Can any creationist tell me ...

[Jose Fly]

Actually, Nature/cosmos created everything and still is. So, creationism has contributed the totality of all. Everything has been created since as far back as observed.

Any scientific understanding was created via intelligence. The creationist(s) of said scientific model, was and are being designed intelligently. I doubt that they are superior to creation, or created their own existence, or created the stuff that they use out of stuff that they created.
Also, are you claiming superior intelligence of one model while simultaneously disbelieving in no superior intelligence?

Correct, the level of delusion and cognitive dissonance is quite staggering.

You're nothing more than a self-admitted and believed random accident claiming to be superior and all-knowing to what Nature/the cosmos created while calling others deluded and cognitive dissonant.

That's a rather long series of empty assertions you've posted there.

 

[Profound Realization]

Science isn't a god.

Scientific method is however the best system, by a great margin, for answering questions about reality ─ something religion is only occasionally interested in.

Except for creationism, of course, which makes a great many falsifiable assertions about reality, which have been falsified, usually without difficulty, by science. And for the more intelligent creationists, Jose Fly's reminder above, about cognitive dissonance, is right on the money.
I regret to tell you that the argument from incredulity is a fallacy.

Tell me: in an epidemic, which animals (including humans) are more likely to survive, and so pass their genes to the next generation: the ones whose immune systems cope better with the infection, or the ones who cope worse?

Tell me: in a primate society (including humans) where survival is enhanced by your place on the social ladder, based on one-to-one relationships, which primate is more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation? The ones who are more intelligent and able regarding social relations, or the others?

Natural selection is as simple as that. It's not a deep mystery, it's just common sense.

What specific examples do you have in mind when you say this?

If you have no examples, on what ground do you say it?

Agree that a lot of it is a solid method to obtain knowledge of our observed and measurable environment.

Disagree on Jose Fly's comment, using humans who intelligently designed/created models yet ripping on intelligent design/creation. Whereas, as far back as this universe is observed... everything has been created and continues to create.

I disagree that it's a fallacy, to the best of our intellectual knowledge... everything was created and evolved from Nature/the cosmos as far back as alleged to be seen. It's neither proven nor falsified as to its intent. Mere humans claiming superiority as to its intent, are simply going off of their own believed personal intent. It's the fallacy that evolution has now become an attempted debunk of "creationism." Rather than being just evolution.

In simple principle, yes that is how natural selection is as you've described.

There are strict limits to variation that have never been crossed thus far, every breeder of animals or plants is aware that there are strict limits to variation. Whenever variation is pushed to the maximums by selective breeding, the line becomes sterile and dies out.
By natural selection assumed to be all powerful, having no limits or bound by anything... there is no limit to what the intelligent human mind can give it/invent for it. While I don't claim to know any boundaries or non-boundaries... I don't make it all powerful as to bypass and invent whatever I please it can do. Spinning plausible tales about why some trait "might" be adaptive, instead of demonstrating that it was.

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage...music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe, ability to argue on forums, etc.

You mentioned intelligence as an ability to better pass off traits to the next generation. This alone is a contradiction to natural selection, as environment and mental makeup have effects on heredity and the passing of genes. There is also no explanation as to where intelligence or genes came from. I have no issue with you or anyone saying that intelligence emerged from non-intelligence as long it's it's known and honest to be nothing more than an assumption/opinion.

 

[Profound Realization]

That's a rather long series of empty assertions you've posted there.

Talk is pretty cheap. Sounds like an empty assertion from you.

Elaborate on how scientists don't intelligently design and create their models.

Elaborate on Nature's determining factor as to which model is more superior. Are you all-knowing?

Elaborate on, as far back as you can go, how the observable universe has not been creating and continues to create. At what point do reach the "I don't know anymore?"

Elaborate on how you know intelligent human beings didn't create themselves and all the universe.

Elaborate on why evolution is a "need" for you to debunk "creationism" rather than just being evolution itself.

 

[McBell]

Agree that a lot of it is a solid method to obtain knowledge of our observed and measurable environment.

Disagree on Jose Fly's comment, using humans who intelligently designed/created models yet ripping on intelligent design/creation. Whereas, as far back as this universe is observed... everything has been created and continues to create.

I disagree that it's a fallacy, to the best of our intellectual knowledge... everything was created and evolved from Nature/the cosmos as far back as alleged to be seen. It's neither proven nor falsified as to its intent. Mere humans claiming superiority as to its intent, are simply going off of their own believed personal intent. It's the fallacy that evolution has now become an attempted debunk of "creationism." Rather than being just evolution.

