Atheists are in fact Creationists

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I understand. my point is, what is observed is variety within like kinds, whether mosquito or dog or whatever. There is no credible evidence one creature changes into an entirely new creature, as evolution theory claims.

Evolution claims that all living things reproduce and this reproduction creates variation, and that this process means that all life shares common ancestry. At no point, in all of evolutionary history, did any living creature have to produce "an entirely new creature" and evolution has never claimed as such.

You have already demonstrated that you had no idea what "species" meant when you asked for examples of "new species", and so now you are broadening the goalposts and making fraudulent claims about what evolution theory states. When are you just going to admit that you're wrong?

 

[rusra02]

Evolution claims that all living things reproduce and this reproduction creates variation, and that this process means that all life shares common ancestry. At no point, in all of evolutionary history, did any living creature have to produce "an entirely new creature" and evolution has never claimed as such.

You have already demonstrated that you had no idea what "species" meant when you asked for examples of "new species", and so now you are broadening the goalposts and making fraudulent claims about what evolution theory states. When are you just going to admit that you're wrong?

Well, if evolution did not produce an entirely new creature, where did all these new creatures come from?

 

[secret2]

Yes, I understand. my point is, what is observed is variety within like kinds, whether mosquito or dog or whatever. There is no credible evidence one creature changes into an entirely new creature, as evolution theory claims.

Whenever you are challenged, you retreat to you "kind" talk. What's a kind?

And once again, what's "an entirely new creature"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, if evolution did not produce an entirely new creature, where did all these new creatures come from?

You really don't understand a thing about evolution or biology in general, do you?

All living things are descended from the same common ancestor. We are variations on that ancestor. We are not "new creatures", we are variations on creatures that came before us. This is what evolution claims.

This is getting embarrassing. I can't believe we've spent so much time trying to educate you about this and you still understand nothing.

 

[McBell]

You really don't understand a thing about evolution or biology in general, do you?

All living things are descended from the same common ancestor. We are variations on that ancestor. We are not "new creatures", we are variations on creatures that came before us. This is what evolution claims.

This is getting embarrassing. I can't believe we've spent so much time trying to educate you about this and you still understand nothing.

There is a distinct, albeit sometimes subtle, difference between not able to learn and not willing to learn.

 

[secret2]

There is a distinct, albeit sometimes subtle, difference between not able to learn and not willing to learn.

Or perhaps some are not allowed, by a higher authority, to learn?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Or perhaps some are not allowed, by a higher authority, to learn?

Intelligent Ignorance, perhaps?

 

[Sculelos]

Intelligent Ignorance, perhaps?

Philosophy must match the facts and facts must match the philosophy or else we end up with useless facts and useless philosophy.

 

[Willamena]

Philosophy must match the facts and facts must match the philosophy or else we end up with useless facts and useless philosophy.

How did this discussion go from evolution to philosophy?

 

[Sculelos]

How did this discussion go from evolution to philosophy?

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

I'm just saying that Evolution is in large about the same

a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

How did this discussion go from evolution to philosophy?

It evolved when it was recognised that the initial thread of the discussion was exhausted - the assertion of atheists being creationists having been mercilessly exposed as without basis in reality.

Thus the need to examine it from a more abstract view point to attempt to make the metaphor fit.

 

[rusra02]

You really don't understand a thing about evolution or biology in general, do you?

All living things are descended from the same common ancestor. We are variations on that ancestor. We are not "new creatures", we are variations on creatures that came before us. This is what evolution claims.

This is getting embarrassing. I can't believe we've spent so much time trying to educate you about this and you still understand nothing.

Your post, (ignoring your personal smears), is simply wrong. "What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
( quote from Lf, p.22-29)
So your statement that "All living things are descended from the same common ancestor" is false, as is the whole ToE. The evidence supports what the Bible says: " God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind." (Genesis 1:25)

 

[rusra02]

There is a distinct, albeit sometimes subtle, difference between not able to learn and not willing to learn.

I agree.

 

[rusra02]

Or perhaps some are not allowed, by a higher authority, to learn?

Is that the National Acadamy of Sciences?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your post, (ignoring your personal smears)

It's not a smear to call someone ignorant when they display ignorance.

is simply wrong. "What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote:

I don't give one solitary iota what quotes you can cherry-pick from one person that you believe are sufficient to contradict what you think my argument is. Since you ignore the opinions of millions of qualified biologists, why should I care what insignificant sources you quote mine?

