Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Jimmy D]

How thick headed are you? A week ago, you were asking for proof, and people explained to you that science doesn't deal in proofs. Now, you bring the same dead argument to the table.

Don't worry about it, it's his excuse to avoid discussing evidence.

He'd rather spend his time trying to wind people up than have a productive discussion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How thick headed are you? A week ago, you were asking for proof, and people explained to you that science doesn't deal in proofs. Now, you bring the same dead argument to the table.

I would have yo ask you the same thing, at what point did anyone here prove they could be trusted? And after all the lies, and ridiculous arguments made here against reasonable proposals I've seen, I'm just thick headed enough not to believe a word you say. Especially when is comes to something as convenient/laughable as science can't prove evolution. What a complete joke.

You need to go find the type individual that will actually buy the lies if you're going to put such argument on the table and expect them the be honored. For people that claim intelligence, some certainly don't exhibit a lot of common sense.

Never trust a liar, or group of people that tend to lie and twist the truth whenever necessary to get out of a jam..

So, you are saying what you post is proof of evolution and there could be no other explanation for your "opinion" on what the findings mean?

If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims.

I have every right. Doesn't surprise me you actually think it's a problem I don't understand something there is absolutely no reason I should understand because I haven taken the time to learn what is nonsense to me. Let me help you understand, I wonder how smart you think I'd be if I studied up on all the ins and outs of Micky Mouse creating the universe? OK, then, that's about how much respect I have for what you just rattled on about. Understand?

And what's really laughable is most of what you rattled is not that hard to follow, only requires looking up a few names to know exactly but the basics are pretty simple, yet you actually might as well have just come out and said, "See how smart I am, I sure showed you didn't I" When in reality, all you showed me is you have bought into, and actually spent time studying something that to me is a crock....get over yourself.

I'm curious now, mind telling me how it started?

And lastly, on this:

Order Gnetales is a connecting link between gymnosperms and Angiosperms because they have vessels. Order Cyacadofilicales is the connecting link between Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.

Starting with my middle finger, the fingers on each side of it get progressively smaller, does that mean my hand will eventually disappear, or the other fingers will catch up or nothing at all? If not, what's next for man, any part of him? When looking at the way we are at present, using your thought process, theories/opinions of what things mean and makes evolution a fact in your mind, can you predict what's next for us?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Don't worry about it, it's his excuse to avoid discussing evidence.

Read the part of my post about the lies, and why I feel the way I do about some of the things evolutionists tell me. And then tell me I didn't just discuss the so-called evidence.

Didn't take long for me to get a confirmation, and thanks for that Jimmy. Or are we now going to get an argument that in science, what I did was not considered "discussing" lol. and then a new scientific definition of "discussion" maybe?

 

[Skreeper]

Read the part of my post about the lies, and why I feel the way I do about some of the things evolutionists tell me. And then tell me I didn't just discuss the so-called evidence.

Didn't take long for me to get a confirmation, and thanks for that Jimmy. Or are we now going to get an argument that in science, what I did was not considered "discussing" lol. and then a new scientific definitions of "discussion" maybe.?

Why are you even here? You're obviously not interested in evidence since you ignore every piece of evidence people give you. But I get it, you're an old man, you probably have been a devout believer all your life so no rational argument is gonna convince you and that's fine. What I don't get is why you feel the need to proclaim an established scientific theory as false when you obviously are not qualified to assess the evidence. It just makes you look like a guy with a massive case of Dunning-Kruger. Sad.

 

[Jimmy D]

Read the part of my post about the lies, and why I feel the way I do about some of the things evolutionists tell me. And then tell me I didn't just discuss the so-called evidence.

Didn't take long for me to get a confirmation, and thanks for that Jimmy. Or are we now going to get an argument that in science, what I did was not considered "discussing" lol. and then a new scientific definition of "discussion" maybe?

I posted a link of observed instances of evolution earlier on and you didn't even look at, or comment on them, just obfuscated and changed the subject....

It's fine though, as other members have pointed out your little games are entirely transparent and only relfect badly on your "side".

