A Challenge To All Creationists

[A Vestigial Mote]

3. What species is Man evolving into now? Will Man go back to ape-like characteristics or will he develop a larger skull or what?

You give yourself away with point #3 above. It becomes obvious that you have no idea how evolution is purported to work based on that question. Humanity is NO LONGER EVOLVING. It simply isn't possible given the state of our livelihood. Consider:

1. Modern medicine: People with previously life-threatening defects and conditions now easily survive and go on to reproduce - spreading their very defects throughout the human gene pool.
2. Modern convenience: We don't have to "fight" to survive. There are no pressures, no predators, no difficulties that we can't overcome using the implements we have devised to make life easier on ourselves. So there is nothing to trim our numbers to those that are best adapted to survive. Everyone and anyone can survive - hungry? Go to the supermarket. Thirsty? Walk over and turn on your faucet. Bears outside? Close and lock the door. Done. You live. Congratulations. No other species on Earth has it so easy.
3. Intelligence: Humans have great enough intelligence, and now a large enough knowledge-base to overcome challenges without relying on physical means - so no "evolution" of physical properties. And there is nothing that is necessary for survival that would push our brain development any further. Again here... everyone survives. Even "stupid" people.

Our mastery over the Earth's dangers and resources puts us in a "comfort zone" that negates the process of evolution for our kind. I know this firsthand - my eyesight is awful, and without my glasses I would be in no position to fend for myself in a survival situation. This was passed on to me by BOTH my mother and father, who would also have perished if presented with a survival situation without their glasses. I am a product of our sullied gene pool. The human race is, literally, "going nowhere fast" in regard to evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Your doubts are, of course, meaningless.

Only if you can show they are wrong and op;inions won't do it.

And why weren't any of the species living in the seas not on the ark?

DUUH. They lived in watger.

It's a scientific fact that, except for a few exceptions, saltwater fish can't live in freshwater---and vice versa. Nor can either live in just slightly salty water. So, what happened to them?

It is also a scientific fast that salt water is heavier than fresh water. The salt water would have sank to the bottom and could have contained enough salt for the fish who need it. The water on top would be of a condition that the fresh water fish could survive.

And other saltwater life can't live in freshwater as well. The Bible doesn't say because obviously the people who wrote it (god?) were unaware of this simple scientific fact and simply figured all sea life could live wherever. And, of course, no mention is ever made of all the non-animal life that would have needed to have been brought aboard the ark, plants, fungi, microbes etc.

​

The extinction of many KINDS of fish is best explained by the flood and plant life, some of which also probably became extinct, can survive through their seeds or just floating on the water or on some of the refuge caused by the flood. Gee I wonder if an omnipotent Creator could keep what He wanted alive.

Evidently you're not aware that the source of the comment, Answers in Genesis. It's one of the most strident creationists organizations in the country.

The source was not AIG, it was some UN agency and if you believe anything that organization says, your ignorance is ugly.

Your ignorance is beautiful. Simply beautiful.

Yours is not.

​

And from ANOTHER pro-creationist organization no less. Boy, if you keep shooting down your friends all you'll have left is your enemies.

​

And like it or not, speciation is biological evolution.

spe·ci·a·tion
ˌspēSHēˈāSHən,ˌspēsē-/
noun
Biology
noun: speciation; plural noun: speciations

1. the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

.​

Again, your ignorance blossoms like a spring garden: Thank you for the pleasure of letting us watch it grow..

The evolutionist evangelist have tweeked the definition of speciation to give the faithful congregation of the church of Darwin and your ugly ignorance does not even realize it.

I will post this so simply that even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ can understand it.

Evolution preaches a change of species. Salamanders remaining salamanders IS NOT an example of a change of species.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Not what I asked at all, and creating straw men to distract me and others from my requests ain't going to work.

I ASKED:

1) ". . . if you know this [Speciation as defined above is not what Creationists accept as what has happened.] to be a fact you must have a resource that gives the acceptable creationist definition of "speciation." Please share. Thank you.

2) "What definition?"

3) "Please point out which of the three defines speciation."
​

One of my points being, why should I answer any of your questions before you answer mine? Of course we both know the reason, don't we.



