Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jenny Collins]

Why, did you forget how to use Google?

Maybe I can help get you started -- LMGTFY

You claimed that "you will continue to be laughed at" if I refuse to understand the conjecture of evolution! How can it be understood? It is a mess and evolutionists fight each other about the details! If they can't understand it, how can I? It doesn't make sense! As far as you "laughing at me" that is a tool of propaganda! People don't want to be laughed at, so they may give into peer pressure and go along with the crowd! Like the scientists who have to keep suppressing doubts that they have about this conjecture! They don't want to be the objects of derision, so they uneasily go along with it! By the way, I think it was Philip Plait who gave the famous speech "Don't be a *&6=" I won't say the word, but when these evolutionists were verbally abusing me on another site, an evolutionist came to my defense and shared the video of his speech! I checked it out to get the gist of it, but I didn't really care for the word he used! But he makes a good point! Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you have to taunt and ridicule! Atheists claim they don't need God to be good people, well verbal abuse discredits that claim

 

[Jenny Collins]

It is difficult to respond to aggressive combative tactics of YEC extremists. I may give it some thought and come back.

Comments:

(1) The Discovery Institute is at the forefront of an attempt to give a scientific explanation for Creationism focusing heavily on 'irreducible complexity.' The problem remains that the Discovery Institute has failed to provide falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrate 'irreducible complexty,' young earth, and the Creationist Theology in any aspect. Yes there are a few scientist in involved her, but very few, and they are the ones that have failed to provide the hypothesis.

(2) I have been a professional geologist for more than forty years specializing in soil science, geomorphology, and geochemistry. The biggest problem from my professional perspective the argument for a young earth. The stratigraphy of the earth has clearly falsified an earth billions of years old, with no evidence of a global nor regional flood that would fit the claim of the Biblical flood.

Hockeycowboy is not a YEC! He believes the earth is over 4 billion years old! Just because someone rejects evolution, doesn't mean they have the same ideas! It is evangelical types who believe the earth is young, like Baptists and Pentecostals! When you make assumptions about other people's beliefs and then tear down those assumptions, that is a strawman

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheists claim they don't need God to be good people, well verbal abuse discredits that claim

If verbal abuse is your gauge of the validity of 'world view' or the standard of 'good people,' we are all discredited and invalidated.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hockeycowboy is not a YEC! He believes the earth is over 4 billion years old! Just because someone rejects evolution, doesn't mean they have the same ideas! It is evangelical types who believe the earth is young, like Baptists and Pentecostals! When you make assumptions about other people's beliefs and then tear down those assumptions, that is a strawman

Evangelical Christians can believe in a young earth or an old earth, and still reject evolution. The problems of the selective misuse of science or the rejection of science remains a serious problem regardless.

 

[Jenny Collins]

If verbal abuse is your gauge of the validity of 'world view' or the standard of 'good people,' we are all discredited and invalidated.

What an intellectually dishonest claim! We both know that I didn't say that if someone is verbally abused, that claims that they are speaking truth! Strawman and twisting of words! It would take a very simple, feeble minded person, to think that if someone says something, and the opponents laugh, that proves what they said is true! Laughter proves or disproves nothing! However, derision is a technique of propaganda! A very effective one! No one wants to be laughed at, so they cave to peer pressure! Another thing about derision, is that it is sometimes done when the person is frustrated by the other person winning the argument! They experience cognitive dissonance, that uneasy feeling when presented with logic that upsets their world view! So they become reactive and abusive! Of course sometimes people laugh at others because they have ludicrous ideas! If someone told me the world was flat, I might be tempted to laugh, but I am too nice to do that!

 

[Thumper]

YOU: "I don't think you understand any of this" ME: What you THINK doesn't matter! You don't know me, nor do you know what I think! How presumptuous! Yes, I know that life on the planet changes over time and that is microevolution! I knew that as long as I can remember! Why do you think we have so many varieties of dogs? There are variations in kind, and people can breed animals to take on certain traits, or this can happen naturally! But whatever it is that "changes" still remains the species that it is! And when it goes too far, it often becomes sterile, as in the case of mules (and yes, I know that there are exceptions and that mules have had offspring! As far as me ignoring what you have told me because you think I am too chicken, I have several people on here who are debating with me and can't respond to everything, nor do I even read everything when they are long winded! And also, in order for me to reply to everything, I would need to do extensive research to give good answers! What I often do is later research things and I find good answers, but I don't necessarily return to explain them to the people who challenge me, because they could do the research themselves! I don't know how to share links, and I am not going to quote the people who give the explanations because it would be too time consuming! I have a life outside of this

And you still haven't addressed the rest of my earlier post where I pointed out how much our understanding of biology helps us all live better, healthier lives.

 

[Jose Fly]

No it hasn't

Yes it has.

