Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism is true!

jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:43:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I forgot to put this on the post before:
This is why, despite heaps of evidence for Evolution and observed specieation (macroevolution), it is a lie made up by communist racist Charles "SATAN" Darwin.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 10:36:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:53:43 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
trollface.jpg
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2013 12:10:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why

This quote doesn't even remotely match the description you give after this part. nowhere does Evolution say anything like what you describe, whereas creationism claims we're descended from piles of dust, if you want to go down the road of Argumentum ad Absurdum. Contrary to what you claim evolutionary biologists say, what is actually the case is that if a monkey suddenly "gave birth" to a goat we"d have ironclad evidence that evolution is false. Demanding evidence that would disprove evolutionary theory is, well let us just say it marks you as suffering from severe ignorance. I know that sounds kind of harsh, but this question is so common it is simply astonishing. "I ain"t seen no bird give birth to no fish, evolution is wrong!" Gee, maybe because a bird giving birth to a fish would be evidence of the supernatural? Could that be it? Heck, if I saw that I"d probably say, "Okay, you win God really did make Adam and Eve. Game over. Too bad evolutionary theory and all you biologists, better start looking for new jobs." Instead, this lack of evidence of the divine is somehow a mark against evolutionary theory.

These are the kinds of "standard arguments" that creationists think are terribly devastating to evolutionary theory. They don"t realize that things like chemistry has rules and certain things aren"t going to happen, or that natural selection is not random, etc. And from this ignorance are born the doppy objections to evolutionary theory.

At 12/14/2013 9:43:35 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I forgot to put this on the post before:
This is why, despite heaps of evidence for Evolution and observed specieation (macroevolution), it is a lie made up by communist racist Charles "SATAN" Darwin.

Is it actually possible for creationists to object to evolution and not lie in the process?

In any case, virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

In addition, the mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. Not to mention that the views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.

Also, when properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. Besides which, racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism. Of course, none of this has to do with how evolutionary theory is a fact in science.

As for calling Darwin a "Communist", this is a blatantly not the case. "The Communist Manifesto" was published in 1848 and "On the Origin of Species" was published in 1859. The few people who were impacted by Marx and Engels's writings were the members of some workingmen's organizations in England and Germany. It wasn't until much later on that Marxist theory began to have more of an impact in European politics. Charles Darwin didn't live in a segment of society that would have been greatly impacted by Marxism during the time in which he lived.

As for the "Satan" remark, yeah that's just absurd and lacks any evidence for such supernatural beings.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 2:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.

Obvious troll is obvious.

The dead give away is that you said monkeys give birth to goats. Creationists use birds giving birth to dogs.
AndrewB686
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 5:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:43:35 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I forgot to put this on the post before:
This is why, despite heaps of evidence for Evolution and observed specieation (macroevolution), it is a lie made up by communist racist Charles "SATAN" Darwin.

Ignorant troll, please go back to your dogmatic church and pray to your everlasting teapot.
There would be more good marriages if the marriage partners didn't live together."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 7:48:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 2:12:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.

Obvious troll is obvious.

The dead give away is that you said monkeys give birth to goats. Creationists use birds giving birth to dogs.

LOL, that is a great comeback to the troll. Thanks.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:08:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 5:58:18 PM, AndrewB686 wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:43:35 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I forgot to put this on the post before:
This is why, despite heaps of evidence for Evolution and observed specieation (macroevolution), it is a lie made up by communist racist Charles "SATAN" Darwin.

Ignorant troll, please go back to your dogmatic church and pray to your everlasting teapot.

Can't you see that I was sarcastic, by saying things like "despite heaps of evidence" and "monkeys don't give birth to goats"? I was trying to show how some objections to evolution by creationists don't work.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:13:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:08:03 PM, jh1234l wrote:
At 12/16/2013 5:58:18 PM, AndrewB686 wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:43:35 PM, jh1234l wrote:
I forgot to put this on the post before:
This is why, despite heaps of evidence for Evolution and observed specieation (macroevolution), it is a lie made up by communist racist Charles "SATAN" Darwin.

Ignorant troll, please go back to your dogmatic church and pray to your everlasting teapot.

Can't you see that I was sarcastic, by saying things like "despite heaps of evidence" and "monkeys don't give birth to goats"? I was trying to show how some objections to evolution by creationists don't work.

