The Strange Thing about Creationism

[painted wolf]

Creationism is more about trying to prove evolution wrong. There is no proving creationism right because it can't be done, so the only alternative is to attack evolution. It's a situation well recognized by both sides, but for obvious reasons only admitted by evolutionists.

And I think this point has just been excellently demonstrated in this very thread.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

I meant Creator-believers in general. You might be surprised that even YECs need to utilize logical thought to manage their businesses and other complicated endeavors of life. They may not apply the same logical focus when analyzing their scientific or theological understanding of things for various cultural and personal reasons, but they cannot be labeled entirely 'illogical'.

No, I wouldn't be surprised. How dumb do you think I am?

I agree that logic and faith are not mutually exclusive. For example, you can have blind faith that a lover truly has feelings for you simply because they say that they do or you could logically deduce by their actual behavior and history whether their actions reflect their declaration of affection. The latter example requires faith based on probability and it's still an act of trust without total certitude.

And now you're conflating faith with blind faith. The qualifier exists for a reason, you know....

 

[Shermana]

You don't need a link, you need an education.
Try your local university.

So looks like you can't actually find any direct evidence can ya.

That's what I thought.

So about calling me a liar...

 

[Android]

Sorry, but only jesus can make the blind see, (or so I'm told).

 

[doppelganger]

That brings me to the question of the thread- is Creationism more about proving a creator, or more about Creationists wanting to believe that the Bible should be taken entirely literally?

Creationism is about the psychological need that some people have to find meaning exclusively in what they believe to be a liberal reading of the Bible as a work of history and science, and the corresponding need to close off any avenue by which doubt might creep into their need for certainty.

 

[Gunfingers]

So looks like you can't actually find any direct evidence can ya.

That's what I thought.

So about calling me a liar...

Evidence of evolution in action

Genetic evidence of evolution, specifically our shared heritage with the modern chimpanzee.

Fossil evidence of evolution, specifically human evolution.

Evolution is the only possible explanation for atavisms, the appearance of traits from an organism's evolutionary past that should no longer appear.

Nothing but evolution can explain vestigial structures. There is no reason for a deity to create ostriches with wings or whales with lungs, but there is every reason for them to evolve that way.

Many examples of homologues and analogues can only be explained by evolution. For example all vertebrates have the same bones in their forelimbs. This doesn't make sense from a creationist perspective, since those forelimbs have such drastically different function it only makes sense they would have unique designs. Evolution from a common ancestor explains it, however. But then there's analogues. Pterosaurs, bats, and birds all developed flight independently, and it can be seen in their bone structure. Evolutionarily it makes sense that a similar trait evolved separately will have a different structure, but it doesn't make sense that they would be created so radically differently.

You asked about lactation and live birth. Lactation evolution isn't exceptionally well evidenced, the best hypotheses are that it evolved from sweat glands. The evolution of placental birth can be plainly seen in looking at monotremes and marsupials compared to placental mammals.

This series of videos does a pretty good job of explaining why evolution is factual and why creationism doesn't hold water.

 

[Shermana]

And did Whales develop their blowholes through random mutation? At what point did the Ostridge naturally select its way to make its wings useless? Another interesting issue is Cannibinoid receptors, did the most stoned survive? It's in animals too.

Let the reader decide if milk and lactation came from sweat.

You say bats developed flight independently, please show a link that explains how. Was it like how the Dinosaurs developed feathers? (Speaking of which, got any links to actual dinosaurs with feathers that aren't Chinese hoaxes?)

Otherwise, I think its safe to say that the Theory of Macroevolution relies on more gaps than the people they accuse.]

As for Ken Miller on the Chromosomes, we don't know how that Chromosome fused and when, and it goes against the grain. 1/1000 humans has a fused chromosome and it is NOT beneficial. How did the fused chromosome become the majority? At what point did Humanoids start resembling humans and was their massive random mutation involved in the climb up? Why are there hundreds of thousands more base pairs in humans than chimps? Is Random mutation the answer for that too?

And the concept of "Vestigal" organs is up to debate, what one person calls Vestigal, another calls "Critical". Tailbones for example are hardly Vestigal, try removing it and watch what happens.

