Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[AV1611VET]

No, it would be a list of stuff in the Bible that straight up contradicts other stuff in the Bible.

Do you know the difference between a contradiction and a paradox?

And if so, are you familiar with paradox resolution?

If so, can you reconcile these "contradictions":

Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Clearly contradictory, yet one of the easiest ones to reconcile.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, it would be a list of stuff in the Bible that straight up contradicts other stuff in the Bible.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. Paradox maybe, but no contradictions. For example, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The least shall be greatest.

 

[dysert]

Biological evolution works through the accumulation of changes over generations.
More generations = more accumulations.

While this may be true, the accumulation isn't additive. In other words, change does not add information so that the resulting organism is more complex than its ancestor. Gills do not eventually become lungs because of this "accumulation of changes".

"macro evolution" is not some kind of rare event where a dog gives birth to a non-dog or anything equally ridiculous.

I was waiting for this gem. I agree that dogs only give birth to dogs. The question is, what was the organism that gave birth to the first dog? I'm not talking abiogenesis here, but simply the continuation (albeit backwards in time) of macro evolution. Dogs didn't always exist, so what was the organism called that begat the first dog?

 

[Astrophile]

And don't forget the Piltdown Man that was proclaimed the missing link for 50 years and then it was pronounced it was a hoax.

It was 41 years (1912 to 1953), and it was proved (by scientists) to be a hoax nearly 62 years ago. Since you apparently don't accept what scientists say, what reason have you to think that it was a hoax? By the way, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Dogs didn't always exist, so what was the organism called that begat the first dog?

Modern dogs like all species share a most recent common ancestor. There are more distant ancestors that may or may not be common ancestors. In the case of Humans the most recent male common ancestor and the most recent female common ancestor live quite a few years apart from each other.

 

[Astrophile]

Same for Nebraska Man.

The discovery of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki was officially announced in April 1922 and retracted in December 1927, less than six years later. According to Stephen Jay Gould, in 'An Essay on a Pig Roast', 'Osborn never identified Hesperopithecus as a human ancestor'; the most he did was to label it as 'an undoubted higher primate'. And, as the saying is, we all make mistakes.

 

[dysert]

Modern dogs like all species share a most recent common ancestor. There are more distant ancestors that may or may not be common ancestors. In the case of Humans the most recent male common ancestor and the most recent female common ancestor live quite a few years apart from each other.

If you answered the question, thanks. Otherwise, huh?

 

[DogmaHunter]

While this may be true, the accumulation isn't additive.

Except that it is, as changes are inherited by off spring, which adds its own changes which are then again inherited by off spring, etc etc etc.

I was waiting for this gem. I agree that dogs only give birth to dogs. The question is, what was the organism that gave birth to the first dog?

No individual in the history of life ever gave birth to an individual of another species.

This is the nature of gradual change.

Consider this:
Spanish, french and italian are all languages that were derived from Latin.
However, at no point in history did a latin-speaking mother give birth to a spanish speaking child.

Every child spoke the same language as its parents.

But yet, Latin turned into spanish, italian and french.

I'm not talking abiogenesis here

Neither am I.

, but simply the continuation (albeit backwards in time) of macro evolution. Dogs didn't always exist, so what was the organism called that begat the first dog?

Dogs are canines. They are subspecies of canines.
And no, there is no "line" somewhere that you can draw where the off spring is a "dog" while the parent was "not a dog".

Again, this is the nature of gradual change.

 

[dysert]

Except that it is, as changes are inherited by off spring, which adds its own changes which are then again inherited by off spring, etc etc etc.





No individual in the history of life ever gave birth to an individual of another species.

This is the nature of gradual change.

Consider this:
Spanish, french and italian are all languages that were derived from Latin.
However, at no point in history did a latin-speaking mother give birth to a spanish speaking child.

Every child spoke the same language as its parents.

But yet, Latin turned into spanish, italian and french.



Neither am I.



Dogs are canines. They are subspecies of canines.
And no, there is no "line" somewhere that you can draw where the off spring is a "dog" while the parent was "not a dog".

Again, this is the nature of gradual change.

In other words, the question is unanswerable.

 

[Armoured]

There are no contradictions in the Bible. Paradox maybe, but no contradictions. For example, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The least shall be greatest.

