Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[Ophiolite]

Role Reversal

Thank you. An interesting approach.

 

[Jimmy D]

There is no evidence for evolution except incorrect classification of species, due to that "species problem".......

Yeah, this is the sort of nonsense that the OP is referring to.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Any casual reader who is inclined to believe this nonsense should take the time to make a diligent study of the evidence. If you are so inclined please feel free to contact me by pm and I shall be happy to recommend, based on your educational background, books, articles or other materials that would allow you to make an informed decision.

See response to evolutionary tactic 101.

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own. - Scott Adams

I see no reasons, so I understand you can't see what is wrong with my point of view except that it sounds more sensible than your own. Hence the personal attack and lack of any response with any substance concerning the actual post....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, this is the sort of nonsense that the OP is referring to.

See post #23 for response....

 

[Ophiolite]

See response to evolutionary tactic 101.

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own. - Scott Adams

I see no reasons, so I understand you can't see what is wrong with my point of view except that it sounds more sensible than your own. Hence the personal attack and lack of any response with any substance concerning the actual post....

Please don't be ridiculous. I have not attacked you, I have attacked your unsupported nonsense assertions. I have had several previous exchanges with you on other threads and it is clear you reject all the evidence, routinely and consistently. Providing you with the same, or additional material is utterly pointless. You will reject this too and recycle your tired old (unsupported) arguments.

If I chose to make a personal attack on you it would be incredibly boring, since I know nothing about you. You may be a perfectly nice chap, a pillar of your community, or you may be a Scrooge and a malcontent. I have no idea what you are like, so I have no basis on which to make a personal attack. However, your ill formed arguments are another matter. Keep spouting that nonsense and I'll treat it appropriately.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please don't be ridiculous. I have not attacked you, I have attacked your unsupported nonsense assertions. I have had several previous exchanges with you on other threads and it is clear you reject all the evidence, routinely and consistently. Providing you with the same, or additional material is utterly pointless. You will reject this too and recycle your tired old (unsupported) arguments.

If I chose to make a personal attack on you it would be incredibly boring, since I know nothing about you. You may be a perfectly nice chap, a pillar of your community, or you may be a Scrooge and a malcontent. I have no idea what you are like, so I have no basis on which to make a personal attack. However, your ill formed arguments are another matter. Keep spouting that nonsense and I'll treat it appropriately.

See post #23 for response until you can address the subject of the post. If you cant see calling something nonsense without reasoning as to why, you clearly don't understand what an ad hominem remark is to begin with....

As I will treat your nonsense appropriately, see response #23.

But notice I specifically addressed why your response is nonsense - it fails to address the post at all and gives no reasoning as to why. It just makes bald faced assertions..... I purposefully did not include the word lying so as not to offend anyone or make any bald faced assertions....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here, let me use an evolutionists own quote to highlight your blanket response.

"Blanket denialism goes nowhere...."

All it shows is that creationist or evolutionist, that your viewpoint is not really understood, then some go further and then attacks because they realize your idea sounds more sensible than their own.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Repost of uncontested post:

I'll ask as I ask every evolutionist.

What evidence?

Fossils that remain the same for every single creature from the oldest found to the youngest found for that type of creature?????

New forms that appear suddenly in the fossil record without intermediaries, similar to the variation appearing that we see in dogs????

Don't get me wrong, I understand that if they had never seen a dog in real life, but only found bits and pieces of their fossil remains, They would conclude that they were separate species and that evolution from one species to another had occurred. This is understandable. Incorrect, but understandable being they have never observed these creatures in life...

So with only bits and pieces to go from, it is not surprising at all that they simply mistake variation "within" the species as variation into new species.

Variation is not surprising, can you not see the variation capable "within" a species?

Evolution is nothing but incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications, error after uncorrected error. They can't even consistently classify what is a species because they have no consistent definition, so it is no wonder they have a "species problem" and classify 60% of the fossil record incorrectly.

Or perhaps we would care to look at fruit flies...

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955), p. 105.

“A review of known facts about their [mutated fruit flies’] ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated. Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore they are able to appear only in the favourable environment of the experimental field or laboratory ...” Nilsson, p. 1186."

None of them are found in nature, they can only survive in the favorable conditions of the laboratory where there is no competition and food is provided.... And they are all still "Fruit Flies"........

There is no evidence for evolution except incorrect classification of species, due to that "species problem".......

 

[HitchSlap]

Q

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Q

R.....S, T, U, V?

 

[pitabread]

I'll ask as I ask every evolutionist.

What evidence?

All of it

There is no evidence for evolution except incorrect classification of species, due to that "species problem".......

This precisely highlights the point I was making in the OP.

On the one hand we have a creationist like Todd Wood, who states there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution. Despite the fact he rejects common descent, he's at least willing to openly confront the fact there is evidence to support it.

On the other hand we have repeated assertions from creationists on this forum that such evidence doesn't exist.

So what's the deal here? Do you know more about evolution than Todd Wood (keeping in mind, he's the one with the Biology degree)? Is he just ignorant or deluded? Perhaps tricked by the vast conspiracy of evolutionary biologists?

Why such divergent views?

 

[pitabread]

I encourage other creationists to check him out and use his site for balance. There is evidence for evolution, we need to stop saying there isn't and deal with the evidence that drives the conclusion.

There's two difficulties with that:

1) Learning is hard. I find that the majority of creationists have little interest in biology beyond dismissing evolution. I can't see too many willingly taking the time to learn and understand it in order to make a cogent argument regarding it.