Finches

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Fruit flies

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species. - PubMed - NCBI

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. - PubMed - NCBI

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

Cichlids

Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? - PubMed - NCBI

Cicadas

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem. - PubMed - NCBI

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11165695&dopt=Abstract

Yeast

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12459586&dopt=Abstract

Bacteria

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10752687&dopt=Abstract

Goatsbeard

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

Sparrows

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05183.x/abstract

but I like your new avatar!

We'll see if it helps.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have not seen speciation turn one creature into another

You're not expected to.

and neither has any scientist.

That's incorrect

Speciation simply creates variety within a species.

Speciation means creating new species.

I refer you to the examples in Wiki on speciation. The flies were still flies and would have remained so for the rest of whatever. The stickleback fish were still stickleback fish, only a new variety.

Nope.New species.

Transitional fossils are missing altogether in the fossil record which science admits is incomplete.

Transitional fossils are incomplete and likely always will be, but they are abundant.

You have no real evidence for what you believe, yet you cling onto it like your life depends on it.

I do have evidence for what I believe, and I treat it like I do other scientific theories. I have o reason to abandon any of them. That is not clinging like my life depends on it. Nothing at all in my life depends on any of these theories, just their applications.

Can you tell me what piece of machinery humans might use that was not designed and made by an intelligent mind? A motor vehicle...a wristwatch...a computer....power tools.....jet skis....radar....? All are made with many components, each individually designed, that must all work together in the right sequence, at the same time to perform their tasks.

No. I thought that we were talking about biological system. They are subject to phenomena that don't affect machines

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The human body demonstrates amazing design. Think of all the components that must work to give us even our five senses. Think of the oxygen exchange between heart and lungs, then imagine the digestive system and how it extracts nutrients from food. Think of the hormonal system and the endocrine system, glands and filters and waste disposal.....think of our bone structure and how it forms the perfect framework for the rest of our body.

I'm well aware of all of that. It is not an argument against evolution. It's just another example of your argument from incredulity, already rebutted. It doesn't matter to anybody but you what you just can't see happening. I wouldn't expect you to see it, so you not seeing it isn't meaningful.

If people think these components are 'undesigned' and 'uncreated' then I would consider them to be unintelligent and incapable of evaluating the magnitude of creation as a whole. We are made for the earth and the earth was designed to beautifully support life.

And they undoubtedly think the same of the zealous faith based thinker.

If you come upon an exquisite work of art, do you normally assume that there was no artist?

If it's artifactual, no. If it's natural, I don't assume that an artist was involved. That would be an unjustified belief - a leap of faith.

"Life is here"....but where did it come from?

That's not the issue in evolution, but we can discuss abiogenesis for a moment. We don't know where life came from.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And it depends on what you consider "supernatural" to be. By the sounds of things, evolutionists seem to dismiss creation because they have some strange picture of a celestial magician 'poofing' things into existence with the wave of his hand in 7 days.

Where would we possibly get that idea?

That could not be further from the truth. That is not the way Genesis tells the story. It maybe in simple language, but what it describes is not simple at all....nor did it take a short time.

You have no biblical support for that claim. There is no reason to think that the authors f that myth didn't mean those words as they wrote them.

Are you so certain that no other life forms exist outside of earth?

No, but I consider it highly likely.

[/QUOTE]Are you sure that other dimensions don't exist where lifeforms, who are not like us, can carry on living in a form, not yet discovered by science? [/QUOTE]

No. Why do you ask?

Are you that limited in your scope that you believe that humans are the most superior intelligence in existence? I have news for you...

.

Why are you continually putting words into the mouths of others

Unless you can produce something that is designed for a purpose that had no designer and maker, your question is rather silly. Design requires a designer. Show me what complex organism does not exhibit design.

Even simple cells are not simple, they are very complex, operating much like small city.....According to Wiki, all organisms are made up of cells which are "the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms, that all cells come from preexisting cells, and that all cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells."

That being the case, if "all cells come from pre-existing cells", where did the first cells come from? Life is here...but how did it get here? If our cells contain hereditary information, whose information was the first cell transmitting? If evolution has no clue as to how life originated, what is the big deal about how life adapted? The most important question there is in science is how did life start....and yet they have no answer. Are you really sure that you can dismiss a Creator or Intelligent Designer?

Already discussed.

The fact remains that science has made tremendous inroads into understanding nature without invoking god. Not one of our magnificent scientific theories include one or benefit by throwing one in. Why would we want to go change that?

 

[Jose Fly]

And therein lies the heart of this whole issue. There is a clearly delineated separation between these two "kinds" of "evolution". (pardon the pun)

No, it's the same evolutionary processes just viewed at different scales. It's no different than erosion, where we could say each bit of soil that gets taken away by a river is "microerosion", and the loss of an entire section of riverbank is "macroerosion". Just like with evolution, the process is the same, we're just looking at it in different scales.

The fact is, scientists use one to explain away the impossibility of the other. No adaptive change in any creature produced a completely different kind of animal or bird or insect or bacteria.

