• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I'm posting this only because I absolutely love how the narrator makes clear just how dumb creationists can really be when confronted with real scientific questions. I know it's (only) 14 minutes long and a lot of members don't like watching anything so interminable (unless it's got cartoon Scotsmen, @Revoltingest), but really, I think it deserves a watch.

It discusses (from both sides of the argument) how kangaroos (and so many other marsupials) got from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And the creationists are absolutely pricesless when they try to make their case.

 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Maybe more important than how kangaroos got to Australia is how did an animal that was NOT a kangaroo give birth to an animal that WAS a kangaroo. As to how they got there, they probably flew Quantas.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Maybe more important than how kangaroos got to Australia is how did an animal that was NOT a kangaroo give birth to an animal that WAS a kangaroo. As to how they got there, they probably flew Quantas.

That's easy, a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal, had sex with another non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal, combining to birth a Kangaroo.

Edit: Here is a good Evolution primer for you. Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Thanks for posting this. In another thread, I asked a Creationist, how Kangaroos got to Australia. He ducked the question. I asked again and I'm still awaiting an answer.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is the best denunciation of Creationism I've read. The thing about Kangaroos hopping over to Australia from Mt. Ararat made me think of it!

What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.

Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.

Creationism is the modern manifestation of a long-standing conflict between science and religion in Western Civilization. Prior to science, and in all non-scientific cultures, myths were the only viable explanations for a myriad of natural phenomena, and these myths became incorporated into diverse religious beliefs. Following the rise and spread of science, where ideas are tested against nature rather than being decided by religious authority and sacred texts, many phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural (disease, genetic defects, lightning, blights and plagues, epilepsy, eclipses, comets, mental illness, etc.) became known to have natural causes and explanations. Recognizing this, the Catholic Church finally admitted, after 451 years, that Galileo was correct; the Earth was not the unmoving center of the Universe. Mental illness, birth defects, and disease are no longer considered the mark of evil or of God’s displeasure or punishment. Epileptics and people intoxicated by ergot-infected rye are no longer burned at the stake as witches. As natural causes were discovered and understood, religious authorities were forced to alter long-held positions in the face of growing scientific knowledge. This does not mean science has disproved the existence of the supernatural. The methodology of science only deals with the material world.
Full text here: Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Thanks for posting this. In another thread, I asked a Creationist, how Kangaroos got to Australia. He ducked the question. I asked again and I'm still awaiting an answer.
And you will wait...and wait.........and wait.

For intelligent discourse based on and referencing the material presented in the OP, see the responses just before yours...:rolleyes:
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
This is the best denunciation of Creationism I've read. The thing about Kangaroos hopping over to Australia from Mt. Ararat made me think of it!
Oh, thank you for these words!

"While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life."
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Oh, thank you for these words!

"While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life."
Yes. I really picked up those too. That, and how he names it perfectly as "scientific uselessness". All of Creationism is not scientific in anything it does. It's just another word for biblical apologist. It's scientifically useless.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A bit of irony: I was watching this on my tablet which has terrible teeny tiny speakers. I turned the captions on. The automated caption software must have been saying "Aahh! What's that sonny?". It kept writing " cancers in Genesis " instead of "Answers in Genesis". Inadvertently humorous and correct at the same time.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
That's easy, a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal, had sex with another non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal, combining to birth a Kangaroo.

Edit: Here is a good Evolution primer for you. Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Let me ask a question. Has "science" ever seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal? Or a non-dog dog style animal? Oh, second question. This very first real kangaroo was the only one of its kind so how did it reproduce to make more kangaroos? A dog cannot mate with a cat and a horse cannot mate with a cow so it would seem that a kangaroo could not mate with a non-kangaroo.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Yes. I really picked up those too. That, and how he names it perfectly as "scientific uselessness". All of Creationism is not scientific in anything it does. It's just another word for biblical apologist. It's scientifically useless.

This is why I don't see the two as at odds with one another. They don't stand in the same room, or approach the same questions IMO.
 
Last edited:

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Let me ask a question. Has "science" ever seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal? Or a non-dog dog style animal? Oh, second question. This very first real kangaroo was the only one of its kind so how did it reproduce to make more kangaroos? A dog cannot mate with a cat and a horse cannot mate with a cow so it would seem that a kangaroo could not mate with a non-kangaroo.

I gave you a simplistic answer in hopes you would maybe understand, but I see I have just further confused things.

See what people seem to forget or not know about evolution, is that it does not actually occur at an individual level, it happens through populations of similar species congruently, drawing them closer together or pushing them further apart genetically, as the population reproduces. So to answer your original question again, a species genetically similar to kangaroos, eventually diverged and over time, through reproduction/genetic recombination, and ecological shifts, to become kangaroos as we know them today.

Edit: Wanted to add there is no such thing as a transitional fossil, before you ask for one. All fossils are transitional.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I gave you a simplistic answer in hopes you would maybe understand, but I see I have just further confused things.

See what people seem to forget or not know about evolution, is that it does not actually occur at an individual level, it happens through populations of similar species congruently, drawing them closer together or pushing them further apart genetically, as the population reproduces. So to answer your original question again, a species genetically similar to kangaroos, eventually diverged and over time, through reproduction and genetic recombination, became kangaroos as we know them today.

Edit: Wanted to add there is no such thing as a transitional fossil, before you ask for one. All fossils are transitional.
Well, almost all fossils. Fossilization is a rare event. But if there is a major extinction event where a line is wiped out along with anything close to it a fossil from the time of that extinction may not be transitional.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Let me ask a question. Has "science" ever seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal? Or a non-dog dog style animal? Oh, second question. This very first real kangaroo was the only one of its kind so how did it reproduce to make more kangaroos? A dog cannot mate with a cat and a horse cannot mate with a cow so it would seem that a kangaroo could not mate with a non-kangaroo.

Take a duck and a beaver, and put on some Barry White.
You end up with a platypus.
This is basically a fact. At least, I've never been in a romantically lit room with a duck and a beaver, turned on Barry White, and NOT ended up with a platypus, which is effectively the same thing.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
I gave you a simplistic answer in hopes you would maybe understand, but I see I have just further confused things.

See what people seem to forget or not know about evolution, is that it does not actually occur at an individual level, it happens through populations of similar species congruently, drawing them closer together or pushing them further apart genetically, as the population reproduces. So to answer your original question again, a species genetically similar to kangaroos, eventually diverged and over time, through reproduction/genetic recombination, and ecological shifts, to become kangaroos as we know them today.

Edit: Wanted to add there is no such thing as a transitional fossil, before you ask for one. All fossils are transitional.
So I think you are saying that science has not seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal. They just assume they existed because their theories do not work without them.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Take a duck and a beaver, and put on some Barry White.
You end up with a platypus.
This is basically a fact. At least, I've never been in a romantically lit room with a duck and a beaver, turned on Barry White, and NOT ended up with a platypus, which is effectively the same thing.
I hope you are joking because a platypus may look like a duck and a beaver but has nothing in common genetically with either one.
 
Top