Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

I have been thinking about the logic being used by creationists here. If Haeckel's embryo drawings are truly a fraud, how does that refute the theory of evolution? By the way, there are questions about the legitimacy of claiming that Haeckel was perpetuating a fraud.

The inquisition was a barbarous action carried out in the name of God. Is this evidence that God is evil or that Christianity should be rejected? Or is it evidence that men have used religion to justify atrocities? That those actions reflect on the men and not on the religion that they claimed as their own?

That is the logic we are seeing here. By his own words, @[URL='https://www.religiousforums.com/members/patriottechsan.66394/']Patriottechsan[/URL] has had issues that drove him from his own upbringing in religion, but clearly he did not leave Christianity behind because of that. It did not provide him with reasons to reject Christianity. Yet, he hypocritically applies the same logic to Haeckel and the theory of evolution and demands it be rejected on the same logical basis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would takes days, possibly weeks to do what you want. How about asking 1 question you have at a time instead of pasting links to another persons questions that have been answered years ago.

But 1st learn how to use the forum and learn what the theory of evolution is.

It is all part of the Gish Gallop to overwhelm everyone so that he can falsely make the claims about us in his emotional statements attacking everyone else personally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here they are.

15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com


Here they are:

15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com

Dumb..

They are dumb. Questions designed not for the educated, but for the ignorant. Questions crafted to preconceived answers. Questions that are, at times, poorly worded or crafted. Some questions that are outside the scope they claim to be part of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I sure don't understand why this is such a hurdle. How could anyone confuse evolution with abiogenesis?

Many creationists cannot deny that the major problems in evolution have been answered. To keep their failed beliefs alive they need to move the goalposts to a question that is not thoroughly answered yet.

 

[sooda]

Many creationists cannot deny that the major problems in evolution have been answered. To keep their failed beliefs alive they need to move the goalposts to a question that is not thoroughly answered yet.

Evidently they are focused on "metaphysics"????

 

[John53]

Like I have said on other threads, the only persecution I have ever experienced is from other Christians for not being the "right" type of Christian.

Over the last 30 years, reliance on conspiracy theories for real decision making has been on the rise. Along with the number and variety of conspiracy theories for the ignorant to choose from.

He is not the Great Fabricator for nothing. Not only does he love them, he creates them.

It seems the only thing the fundies hate more than atheists are Christians of another denomination.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here they are.

15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com


Here they are:

15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com

Dumb..

Most of the creationists I have encountered are just like Patriottechsan. They are not here to debate or discuss the issues. They are here to bring their revealed truth. The subjective absolutes that refute reality merely by existing in their minds. They make a lot of emotional appeals and a host of logical fallacies and mostly listen to no one that has any dissenting view. They believe their willful ignorance is knowledge and that they are the only one that has knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems the only thing the fundies hate more than atheists are Christians of another denomination.

In my experience, it would seem so.

I like most of the people that identify as atheists. I find them interesting, highly intelligent, educated--even if not formally--and reasonably open-minded with a willingness to discuss the issues. Like any group, there are radicals, but I do not run into them so often nor do I take them and paint an entire group the same.

Unlike fundamentalists, I have never felt my beliefs were under threat because of the existence of atheists or by consorting with them. If they are that weak, they would not be much in the way of beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidently they are focused on "metaphysics"????

I was thinking particle physics. What they know about science is such a small particle, you would need CERN to find it.

 

[sooda]

I was thinking particle physics. What they know about science is such a small particle, you would need CERN to find it.

Now I'm stuck on "carbonated aquifers in Egypt".. and wondering if I have joined Alice down the rabbit hole.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now I'm stuck on "carbonated aquifers in Egypt".. and wondering if I have joined Alice down the rabbit hole.

I am not sure where you are going with that, but it sounds interesting.

We may have started journey down the rabbit hole, just by joining internet forums.

My experience with carbonated aquifers is of the Italian sort and then only by bottle.

 

[sooda]

I am not sure where you are going with that, but it sounds interesting.

We may have started journey down the rabbit hole, just by joining internet forums.

My experience with carbonated aquifers is of the Italian sort and then only by bottle.

