Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[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?

No, they are not lying! They believe their delusion! Are they incompetent? I don't know about overall, but in these instances that would be a resounding yes!

 

[Jenny Collins]

I do

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?

I don't even know what you are talking about or what you said, and yes, I likely didn't read what you wrote!

 

[Sapiens]

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?

In order to make this a sensible discussion you need to define precisely how one would identify when "something" changes into "something else."

 

[Jenny Collins]

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

Keep telling yourself that!

 

[Jenny Collins]

You know what I

In order to make this a sensible discussion you need to define precisely how one would identify when "something" changes into "something else."

You know very well what I meant by that, and anyway, I don't believe I was talking to you! You talk about having a sensible discussion, and I wasn't even discussing anything with you in the first place

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yo

In order to make this a sensible discussion you need to define precisely how one would identify when "something" changes into "something else."

You quote Dawkins! Is he a god to you? And if so, why do you praise someone who admits that he is hostile?

 

[Jenny Collins]

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?

I found what you wrote! I don't know why some creationists think evolutionists must be atheists! Why do you think that all people who reject evolution are creationists! I am not into creation science, which is Evangelical! And I never claimed that all evolutionists were atheists! So I am puzzled by your inquiry

 

[Jenny Collins]

Why do

In order to make this a sensible discussion you need to define precisely how one would identify when "something" changes into "something else."

Why don't YOU tell me what you think I meant by something "changing into something else"?

 

[Sapiens]

Keep telling yourself that!

No need to tell me that, I already know that. But ... someone needs to tell you that. And, by-the-way, your comment does not change the fact that your lack of evidence based arguments is the definition of a fail.

You know what I

You know very well what I meant by that, and anyway, I don't believe I was talking to you! You talk about having a sensible discussion, and I wasn't even discussing anything with you in the first place

Actually I do not know what you meant. The issue of where a species/kind/type/something else begins and ends is critical to this discussion and serves to prevent that favorite creationist tactics of god the gaps and wandering goalposts.
If you want to have a private conversation go to a private spot. This is a place for public discourse where anyone who wishes can pipe up at any time.

You quote Dawkins! Is he a god to you? And if so, why do you praise someone who admits that he is hostile?

I am an atheist, I have no god(s). Dawkins was a professor of mine when I was at University, I enjoyed our association, I consider him a friend and I agree with him that fundamentalist religion actively debauches the scientific enterprise; that it teaches one not to change one's mind, and to not want to know the exciting things that are available to be known. I share his observation that fundamentalist religion subverts science and saps the intellect. I'm sure that he was using the word "hostile" in the sense of, "being in opposition to," as in, "hostile to the proposal." Vous comprenez?

 

[Sapiens]

Why do

Why don't YOU tell me what you think I meant by something "changing into something else"?

What's the problem? I have no way to look inside your head and tell you what you meant. It's your term, don't you think that you should know what you meant when you used it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Bacteria, fruit flies, finches, etc, are not examples of macroevolution for the reasons I already stated!

Of course they are. You simply saying "Nuh uh" does not overturn independently observed reality.

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!

The peppered moth case is an excellent example of evolution by natural selection. The population evolved to meet changing circumstances.....twice.

No, I did not read your link

Then on what basis can you say anything about their contents, including their conclusions?

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!

Given that you refuse to even look at their work, one has to wonder just what you think your deliberately uninformed opinion is worth.

What do you think of scientists who don't claim evolution is true?

At the very least they're in denial of observed reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, they are not lying! They believe their delusion! Are they incompetent? I don't know about overall, but in these instances that would be a resounding yes!

Given that you didn't even bother to read their work, on what basis can you say that?

 

[sayak83]

I found what you wrote! I don't know why some creationists think evolutionists must be atheists! Why do you think that all people who reject evolution are creationists! I am not into creation science, which is Evangelical! And I never claimed that all evolutionists were atheists! So I am puzzled by your inquiry

I linked the post. Its post Number 408

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[Jenny Collins]

No need to tell me that, I already know that. But ... someone needs to tell you that. And, by-the-way, your comment does not change the fact that your lack of evidence based arguments is the definition of a fail.
Actually I do not know what you meant. The issue of where a species/kind/type/something else begins and ends is critical to this discussion and serves to prevent that favorite creationist tactics of god the gaps and wandering goalposts.
If you want to have a private conversation go to a private spot. This is a place for public discourse where anyone who wishes can pipe up at any time.
I am an atheist, I have no god(s). Dawkins was a professor of mine when I was at University, I enjoyed our association, I consider him a friend and I agree with him that fundamentalist religion actively debauches the scientific enterprise; that it teaches one not to change one's mind, and to not want to know the exciting things that are available to be known. I share his observation that fundamentalist religion subverts science and saps the intellect. I'm sure that he was using the word "hostile" in the sense of, "being in opposition to," as in, "hostile to the proposal." Vous comprenez?