.

Hi, I'm Skwim, the master of deflection.

Since you duck all of my questions why should I listen to you at all?

 

[Reggie Miller]

You give yourself away with point #3 above. It becomes obvious that you have no idea how evolution is purported to work based on that question. Humanity is NO LONGER EVOLVING. It simply isn't possible given the state of our livelihood. Consider:

1. Modern medicine: People with previously life-threatening defects and conditions now easily survive and go on to reproduce - spreading their very defects throughout the human gene pool.
2. Modern convenience: We don't have to "fight" to survive. There are no pressures, no predators, no difficulties that we can't overcome using the implements we have devised to make life easier on ourselves. So there is nothing to trim our numbers to those that are best adapted to survive. Everyone and anyone can survive - hungry? Go to the supermarket. Thirsty? Walk over and turn on your faucet. Bears outside? Close and lock the door. Done. You live. Congratulations. No other species on Earth has it so easy.
3. Intelligence: Humans have great enough intelligence, and now a large enough knowledge-base to overcome challenges without relying on physical means - so no "evolution" of physical properties. And there is nothing that is necessary for survival that would push our brain development any further. Again here... everyone survives. Even "stupid" people.

Our mastery over the Earth's dangers and resources puts us in a "comfort zone" that negates the process of evolution for our kind. I know this firsthand - my eyesight is awful, and without my glasses I would be in no position to fend for myself in a survival situation. This was passed on to me by BOTH my mother and father, who would also have perished if presented with a survival situation without their glasses. I am a product of our sullied gene pool. The human race is, literally, "going nowhere fast" in regard to evolution.

Prove that Man is no longer evolving.
Prove that Man evolved from an ape-like creature.

Don't show me a bunch of bones and speculation. I want you to prove it scientifically.

 

[Skwim]

Hi, I'm Skwim, the master of deflection.

Since you duck all of my questions why should I listen to you at all?

Hi, I'm Reggie Miller, the master of ignore and retort.

Since your game is to ignore questions put to you in favor of asking your own, why should I care what you ask? As for why you should listen to me, it's because you could learn something if you pay attention instead of playing posting games. But I'm not holding my breath, so proceed as you wish.


.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Prove that Man is no longer evolving.
Prove that Man evolved from an ape-like creature.

Don't show me a bunch of bones and speculation. I want you to prove it scientifically.

I don't need to. I know, and that's good enough for me to peddle it on to the likes of you. You don't want to listen? Don't believe me? What difference does that truly make?

 

[Reggie Miller]

I don't need to. I know, and that's good enough for me to peddle it on to the likes of you. You don't want to listen? Don't believe me? What difference does that truly make?

So you can't prove anything scientifically. Yeah, I already knew that.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Hi, I'm Reggie Miller, the master of ignore and retort.

Since your game is to ignore questions put to you in favor of asking your own, why should I care what you ask? As for why you should listen to me, it's because you could learn something if you pay attention instead of playing posting games. But I'm not holding my breath, so proceed as you wish.


.

Oh, but I answered your silly question, you just chose to ignore the answer since it didn't suit your point of view. As usual.

So you can't prove anything scientifically. Yeah, I already knew that.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Evidently you're not aware that the source of the comment, Answers in Genesis, is one of the most strident creationists organizations in the country.


Tobad you can't find anything they say on that site and refute it with hard evidence. I challenge you to try.

Challenge accepted!!

The following article is taken directly from AIG.
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

• "Historical Science" is not a thing... It's an invented talking point by Creationists in attempts to discredit anything that is not directly observed. Try to verify outside of Creationist sources and you'll see what I'm talking about.

• They've referenced god, via Pslams. God, to this very day, is an unsubstantiated claim.

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

• God is an unsubstantiated claim.
• Adam's Historicity is an unsubstantiated claim.
• There's nothing observable to suggest that anything is "created" mature.
• The Universe coming to existence within a week's time is an unsubstantiated claim.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of Godto make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make.

