More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

Creationists have a lot of rules for God to follow.

What's a creationist?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a strange dichotomy to hold a belief that God created everything, yet we cannot learn anything from that creation. That knowledge gained from and about this divine creation is somehow tainted, since it was not written down 2,000 years ago.

It is sadly amusing that we live lives now, using knowledge and technologies that are no where to be found in the Bible. The literalists live this way too. The literalist view is a a strange and intellectually suicidal approach to life.

Who said we can't learn anything from creation? It seems like you are subterfuging.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's a creationist?

Originally, it probably was just any person that believed in a divine creation of the world, life, universe, etc. In Christianity, it would include a person with a more or less, literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis as if the story is historical fact with absolutely no unguided natural progression of reality.

I have seen that the definition can be further expanded to include such characters and a denial of reality, misuse of or misunderstanding of logic, denial of evidence, intractable belief that they know the Mind of God, profuse use of logical fallacies, rehashing of long defeated and dead arguments, etc., etc., etc. Which for a Christian is amusing, since believing the world was created by God, then the natural world is in effect the Word of God and creationists must maintain the illogical dichotomy of both claiming to believe God's Word and denying it at the same time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who said we can't learn anything from creation? It seems like you are subterfuging.

I am not prevaricating. I am pointing out a logical conclusion from what I have seen. You cannot explain something as widely known as the fossil record, yet any rational and substantiated explanation that is available is automatically denied based on a belief in a doctrine.

You consider the world the result of divine creation, yet you deny the evidence found in that world.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Within the past century or so only has mankind picked up fairly quickly on electricity and motor vehicles. (And polluting the earth while doing so.)
So obviously men can quickly do fantastic things. The written record of all mankind is only several thousand years old. Yet it is claimed that neanderthals and other humans 40,000 or more so years ago did not need to read and write. Again...a supposition. Similar to the idea that neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens and no one knows how the so-called neanderthals became extinct. It's maybe this is or maybe that. But no one knows. But we do know about ancient writings. And we know that bones have been excavated.

What do you mean they did not need to read and write? My ancestors did not need air conditioning, but I bet they would have used it if it was available.

There are many things that we do not know. We do know that Neanderthals went extinct. Not knowing how does not mean they did not go extinct or that they never existed.

Are you sure you think their bones have been found? I was sure that ancient bones and fossils were something you denied existed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Within the past century or so only has mankind picked up fairly quickly on electricity and motor vehicles. (And polluting the earth while doing so.)
So obviously men can quickly do fantastic things. The written record of all mankind is only several thousand years old. Yet it is claimed that neanderthals and other humans 40,000 or more so years ago did not need to read and write. Again...a supposition. Similar to the idea that neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens and no one knows how the so-called neanderthals became extinct. It's maybe this is or maybe that. But no one knows. But we do know about ancient writings. And we know that bones have been excavated.

You do realize that the knowledge we have gained about the natural world was not some sort of revealed truth just given to us. Knowledge is not just handed out like mints after dinner. The quest for knowledge is a difficult, time consuming, sometimes repetitive and awkward struggle. In order to be accepted it has to be continually tested and reviewed. You seem to want knowledge free without any effort.

 

[YoursTrue]

So weird that a certain creationist windbag never replied to ANY rebuttals of his laughably naive rant... Hmmm....
I was so looking forward to learn what "nebulous DNA" is, who claimed that "human DNA" was around 1 million years ago, etc....

At least Stephen Jay Gould was honest enough to say, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
(Yup.)

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean they did not need to read and write? My ancestors did not need air conditioning, but I bet they would have used it if it was available.

There are many things that we do not know. We do know that Neanderthals went extinct. Not knowing how does not mean they did not go extinct or that they never existed.

Are you sure you think their bones have been found? I was sure that ancient bones and fossils were something you denied existed.

lol, right -- your ancestors did not need a/c, and so that's why you surmise writing was developed only lately? lolol, laughing here...
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Stephen Jay Gould)

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realize that the knowledge we have gained about the natural world was not some sort of revealed truth just given to us. Knowledge is not just handed out like mints after dinner. The quest for knowledge is a difficult, time consuming, sometimes repetitive and awkward struggle. In order to be accepted it has to be continually tested and reviewed. You seem to want knowledge free without any effort.

Now let me see -- are you saying that you can't really explain what scientists claim by "proof" of their statements? And that your ancestors didn't need a/c, is that it? Maybe not in the ice age...See, I'm helping you here... You guys are so interesting to cope with.

