Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Subduction Zone]

Pascal's wager was for those that do not believe in the God on the Bible.

And that shows that Pascal at times could not reason rationally either.

 

[Khabeni412]

That's not evidence or proof. Not anywhere near. It's just the same old debunked complexity argument. Life is complex, thus god. It's sad you think that's proof.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yes I'm comparing apologetics, which have no evidence in reality, in any way, to a field of science with massive evidence in many many ways.


Why do all creationists say evolution is false but have no idea what evolution is, how it works, or anything else about the subject?

Things don't evolve for "convenience"?

The eye isn't as complicated as creationist media likes to make it out. It actually evolved several times completely separately in unrelated species.



Hominids were able to survive, reproduce and find food and shelter. There was no pressure for any Great Apes (including humans) to fly.
Wings come from pre-cursor wing-like limbs that served a purpose. Apes need strong muscular arms, no need to even select mutations that are growing longer, thinner arms and thinner fingers that can lead to wings.

Apes were doing fine, then we added larger brains and we had stronger advantages. Wings don't just start to pop out of animals. There were small tree mammals who were jumping from tree to tree and the mutations that led to thinner bones in their arms and more flesh to catch air while jumping helped those animals survive. So those traits were passed on. Eventually a mutation started growing skin between fingers, a small amount at first and so on. If the mutation is helpful it will stick. If it helps the animal survive in their environment better that it will be more likely to be passed on.

Over thousands of generations a jumping squirrel may evolve a pre-cursor to wings.




Hominids evolved in packs. Being jumped from behind definitely happened but those apes just died.

If there was massive pressure in that way, all apes were being attacked only from behind, they could develop a social skill where they always watch each others back. Or physically mutations that might help would be a stronger skull, more bones on the back, a rear horn, but it wasn't enough of an issue so there was no pressure to evolve different. We survived by being smart.

Evolution isn't magic and it isn't conscious. Mutations happen and they either help or not. You don't just evolve an eye?

Eyes start far before with multi-celled microscopic animals who need to know when another microscopic animal is going to eat it. So one might develop a patch that is sensitive to water movement or photons. If that helps then that animal spreads its genes and over millions of years mutations happen. Most don't help and the creature dies, some may enhance the sensors, develop an area that focuses light and sends it to your brain for it to make a picture in the mind. The eye develops this way over millions of years.

An ape isn't going to just get new eyes in a different spot. They would also be a liability, both sides of the face have openings in the skull, bad idea.






Why? Uh, if Gandof cast a spell to give someone more eyes they would magically evolve. Maybe Potter has a spell to give one more eyes?
Dr Strange could do something as well for magic evolution.


In reality these senses start with organisms with a few cells that bonded together and share living duties, one eats, one digests, one protects the outer surface. A mutation may create an area on one cell that responds to soundwaves simply by having some reaction to alert the creature that something might be coming to eat it.
If it works, new additions will emerge, some useless and some will make it more advanced. Many millions of years later you end up with a hearing device that connects to the nervous system, which also evolved and now you can hear, interpret the sound and where it is.

We see the stages in fossils and understand how they evolved. Hearing and seeing is important to find food, catch food, see and hear enemies and predators, see your friends and family. Insect life is one of the first to have basic nervous systems, eyes, hearing

If you really want to understand evolution you should consider listening to an evolutionary biologist who watches creationist media and comments on it, pointing out errors and false beliefs.

I watched another creationist movie - A Matter of Faith | Reacteria​

I just don't see your view of things - just like you don't see mine. It doesn't matter how much being able to fly would have helped man, he would never be able to fly. To my POV, the same applies with all the things I have been mentioning. (including hearing and eyesight) Just because you are claiming eyesight evolved doesn't make it so. That's something you can't prove.

Let's take taste for instance. It wasn't necessary for things to have tasted good. You would eat to avoid pain and to survive. It wasn't something that had to evolve so that it would taste good. And I just don't see how things would develop in such a way that they taste wonderful by accident (through evolution). And even if the food could taste good - without taste buds you wouldn't even be able to detect it. And it wasn't necessary for taste buds to develop was it? So why are they there? You want me to believe things like that just evolved. I believe it was one of the many things designed by our great God.

There was no pressure for taste buds to develop.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It would not and I explained twice now how it is not. You ignored it both times. Why?

I didn't ignore this. Your explanation was inaccurate. He said something in his post, about there never having been a human being alive that didn't have two human beings for parents.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry, I'm not going to explain to you an evolutionary process of several hundred millions years in a forum post.
You are welcome to read up for yourself if you are actually interested (are you?).

Here's a good place to start:

Evolution of Hearing

Evolution of hearing dates back to some 250 million years ago along with mammalian evolution. To understand the evolution of hearing, one needs to understand the basic mammalian evolution first. Beginning of mammal evolution first seen in Triassic period about 230 million years ago, during which...

irispublishers.com

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know they have their theory that they will try to tell you. I just don't believe it, and they can't really prove it either. They may EXPLAIN their idea, but they can't PROVE it. An explanation isn't the same thing as proof.