2) Learning is dangerous. There is a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Given how tightly creationists attach creationism to their Christian beliefs as a whole, the risk of losing belief in creationism is tantamount to risking eternal salvation. Given those stakes, ignorance is the safer route.

 

[Ophiolite]

See post #23 for response until you can address the subject of the post. If you cant see calling something nonsense without reasoning as to why, you clearly don't understand what an ad hominem remark is to begin with....

As I will treat your nonsense appropriately, see response #23.

But notice I specifically addressed why your response is nonsense - it fails to address the post at all and gives no reasoning as to why. It just makes bald faced assertions..... I purposefully did not include the word lying so as not to offend anyone or make any bald faced assertions....

The evidence has been presented multiple times on multiple threads. You have ignored it.
Your arguments have been dissected multiple times on multiple threads. You have ignored this.
Your interpretation of evidence has been disputed multiple times on multiples threads. You have ignored this.

That is the reason I have attacked your empty remarks.
That is the reason I do not require to spend further times giving you reasons and facts and evidence and argument for you to ignore and for you to pretend does not exist.

And you have been told this all before.

Also, be aware, an ad hominem is one in which the character of an individual is attacked when that aspect of their character has no bearing on their argument. I have not attacked you, regardless of how deserving your tactics may make that. Except, once again, it would be your tactics I would attack, bearing directly on your arguments, and thus it would not be an ad hominem. Just unpleasant for as both.

 

[pitabread]

I mean step-by-step description of the evolution of stereoscopic vision for example, in understandable terms. No giant leaps, all the details.

Let's unpack this statement.

First, what do you mean by "all the details"? Are you asking for perfect knowledge? Because if you want perfect knowledge you'll never find that in the pages of science. Science is about constructing simplified explanations of reality based on our (relatively speaking) limited observations of that reality. Imperfect knowledge means there is forever more to learn; it's quite common for scientific papers to end with discussion of future avenues of research to explore.

If by "all the details", you mean all the current knowledge about a subject then that is probably quite extensive. Just a search for 'evolution of vision' returned millions of results in Google Scholar. Even trying to narrow it down still yields thousands of hits. So there is clearly a lot of literature on the subject. This is where literature reviews or books might be more useful as they can summarize current findings of a particular subject. But invariably such material will always lag behind the latest actively published research.

You also ask for "understandable terms". What does this mean? Do you mean understandable as in written for for layman (e.g. non-technical, minimal jargon)? If you are looking for non-technical material, then that will limit what is available both in scope and in time lag with respect to current research. Given science is technical in nature, learning that aspect of it will open things up to broader understanding of the material available.

Further, any given subject can be quite broad. Just the evolution of vision, for example, can cover both the evolution of the physical apparatus of the eye plus all of the neurobiology that enables vision to function. These are not simple topics, consequently the answers aren't simple either. Ultimately it comes down to how much you are willing to invest in understanding the current research.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

All of it



This precisely highlights the point I was making in the OP.

On the one hand we have a creationist like Todd Wood, who states there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution. Despite the fact he rejects common descent, he's at least willing to openly confront the fact there is evidence to support it.

On the other hand we have repeated assertions from creationists on this forum that such evidence doesn't exist.

So what's the deal here? Do you know more about evolution than Todd Wood (keeping in mind, he's the one with the Biology degree)? Is he just ignorant or deluded? Perhaps tricked by the vast conspiracy of evolutionary biologists?

Why such divergent views?

This precisely highlights my point.

What is all of it? Millions of years for sedimentary rock to form?

https://www.sciencealert.com/news/20090705-19095.html

Calling animals mating in front of your nose separate species?

Ignoring the entire fossil record of no change at all?

Millions of years for oil to form?

https://newatlas.com/algae-crude-oil-process-pnnl/30235/

 

[pitabread]

Ignoring the entire fossil record of no change at all?

You don't think the fossil record shows that life on Earth has changed over time? Do you think all modern species existed at any given time in history?

 

[tas8831]

It's all just more gobbledegook. Evolution is a delusion, albeit a craftily designed one. Neither scientists or creationists can explain the creation.

Imo of course.

Your opinion is worthless as it is based on already-refuted falsehoods and bogus beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

This precisely highlights my point.

What is all of it? Millions of years for sedimentary rock to form?

https://www.sciencealert.com/news/20090705-19095.html

Calling animals mating in front of your nose separate species?

Ignoring the entire fossil record of no change at all?

Millions of years for oil to form?

https://newatlas.com/algae-crude-oil-process-pnnl/30235/

It is so cute how you do these keyword searchers, fail to recognize what the returns actually indicate, yet post and repost them as if they make your case.

I already pointed out that those articles are referring to scientists/engineers making things happen. So as you present them as supporting your position, your position can only be that you think scientists made sedimentary rocks and that engineers made petroleum.

It is hilarious that you are this easily fooled yet are so high on your own self-image (egotism/Dunning-Kruger effect).

 

[tas8831]

Can evolution be replicated, if even on paper?

Can creation?

The 'challenges' you toss out at evolution can be equally applied to creation.
Take that away and all that is left is evidence.
And one side clearly wins on that alone.

 

[tas8831]

I mean step-by-step description of the evolution of stereoscopic vision for example, in understandable terms. No giant leaps, all the details.

I mean step-by-step description of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib/side, for example, in understandable terms. No giant leaps, all the details.

See?

Again, what is left but evidence, for which there is none for creation?