exist.
Answerer: But it's right in front of your face.
Conspiracy nut=YEC: I need to know the the exact address of where it came from, the exact time it was made, who made it, how tall was he, what clothes he was wearing, and his place of birth and date of birth with the exact time and a recorded video of his birth.
Answerer: BUT it's right in front of your face!
Conspiracy nut=YEC: I don't see anything.
Answerer: It's right here!
Conspiracy nut=YEC: Lalalalalalalalalal I don't see anything

You DO realize that this obvious flame just makes you look foolish, right?
Just a little context for you.
When the first man walked this earth, he could walk and speak with his Creator. He was given only one restriction, which of course he violated. Since that time, his children and all his ancestors have know of God. Nearly every culture has a God or gods they worship. Until recently, it was well known that God created the universe. We might have had conflicting ideas about how that happened, but it was understood. When Jesus ushed in the New Covenant, it opened up salvation to everyone. The only requirement was faith. Since faith is believing in the unproven, God no longer proved Himself to the masses. He continued to work miracles which science to this day cannot explain.

You Darwinists are pretty new to the game. You proclaim that there is no God, or if He does exist that he's a liar. The evidence is on you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution happened. In doing so, you are contradicting everything in the Bible, so you have to diminish or excuse what is written. There are many of us who have accepted Jesus and have received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit validates for us that God is indeed real, and is our connection to God. God reveals Himself to His own, not to people like you who deny Him. When a person of faith receives the Holy Spirit he KNOWS God is real. He doesn't need faith any longer. We read in the Bible that the fool has said in his heart "there is no God." You come along and say the same. We recognize what you say because the Bible mentioned you long before you were born.

You are not smarter than us because of your disbelief.
You are not better educated than us because we study truth and you immerse yourself in science that you don;t understand.
If you compromise the word of God with science, you are correct about neither.
If you don't understand that science is limited to the study of the physical world and must work with those limitations, then you do not understand science.
If you don't understand that scientific doesn't equal true, then you don't understand science.
If you believe that the study of the natural world disproves the supernatural world, then you don't understand science.
If you don't understand that a supernatural God could create another world exactly like this one and nothing would look any different, then you don't understand the meaning of omnipotent.
Your childish flame underscores the fact that your opinion lacks value.

Christians know where hamburger comes from, where cows come from, and where we come from. You think you came from plankton. If that's the case, then you are certainly no better than plankton, just in a different state.
Perhaps you are right.

 

[Tomk80]

<snip whine>

Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, whine.

Boring.

 

[Split Rock]

Common descent is falsified by the very fact that it has no proof, only comparable DNA in plants and animals with the same Creator.

What we have is the twin-nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are only created by vertical genetic descent.

I can make tacos, burritos, tostados, fajitas or taco salad with the exact same ingredients. The only difference is the structure and appearance of each.

And do these reproduce? No? Then it is no analogy.

We have one Creator and one perfect blueprint for life. In that structure, humans have 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil. If evolution were true, especially if abiogenesis were true, we would have unrelated life forms that developed with a different blueprint.

Not if all life is descended from a common ancestor, or more likely group of ancestors all sharing genetic materal.

The commonalitity of all living things buoy the common creation every bit as much if not more than common descent. However, symbiotic reltionships within the plant and animal kingdom are problematic for creation deniers. They suggest near simultaneous creation and a circle of life that was designed from the beginiing.

This is falsified by the fact that we see co-evolution all the time. Btw, did your god create parasites? Did he create malaria? If they must have come about via co-evolution.

 

[USincognito]

While the messenger was flawed, some of the points he made were still valid.

He's not just flawed, his one of the worst liars who have supported the YEC cause ever. He's lied about his background. He lied about having a "photograph" of an "11' 6" skeleton found in an Italian coal mine, in 1856 if I recall correctly". He's lied about mammoths, he's lied about chlorophyl found on T-Rex teeth, he's lied about the dimensions of the red sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid, he's lied about so much how anyone believes anything he said is a mystery to those of us familiar with how much he lies.

For example, when he points out that long discredited claims and proven hoaxes are still in science books, that's easily proven by looking at one.

What "proven hoaxes" would that be? Haeckel's embryo drawings? That's a longer story than I have time for now, but if that's that only "proof" he provides he's not just tilting at windmills, he's running around with a stick stabbing at fantasies of his own imagination.

When he points out that pertified trees have been found upright through multiple layers of strata that shows "dating by depth" is unreliable.

Except every example he cites it not "multiple layers of strata", it's multipe layers of sediment within a strata. He's a liar. He's lying when he makes that claim.

