Author Topic: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)  (Read 6041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6121
  • Darwins +689/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.

Well, actually the best way to do it would be to provide clear information that matched reality well enough to be believable. If the biblical stories matched biological discoveries, geological discoveries, astronomical discoveries, historical discoveries and other research findings (even if it was not very detailed), and if the bible could explain why just one group got the info and if the bible could avoid wild-assed claims about the salt lady and walking on water and rising from the dead, and if the bible could explain why the such high expectations were put on the first two humans and stuff like that, then it would be far better than the mish-mash that is whatever version of the christian bible you happen to like. Just the fact that there are multiple versions should be enough to give you pause. Not to mention the tens of thousands of different versions of christianity, which one would not expect accurate information to create.

Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

So are you saying there was no free will? No one ever chose who they would marry or whether they would have children?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

So are you saying there was no free will? No one ever chose who they would marry or whether they would have children?

Of course they chose it. But parents don't create the child's soul. That is God. Sometimes it's God's plan for people to have no children and contribute something even greater to society.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Of course they chose it. But parents don't create the child's soul. That is God. Sometimes it's God's plan for people to have no children and contribute something even greater to society.

So if a couple tries and fail to conceive a child, they have every right to blame god.  Okay then...
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Define what a soul is.

How does it function to allow a biological organism to work?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?

Everyone that is alive right now and everyone alive in the past was created by God to live in that particular time period.

So are you saying there was no free will? No one ever chose who they would marry or whether they would have children?

Of course they chose it. But parents don't create the child's soul. That is God. Sometimes it's God's plan for people to have no children and contribute something even greater to society.

What about the hair colour, eye colour, etc? Is that just the way it is because the parents met by chance or were the parents destined to meet?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.

No it isn't.  That's probably one of the stupidest ways.


Much more straightforward would be the ability for all humans to innately sense god, much like the way you can close your eyes on a clear day and still know where the sun is.  Everybody, not just people in in a small mostly desert region on one part of the planet.  God should be knowable, findable and provable.

Heck, ancient sun worshippers had more proof of god than you do.



Easily debunked fiction does not qualify as the best way to show divinity.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™

Is it possible to design a better mousetrap?  A more complex one, with extra parts?  Sure.
The argument behind irreducible complexity however is shown to be a failure.


One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2553
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

I don't want to get into a debate about how well I know the Bible, but I guess what you are saying is that I know the Bible well enough to know it is crap, and I don't want to study it the way you have. This is what you feel about evolution, so you make no attempt to learn about it. That is actually the way I felt about the subject of Economics, at school. I was fine until they starting using graphs, to show supply and demand, and pretending that people could be mathematically modelled. At that point, I could learn no more about economics.

You have introduced a false dichotomy. If I become suddenly being skeptical of evolution, it does not mean that I would start to take literal Christianity seriously, any more than the Quran, or Bramivishnavedas. Millions of Christians can believe in Jesus, and still believe in evolution, and see a powerful god, who uses evolution. It is not black and white.

The reason you have introduced this false dichotomy, is that if you realized that the the world was 4 billion years old, then your faith would fall apart. Whereas, if I were a Hindu, that would confirm my faith. For you, seeing anything outside what you want to see, is death to your belief.

When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

Youtube: "The Blind Watch Maker"

And of course we don't find fossils of eyes (often) it's soft tissue.

*cough*


The vertebrate eye is a different story.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Youtube: "The Blind Watch Maker"

And of course we don't find fossils of eyes (often) it's soft tissue.

*cough*


The vertebrate eye is a different story.

I am sorry but I did not see an eye evolving in those pictures.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.

Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4387
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Skep the difference between the scientist and the believer is simple,scientist can and allow themselves to be proven wrong based on EVIDENCE
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Youtube: "The Blind Watch Maker"

And of course we don't find fossils of eyes (often) it's soft tissue.

*cough*


The vertebrate eye is a different story.

I am sorry but I did not see an eye evolving in those pictures.

You're not supposed to, as that wasn't the point of the post.

That was a strawman.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Skep the difference between the scientist and the believer is simple,scientist can and allow themselves to be proven wrong based on EVIDENCE

They sure do like to shout "We got the truth!" when they themselves don't even know if they have the truth.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Skep the difference between the scientist and the believer is simple,scientist can and allow themselves to be proven wrong based on EVIDENCE

They sure do like to shout "We got the truth!" when they themselves don't even know if they have the truth.

Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.

That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.

I now understand the mentality that atheists take everything literally. They do this for the Bible, and just did it for my post.

I did not literally mean they shout that out. It was hyperbole.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3558
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to.  For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.
Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more.  Well, the ignorant I suppose.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Name ONE scientist and link to the exact video or article of them claiming this.

Good luck.

I now understand the mentality that atheists take everything literally. They do this for the Bible, and just did it for my post.

I did not literally mean they shout that out. It was hyperbole.

Then don't claim that they do, hyperbole is useless in a serious conversation.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.

There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2376
  • Darwins +38/-403
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to.  For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.
Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more.  Well, the ignorant I suppose.

You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Apparently, skeptic666 has access to Doc Brown's Delorean.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.

There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.

Except for the fact that evolutionary biologists can accurately predict exactly where to go to find a specific type of fossil, based on the estimated time it lived, the type of environment it lived in, as well as several other factors. They were able to accurately predict where they would find Tiktaalik, and creationists are still parroting the same non-argument.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.