 

[waitasec]

I couldn't disagree more. They're desperate for evidence because they don't have faith.

yup...

 

[Shermana]

Creationism is about the psychological need that some people have to find meaning exclusively in what they believe to be a liberal reading of the Bible as a work of history and science, and the corresponding need to close off any avenue by which doubt might creep into their need for certainty.

Or it's a reaction to things like when people say milk and lactation evolved from "Sweat" and that whales developed blowholes.

 

[doppelganger]

And a corollary, by the way, is that it is not a good use of one's time and energy to present the evidence on which the theory of biological evolution is based to someone who is psychologically incapable of working from evidence to conclusion because of a need to cling to a conclusion with which they have already been supplied. That is truly a fool's errand.

 

[Gunfingers]

So your big counter-argument is "nuh-uh", huh? Right on, right on. Good luck with that.

 

[doppelganger]

Or it's a reaction to things like when people say milk and lactation evolved from "Sweat" and that whales developed blowholes.

Sorry, I won't waste my time talking about science with someone who is not psychologically capable of considering evidence and working from there to a conclusion. See my prior post.

 

[McBell]

And did Whales develop their blowholes through random mutation? At what point did the Ostridge naturally select its way to make its wings useless? Another interesting issue is Cannibinoid receptors, did the most stoned survive? It's in animals too.

Let the reader decide if milk and lactation came from sweat.

You say bats developed flight independently, please show a link that explains how. Was it like how the Dinosaurs developed feathers? (Speaking of which, got any links to actual dinosaurs with feathers that aren't Chinese hoaxes?)

Otherwise, I think its safe to say that the Theory of Macroevolution relies on more gaps than the people they accuse.]

As for Ken Miller on the Chromosomes, we don't know how that Chromosome fused and when, and it goes against the grain. 1/1000 humans has a fused chromosome and it is NOT beneficial. How did the fused chromosome become the majority? At what point did Humanoids start resembling humans and was their massive random mutation involved in the climb up? Why are there hundreds of thousands more base pairs in humans than chimps? Is Random mutation the answer for that too?

And the concept of "Vestigal" organs is up to debate, what one person calls Vestigal, another calls "Critical". Tailbones for example are hardly Vestigal, try removing it and watch what happens.

So you are wanting everyone else to do your research for you?
This is a common tactic for those who prefer ratification over research.

The fact that people have to spend the vast majority of their time bringing your knowledge of evolution up to the level where you can have an honest discussion on the topic shows you are not actually wanting to learn, you are merely looking for an opportunity to run back the rest of the flock.

 

[McBell]

And a corollary, by the way, is that it is not a good use of one's time and energy to present the evidence on which the theory of biological evolution is based to someone who is psychologically incapable of working from evidence to conclusion because of a need to cling to a conclusion with which they have already been supplied. That is truly a fool's errand.

I completely agree.

FRUBAL!

 

[Shermana]

And a corollary, by the way, is that it is not a good use of one's time and energy to present the evidence on which the theory of biological evolution is based to someone who is psychologically incapable of working from evidence to conclusion because of a need to cling to a conclusion with which they have already been supplied. That is truly a fool's errand.

Translation: You have absolutely no evidence. The fool's errand is trying to convince people that you actually have evidence and then thinking of one-liner excuses when pressed for it.

 

[Shermana]

So you are wanting everyone else to do your research for you?
This is a common tactic for those who prefer ratification over research. I don't think you even understand what kind of "Research" exactly is even done by those whom you claim "Devote half their life to it". There are people in China who devote their lives to making a quick buck on fake fossils, and guess what....much of their business comes from "Scientists" who can't tell the difference. How long did it take for Piltdown man to get proven fraudulent again? What about Archaeraptor?

When there's no evidence for a claim, there's no evidence for a claim. Macro-evolution relies on NO evidence. They can study what has apparently happened, but none of those links presented earlier demonstrate ANYTHING HOW it happened.