However, it's not the things that he or others like him have said that wer just plain wrong that you object to. It's the things that poke gaping holes in the religion of evolution that make Darwinists truly hate the man. How DARE he point out flaws in the only excuse atheists have to proclaim that there is no God.

Oh my. We don't have as many TEs posting here as we used to, but how will you react when they do?

 

[Loudmouth]

When the first man walked this earth, he could walk and speak with his Creator.

Evidence please.

Since that time, his children and all his ancestors have know of God.

And known Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Frida, etc.

Until recently, it was well known that God created the universe.

It was believed, not known. Belief is not knowledge.

The only requirement was faith. Since faith is believing in the unproven, God no longer proved Himself to the masses. He continued to work miracles which science to this day cannot explain.

The problem is that you are believing in things that are CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE. That is not faith.

You Darwinists are pretty new to the game. You proclaim that there is no God, or if He does exist that he's a liar.

Point one. Not all "Darwinists" are atheists. Many are christians and people of other faiths.

Point two. We are not saying that God is a liar. We are saying that the evidence contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. So you have a few choices: the Bible was not inspired by God, your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or God faked the evidence. Take your pick.

The evidence is on you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution happened.

And that has been done.

We read in the Bible that the fool has said in his heart "there is no God."

Wow, a religion with a self serving theology. How . . . predictable. If I wrote that a fool has said in his heart that there is no Zeus, would you worship Zeus? If not, then why do you think that this argument is so convincing?

You are not smarter than us because of your disbelief.

Your religious belief does not give you automatic knowledge of how biology works. It is obvious from your posts that you don't understand the basics of biology, much less evolution, and yet you feel qualified to say that hundreds of thousands of highly trained PhD's in the field of biology are wrong. Hubris much?

 

[Split Rock]

Or what you CLAIM are transitional fossils. I could look at a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and show transition. That doesn't make it so. Science is about what you can prove. I haven't seen any proof.

As far as I can determine, you haven't bothered to really look at the evidence we provided you and actually read the links we provided you. Take your time, then get back to us, instead of posting more and more garbage from Creation Ministry websites.

 

[USincognito]

Ever read anything about you're own theory? Evolution supposedly took millions of years.

I'm pretty sure he has. Have you read anything about reality? Are you familiar with the great African migration that takes place every year? Are you familiar with the American Bison and the Passenger Pigeon? Do you have any idea why, within the context of fossilized remains I might be asking you these questions?

How is it that there aren't ANY dino-birds? Not a single one!

What do you mean? Are you unfamiliar with Archeopteryx, Confuciousornis, Microraptor, etc. etc.?

 

[Loudmouth]

No ... and I don't reject evolution, either; I reject macroevolution.

Which of the proposed mechanisms for macroevolution requires abiogenesis? Here is a list of the mechanisms:

1. Mutation
2. Selection
3. Genetic isolation

Care to enlighten us?

 

[USincognito]

Unicorns are all dead too. That's why you don't see them. Same with winged horses, dragons and Godzilla. They are all dead. Don't you DARE try to deny their existence, either. They existed because I said they did. That makes it a scientific fact, despite the fact that there isn't any evidence they ever lived.

Getting back to your bogus "point" about fossils, you do realize that the definition of tranistional fossils is one that exhibits characteristis "above" the species level, right? You also do realize that the beings we find that are classified as transitionals didn't magically pop into existance, live, die and leave a fossil behind, right? They were part of a population of similarly transitional beings that reproduced and underwent speciation even if the individual we found as a fossil didn't.

 

[sfs]

I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.

I think you don't know what you're talking about. What bothers me is lying, distortion, ignorance and character assassination, all done in the name of Christ.

 

[Split Rock]

I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.

All they can come up with is a vague term ... abiogenesis ... which simply means, "it wasn't biogenesis."

First of all, you do accept evolution. Therefore, using your "you are a creationist if you accept creation" logic, you are an evolutionist. Secondly, how does the theory of evolution change if your god created the first life on earth?

 

[verysincere]

As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.

1) Hmmm. Lots of dinosaurs were relatively small to begin with.

2) I didn't realize that "fight" capability was the only means of survival.

3) What about the dinosaurs and their vulnerable young who were ALREADY dinner much of the time?

4) I wonder how KW deals with the food chain, the idea that lots of animals are BOTH diners and dinners!

With each post from KWcrazy I have less inclination to believe that he is being serious. This sure reads like a parody of the lamest anti-evolution arguments. Even his quote-miners are some of the most used examples of the most dishonest. And even after Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiments were explained to him, he still claims that they somehow PREVENT scientists centuries later from explaining how life came from non-living elements (e.g., as described in Genesis 2:7, "from the dust of the ground".)