In another post you wanted examples of your dishonesty. This is a good one....you keep repeating this talking point about "kinds", yet no matter how many times we ask you to define the term you refuse....only to keep repeating the talking point.

No morphing of creatures has ever been clearly established, since the "transitional" forms presented are many millions of years apart and nothing is seen in between to link them. The links are missing because they never existed.

Here's another example. You've admitted that you don't understand scientific, technical material. Yet here you are speaking as an expert in paleontology, to the point where you not only feel qualified to make such a grand declaration, you expect others to pay heed to it.

Do you see how dishonest that is?

 

[Jose Fly]

Where has this been observed?

See THIS POST.

Certainly NOT in the fossil record.

Yes it has. See THIS POST.

It may have been "documented and studied", but one has to ask "what" was documented and studied?.....someone else's ideas on how it all "must have" happened? I have never seen any real evidence that wasn't an embellished suggestion, backed up by appeals to pride. "You would have to be "dumb" not to believe this". (to quote Jerry Coyne)

It's always fascinating to see the excuses creationists come up with to make inconvenient facts go away.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I a

And you still haven't addressed the rest of my earlier post where I pointed out how much our understanding of biology helps us all live better, healthier lives.

l already told you that I don't read everything that people say, if I have several people to contend with at once, if people are too long winded and/or boring, and if I think that they are showing intellectual dishonesty, why would I want to invest a lot of time with them? But yes, our understanding of biology can help us lead healthy lives! What that has to do with the conjecture of evolution, I don't know!

 

[Jenny Collins]

A

Yes it has.

Finches

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Fruit flies

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species. - PubMed - NCBI

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. - PubMed - NCBI

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

Cichlids

Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? - PubMed - NCBI

Cicadas

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem. - PubMed - NCBI

Chronic speciation in periodical cicadas. - PubMed - NCBI

Yeast

Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast. - PubMed - NCBI

Bacteria

Septic arthritis caused by a gram-negative bacterium representing a new species related to the Bordetella-Alcaligenes complex. - PubMed - NCBI

Goatsbeard

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

Sparrows

Hybrid speciation in sparrows I: phenotypic intermediacy, genetic admixture and barriers to gene flow


We'll see if it helps.

All of what you mention doesn't prove macroevolution! It proves that there can be changes in size, color and some other traits, but doesn't prove that they become new species!

 

[Thumper]

I a

l already told you that I don't read everything that people say, if I have several people to contend with at once, if people are too long winded and/or boring, and if I think that they are showing intellectual dishonesty, why would I want to invest a lot of time with them? But yes, our understanding of biology can help us lead healthy lives! What that has to do with the conjecture of evolution, I don't know!

Our modern understanding of biology is based on evolution and has been for over 150 years. We have measurably healthier lives because of evolution science.

 

[Jose Fly]

All of what you mention doesn't prove macroevolution!

Yes it does. Again, "microevolution" is evolution within a species, such as the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. "Macroevolution" is evolution of new species, which as I showed is a repeatedly observed, documented, and studied event.

It proves that there can be changes in size, color and some other traits, but doesn't prove that they become new species!

So I'm curious.....what then do you think of the authors who wrote all those papers that describe the events as the evolution of new species? Are they lying? Are they incompetent?

And one very important question.....did you actually read any of the papers I linked to?

 

[sayak83]

I a

l already told you that I don't read everything that people say, if I have several people to contend with at once, if people are too long winded and/or boring, and if I think that they are showing intellectual dishonesty, why would I want to invest a lot of time with them? But yes, our understanding of biology can help us lead healthy lives! What that has to do with the conjecture of evolution, I don't know!

Have you read what I said? I am still awaiting a response.
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?
You asked for justifications, evidence and derivations of all claims to be included. I had included them. Did it make it too boring for you?

 

[Jenny Collins]

Our modern understanding of biology is based on evolution and has been for over 150 years. We have measurably healthier lives because of evolution science.

Bogus!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes it does. Again, "microevolution" is evolution within a species, such as the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. "Macroevolution" is evolution of new species, which as I showed is a repeatedly observed, documented, and studied event.


So I'm curious.....what then do you think of the authors who wrote all those papers that describe the events as the evolution of new species? Are they lying? Are they incompetent?

And one very important question.....did you actually read any of the papers I linked to?

Bacteria, fruit flies, finches, etc, are not examples of macroevolution for the reasons I already stated! Another example is the peppered moth! I think it was in London or somewhere, location isn't important, but anyway, the light colored moth was more prevalent! It would blend in with the white trees and birds couldn't see it, so it thrived! Then the trees darkened due to pollution, and being white became a disadvantage! So there was a shift, and the dark moths became prevalent! Never did a moth change into something else! No, I did not read your link, and what do I think of scientists opinions who claim that evolution is true? Not very much! When they make these claims it is their own interpretation! What do you think of scientists who don't claim evolution is true?

 

[Sapiens]

Bogus!

That's simple-minded horse-puckey, not evidence based debate.