The fact that people have to spend the vast majority of their time bringing your knowledge of evolution up to the level where you can have an honest discussion on the topic shows you are not actually wanting to learn, you are merely looking for an opportunity to run back the rest of the flock.

No, if you can't back your claims, then there is no research to begin with. The research doesn't exist. What you are saying is "You want people to prove what doesn't exist to you? Do your own research!"

The fact is, there is NO research to back your claims. If you want to believe in such things, that's fine, but the burden of proof is on the one claiming. l claim that there is no evidence for Macroevolution or sweat turning into Milk, or that the Fusion of Chromosomes in Chimps was possible on its own. I claim you CANNOT PROVE IT. Why? Because the proof does not exist. You Macroevolutionists accuse Theists of believing in things that they cannot prove.

Oh...wait...looks like you do too.

You cannot just accuse someone of saying "You want US to do your research for you?" Well that's what you call a COP OUT. Because there is NO research on the matter to prove anything. Hope that makes sense.

So in the end, Macroevolution relies on a bunch of GAPS and "We don't know but it sounds right". I've done the research,l I doubt you would even know where to begin in trying to prove that milk came from sweat.

Like I said, let the reader decide if milk comes from sweat and if there's sufficient evidence for it. Nonetheless, Macro-evolutionists are quick to shout "There's so much evidence you want us to do your research for you" but they can't actually produce anything solid when pressed.

Lamarckian Microevolution has been proven, but confusing that with Macroevolution is a major fallacy, and dishonesty at worst.

 

[Shermana]

So your big counter-argument is "nuh-uh", huh? Right on, right on. Good luck with that.

Exactly, their counter is nothing but "nuh uh" while in your case, your argument about "Sweat to milk" is UH HUH! You have no proof of it, yet you cling to the theory that sweat turned into milk. So as long as you admit that you go "nuh uh" to evidence against it and go "uh huh" to theories that require massive leaps of Random mutation that should technically not be beneficial, then you can live in your Macro-evolution fantasy. You can't just present unconclusive ideas and theories as fact, but that's exactly what Macro-evolutionists are attempting to do, and then saying "Go find the facts yourself" when pressed how such facts don't hold up water.

Like I said, let the reader decide if there's enough evidence to deem that milk evolved from sweat. You say yes, I say not.

And for those saying I want others to do my research for me, that's not true. You just don't want to look up the facts to back your claims when challenged, thanks for showcasing!

 

[Gunfingers]

Alright, you need a science lesson. In science we deal in evidence, not proof. Epistemology 101: nothing can ever be truly proven. We must therefore focus on finding the best explanation for the observed world and supporting them with evidence and experimentation.

So, when you say I cannot prove that mammary glands are adapted sweat glands, you're absolutely right. I also can't prove that the earth revolves around the sun or that gravity keeps me from floating off into space. What we do instead is say "we have mammary glands now, how do you think they got there?" and, based on their structure and the evolutionary history of mammals the best explanation to date is adapted sweat glands.

Most of evolution is much more strongly evidenced than lactation, which is a pretty trivial thing to focus on. The reality is that so much of nature can only be explained by evolution, so saying "there's one thing related to evolution of which we don't have hard physical evidence" is a pretty crappy argument against it.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so if an entire "scientific theory" is based on something that has no evidence, where does that stand?

Once again, there's plenty of evidence of MICROevolution, as I said, Lamarck is getting his due second look right now. But there is no indication whatsoever that a microspecies can radically change its form altogether.

Also it's not a matter of a "trivial" thing to focus on, that's like a soldier saying "Don't worry if you only get shot by a .22, at least its not a 5.62!"

 

[outhouse]

Okay, so if an entire "scientific theory" is based on something that has no evidence, where does that stand?

Once again, there's plenty of evidence of MICROevolution, as I said, Lamarck is getting his due second look right now. But there is no indication whatsoever that a microspecies can radically change its form altogether.

Also it's not a matter of a "trivial" thing to focus on, that's like a soldier saying "Don't worry if you only get shot by a .22, at least its not a 5.62!"

microevolution and macro are one in the same

often confused by creationist without a proper education onthe subject.

speciation has been observed in labs numerous times, thats macro evolution in your language