A Challenge To All Creationists

[Evangelicalhumanist]

conspiriacy is the reason we are the dominant species. It's called abstraction. And my cause doesn't need help; Yahweh spoke the universe into being. Whether this meets this approval of men is irrelevant. I am, in actuality, trying to help you, to understand this. This isn't even a good conspiracy anyway; David icke's lizard people is top flight

And what spoke Yahweh into being? Nah, that's just somebody's made-up, ad hoc attempt to try to explain what they couldn't figure out.

(By the way, why was Yahweh so shy before the Jews? Why couldn't he announce himself to the Sumerians or the Egyptians? Weren't they his, too?)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see you have no intention of debate, just trundle out deflections. The priesthood of Darwin suits you well; enjoy your career of chanting his liturgies.

AND THERE IT IS! IN BLACK AND WHITE! What you cannot understand must be religion. And I agree. To many posters on this thread, evolution is "religion" because they don't understand it. To those of us who do, of course, it morphs into science.

And that's why religion NEVER morphs into anything else. It does not describe anything real, and is therefore never going to be understandable.

The question has been asked many, many times -- "does religion cause stupidity? " The answer, of course, is "no." However, every time that religion is the proximate cause of a refusal to see what is real, to learn what is known, then it has the same end result as stupidity -- the inability to learn new things, to acquire new knowledge.

Not that I see a huge amount of evidence that many posters actually want any new knowledge, being quite comfortable with their unsupportable beliefs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does that mean you think, ""Science doesn't tell us......... that we come from "low orders of animals."" isn't true?

No! This insistent and exasperating use of the term "lower order" is misleading -- as I suspect it is meant to be. Evolution is change over time, so the only possibly correct term would be "earlier." And time can cause both growth and decay, creation and destruction, up and down. The insistent use of the term "lower order" is meant to suggest there's some taint to our ancestry, that our grandsires weren't, perhaps, royalty. And it's dishonest.

 

[McBell]

Me thinks you are now making stuff up. Go ahead........knock yourself out!

As soon as you define "higher order" in a meaningful and or useful way.....

 

[savagewind]

As soon as you define "higher order" in a meaningful and or useful way.....

He did. Not higher. Later. A later order is one which evolved forward. Forward is to higher is to later.

 

[McBell]

He did. Not higher. Later. A later order is one which evolved forward. Forward is to higher is to later.

 

[savagewind]

I thought evolution means survival of the fittest. I guess not.

 

[Ouroboros]

Does that mean you think, ""Science doesn't tell us......... that we come from "low orders of animals."" isn't true?

There's this general idea that humans are more evolved than animals, but it's kind'a wrong. All species are fully evolved to fit to whatever environment they're in. Each and every species is the high order of that environment. For instance, put a human 200 feet under water. We're not equipped to survive under water. So the higher order would be animals that can actually survive in the ocean (fish, whales, etc).

Another point is, in taxonomy there is high order and low order as in family, species, etc, which is the grouping. Humans are Homo sapiens, but we're also mammals. So the higher order in the taxonomy structure we're mammal, and the low order of taxonomy, we're sapiens. All living things belong to both the higher level taxonomical groups and the lower which are more specific.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought evolution means survival of the fittest. I guess not.

An eagle survives better in the air than a human. And they're high up as well, and have better sight. That doesn't make them higher order or lower order.

All living things are evolved "side ways" and not up and down. We're all different forms of the same "life stuff". The only thing humans have, intelligence and whatnot, even though unique for humans, doesn't mean that we have evolved our body to do things other animals can do.

 

[gnostic]

I suspect it is an abbreviation of "Evolutionist"

I don't ever call myself evo, evolutionist, Darwinian, etc, any more than I would call myself gravitian, relativist, quantumist, particlian, nuclearian, etc.

I like dogs, does that make me a dogist. And leopards, does that make me leopardian.

And when they think I accept evolution as a well-substantiated explanation to biological mechanisms for changes, they immediately assumed that I am atheist and communist or both, when I neither of them. They are also ignored the fact that Darwin himself was a Christian and agnostic, never an atheist, and there are actually more Christian theists than atheists and agnostics combined, who accept both evolution and the earth being more than 4 billion years old.

Some creationists and ID adherents never cease to amaze me with stupidity and bigotry.

 

[McBell]

An eagle survives better in the air than a human. And they're high up as well, and have better sight. That doesn't make them higher order or lower order.

All living things are evolved "side ways" and not up and down. We're all different forms of the same "life stuff". The only thing humans have, intelligence and whatnot, even though unique for humans, doesn't mean that we have evolved our body to do things other animals can do.

Oh great.
Now you gonna start getting left and right wing species.....

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh great.
Now you gonna start getting left and right wing species.....

LOL!

And forward moving (progressive) and backwards (conservative) species.

We can all tell that Trump is his own species, for sure.

 

[gnostic]

I thought evolution means survival of the fittest. I guess not.

What do you think "fittest" mean, in biology?

There are common misconceptions that "fittest" mean the "strongest", "fastest" or "smartest" or any of those combinations.