So your statement that "All living things are descended from the same common ancestor" is false, as is the whole ToE.

Since you have already demonstrated zero understanding of the theory, your opinion can be dismissed.

You've already lost this debate on several fronts, Rusra. Blindly grabbing random quotes is clearly the last act of a desperate man.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So your statement that "All living things are descended from the same common ancestor" is false, as is the whole ToE.

Wait... What? The theory of evolution is false, somehow, despite enjoying widespread evidentiary confirmation (and no notable disconfirmation whatsoever), systematizing a large body of data, and being one of the most successful theories in terms of opening up new vistas for research (notice how evolutionary theory spawned entire new sub-domains of science; evolutionary psychology, microbiology, etc.). How does that work, exactly?

The evidence supports what the Bible says: " God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind." (Genesis 1:25)

The opposite of what you just said is the case. The evidence is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis; that we do not find any evidence that each "kind" of animal was created, as is- we find no fossils of the species that exist today in the older layers of the earth, whereas the fossils we DO find are of species that no longer exist, but that share both genetic and phenotypic features with newer species, and so on. Sorry friend, but there is no debate over evolution any more. Time to give up the ghost.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't give one solitary iota what quotes you can cherry-pick from one person that you believe are sufficient to contradict what you think my argument is. Since you ignore the opinions of millions of qualified biologists, why should I care what insignificant sources you quote mine?

Ugh...whilst I agree with you in general terms, there's nothing wrong with calling '********' when it's warranted.

Discussion:L'Origine de la Vie - Témoins de Jéhovah: TJ-Encyclopedie, l'encyclopédie libre sur les Témoins de Jéhovah, l'encyclopédie libre sur les Témoins de Jéhovah

Gordon's misrepresentation is shown as page 29. Can you imagine being a scientist, then having a single quote cherry-picked for the purposes of arguing against the very set of theories you actually research and study?

Disingenuous at best.

Here's an abstract of the actual book...

The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay - Springer

and here is a nice summary of this from an actual FACTUAL viewpoint, as opposed to quote-mined pieces you think support your views (rusra02). To be honest, I'd be surprised if you either read them with an open mind or retract your use of Gordon in the manner which you did, but one can live in hope.

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/malcolm-gordon-1

 

[rusra02]

It's not a smear to call someone ignorant when they display ignorance.


I don't give one solitary iota what quotes you can cherry-pick from one person that you believe are sufficient to contradict what you think my argument is. Since you ignore the opinions of millions of qualified biologists, why should I care what insignificant sources you quote mine?


Since you have already demonstrated zero understanding of the theory, your opinion can be dismissed.

You've already lost this debate on several fronts, Rusra. Blindly grabbing random quotes is clearly the last act of a desperate man.

As mentioned often, a common ploy of evolutionists, when confronted with evidence contrary to their theory, is to attack the purveyor of such evidence. The quote mentioned referenced at least three different sources, not one. Personal attacks will not change the fact that the ToE is smoke and mirrors, not true science. And pretending the question is resolved and the debate won will not make it so.

 

[rusra02]

Wait... What? The theory of evolution is false, somehow, despite enjoying widespread evidentiary confirmation (and no notable disconfirmation whatsoever), systematizing a large body of data, and being one of the most successful theories in terms of opening up new vistas for research (notice how evolutionary theory spawned entire new sub-domains of science; evolutionary psychology, microbiology, etc.). How does that work, exactly?

The opposite of what you just said is the case. The evidence is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis; that we do not find any evidence that each "kind" of animal was created, as is- we find no fossils of the species that exist today in the older layers of the earth, whereas the fossils we DO find are of species that no longer exist, but that share both genetic and phenotypic features with newer species, and so on. Sorry friend, but there is no debate over evolution any more. Time to give up the ghost.