Evidently they built the pyramids by floating large stones on carbonated aquifers.. and all the Egyptologists are too stupid to figure it out. Its "metaphysics" you know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidently they built the pyramids by floating large stones on carbonated aquifers.. and all the Egyptologists are too stupid to figure it out. Its "metaphysics" you know.

I know who you have been talking to. Another of our friends with special knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidently they built the pyramids by floating large stones on carbonated aquifers.. and all the Egyptologists are too stupid to figure it out. Its "metaphysics" you know.

There is a poster registered here--but I have not seen him posting--that I know from another forum. He is a psychologist/therapist and has this hypothesis that the internet attracts a disproportionately high number of people suffering from some form of delusional disorder. I cannot say that I have seen any reason to reject his hypothesis.

 

[Willamena]

To illustrate this. Answer this question Evolutionist, Darwin or Theistic, Do you believe in eternal existence?
We know Creationist do already due to belief in eternal God, Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

That depends on what you believe persists.

 

[ecco]

Ok then if you say you have studied both sides then I will give you this.

Although you refuse to use the quote or reply with quotes, since you referenced someone who has evaluated both sides, I'll assume you were addressing your post to me. However, if anyone else wants to jump in, please do.

Here is a list of questions for evolutionist to answer. Despite how you ignore it and avoid it like the plague due to it opens up so many holes in evolution. It does deal with origins. Evolution has to as it has to explain how we "mankind' got here from nothing to some thing that existed eternally or nothing existed eternally.. Then you either have to explain what existed eternally and what existed eternally and go forward to mankind as evolutionists. Or you have to explain from nothing existing eternally how something came about from nothing to everything that exists to eventually get to "mankind". You have no other options no matter how much you try to avoid it. You have to choose a side and defend it.

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that I addressed this...a week ago.

For those of us who are atheists, we don't need to know "the origin of the original energy". We are quite comfortable saying "We don't know", unlike those who, throughout history, have touted GodDidIt. GodDidIt didn't work for lightning. GodDidIt didn't work for locusts eating crops. GodDidIt didn't work for mountains erupting. GodDidIt didn't work for infections. GodDidIt didn't work for anything.

So from that here is a list of 15 Questions to answer that evolutionist need to explain from pure naturalism meaning from nothing comes everything.

That's probably the same list that Fundie Creo sites have been posting since the beginnings of the internet. It's been addressed, the questions have been answered over and over.

You wouldn't accept the answers anyway. If you did, you wouldn't be a Fundamentalist Creationist.

However, we know your answers...
1. How did life originate? GodDidIt
2. How did the DNA code originate? GodDidIt

Nevertheless, I probably couldn't answer the questions on the list. I'm not a biologist.

If you posted a list of 15 questions an anesthesiologist and a cardiologist could answer, I wouldn't be able to answer them either. But I'd be OK with the one operating while the other one keeps me in a state of blissful euphoria.

The reasons are the same. I have trust in people who study, learn and follow science. I'll bet you do too. I'll bet you believe all science up to the point it conflicts with your deeply ingrained religious beliefs.

Then you must explain what your eternal existence is and how it came to be.

I don't have an eternal existence. I will die just like every other living thing has died. And so will you, regardless of your hopes and beliefs in mysticism.

From whichever starting point you choose you need to explain your answer to these 15 questions

These are legit questions to answer to prove to me your are correct.

Well, actually, I don't need to do anything. I certainly don't have to prove anything to you. If you can't get past your childhood indoctrination, that's not my problem - I'm not your therapist. If you don't accept the findings of people who have studied and learned in multiple specialities of science, you surely won't accept what someone in an internet forum has to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Robotics takes ID.

Yes. Robots, which are mechanical devices made from unnatural materials and show clear signs of manufacturing (like words that read "made in china" or the use of bolts and such) that don't reproduce with variation and which aren't in competition of natural resources, are manufactured machines.

Biological creatures however, who aren't made from unnatural materials, do reproduce with variation and are in competition over limited resources. Whenever systems that reproduce with variation are in competition over limited resources in an ever changing environment, evolutionary development is the inevitable outcome.

