Creationist questions evolution

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Nov 10, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Already done - many, many times over.
    You are arguing with the rocks, by now. They aren't going to go anywhere.
    But since you don't actually care about the argument, only the pretext for disparagement of reasoning from evidence and those who do that, the rocks are wasted on you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,065
    You seem to be dodging the question. It's a simple one: do you reject evolution or not? You've made noises in both directions. I'm simply asking for clarification.

    There's certainly no reason to get upset and react as if you've been backed in a corner and have no answers for the questions about the subject.


    But that's OK, your beliefs are apparent in your posts so far. Despite your claim, you certainly reject evolution.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,065
    Sure. But in order.

    In post 77, I asked for your explanation of a number of examples of vestigial parts.

    Of what use does a whale have for knees? Or finger bones? Or a pelvis?
    Of what use does a snake have for legs?

    If the snake's ancestors were not quadrapeds, where did it get these bones from?
    If the whales ancestors were not land-roaming quadrapeds, where did it get knees, fingers and a pelvis from?

    And if you grant that ancestral whales had knees and fingers and pelvis' - would you say that is the same animal?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,065
    [fat fingers]
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,238
    Pakicetus turning into a whale over 50 million years. As previously mentioned.
    Eohippus to horse.
    Cynodontia to mammal.

    To name a few.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    Hmm .. bacteria , feeling its way through its environment .

    Leading to a form of Life , that thinks , and questions .
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,238
    Nope. Bacteria are prokaryotes; animals are eukaryotes. We didn't evolve from bacteria - although if you go back far enough we have a common ancestor.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    We evolved from our environment(s) . Efficacy
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,238
    True at a low enough level. Everything we are came from our environment - and our environment created the selective pressures that drove evolution.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    16,952
    In the begining , sure we had no control . Of our evoluion .

    Environment was what controlled us .

    Now we know better .
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,065
    Looks like it's time to update the ol' flipchart. Jus' gimme a sec here...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Jan Ardena:

    As usual, what you fail to address and what you choose to ignore speaks so much more than what you write.

    Here is a list of my posts that you have not responded to, in this thread alone:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/creationist-questions-evolution.161358/page-3#post-3551991
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/creationist-questions-evolution.161358/page-3#post-3551993
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/creationist-questions-evolution.161358/page-3#post-3551994
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/creationist-questions-evolution.161358/page-4#post-3551995

    In these posts, I spent time answering your questions, and I also asked you some direct questions.

    I have come to expect that you are incapable of having this kind of discussion in good faith (along with certain other kinds of discussion). At a minimum, good faith would require that you read detailed replies that are made to you and respond to direct questions asked of you. Instead, we get the usual run-around from you, like this:

    I have no idea what it means to you. You contradict yourself in your statements about the theory.

    Darwin's most important idea is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, the full title of his most famous work is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

    For me, "Darwinian evolution" means precisely evolution by natural selection, nothing else.

    Now you have written, explicitly, in this thread, that you accept "evolution" and, in your own words "I accept natutural selection occurs." But at the same time, you say you dispute "Darwinian evolution".

    Darwin was concerned, explicitly (it's right there in the title of his book), with the origin of species through the process of evolution by natural selection. This is, explicitly, in your words "The idea that one kind of animals turns into a completely different kind of animal (a dog to a whale)."

    One cannot, consistently, accept that evolution by natural selection occurs and simultaneously deny that speciation can occur by the usual processes of evolution and natural selection. If you think that you can do both, then there's a big disconnect in your thinking. Either you're attempting a kind of double-think self-delusion, or else you don't understand the the theory of evolution well enough to understand its content and implications.

    All signs are that you have at best a rudimentary notion of what evolution is or how it works. Moreover, sadly, all signs are that you are unwilling to engage in directly challenging any of your misconceptions. It appears that you rely on Creationist propaganda, believing it to be scientific, for what little knowledge of evolution you possess. Since you are unwilling to step outside that box, even for a discussion here, there is no real prospect of you overcoming your obvious learning deficiencies on this topic.

    I will give you one more opportunity to engage with what I have written to you up to this point, before writing you off as a lost cause.

    You are very keen to hold up to ridicule the idea of "dog to whale" evolution. Of course, if you had any real understanding of the theory you'd be able to work out for yourself how a process just like that could hypothetically occur, but you're very far from that point as things stand.

    Here's a hint: there are no "types", despite what Creationists tell you. The category "dog" or "cat" or "fish" is not a fixed, immutable, thing with clearly-defined boundaries. Indeed, biologists will tell you "there's no such thing as a fish", by which they mean that there's no way of defining the term "fish" biologically so that it (a) includes all the species labelled as "fish" by laymen, and (b) excludes all of the species labelled as "not a fish" by laymen.

    You currently think of "dog" and "whale" as immutable "types". But evolution allows small changes to accumulate over time. The dogs of the next generation might have slightly longer legs, or slightly shorter noses, or slightly less fur, or any of a million small changes. Over subsequent generations, those differences between then and now can become more and more pronounced. You need to ask yourself (if you're not telling fibs about accepting evolution and natural selection) at what point you're going to stop using the term "dog" to label these descendants of dogs. Or, to look at it another way, how are you going to distinguish two groups of decendents of dogs, once they have diverged in wildly different directions from one another? Are you going to insist on continuing to use the same word for two groups of creatures that look and behave nothing like one another, or are you going to invent a new word like "whale"?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Jan Ardena:

    Another job for you:

    You have completely ignored post #77, as far as I can tell. How do you account for the vestigal bones found in modern whales?

    Also you mention something called a "Pakicetus", which looks like this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    What is this, in your opinion?

    Do you think Pakicetus fossils are fake, or do you believe that this particular animal existed in the distant past and is now extinct?

    This is thought to be an animal that occupied a similar encological niche to modern hippopotamuses. There are many indicative anatomical features that suggest this animal spent a lot of its time in the water.

    One interesting feature of this particular animal is that certain features of its inner ear are found only in this animal and in cetaceans (including modern whales). Other aspects of the auditory system of the pakicetus appear to be specialised for hearing under water.

    Do you believe that such features (particularly the inner ear structure) are a coincidence, perhaps? Or maybe special creation by God, who at a whim decided to throw in some whale anatomy into what looks like a land mammal?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,858
    You hit on the crux. Theists do believe in intentional whimsical creation of all living things.
    "And God saw that it was good".
    How that can translate into extinction of species, is the great mystery of intentional Creation.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Fact: of all known species that have ever existed on Earth, 99.9% are now extinct.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,858
    Which, IMO, suggests the current surviving species and appearance of new gradual speciation of new species are due to mutation and natural selection, rather than unnatural intentional selection, lest we must deal with incredible incompetence or cruelty, rather than long term probabilities.
     
  20. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Yo, staff! Need better creationists. The ones we have are limping.
     
    DaveC426913, sideshowbob and Write4U like this.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,238
    Can you order new ones on line?
     
    Write4U likes this.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,858
    I think so, in the entertainment section perhaps?
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    And then there is this..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    saw it on a travelling book stand in the shopping center...guess who I thought of☺
    Alex
     

Share This Page