• God is an unsubstantiated claim.
• Our eyes can only view a very limited portion of the spectrum of light. We cannot observe the "real" Universe through the tools that "god" gave us. I would argue that the reason that primitive man thought up the ridiculous mythologies that he did was because he was completely unaware of this...

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

• The speed of light has been measured. It is 186,000mps+/-.
• The Speed of Light
• There is no evidence, anywhere in science, to suggest that the laws of physics were somehow different 6,000 years ago, or that they have changed. It is absurd to suggest such a thing without evidence.
• The irony of a Creationist article lambasting scientific assumptions while simultaneously inventing nonsensical circumstances is overwhelmingly hilarious.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

• This is the only sensible paragraph so far.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere.

• In other words, they have no idea what they're doing.

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

 

[jonathan180iq]

CONT'D

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

• First sentence... No, they do not. Space Time is relative to velocity and mass.
• Secondly... No - they're wrong again. I'm about to show you why.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

• The clock would tick very slowly relative to the passing surroundings, yes. If you were the clock you would notice no difference.
• Gravity does not slow the passage of time - time and space are relative to velocity and mass...
• That last sentence is completely incorrect. The clocks show different time because of the speed with which they are traveling through space time.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

• It's not hard to believe. It's basic physics -Something learned in general high school curriculum.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

• This is getting increasingly more absurd...
• The first sentence is nonsensical without establishing velocities and masses of these hypothetical "people."
• How does it apply to distant starlight?
• No... Just no. What clocks in deeps space are they talking about? (There aren't any - for the record - unless you want to account for the stabilizing calculations of supernovae, which they are not.)
• Also, where in the hell is the "Earth is a gravitational well" nonsense coming from?

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

• HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
• HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
• Please, consider the tone of the whole of this article and then read this paragraph again, slowly.
• They've referred to both General Relativity and Special Relativity indirectly, and then make a statement about the Earth APPEARING to be the center of the Universe... They are hilariously lost in their delusions.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

• WHAT
• THE
• F@CK
• .......
• What is a gravity well?
  
• The expansion of the Universe is measured via the same means that they have critiqued before. How can they accept that the Universe is expanding but reject the science behind it when it's convenient?
• I get that you don't see why this is bananas - but it's only because of your ignorance of the topics they're attempting to discuss, which I imagine is the only reason that they are popular among creationists - ignorance.
• Please, educate yourself via less ridiculous sources.
• Also, for the record, this is the third time in this article alone that they've COMPLETELY INVENTED concepts which have no basis in reality or "observational science". Again, the irony is just incredible...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm happy to keep going if you need, but you asked for just one example and I can't even finish half of this article without realizing they have almost no idea what they are talking about. (Yes - the nonsense that I've quote so far only covers half of the article.) If this is your source of information for educating you and helping in your apologetics, you've made some poor choices.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you can't prove anything scientifically. Yeah, I already knew that.

I can't, no, but there's already been evidence shown to you that others have undertaken to investigate and procure that you have patently denied.

Regardless any "proof", the things I "believe" in actually have basis in the current, observable world/universe. Can you say the same about the things you believe in? Do you think I believe in my chosen explanations for things any less than you do? Can you prove any part of your belief set "scientifically"? If the answer to that last question is "no", then why are you asking me to produce such proofs myself? Because you think you are more correct? You think your beliefs are above suspicion? Well you aren't more correct, I assure you. And I reserve the right to be as suspicious as I wish to about anything you have to say. Goodness knows you've said plenty enough already in this thread and others to have me reading your words as if contemplating so many grains of salt.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I can't, no, but there's already been evidence shown to you that others have undertaken to investigate and procure that you have patently denied.

Regardless any "proof", the things I "believe" in actually have basis in the current, observable world/universe. Can you say the same about the things you believe in? Do you think I believe in my chosen explanations for things any less than you do? Can you prove any part of your belief set "scientifically"? If the answer to that last question is "no", then why are you asking me to produce such proofs myself? Because you think you are more correct? You think your beliefs are above suspicion? Well you aren't more correct, I assure you. And I reserve the right to be as suspicious as I wish to about anything you have to say. Goodness knows you've said plenty enough already in this thread and others to have me reading your words as if contemplating so many grains of salt.