 

[tas8831]

I doubt if you read that article. It still says that people came out of Africa. Did you see that?

They usually don't - they just saw it hawked on some YEC site and trusted the source. Big mistake.

 

[Bear Wild]

Within the past century or so only has mankind picked up fairly quickly on electricity and motor vehicles. (And polluting the earth while doing so.)
So obviously men can quickly do fantastic things. The written record of all mankind is only several thousand years old. Yet it is claimed that neanderthals and other humans 40,000 or more so years ago did not need to read and write. Again...a supposition. Similar to the idea that neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens and no one knows how the so-called neanderthals became extinct. It's maybe this is or maybe that. But no one knows. But we do know about ancient writings. And we know that bones have been excavated.

You avoided my main question. Would really like your input in on this question.
If you believe that your god made this world, what would teach us the most about the world - gods creation or a book actually written down by the hands of humans less than 3000 years ago?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

lol, right -- your ancestors did not need a/c, and so that's why you surmise writing was developed only lately? lolol, laughing here...
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Stephen Jay Gould)

Are you serious? Where do you come up with this? There is nothing in what I wrote nor am I suggesting that AC had anything to do with the development of a written language in people. I know of no claim that Neanderthals or modern humans DID NOT NEED to read and write 40,000 years ago. There is just no evidence to show that they had a written language 40,000 years ago. If they had, they would have been using that. Communication turns out to be very useful. You should try it.

And what is this Gould quote suppose to tell us? You like to throw stuff out there without explaining what you mean.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least Stephen Jay Gould was honest enough to say, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
(Yup.)

Oh right. I forgot about quote mining. Did you just discover it? That is so sweet.

Quote mining is a fallacy that creationists have used to no success for a very long time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least Stephen Jay Gould was honest enough to say, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
(Yup.)

You must have just discovered these and probably don't know there is a entire body of mined quotes by creationists to falsely establish the failure of the theory of evolution. You don't have to run with just the first one you stumbled across by itself. Throw in some variety.

Gould is proposing an argument against gradualistic evolution and not that there is no evidence to support evolution. Gould maintained that evolution occurred.

And @Subduction Zone is correct in that some of those gaps have been filled in the time since Gould made this statement you have mined to use as a false confession.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who said we can't learn anything from creation? It seems like you are subterfuging.

How can we learn something about unicorns?

For you, a claim of creation and actual creation are the same thing.

They are not.

 

[Bear Wild]

Oh right. I forgot about quote mining. Did you just discover it? That is so sweet.

Quote mining is a fallacy that creationists have used to no success for a very long time.

These are their desperate efforts when they are losing the argument. Quoting honest critical thinking questioning what is known and what is not known in science represents the lowest understanding of evolution and worst deliberate deceit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

These are their desperate efforts when they are losing the argument. Quoting honest critical thinking questioning what is known and what is not known in science represents the lowest understanding of evolution and worst deliberate deceit.

I agree. We have all seen the desperation and deceit many times.

All I will say is that I do not think @YoursTrue is necessarily being deliberately deceitful in doing this and really thinks this means more than it really does. She is relatively new at this, ignorant and grasping at any straw she thinks will help rid her of what she really does not understand. But of course, now she knows, so it will be on her if she continues to use such tactics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least Stephen Jay Gould was honest enough to say, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
(Yup.)

Gould was being honest in what he wrote. But you are being duped by less ethical creationists and being made to believe that honesty is about a failure of science rather than the prelude to the opening of further science.

 

[Bear Wild]

I agree. We have all seen the desperation and deceit many times.

All I will say is that I do not think @YoursTrue is necessarily being deliberately deceitful in doing this and really thinks this means more than it really does. She is relatively new at this, ignorant and grasping at any straw she thinks will help rid her of what she really does not understand. But of course, now she knows, so it will be on her if she continues to use such tactics.

I agree with you but they fall in the trap that it is ok with resources as the "completely scientific" Discovery Institute. I still would love to hear @YoursTrue answer as to whether gods creation itself or a book written by humans holds the real truth. Humans or god?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you but they fall in the trap that it is ok with resources as the "completely scientific" Discovery Institute. I still would love to hear @YoursTrue answer as to whether gods creation itself or a book written by humans holds the real truth. Humans or god?

Personally, I think she will go for the Bible and find ever more feeble excuses to ignore the answers found in creation. Having watched so far and having seen no valid support for the claims that have been rendered, I think indoctrination and no thinking will be the rock on which a response will be founded.