In simple principle, yes that is how natural selection is as you've described.

There are strict limits to variation that have never been crossed thus far, every breeder of animals or plants is aware that there are strict limits to variation. Whenever variation is pushed to the maximums by selective breeding, the line becomes sterile and dies out.
By natural selection assumed to be all powerful, having no limits or bound by anything... there is no limit to what the intelligent human mind can give it/invent for it. While I don't claim to know any boundaries or non-boundaries... I don't make it all powerful as to bypass and invent whatever I please it can do. Spinning plausible tales about why some trait "might" be adaptive, instead of demonstrating that it was.

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage...music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe, ability to argue on forums, etc.

You mentioned intelligence as an ability to better pass off traits to the next generation. This alone is a contradiction to natural selection, as environment and mental makeup have effects on heredity and the passing of genes. There is also no explanation as to where intelligence came from. I have no issue with you or anyone saying that intelligence emerged from non-intelligence as long it's it's known and honest to be nothing more than an assumption/opinion.

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
~ Bertrand Russell

 

[Profound Realization]

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
~ Bertrand Russell

That can apply to yourself as well.

 

[McBell]

That can apply to yourself as well.

Except it is has been YOU demonstrating it.

 

[Profound Realization]

Except it is has been YOU demonstrating it.

Sure, whatever you unconsciously translate whatever you read to be within your sound, perfect, righteously judged makeup.
Thanks for your opinion. Pointing fingers and blaming has been a great tool and benefit to the human race.

 

[McBell]

Sure, whatever you unconsciously translate whatever you read to be within your sound, perfect, righteously judged makeup.
Thanks for your opinion. Pointing fingers and blaming has been a great tool and benefit to the human race.

*yawn*

Until you stop demonstrating the quote....

No worries mate.
Winston Churchill summed you up perfectly when he said 'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.'

 

[Profound Realization]

*yawn*

Until you stop demonstrating the quote....

No worries mate.
Winston Churchill summed you up perfectly when he said 'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.'

You don't have to respond if you're that bored.

Well great, you are all knowing of me, gave fruitful responses to the things you have questions about rather than picking a few quotes and making your righteous judgements on another rather than the concepts you have questions regarding.

 

[McBell]

You don't have to respond if you're that bored.

Well great, you are all knowing of me, gave fruitful responses to the things you have questions about rather than picking a few quotes and making your righteous judgements on another rather than the concepts you have questions regarding.

Except it is you who is judging, not me.
In fact your above quoted post fits your posts in this thread far better than it does mine.

But don't let truth get in the way of your hypocrisy.

 

[Profound Realization]

*yawn*

Until you stop demonstrating the quote....

No worries mate.
Winston Churchill summed you up perfectly when he said 'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.'

Perhaps you can tell me all about the truth of Nature, the universe since you may have righteous judgement, all-knowing capability.

No worries for you, I don't think of myself or my models concocted in my mind as more or less superior.

Put your righteous judgements upon me in fruitful fashions, disclose my errors and manifest the truth to me. Show me the truth, where I stumbled, and where I've hurried off as if nothing ever happened.

 

[Profound Realization]

Except it is you who is judging, not me.
In fact your above quoted post fits your posts in this thread far better than it does mine.

But don't let truth get in the way of your hypocrisy.

More fruitful finger pointing and blaming.

Of course, Mestemia, how dare I question your truth knowing abilities, and however could I even doubt you could be wrong. Shame on me.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps you can tell me all about the truth of Nature, the universe since you may have righteous judgement, all-knowing capability.

No worries for you, I don't think of myself or my models concocted in my mind as more or less superior.

Put your righteous judgements upon me in fruitful fashions, disclose my errors and manifest the truth to me. Show me the truth, where I stumbled, and where I've hurried off as if nothing ever happened.

Why?
So you can further demonstrate my signature?

Your posts indicate you are not interested in learning.
Your posts indicate you want to to preach.
I am not interested in the snake oil you are selling.

 

[McBell]

More fruitful finger pointing and blaming.

Of course, Mestemia, how dare I question your truth knowing abilities, and however could I even doubt you could be wrong. Shame on me.

Your sermons are just plain boring.

 

[Profound Realization]

Your sermons are just plain boring.

However may I please your need for excitement? If I said that people that believe in anything other than you do are stupid, know no truth, are inferior, point fingers and blame others... will this satisfy you? Do I have to laugh at, mock, condescend upon others to fulfill your needs?

 

[Profound Realization]

Why?
So you can further demonstrate my signature?