 

[tas8831]

2. there is no evidence that would convince anyone otherwise - certainly none has been presented here.

In my statement I included three pretty good possibilities, although general, which I thought a scientific-minded person might want to explore: "questionable rock dating, rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale, and Adamic-man's creation." There's some pretty good ideas 'out there' on the first two, and of course you know the story on the third one.

"questionable rock dating" - how is that evidence for 'design'?

"rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale" - how is that evidence for "design"?

"Adamic-man's creation" - how is that evidence for "design"?

The first two are moot, since they are merely attacks on evidence-based science. The 3rd is mere mythology with no evidence in its favor at all.

What were you responding to, again?

3. Do YOU really think that analogies to cars being designed by humans proves that Jehovah made a man from dust?

No, I'm not a used car salesman. I was just saying that analogies wouldn't work, or at least I thought that was what I was saying.

On that we agree - analogies are not evidence.

I'm a somewhat educated man myself, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently on the knowledge of others by just basing it on their comments. I do suspect the lack of it is not limited to one side of the aisle though.

Perhaps not - though I think it pretty clear that the extent of ignorance on the two sides of this issue is hardly equivalent or at the same level.

I don't claim to be an expert, about all I can do here is refer you to a good documentary, "Is Genesis History," it's free on NetFlix now.

In fact, I actually DID start watching that a few weeks ago when it popped up on my Netflix homepage. Didn't get very far since I found it rather silly.

Of course you won't watch it, but if you did, it pretty much presents supportive evidence for the Creationist's claims presented in these type arguments. You should watch it, if for no other reason than it is interesting... and to see where Creationists are coming from with their beliefs.

I know where creationists are coming from. I've read some of their 'best' books (Sarfati's, Wells', Marsh's, Morris', Wysong's, etc.) and have read probably hundreds of their essays and articles and 'scientific' papers.
And I am sure that if I could sit through the rest of the Genesis show on Netflix, I could see that someone lacking background in science would find it convincing - I know I did when I read a book about Noah's flood when I was 17 and had only a high school science education - it seemed very convincing, or at least made me say to myself 'Huh... Never thought of that...'. Such as when it went on about fossil sea shells on the tops of mountains. 2 years later, I took a short course on Earthquakes and I learned about plate tectonics and such, and realized that I'd basically been had. As I progressed through my studies, the more I learned about real science, the more I realized that the professionals on the 'other side' were essentially a bunch of carnival barkers, not to be trusted. 30 years on, I feel that even more strongly.

This often happens to creationists (the realization, or at least the suspicion, that they've been had) but it appears that they prefer being had over accepting the truth.

 

[Jimmy D]

I would have yo ask you the same thing, at what point did anyone here prove they could be trusted? And after all the lies, and ridiculous arguments made here against reasonable proposals I've seen, I'm just thick headed enough not to believe a word you say. Especially when is comes to something as convenient/laughable as science can't prove evolution. What a complete joke.

You need to go find the type individual that will actually buy the lies if you're going to put such argument on the table and expect them the be honored. For people that claim intelligence, some certainly don't exhibit a lot of common sense.

Never trust a liar, or group of people that tend to lie and twist the truth whenever necessary to get out of a jam..

So, you are saying what you post is proof of evolution and there could be no other explanation for your "opinion" on what the findings mean?



I have every right. Doesn't surprise me you actually think it's a problem I don't understand something there is absolutely no reason I should understand because I haven taken the time to learn what is nonsense to me. Let me help you understand, I wonder how smart you think I'd be if I studied up on all the ins and outs of Micky Mouse creating the universe? OK, then, that's about how much respect I have for what you just rattled on about. Understand?

And what's really laughable is most of what you rattled is not that hard to follow, only requires looking up a few names to know exactly but the basics are pretty simple, yet you actually might as well have just come out and said, "See how smart I am, I sure showed you didn't I" When in reality, all you showed me is you have bought into, and actually spent time studying something that to me is a crock....get over yourself.

I'm curious now, mind telling me how it started?