I am sure strength and intelligent can be factor to survival on a personal or individual level, but in biology, especially with evolution...

1. they are not talking about individuals, they are talking about population...
2. ...and fitness mean to "fit in" the environment they are living in. Hence, finding a niche to fit in.

To give you an example what I mean by fitness and survival, let look at any of the current species of butterflies. Now, I cannot tell one species from one another, because I am no expert in butterfly or any other insects for that matter.

Now let me ask you the following questions:

1. Do you think a population of butterflies continue to live because they are the strongest insects?
2. Do you think butterflies survive because of their speed?
3. Or do you think butterflies are genius?

So if butterflies are not the smartest, strongest or fastest of creatures, and they are prey to many different other animals (predators, such as birds, lizards, praying mantises, etc), then why are they still around?

And the only places that I don't think butterflies don't live in, are the polar region, and possibly in the most arid lands (I am not sure about this last one, because I don't know enough about butterflies, and I don't know about wildlife in the deserts, so I am only guessing here about arid deserts).

They are around and not extinct, because they apparently found a niche of where they can survive and live. They have adapted, evolved - they "fit in".

Evolution is more than just about the survival of strongest or the smartest. In fact, evolution showed that survival are for the weakest as well as for the strongest, for the dumbest as well as the smartest, for the smallest as well for the largest.

So if you think fittest only mean mean creatures that possess strength or intelligence, then you really don't understand evolution at all, savagewind.

 

[Skwim]

Another point is, in taxonomy there is high order and low order as in family, species, etc, which is the grouping. Humans are Homo sapiens, but we're also mammals. So the higher order in the taxonomy structure we're mammal, and the low order of taxonomy, we're sapiens. All living things belong to both the higher level taxonomical groups and the lower which are more specific.

The proper term here is "rank." Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species are all ranks, as are Superfamily, Suborder, Tribe, and the far less common Cohort, Mirorder, and Subsection.


.


.

 

[Skwim]

Is it not semantics?

If it is, then exactly what do you have in mind when you say "lower order"?


.

 

[Reggie Miller]

That is only true if your knowledge of science extends only up until the third grade. There is so much that everything in the world can tell you, if you only have the wit and knowledge to look. If you don't, then you're guessing -- which I suppose you are, but science most assuredly is not.

I hate to repeat myself, but ignorance of any topic is not really the best reason to pretend to be able to talk meaningfully about it.

Please. You can't prove anything about a bone except that it's a bone. To think you can is ridiculous.

 

[Willamena]

To the science-deniers on this thread, let me just relate a little story -- and you probably won't believe it anyway, cause science is all nonsense:

Recently, a Canadian woman was kept alive for 6 days WITHOUT HER LUNGS, which had to be removed because they were so diseased, while she was awaiting a transplant donor. While she waited without breathing for 6 entire days, a donor was found, and new lungs were transplanted. She is now alive, and happily hugging her daughter.

It's little wonder they don't believe in science, when it's made to sound ridiculous.

Edit: It just emphasizes how important our choice of words is: if it's described well, it can be understood well, and the same goes for both sides of this argument.

 

[savagewind]

If it is, then exactly what do you have in mind when you say "lower order"?


.

Imagine all life is moving up, so then all the ones before are lower.

 

[savagewind]

What do you think "fittest" mean, in biology?

There are common misconceptions that "fittest" mean the "strongest", "fastest" or "smartest" or any of those combinations.

I am sure strength and intelligent can be factor to survival on a personal or individual level, but in biology, especially with evolution...

1. they are not talking about individuals, they are talking about population...
2. ...and fitness mean to "fit in" the environment they are living in. Hence, finding a niche to fit in.

To give you an example what I mean by fitness and survival, let look at any of the current species of butterflies. Now, I cannot tell one species from one another, because I am no expert in butterfly or any other insects for that matter.

Now let me ask you the following questions:

1. Do you think a population of butterflies continue to live because they are the strongest insects?
2. Do you think butterflies survive because of their speed?
3. Or do you think butterflies are genius?

So if butterflies are not the smartest, strongest or fastest of creatures, and they are prey to many different other animals (predators, such as birds, lizards, praying mantises, etc), then why are they still around?

And the only places that I don't think butterflies don't live in, are the polar region, and possibly in the most arid lands (I am not sure about this last one, because I don't know enough about butterflies, and I don't know about wildlife in the deserts, so I am only guessing here about arid deserts).

They are around and not extinct, because they apparently found a niche of where they can survive and live. They have adapted, evolved - they "fit in".

Evolution is more than just about the survival of strongest or the smartest. In fact, evolution showed that survival are for the weakest as well as for the strongest, for the dumbest as well as the smartest, for the smallest as well for the largest.

So if you think fittest only mean mean creatures that possess strength or intelligence, then you really don't understand evolution at all, savagewind.

I think you focused on the wrong word. Survival happens after the first new thing appears. It being new and survives means it is better than from what it came. Or why else would have the thing before it evolved?

 

[savagewind]

Someone pictures evolution like a tree. The new life forms are higher than the previous life forms from which the new ones evolved.