Your statement that there is no "notable disconfirmation" of the ToE is patently false, of course. And your interpretation of the fossil evidence toes the evolutionary line. The fossil record shows major groups of animals appear suddenly. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
I see time and again the claim repeated by evolutionists as if a magic incantation: "the debate is over, evolution is a fact." As if, by repeating it often enough, it will come to be so. But millions of thinking persons, and many scientists, do not agree. More importantly, the facts don't agree.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Your statement that there is no "notable disconfirmation" of the ToE is patently false, of course. And your interpretation of the fossil evidence toes the evolutionary line. The fossil record shows major groups of animals appear suddenly. After reviewing the evidence of the fossil record, biologist Jonathan Wells writes: “At the level of kingdoms, phyla, and classes, descent with modification from common ancestors is obviously not an observed fact. To judge from the fossil and molecular evidence, it’s not even a well-supported theory.”
I see time and again the claim repeated by evolutionists as if a magic incantation: "the debate is over, evolution is a fact." As if, by repeating it often enough, it will come to be so. But millions of thinking persons, and many scientists, do not agree. More importantly, the facts don't agree.

Are you talking about the Cambrian Explosion?

The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.[note 1] Before about 580 million years ago,[note 2] most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.

The key word there is relative.

also

The fossil record as Darwin knew it seemed to suggest that the major metazoan groups appeared in a few million years of the early to mid-Cambrian, and even in the 1980s this still appeared to be the case.[15][16]
However, evidence of Precambrian metazoa is gradually accumulating. If the Ediacaran Kimberella was a mollusc-like protostome (one of the two main groups of coelomates),[20][61] the protostome and deuterostome lineages must have split significantly before 550 million years ago (deuterostomes are the other main group of coelomates).[94] Even if it is not a protostome, it is widely accepted as a bilaterian.[65][94] Since fossils of rather modern-looking Cnidarians (jellyfish-like organisms) have been found in the Doushantuo lagerstätte, the Cnidarian and bilaterian lineages must have diverged well over 580 million years ago.[94]

and

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.[note 5] However, it does seem that some innovations linked to the explosion — such as resistant armour — only evolved once in the animal lineage; this makes a lengthy Precambrian animal lineage harder to defend.[98] Further, the conventional view that all the phyla arose in the Cambrian is flawed; while the phyla may have diversified in this time period, representatives of the crown-groups of many phyla do not appear until much later in the Phanerozoic.[53] Further, the mineralized phyla that form the basis of the fossil record may not be representative of other phyla, since most mineralized phyla originated in a benthic setting. The fossil record is consistent with a Cambrian Explosion that was limited to the benthos, with pelagic phyla evolving much later.[53]

I posted the whole thing to point out that there is still some controversey about it. Because that is what science is about.

I also notice that when you quote you quote statements that have been made over 30 some odd years ago. Science marches on. New information comes to light that changes the conclusions that some individuals made without all the facts.

You also have not responded to LewisnotMillers post which sites how the quotes that you made regarding certain scientist were falsely used. This is bearing false witness and lying.

Also Jonathan Wells was a senior member of the Discovery Institute is he not?

Here's a little excerpt about them.

This criticism is not limited to those in the scientific community that oppose the teaching of intelligent design and the suppression of evolution, but also includes former Discovery Institute donors. The Bullitt Foundation, which gave $10,000 in 2001 for transportation causes, withdrew all funding of the institute; its director, Denis Hayes, called the institute "the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell," and said, "I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today."[68]
The Wedge document, a widely circulated 1998 fund-raising document, laid out Discovery's original, ambitious plan to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientific materialism," "thereby divorcing science from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and reversing the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture." The Wedge document said it had two "Governing Goals":
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Meyer says that the Wedge document "was stolen from our offices and placed on the Web without permission."[69] The central item of this agenda - establishing intelligent design as legitimate science through conducting actual scientific research - has not been achieved.[70]
Michelle Goldberg has said "... the Center for Science and Culture takes creationism and tries to legitimize it in scientific terms, and make it sound as if it’s really just a kind of competing scientific theory. It hires people with a lot of impressive degrees, although, in many cases, they got the degrees specifically with the idea of using them to discredit Darwinism for religious reasons. It’ll put someone forward like Jonathan Wells, who has a Ph.D. from Berkeley, and yet here he is, defending intelligent design. So they’ve given a lot of thought to packaging intelligent design to make it seem like legitimate science. And they’ve given a lot of thought to how to try to infiltrate their ideas into the culture."[71]

It would appear that the ones who are trying to stifle the truth are those who support I.D. or Creationism.

Evolution may be proven false one day, it's how science works, all these tests that are done aren't done to "prove evolution right" but to see if the statements made about evolution are able to stand up to what is known currently and what will be known.