And lastly, on this:



Starting with my middle finger, the fingers on each side of it get progressively smaller, does that mean my hand will eventually disappear, or the other fingers will catch up or nothing at all? If not, what's next for man, any part of him? When looking at the way we are at present, using your thought process, theories/opinions of what things mean and makes evolution a fact in your mind, can you predict what's next for us?

Who cares?

 

[xianghua]

Correct. It has to be a man-made "car" in order to conclude design. Otherwise no conclusion is possible.

so a car by itself isnt evidence for design. ok. i disagree.

 

[inquiring mind]

"questionable rock dating" - how is that evidence for 'design'?

"rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale" - how is that evidence for "design"?

"Adamic-man's creation" - how is that evidence for "design"?

The first two are moot, since they are merely attacks on evidence-based science. The 3rd is mere mythology with no evidence in its favor at all.

What were you responding to, again?

On that we agree - analogies are not evidence.


Perhaps not - though I think it pretty clear that the extent of ignorance on the two sides of this issue is hardly equivalent or at the same level.



In fact, I actually DID start watching that a few weeks ago when it popped up on my Netflix homepage. Didn't get very far since I found it rather silly.


I know where creationists are coming from. I've read some of their 'best' books (Sarfati's, Wells', Marsh's, Morris', Wysong's, etc.) and have read probably hundreds of their essays and articles and 'scientific' papers.
And I am sure that if I could sit through the rest of the Genesis show on Netflix, I could see that someone lacking background in science would find it convincing - I know I did when I read a book about Noah's flood when I was 17 and had only a high school science education - it seemed very convincing, or at least made me say to myself 'Huh... Never thought of that...'. Such as when it went on about fossil sea shells on the tops of mountains. 2 years later, I took a short course on Earthquakes and I learned about plate tectonics and such, and realized that I'd basically been had. As I progressed through my studies, the more I learned about real science, the more I realized that the professionals on the 'other side' were essentially a bunch of carnival barkers, not to be trusted. 30 years on, I feel that even more strongly.

This often happens to creationists (the realization, or at least the suspicion, that they've been had) but it appears that they prefer being had over accepting the truth.

Yes, people can be swayed one way or the other, no doubt. Normally, I'd break out the comments of your post and answer each one in the typical 'tit for tat' fashion, but they are all pretty straight forward and I appreciate your response.

You did mention something the documentary that makes me curious though:

In fact, I actually DID start watching that a few weeks ago when it popped up on my Netflix homepage. Didn't get very far since I found it rather silly.

You've got me interested in what specific explanations they offer that you consider silly... I get the flood part, a lot of people have trouble with that, but what about their explanations for rapid formations on a colossal scale and proposed ideas about the earth's recouping from a global flood (ice age), magma chambers and heat changing decay rates where dating has been concerned, and epoch differences that skew backward looking projections. What about the discussions of DNA and how it is too intricate and complex to have just happened on its own. I'm not picking at you, just curious is all. I understand that you may not want to be that specific if it generally goes against your belief, we're all like that, but I'd enjoy your input.

 

[Speedwell]

so a car by itself isnt evidence for design. ok. i disagree.

We know that. Your whole argument depends on demonstrating that functional organization ("carness" in this case) is how we determine the existence of intelligent design. But we don't detect intelligent design on that basis and never have.

Your attempts to convince us are based on a logical fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation, in which you try to try to confuse the two different meanings of the word "design."

You have been trying this argument for a long time and it is never going to work, no matter how many different examples of wooden watches, robot penguins or self-replicating cars you come up with.

 

[Speedwell]

You've got me interested in what specific explanations they offer that you consider silly... I get the flood part, a lot of people have trouble with that, but what about their explanations for rapid formations on a colossal scale and proposed ideas about the earth's recouping from a global flood (ice age), magma chambers and heat changing decay rates where dating has been concerned, and epoch differences that skew backward looking projections. What about the discussions of DNA and how it is too intricate and complex to have just happened on its own. I'm not picking at you, just curious is all. I understand that you may not want to be that specific if it generally goes against your belief, we're all like that, but I'd enjoy your input.