5) All dinosaurs eventually became food for scavengers and micro-organisms which feasted on their carcasses. Not much fight left.

 

[verysincere]

I think you don't know what you're talking about. What bothers me is lying, distortion, ignorance and character assassination, all done in the name of Christ.

Amen to that. These are not fruits of the Spirit.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy

How is it that there aren't ANY dino-birds? Not a single one!
​

What do you mean? Are you unfamiliar with Archeopteryx, Confuciousornis, Microraptor, etc. etc.?

There appears to be the assumption that remaining TOTALLY UNINFORMED about a topic prevents one from being ethically responsible for posting false statements. But that defense vaporizes as others tutor KWC on the basics of science.

Denial is all he's got. (And keep in mind: Not only does he consider Kent Hovind a hero, he thinks Hovind somehow exposed major evolution textbook errors---and it never occurs to him that even the sloppiest textbook companies have NOTHING to do whether or not the science is valid. As a professor I sent errata lists to various textbook publishers every semester. Now if I had found those same errors in peer-reviewed journals, it might be another matter. KWCrazy has no idea what science is nor where to find the scientific method at work.)

I'm going the Poe chorus on this one.

 

[USincognito]

And even after Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiments were explained to him, he still claims that they somehow PREVENT scientists centuries later from explaining how life came from non-living elements [/B](e.g., as described in Genesis 2:7, "from the dust of the ground".)

VS, most Creationists don't care about what Spontaneous Generation actually posited or what Pasteur's experiments actually falsified. They have been tainted to the point of not believing what their lying eyes are telling them. I can't blame them for succumbing to the propaganda, but I will continue to simply explain to them the actual facts over and over and over again as needed.

The same applies to the advent of life and my new approach to "kinds" when it comes to intransigents. Genesis is making a theological statement that God has created an orderly world and rabbits won't give birth to kittens or crows won't be hatched with arms and wings.

 

[verysincere]

The same applies to the advent of life and my new approach to "kinds" when it comes to intransigents. Genesis is making a theological statement that God has created an orderly world and rabbits won't give birth to kittens or crows won't be hatched with arms and wings.

Yes. Genesis and the theory of evolution agree 100% on this:

1) Organisms produce more organisms after their own BARAMIN. That is, they produce more organisms (usually called "young") which are much like them.

2) If ever "a dog gave birth to a cat", the event would deny both the Genesis text and the theory of evolution.

What so many traditional English Bible translations miss is the fact that "each after its own kind" and "of every kind" in the Noah's Flood account and other Genesis passages, it is using Hebrew idioms which are quite similar to English phrases such as "of every variety" and "all kinds of animals". [The Genesis text does NOT say that Noah took onboard the Ark every nephesh animal of the planet. It says that he took onto the ark "all sorts of animals", as in "all varieties of animals." Those animals didn't come from throughout the PLANET, they came from the ERETZ, the LAND known to Noah. The "circle of the earth" in Hebrew is "the disk of land" which is defined by simply looking to the horizon in all directions! The ancients didn't think in terms of "planet earth" and a "globe". They thought of their "world" as "the circle of the earth", all that they could see to the horizon. They also called it "everything under heaven"----which in Hebrew is the same as saying, "everything under the dome of the sky". Their "world" was a DISK of land covered by a dome called THE SKY! Now if someone can demonstrate to me that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament says anything else, I'll voluntarily renounce my hard-earned Near Eastern Languages & Literature degree and declare that I can't read Hebrew.]

 

[Split Rock]

There appears to be the assumption that remaining TOTALLY UNINFORMED about a topic prevents one from being ethically responsible for posting false statements. But that defense vaporizes as others tutor KWC on the basics of science.

Denial is all he's got. (And keep in mind: Not only does he consider Kent Hovind a hero, he thinks Hovind somehow exposed major evolution textbook errors---and it never occurs to him that even the sloppiest textbook companies have NOTHING to do whether or not the science is valid. As a professor I sent errata lists to various textbook publishers every semester. Now if I had found those same errors in peer-reviewed journals, it might be another matter. KWCrazy has no idea what science is nor where to find the scientific method at work.)

I'm going the Poe chorus on this one.

He's certainly here to troll, though I am not convinced he is trying to parody creationists. He's a good example of the idea that if you repeat enough creationist "talking points" that you win. That won't work here, unfortunately, and he'll learn that soon enough and leave.