See icr.org for successful refutations of what you "believe." Or you could be like Skwim and just say that they don't know what they're talking about and present no evidence to back up what you say.

 

[jonathan180iq]

See icr.org for successful refutations of what you "believe." Or you could be like Skwim and just say that they don't know what they're talking about and present no evidence to back up what you say.

I did.

Please respond to my lengthy posts highlighting the numerous scientific inaccuracies listed in just one half of an AIG article...

Why do you not hold the site which supports your YEC position to the same evidentiary standards that you demand of the major branches of Science?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

See icr.org for successful refutations of what you "believe." Or you could be like Skwim and just say that they don't know what they're talking about and present no evidence to back up what you say.

I'll take a look, honestly, and let you know my thoughts.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

See icr.org for successful refutations of what you "believe." Or you could be like Skwim and just say that they don't know what they're talking about and present no evidence to back up what you say.

Browsing onto the site, I was presented with a featured article: "Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution". "Pleiotropy" is apparently the condition of genes whereby the scope of their function affects multiple outwardly visible traits. This was said to be significant because apparently there are many genes that are Pleiotropic in nature, and they coupled this with the fact that a majority of "mutations" tend to be detrimental (rather than beneficial) to an organism. Mutations would then, it was assumed, mean that multiple characteristics would be affected at once, and that it would take quite a specific mutation to make sure everything went smoothly. Basically a case of: "The conditions would have to be so precise that there is no way God was not involved." or "Nature couldn't have done [mutation] on its own."

However, I would point to, as evidence, the breeding that has gone on with domesticated animals, the changes we've seen wrought in extremely little time. Saint Bernards vs. Chihuahuas, for example. It would appear that those genes that affect outwardly visible characteristics are actually pretty elastic/adaptable/protean. I mean, you can literally choose two dogs with like characteristics and breed a dog with that characteristic enhanced. And you can do so within a few generations... maybe 30 or 40 years. Now take that and multiply the time by 2.5 million (and more!). To say that more drastic change couldn't take place, even by processes of this "enhancement" of features over that huge a time-span? To say, definitively, that the Pleiotropic nature of many genes is a hindrance to processes of change in organisms when we can affect those very outward traits OURSELVES through breeding? If those genes are so very fragile, then where are all the "failed" dogs? The canines that couldn't make it because the mixture of genes was simply too strenuous on the genetic makeup? In fact, if you breed two completely different looking dogs, is not the mix of those two just that - a mix - even visibly? Of course it is.

And that's what so many people seem to ignore altogether - "mutation" isn't necessary to see even wide and varied changes among organisms over time. So what they are in the same species (currently)? Once again we're talking about a drop - no a smidgen of a drop - in the vast ocean of time. That's how long we've been messing around with this stuff - and already we have Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas. Vastly different - no "mutation" required. Just a choice selecting of traits - which can, obviously, also happen via the influences of environment.

My point being, they pick and choose these ideas that are seen as a "roadblock" to evolution, but they ignore all sorts of other facets of the processes instead of focusing on the real question: "How does life, in general, get around these sorts of things?" Real scientist would turn there first. They may acknowledge it as a "roadblock" to previous theories, but they would still be looking for what makes the process tick. I mean for goodness sake... the article ends with a QUOTATION OF SCRIPTURE. How is that at all scientific? It is an assumption being made, is what it is - that the explanation is "God" and they, therefore, have it all figured out - or don't even need to bother figuring it out. And why? Because "God"! This is discovery being used to further theories that these people have already made their minds up about. It isn't honest, scientific inquiry or discovery they are interested in. They are only interested in anything that feeds the narrative they so desperately want to be told.

I could read more,and I probably will, at some point. But I have absolutely no faith in the idea that I will find anything different than I found in reading that featured article.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Browsing onto the site, I was presented with a featured article: "Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution". "Pleiotropy" is apparently the condition of genes whereby the scope of their function affects multiple outwardly visible traits. This was said to be significant because apparently there are many genes that are Pleiotropic in nature, and they coupled this with the fact that a majority of "mutations" tend to be detrimental (rather than beneficial) to an organism. Mutations would then, it was assumed, mean that multiple characteristics would be affected at once, and that it would take quite a specific mutation to make sure everything went smoothly. Basically a case of: "The conditions would have to be so precise that there is no way God was not involved." or "Nature couldn't have done [mutation] on its own."