Is there anything new in it? Like Tas--and most of the other "evos" here--I have read the principle works of creationist literature and spent some time on the creationist websites. I am not going to pay admission to watch the thing unless there are some new arguments, something I haven't seen before.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I would have yo ask you the same thing, at what point did anyone here prove they could be trusted? And after all the lies, and ridiculous arguments made here against reasonable proposals I've seen, I'm just thick headed enough not to believe a word you say. Especially when is comes to something as convenient/laughable as science can't prove evolution. What a complete joke.

You need to go find the type individual that will actually buy the lies if you're going to put such argument on the table and expect them the be honored. For people that claim intelligence, some certainly don't exhibit a lot of common sense.

Never trust a liar, or group of people that tend to lie and twist the truth whenever necessary to get out of a jam..

So, you are saying what you post is proof of evolution and there could be no other explanation for your "opinion" on what the findings mean?



I have every right. Doesn't surprise me you actually think it's a problem I don't understand something there is absolutely no reason I should understand because I haven taken the time to learn what is nonsense to me. Let me help you understand, I wonder how smart you think I'd be if I studied up on all the ins and outs of Micky Mouse creating the universe? OK, then, that's about how much respect I have for what you just rattled on about. Understand?

And what's really laughable is most of what you rattled is not that hard to follow, only requires looking up a few names to know exactly but the basics are pretty simple, yet you actually might as well have just come out and said, "See how smart I am, I sure showed you didn't I" When in reality, all you showed me is you have bought into, and actually spent time studying something that to me is a crock....get over yourself.

I'm curious now, mind telling me how it started?

And lastly, on this:



Starting with my middle finger, the fingers on each side of it get progressively smaller, does that mean my hand will eventually disappear, or the other fingers will catch up or nothing at all? If not, what's next for man, any part of him? When looking at the way we are at present, using your thought process, theories/opinions of what things mean and makes evolution a fact in your mind, can you predict what's next for us?

You know, your post reflects exactly what I ranted about in another thread. You answer to the points any layman can i.e. the starting lines and the finishing lines. Your attempt to deal with the evidence presented is laughable, since it doesn't really deal with anything I posted. A google search will get you there, sure, the thing is you didn't bother to until I posted that wall of text. You didn't know what connects what to what, and stuff changes over taxons. You ignored it and continued proclaiming evolution as a joke, while having no knowledge about it. Tell me, should I not be justified in calling someone like that thick-headed? I think I am.

Also, its really funny that you keep saying 'provide proof for evolution', but when I did, you gave the reason why there is no proof for evolution, only evidence. You understand that science doesn't deal with proof because there may be other explanations and current one may be discarded when new ones are found, then WHY DO YOU STILL KEEP ASKING FOR PROOF!? Are you an idiot? It's like saying you know A=B and B=C, but you keep asking people why A=C. (and I said that it is proof only because both of us are laymen). Furthermore, if evolution were to be discarded at some point because it couldn't explain new evidence, it certainly wouldn't be replaced by creationism, just like it wouldn't be replaced by Mutation Theory, or Lamarckism.

As for the last question, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, I don't know even a moderate amount about evolution, only the basics. Better ask a scientist, I suppose. And do a quick google search.

 

[xianghua]

Xianghua, they’re not going to accept "design" in any form or fashion. Design implies no need for “time,” and evolutionists must have time, and lots of it for layers of the earth to slowly build up, crawling things to walk, etc., or their belief is shot down. That’s why they dispel any argument like questionable rock dating, rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale, and Adamic-man's creation with words like ignorance and stupidity. There is no better defense for your belief than convincing people that those who oppose your argument are unenlightened.

its ok. i think that the evidence speak for itself.

 

[Jimmy D]

I was referring to Divine design (what other would there be?)

Aliens? Something else? The possibilities are not limited to your or my imaginations.

“No” I don’t think you will accept it in any form or fashion. Your belief is apparently locked into a closed loop thought pattern that will not even consider another possibility.