Your posts indicate you are not interested in learning.
Your posts indicate you want to to preach.
I am not interested in the snake oil you are selling.

I didn't put a price tag on anything.

Sell me the glorious truth. How much does it cost?

 

[McBell]

However may I please your need for excitement? If I said that people that believe in anything other than you do are stupid, know no truth, are inferior, point fingers and blame others... will this satisfy you? Do I have to laugh at, mock, condescend upon others to fulfill your needs?

I am not you.

Please try to keep up.

 

[Profound Realization]

I am not you.

Please try to keep up.

Correct, you are not me.

No need to plead, and what I am trying to keep up with? Am I inferior in speed to your fruitful responses of truth?

 

[scott777]

There are strict limits to variation that have never been crossed thus far,

How do you know?

Whenever variation is pushed to the maximums by selective breeding, the line becomes sterile and dies out.

Give an example. Do you mean dogs, for example? Domestic dogs are not subject to survival of the fittest, so it's nothing to do with evolution.

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage...music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe, ability to argue on forums, etc.

All these things are the product of large brains which have developed the advantagious ability to conceptualise. Do you think it's a coincidence that we survive so well? Religion has a clear survival benefit for people subjected to extreme conditions. We have inherited the genes from ancestors who lived in such conditions regularly.

You mentioned intelligence as an ability to better pass off traits to the next generation. This alone is a contradiction to natural selection, as environment and mental makeup have effects on heredity and the passing of genes.

Intelligence affects heredity and the passing of genes. Why do we survive so well compared to animals? Have you not heard of the population explosion?

There is also no explanation as to where intelligence or genes came from.

Are you aware that some animals are more intelligent than others? Apes are more so than squirrels, which are more so than fish.... insects.....starfish......bacteria. So why isn't evolution an explanation?

 

[blü 2]

Agree that a lot of it is a solid method to obtain knowledge of our observed and measurable environment.

So far so good, then.

as far back as this universe is observed... everything has been created and continues to create.

If you use the word 'created', in the context of this conversation you may well imply that the creation is the act of a creator's will. I see no evidence of a creator, or 'intelligent designer', anywhere, and the only physical evidence offered for such a thing is Behe's 'irreducible complexity'. All of his purported examples were explained by evolutionary science (they were all examples of exaptation) at the Dover trial 2005. As far as I know there are no current purported examples.

But beyond that, no demonstration of a real creator, one with objective existence, not imaginary, has ever been given, and attempts to imply such a being have given rise to the expression 'god of the gaps' as the list of things the alleged creator is said to have inexplicably created gets smaller and smaller.

Not that science knows everything, but science uses the easily the most reliable method for determining facts about reality that we have.

I disagree that it's a fallacy, to the best of our intellectual knowledge... everything was created and evolved from Nature/the cosmos as far back as alleged to be seen. It's neither proven nor falsified as to its intent.

That word 'created' again.

It's the fallacy that evolution has now become an attempted debunk of "creationism."

I started this thread in order to pose a question.

That question was, and is, Why has creationism, in more than fifty years in its modern form, never once put a scientific scratch on the theory of evolution? Never once compelled even the tiniest amendment to the basics of the theory?

Not one reasoned reply on behalf of creationism in 540 posts so far.

What's the answer?

There are strict limits to variation that have never been crossed thus far, every breeder of animals or plants is aware that there are strict limits to variation.

If that's true, don't tell me ─ publish a paper in Nature and win yourself everlasting fame.

Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage...music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe, ability to argue on forums, etc.

Two answers to that. First, a trait that is neutral ─ neither promotes nor hinders survival and breeding ─ may hang around for a long time, since no selection is involved.

Second, most primate societies, and certainly humans, are gregarious, and flourish through tribal cooperation. In all such societies, there are strong advantages to survival and to breeding in being higher rather than lower on the peck order. Basic to advancement are social skills in forming one-to-one relationships in the group, which favors certain kinds of intelligence, not just physical wellbeing and hunting prowess. Music derives from voice and rhythmic dance, both socializers, therefore both useful for bonding the tribe. Curiosity is part of our kit of survival tools, and leads to philosophy and thus to science. Intelligence, and demonstrations of intelligence, are in many circumstances beneficial for getting a mate and breeding.

There is also no explanation as to where intelligence or genes came from.

We think intelligence is likely the result of competition for places in society and access to breeding mates. There's also evidence to suggest that some 70,000 years ago the H sap population was reduced to 20,000 members or less, maybe only a fraction of that, because of extreme climate stress; and this would also put a premium on intelligence and versatility for survival.