However, I would point to, as evidence, the breeding that has gone on with domesticated animals, the changes we've seen wrought in extremely little time. Saint Bernards vs. Chihuahuas, for example. It would appear that those genes that affect outwardly visible characteristics are actually pretty elastic/adaptable/protean. I mean, you can literally choose two dogs with like characteristics and breed a dog with that characteristic enhanced. And you can do so within a few generations... maybe 30 or 40 years. Now take that and multiply the time by 2.5 million (and more!). To say that more drastic change couldn't take place, even by processes of this "enhancement" of features over that huge a time-span? To say, definitively, that the Pleiotropic nature of many genes is a hindrance to processes of change in organisms when we can affect those very outward traits OURSELVES through breeding? If those genes are so very fragile, then where are all the "failed" dogs? The canines that couldn't make it because the mixture of genes was simply too strenuous on the genetic makeup? In fact, if you breed two completely different looking dogs, is not the mix of those two just that - a mix - even visibly? Of course it is.

And that's what so many people seem to ignore altogether - "mutation" isn't necessary to see even wide and varied changes among organisms over time. So what they are in the same species (currently)? Once again we're talking about a drop - no a smidgen of a drop - in the vast ocean of time. That's how long we've been messing around with this stuff - and already we have Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas. Vastly different - no "mutation" required. Just a choice selecting of traits - which can, obviously, also happen via the influences of environment.

My point being, they pick and choose these ideas that are seen as a "roadblock" to evolution, but they ignore all sorts of other facets of the processes instead of focusing on the real question: "How does life, in general, get around these sorts of things?" Real scientist would turn there first. They may acknowledge it as a "roadblock" to previous theories, but they would still be looking for what makes the process tick. I mean for goodness sake... the article ends with a QUOTATION OF SCRIPTURE. How is that at all scientific? It is an assumption being made, is what it is - that the explanation is "God" and they, therefore, have it all figured out - or don't even need to bother figuring it out. And why? Because "God"! This is discovery being used to further theories that these people have already made their minds up about. It isn't honest, scientific inquiry or discovery they are interested in. They are only interested in anything that feeds the narrative they so desperately want to be told.

I could read more,and I probably will, at some point. But I have absolutely no faith in the idea that I will find anything different than I found in reading that featured article.

And I have absolutely no faith in your point of view. Thanks for taking the time to read some of the site.

 

[McBell]

DUUH. Post some evidence they mentioned. All they do is tell lies and damn lies. Better take you lunch, it will take you a long time and still will not find any.

Here you reveal your biggest problem.
You do not know the difference between truth and lies.

You are the perfect example of the Wizards First Rule:

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool... People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this.... People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do."

Source​

 

[omega2xx]

Here you reveal your biggest problem.
You do not know the difference between truth and lies.

You are the perfect example of the Wizards First Rule:

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool... People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this.... People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do."

Source​

3 comments>

--The wizard is stupid.
--People don't want to believe, so they don't.
--You are a people.


Now either discuss something it you have the intellect to discuss it, or go back to the playground.

Maybe you would like to start with a quote from you pope, Darwin the first---To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.

 

[McBell]

Maybe you would like to start with a quote from you pope, Darwin the first

Here is a prime example of you demonstrating my point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

3 comments>

--The wizard is stupid.
--People don't want to believe, so they don't.
--You are a people.


Now either discuss something it you have the intellect to discuss it, or go back to the playground.

Maybe you would like to start with a quote from you pope, Darwin the first---To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree.

You missed the part right after that where he goes on to explain how the eye could have evolved. Oopsy. This is why quote mining is a misleading waste of time.


"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw light on the steps by which it has been perfected.

The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision, without any nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by the author just quoted, with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most important step towards the formation of a true, picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed on it. ... "


http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F401&pageseq=173