You can easily demonstrate that by building a software program that implements a genetic algoritm.

If you disable the "mutate" fuction, which is responsible for introducing variation, then no evolution takes place. If you enable that function, evolution automatically happens.

It's just how it is. It's the inevitable outcome of the basic nature of life in an ever-changing environment.

You can stick your head in the sand if you want though. It won't make any difference to actual reality.

Evolution try's to sell me all that functional design came about without an ID

Which is demonstrably the case.

That does not compute

Because you don't understand it.
It would compute if you would just take the time to understand the process and how it's completely inevitable.
But you're not really interested in understanding it, are you?

Nothing in our lives shows that other than what evolution tells us exist due to evolution. Yet except for their "word" they can't and never will be able to prove that concept of functional design can occur without Intelligent Designer

This is false.
A simple genetic algoritm can prove that to you in 5 minutes.

Once you can prove that by a truly scientific experiment etc. Then I will listen.

Off course, you'll have to listen to the demonstration first. Which you clearly aren't willing to do.
So .... yeah.

If you're really interested, there are countless examples of experiments that demonstrated the evolution of novel traits. And by "novel" I mean traits that were present in generation X, but not in generation 1. They weren't put there by some "designer". Instead, they evolved through the simple process of reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.

Prove Functional Design can occur w/o ID.

BoxCar2D

You might need to enable/install flash in your browser.
Just leave that open for an hour or two.

Generation 0 is a random mess of polygons with a random amount of wheels attached in random places.
From there, the evolutionary algorithm is followed.

1. First a fitness test (how far can it go on the track and how fast can it do it)
2. Then reproduction of the top X performers (with some randomizing factor to make it more realistic)
3. The off spring are mutated a tiny bit in a random way (that mutation might make them perform better OR worse, or not make any difference at all).
4. Repeat

The inevitable outcome, are functional designs of car-like things that ride the track with great efficiency. No "designer" made those designs. It started out with RANDOMLY generated polygon blobs. It ended up with "cars" highly adapted to ride the selected track.

At no point was there any manual intervention. It's just the blind algoritm and the inescapable outcome thereof.


You may enter denial mode again now.

 

[sooda]

There is a poster registered here--but I have not seen him posting--that I know from another forum. He is a psychologist/therapist and has this hypothesis that the internet attracts a disproportionately high number of people suffering from some form of delusional disorder. I cannot say that I have seen any reason to reject his hypothesis.

Sounds about right to me. I keep hoping I have misunderstood.. but nooooooo.

 

[tayla]

Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

Evolution is based on science. Creationism is not.

 

[Patriottechsan]

To.just say whatever e its has to have occurred by evolution is false. Why? Because it has to come about by evolutionary means. Which limits it.

Even Darwin recognized that & wrote about problems with his theory in chapter 6.

You realize NS has no real brain like an Engineer that knows the end game & what problem it.needs to solve. Nature itself can't think or reason. DNA/RNA fits what Darwin said would destroy his theory.

Read this & actually explain how undirected trial & error by chance could create & solve these issues w/o actual brain like Engineer. Engineer can design things that look complex ie " appears" designed. Yet it's no good until the design is perfected & the design actually FUNCTIONS! Well same applies with DNA/RNA. Until design is perfected its worthless until perfected & FUNCTIONS. Evolution has no method to explain how it could do this. It's against all math odds. It's against all reality & devoid of any of our life experiences that FUNCTIONAL DESIGN can occur w/o Intelligent Designer.

Except Evolution just so stories w/o real science demonstration & how they filter out any info contrary to their agenda. What I posted is real science about DNA/RNA.

Explain how this could occur by evolutionary methods. Much less w/o using Faith & Supernatural ie against all math probabilities.

God’s DNA-detangling motors - creation.com

Actually read & attempt to answer except personal attack. If you post an article read it first & watch how it says should, might, could etc. It's all hope & nothing certain or proof. It's smoke & mirrors. It's designed to infere not prove how it could have happened w/o ID. That's not science. Yet observation shows us in reality all FUNCTIONAL DESIGN requires ID.