You said facts were demonstrable, so I was just showing that you can't demonstrate evolution either. I was showing that you can't prove to me what you believe, any more than I can prove to you that God exists.

 

[John53]

I just don't see your view of things - just like you don't see mine. It doesn't matter how much being able to fly would have helped man, he would never be able to fly. To my POV, the same applies with all the things I have been mentioning. (including hearing and eyesight) Just because you are claiming eyesight evolved doesn't make it so. That's something you can't prove.

Let's take taste for instance. It wasn't necessary for things to have tasted good. You would eat to avoid pain and to survive. It wasn't something that had to evolve so that it would taste good. And I just don't see how things would develop in such a way that they taste wonderful by accident (through evolution). And even if the food could taste good - without taste buds you wouldn't even be able to detect it. And it wasn't necessary for taste buds to develop was it? So why are they there? You want me to believe things like that just evolved. I believe it was one of the many things designed by our great God.

There was no pressure for taste buds to develop.

Google "how did taste evolve" or "the importance of taste" and you'll find your statement to be wrong.

From Campfire to Haute Cuisine: How Food and Flavor Drove Human Evolution

In "Tasty: The Art and Science of What We Eat," author John McQuaid argues that we've underappreciated the role of the sense of taste in shaping the human story.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Evolution accounts for taste

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Then your god is a deceptive liar.

Then your god would have gone OUT OF HIS WAY to make everything look AS IF all living things share ancestry, AS IF earth has a 4.5 billion year old history - complete with "fake" craters from ancient meteor impacts that never happened, "fake" geological layers of supervolcanic eruptions that never happened, "fake" fossils of creatures that never lived, etc....

This is called planting false evidence.

Humans also have loads of ERV's shared with other species, thus dating back to periods long before humans existed. ERV's are like genetic scars - remnants of ancient viral infections in ancestors that got inserted into the genome. So this god would then also have created "fake" scars; remnants of infections that never happened.


That would be the equivalent of creating a brand new car that looks like it was a car crash without that ever happening.
So it would be the equivalent of creating a brand new car that looks like this:

View attachment 87869



So is that what you are going to claim happened? Is your god a liar?

What a Ridiculous post. Creating things in a state in which they can continue to function properly would not be bad.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Google "how did taste evolve" or "the importance of taste" and you'll find your statement to be wrong.

From Campfire to Haute Cuisine: How Food and Flavor Drove Human Evolution

In "Tasty: The Art and Science of What We Eat," author John McQuaid argues that we've underappreciated the role of the sense of taste in shaping the human story.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Evolution accounts for taste

evolution.berkeley.edu

Just because you have some article saying something is so, doesn't make it true.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There was nothing "disrespectful" in his post.

As usual with creationists, you confuse disagreement and the pointing out of your mistakes with personal insults and "bitterness".
I guess it's the standard psychological defense mechanism.

NO he had several posts he had sent. And he started mixing in personal attacks not just discussing the issues.

 

[John53]

Just because you have some article saying something is so, doesn't make it true.

Taking the time to do some research might help though

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just don't see your view of things - just like you don't see mine. It doesn't matter how much being able to fly would have helped man, he would never be able to fly. To my POV, the same applies with all the things I have been mentioning. (including hearing and eyesight) Just because you are claiming eyesight evolved doesn't make it so. That's something you can't prove.

Let's take taste for instance. It wasn't necessary for things to have tasted good. You would eat to avoid pain and to survive. It wasn't something that had to evolve so that it would taste good. And I just don't see how things would develop in such a way that they taste wonderful by accident (through evolution). And even if the food could taste good - without taste buds you wouldn't even be able to detect it. And it wasn't necessary for taste buds to develop was it? So why are they there? You want me to believe things like that just evolved. I believe it was one of the many things designed by our great God.

There was no pressure for taste buds to develop.

There was plenty of pressure for taste to evolve. Some plants and animals evolved poisons, and always from pre-existing organs that had a different original purpose. The fact that this new chemical was not planned for. But once poison evolved it was a survival trait for that species. Once again, it is the species that matter, not the individual. So if a member of the species died, but took out a predator in doing so that was a benefit for the species as a whole. Well what about the predators? The ability to taste poison became a survival trait. Most of the poisonous animals and plants out there will "taste bad" to you. That is a survival trait that your ancestors evolved telling them "don't eat this".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you have some article saying something is so, doesn't make it true.

Oh please your ignorant claim about "no pressure" was shown to be false. Just admit that you were wrong and try to think of better arguments.

 

[McBell]

There was nothing "disrespectful" in his post.