What are you talking about? I just told you I would be open to "design" if there was evidence for it. Do you think I'm lying or something? I accept the theory of evolution but I have no emotional attachment to it.

That in itself seems to diminish potential scientific advancement when you’re trying to find such deep history, and assumptions on both sides often have to be made in place of actual evidence.

LOL, of course, but there is still evidence there, and NONE of it points to design, unless of course you can present some?

I don’t get your point; yes, both are independent time scales... that still require lots of time.

And plenty of time has passed as every line of scientific evidence demonstrates.

No, I’m certainly no expert, but I’ll remind you again that neither is all your evidence indisputable. And when you have any percentage of questionable data, you shouldn’t remain in a closed loop thought pattern.

So you keep saying, but you choose not to be specific.

And please refrain from trying to read my mind.

Can’t pipe down Jimmy; I think you’re wrong, in part any way. As far as arguing science, I told you I’m no expert, but if you want scientific opinions and some evidence considered contrary to yours, watch what some actual scientists have to say on the documentary I mentioned “Is Genesis History?” They present sound arguments in favor of Creation. If you want to pick something apart, start there… I think they know what they’re talking about.

LOL, sorry about that "pipe down", I was trying to be jocular but it does seem a bit rude when you read it out.

I'm aware of the Creationist talking points, and the fact that professional creationists find it more productive making "entertaining" movies rather than actually doing any scientific research that might help their case. Of course we know why they do that.

Yes, but not necessarily the "interpreted evidence" in every case.

Such as?

 

[xianghua]

No, being shaped like a rabbit and being structurally identical to a rabbit are different things. There are tons of organisms over the course of evolutionary history that superficially look like human penises, but they aren't structurally identical to a human penis. You are talking about an actual Precambrian rabbit, not a Precambrian animal that looks like a rabbit. What would disprove the theory of evolution would be a rabbit fossil, complete with rabbit bone structure, etc. Obviously, an outline in a rock that vaguely looks like a rabbit has no significance.

again, what is the problem? if a rabbit can evolve once it can evolve twice. no problem for evolution here. and if you agree that a rabbit-like creature can evolve twice, there is no problem for a real rabbit to evolve twice.

 

[inquiring mind]

Is there anything new in it? Like Tas--and most of the other "evos" here--I have read the principle works of creationist literature and spent some time on the creationist websites. I am not going to pay admission to watch the thing unless there are some new arguments, something I haven't seen before.

I really can't answer that, it was new to me, but there again I'm not steeped in scientific exposition. Like most people, I suppose I liked it because it was what I wanted to hear, and I also enjoy exploring all possibilities, within the limits of my understanding anyway.

 

[xianghua]

Not in the slightest. If you think otherwise then you may need to re-visit your understanding of evolution.

why not? even according to evolution many creatures evolved by about 100-200 my window. so if we will find that most creatures appears almost at the same time it will not be a problem for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

No, irreducible complexity is NOT synonymous as "un-evolvable". That said, I'm pretty sure we've already been over this.

are you saying that even if a complex biological system cant evolve stepwise evolution is still possible?

 

[xianghua]

This is about your scientific illiteracy as far a geology is concerned.
What you’re describing is almost impossible. Usually when organisms fossilize they absorb minerals from the surrounding sediment and fine particles of that sediment will also settle into the nooks and crannies. This has a specific chemical signature. If the fossil slips into a deeper crevasse and shows up with older fossils in a different sediment layer, chemists can tell because the second layer will have a different chemical signature . And as I’ve mentioned before aboutthey also can tell because of the micro crystals stretching due to being squashed by the weight of the above hardened sediment . A moved fossil micro crystals will show an odd orientation . An out of place fossil is obvious if you know what to look for. This is part of the reason scientists hate it when amateurs dig up the fossils. They lose important information.
Those geology classes I took were fun

as i said: even if its true we can argue for convergent evolution. mean that a rabbit can evolve twice. after all, even a flying fish evolved twice.

 

[Speedwell]

are you saying that even if a complex biological system cant evolve stepwise evolution is still possible?

No, that you have not shown us any biological system which can't evolve stepwise.