Keep telling yourself that! Just cocky bluster! I agree about Fundamentalists! However why you would praise someone who admits he is hostile, I don't understand! Since you questioned my choice of words about the meaning of evolution, you are the one who can tell me the fault you find with them! I think you are playing dumb and think I worded it awkwardly and are trying to pick it apart! Clearly I don't mean that an animal doesn't "change into" another one! And as far as your right to butt into conversations, I wasn't questioning your ability and not saying it is against rules! But it is still butting in! You have the choice, because it is a public forum! No one questions that! If you notice, I am conversing with around 5 people and I cannot talk to hundreds at one time, and since I notice that you don't have much worthy to respond to, I am going to ignore you! Keep telling yourself what you want to believe, don't let me stop you!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Given that you didn't even bother to read their work, on what basis can you say that?

I know evolution isn't true, so don't have to read every claim that comes my way, to reject it! I have read lots already!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Of course they are. You simply saying "Nuh uh" does not overturn independently observed reality.


The peppered moth case is an excellent example of evolution by natural selection. The population evolved to meet changing circumstances.....twice.


Then on what basis can you say anything about their contents, including their conclusions?


Given that you refuse to even look at their work, one has to wonder just what you think your deliberately uninformed opinion is worth.


At the very least they're in denial of observed reality.

The examples you give are microevolution, moths becoming moths, bacteria becoming bacteria, fruit flies becoming fruit flies is not macroevolution! I have read enough of the justification for scientists that believe evolution, don't need to read every link someone gives me! In fact, I prefer to talk to the people who I am dealing with, don't like a lot of links to visit!

 

[Jenny Collins]

No need to tell me that, I already know that. But ... someone needs to tell you that. And, by-the-way, your comment does not change the fact that your lack of evidence based arguments is the definition of a fail.
Actually I do not know what you meant. The issue of where a species/kind/type/something else begins and ends is critical to this discussion and serves to prevent that favorite creationist tactics of god the gaps and wandering goalposts.
If you want to have a private conversation go to a private spot. This is a place for public discourse where anyone who wishes can pipe up at any time.
I am an atheist, I have no god(s). Dawkins was a professor of mine when I was at University, I enjoyed our association, I consider him a friend and I agree with him that fundamentalist religion actively debauches the scientific enterprise; that it teaches one not to change one's mind, and to not want to know the exciting things that are available to be known. I share his observation that fundamentalist religion subverts science and saps the intellect. I'm sure that he was using the word "hostile" in the sense of, "being in opposition to," as in, "hostile to the proposal." Vous comprenez?

Vous comprenez? Are you showing off? "I was schooled by Dawkins and consider him a friend" Are you showing off? I don't mind talking to these other atheists here, but there is something about you that just rubs me wrong

 

[Darkstorn]

Vous comprenez? Are you showing off? "I was schooled by Dawkins and consider him a friend" Are you showing off? I don't mind talking to these other atheists here, but there is something about you that just rubs me wrong

Are you always this hostile to those you consider beneath yourself? Your tone and behavior is borderline insulting to those who give you the benefit of the doubt and go to lengths trying to debate your inane claims and avoidances.

 

[sayak83]

I know evolution isn't true, so don't have to read every claim that comes my way, to reject it! I have read lots already!

What scientific books and papers written by evolutionary scientists on evolution have you read so far? Could you list a few?

 

[Jenny Collins]

What scientific books and papers written by evolutionary scientists on evolution have you read so far? Could you list a few?

This wasn't only about evolution, but I read Bad Astronomy by Philip Plait! In my younger days, when I didn't have internet I spent a lot of time at the library and read different books, not necessarily all the way through, but enough to get an idea! In recent years I have read articles online, bits and pieces here and there! I have been on various sites and had debates with evolutionists and heard their views, and I have read material on the side of creation! You would say that is biased, but you read your books written from the perspective that evolution is true, so I could say the same about you!