As usual with creationists, you confuse disagreement and the pointing out of your mistakes with personal insults and "bitterness".
I guess it's the standard psychological defense mechanism.

you do what you gotta do to get your choirs attention away from having your arse handed to you.
Since it works so well on creationists, it has become a standard tactic.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

you do what you gotta do to get your choirs attention away from having your arse handed to you.
Since it works so well on creationists, it has become a standard tactic.

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?
during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago. Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve? This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't ignore this. Your explanation was inaccurate.

Ow? Are you going to explain how it was supposedly inaccurate or are you only going to claim it and thus just handwave without explanation?

He said something in his post, about there never having been a human being alive that didn't have two human beings for parents.

Yes and I explained how that is true by giving an analogous example of how there have never been any children raised that didn't speak the same language as their parents and peers.

And yet the distant ancestors of spanish speaking folk didn't speak spanish but latin.

Feel free to explain how that isn't true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know they have their theory that they will try to tell you.

Theories in science are based on evidence. In fact, theories in science are hypothesis which have been confirmed so many times by evidence and prediction that they get promoted to theory. So no, it is not just some thing "they tell you". It's some thing that is demonstrated and solidly supported by evidence.
Some of which is detailed in those articles. Clearly you didn't read them.

I just don't believe it,

I know. The question is why.

and they can't really prove it either. They may EXPLAIN their idea, but they can't PROVE it. An explanation isn't the same thing as proof.

No theory in science can be "proven". This has already been explained to you. Theories can only be supported by evidence. "proving" is for mathematics.
Germ theory of desease - not "proven"
Plate tectonic theory - not "proven"
Atomic theory - not "proven"
Heliocentric theory - not "proven"
Theory of relativity - not "proven"

If "not proven" is your objection, then your objection isn't to any particular theory of biology, but to all of science.



Also, it's kind of disengenous that you offer this as an objection as to why you won't believe it.
Is your religion "proven"? No? Yet you believe it right?
So why do you hold up science to a higher standard then your religious beliefs?
Double standard, much?

You said facts were demonstrable,

And they are. By evidence.
Also, theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts. Facts support theories.
"really good theories", don't become facts in science.
Theories remain theories. Theories are bodies of knowledge- explanations - that account for all the facts, predict facts and are contradicted by no facts.

so I was just showing that you can't demonstrate evolution either.

Evolution is extremely demonstrable in many different, independent, ways.
I'm more then happy to explain to you how, but somehow I get the feeling that you aren't interested and will just handwave it all away.

I was showing that you can't prove to me what you believe, any more than I can prove to you that God exists.

Yet you believe in your god. Why?
If "not proven" is the reason you don't believe X, then why would you believe something else when it's not "proven" either?

Your double standard is showing.

In any case.... science doesn't deal in "proof". The sooner you learn that, the better.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What a Ridiculous post.

How is that ridiculous? It is literally what you proposed.
That your god created things "with age" and thus with all the signs of "age".

The signs of "age" in the world, among many other things, are things like canyons, geological layers, ancient fossils,...
In biology they are things like the nested hierarchical structures in DNA, shared ERV's, etc.

If your god created all these things merely to make them "look old", then yes - he created features looking like the result of events that never happened.
That is planting false evidence.

Creating things in a state in which they can continue to function properly would not be bad.

How is something like the broken GULO gene in humans something that is "required to continue to function"?
This gene is broken in ALL great apes in the exact same way.

Evolution explains this. The gene broke in a common ancestor and was passed on in that broken state to all its descendends, which continued to diversify and evolve into chimps, humans, gorilla's and oerang utangs.

How do you explain it?
By shrugging your shoulders and saying "that's just how god made it".
No reason, no rhyme, no logic. Just.... "because".

And that's just one gene.
There's plenty of such genetic markers that make no sense in seperate creation events and which are FULLY explained (in a 1 in 1 probability) in context of evolution.

If your god created all species seperately, he went out of his way to make all DNA look like it comes from common ancestors.
It's that simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO he had several posts he had sent. And he started mixing in personal attacks not just discussing the issues.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to point out specifically what the personal attacks were (post number + quoting specific passage), instead of just claiming it to be so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just because you have some article saying something is so, doesn't make it true.

Just because you have a (religious) book saying something is so, doesn't make it true.

The difference between your religious book and those articles though, is that the articles are based on rigorous research which deals with evidence and which are independently verifiable by anyone who isn't intellectually lazy. While the religious book does not and is unverifiable in every possible way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you explain the lamprey which has not evolved for supposedly 350 million years?

Citation required

during that time there was supposedly 2 great extinction events at 252 million and 66 million years ago.

Great extinction events doesn't mean that ALL life died off. In every extinction event, plenty of life survived.

Those events were so drastic that even the ocean depths were affected. Also there was supposedly a large cooling of the oceans about 34 million years ago. With all the competition with other species, supposedly changing drastically, and during the fight for survival in these above events, why didn’t the lamprey evolve?

Citations required

This refutes evolution and billions of years also.

It does not.