Nope straight up contradictions. All through it. And calling them "paradoxes" doesn't change it.

 

[dysert]

Nope straight up contradictions. All through it. And calling them "paradoxes" doesn't change it.

No, there are no contradictions if it's interpreted properly. But this is a thread derailer if I ever saw one.

 

[Armoured]

No, there are no contradictions if it's interpreted properly. But this is a thread derailer if I ever saw one.

Take it up with Joshua. He made the claim that there aren't any. I'm just correcting him. And now you. Same offer, want a list?

 

[dysert]

Take it up with Joshua. He made the claim that there aren't any. I'm just correcting him. And now you. Same offer, want a list?

Not here, but you're welcome to create a new thread.

 

[Armoured]

Not here, but you're welcome to create a new thread.

I don't need to make a thread. I know what they are, I've read the book. If you feel that strongly about it, you go for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was 41 years (1912 to 1953), and it was proved (by scientists) to be a hoax nearly 62 years ago.

Yup.

Scientists light the fires ... scientists then put them out.

Making themselves look like heroes.

Since you apparently don't accept what scientists say, what reason have you to think that it was a hoax?

Please answer this:

In those 41 years you mentioned, should the general public have accepted that Piltdown Man was the missing link?

Just YES or NO, please.

By the way, what do you think of the Shroud of Turin?

By the way, same question for Pluto 1930-2006.

 

[AV1611VET]

The discovery of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki was officially announced in April 1922 and retracted in December 1927, less than six years later. According to Stephen Jay Gould, in 'An Essay on a Pig Roast', 'Osborn never identified Hesperopithecus as a human ancestor'; the most he did was to label it as 'an undoubted higher primate'. And, as the saying is, we all make mistakes.

And in that "less than six years later," how much damage was done as far as duping the general public into believing biological evolution had been reinforced with this "new discovery"?

I like how you worded it:

"Officially announced in April 1922."

"Retraced in December 1927."

In other words, all over Page One in 1922, retracted with a sentence or two on Page Four in 1927.

And, no less, when the general public was more occupied with Christmas, than reading about some biological mistake.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In other words, the question is unanswerable.

No. Rather, the question exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how gradual change over time works.

The question "which non-dog gave birth to a dog?" is the equivalent of "which non-spanish spaking mother gave birth to a spanish speaking child?".

 

[Armoured]

No. Rather, the question exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of how gradual change over time works.

The question "which non-dog gave birth to a dog?" is the equivalent of "which non-spanish spaking mother gave birth to a spanish speaking child?".

I always liked the spectrum analogy, myself.

Draw a precise line at the point where green becomes yellow.

 

[AV1611VET]

I always liked the spectrum analogy, myself.

That spectrum analogy only dupes those who are gullible.

Where are the missing links?

If you factor in the missing links, I submit the colored lines would be so thin, the spectrum would have to be electronically enhanced just to know what color they are.

If you disagree, take my Daisy Chain Challenge.

 

[Astrophile]

Yup.

Scientists light the fires ... scientists then put them out.

Making themselves look like heroes.

The Piltdown hoaxer was Charles Dawson, who was a solicitor by profession, not a scientist. The scientists were his dupes. You should read 'Piltdown Man' by Miles Russell and 'Unravelling Piltdown' by John Evangelist Walsh.

Please answer this:

In those 41 years you mentioned, should the general public have accepted that Piltdown Man was the missing link? Just YES or NO, please.

Yes. Now will you answer my question, please.

By the way, same question for Pluto 1930-2006.

If you mean, should the general public have accepted that Pluto was a planet between 1930 and 2006, then the answer is 'Yes'. If you are asking what I thought about Pluto between the late 1950s and 2006, that's a more difficult question. I suppose that for most of that time I regarded Pluto as a planet, faute de mieux, because there was nothing else to call it. After 1992, when astronomers started discovering other trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs), I began to think that Pluto itself was a TNO, the largest of its kind, but still a TNO. Where one drew the line between a true planet and a large trans-Neptunian object was difficult to say; it depended on how one defined a planet.
Now that I've answered your questions, are you willing to answer my question about the Shroud of Turin?