Unfortunately, your post is far too close to "reality" to be easily distinguishable as sarcasm.

Note, creation is the paradigm that brings you the theory that life was transported around the world post-flood by being fired by volcano.

Oh, and being hit by billions of tonnes of comets re-entering the atmosphere at 27,000mph will create "cold spots".
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:15:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evilution is a lie because goats don't suddenly change into banana trees. Evolution has never been observed, ever! All the so called evidence and "observed evilution" are made up by satan worshipping scientists who are trying to destroy America. Evilution is just a theory. Evilution says that a big explosion suddenly created dust particles which suddenly turned into rock, then life spontaneously appeared out of inanimate matter, and then fishes suddenly crawling out of lakes and turning into people. The cambrian explosion is a perfect piece of evidence against evilution, because evolution and the creation of new species through natural selection has never happened before the cambrian explosion and will never happen ever! Spred the truth about the lie of evilution made up by racist communist satanist pro-nazi (even though nazis never appeared until after Charles Darwin wrote the book "The Origin of Species") athiest Charles "EVIL" Darwin!
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:18:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:15:28 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Evilution is a lie because goats don't suddenly change into banana trees. Evolution has never been observed, ever! All the so called evidence and "observed evilution" are made up by satan worshipping scientists who are trying to destroy America. Evilution is just a theory. Evilution says that a big explosion suddenly created dust particles which suddenly turned into rock, then life spontaneously appeared out of inanimate matter, and then fishes suddenly crawling out of lakes and turning into people. The cambrian explosion is a perfect piece of evidence against evilution, because evolution and the creation of new species through natural selection has never happened before the cambrian explosion and will never happen ever! Spred the truth about the lie of evilution made up by racist communist satanist pro-nazi (even though nazis never appeared until after Charles Darwin wrote the book "The Origin of Species") athiest Charles "EVIL" Darwin!

Yeah. Still too close to reality.
AndrewB686
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:38:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:15:28 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Evilution is a lie because goats don't suddenly change into banana trees. Evolution has never been observed, ever! All the so called evidence and "observed evilution" are made up by satan worshipping scientists who are trying to destroy America. Evilution is just a theory. Evilution says that a big explosion suddenly created dust particles which suddenly turned into rock, then life spontaneously appeared out of inanimate matter, and then fishes suddenly crawling out of lakes and turning into people. The cambrian explosion is a perfect piece of evidence against evilution, because evolution and the creation of new species through natural selection has never happened before the cambrian explosion and will never happen ever! Spred the truth about the lie of evilution made up by racist communist satanist pro-nazi (even though nazis never appeared until after Charles Darwin wrote the book "The Origin of Species") athiest Charles "EVIL" Darwin!

I've heard that before too.
There would be more good marriages if the marriage partners didn't live together."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 6:52:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Clearly this is a trolling adventure ... but just so we're clear, creationism can refer to so many different beliefs, which creationism are we talking about?
JeniferLong
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 1:58:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.

Is this true? How come?
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:57:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 1:58:56 AM, JeniferLong wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.

Is this true? How come?

I was being sarcastic and trying to demonstrate why most creationist arguments are strawmans and non-sequiturs.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 11:32:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 6:52:41 PM, SubterFugitive wrote:
Clearly this is a trolling adventure ... but just so we're clear, creationism can refer to so many different beliefs, which creationism are we talking about?

There are 6 types of creation:
- Cosmic creation (God creating the cosmos)
- Stellar/planetary creation (God creating the stars and planets in the cosmos)
- Chemical creation (God creating the different elements)
- Organic creation (God creating life from non-life)
- Macro-creation (God creating different kinds of life)
- Micro-creation (God creating variations within kinds)

Of these above types of creation, only... none of them have ever been observed - but that's okay because they're true anyway. You are welcome to disbelieve any of the above, but that disbelief is obviously not grounded in science or common sense.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 1:32:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:46:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I haven't seen a strawman like this since I watched "The Wickerman".

I'm take it you have watched the wicker man since the last few posts you have made on this forum then ....
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 6:34:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Satan has many forms, one of which is to turn into a bearded racist nazi communist muslim athiest Charles Darwin and spread lies to destroy America and promote secularism. Evilution is a evil lie that is just a theory. It impossible that somehow rock can turn into a planet, and then life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, then bacteria suddenly evilving into people, and cats giving birth to catfishes after eating fish. It evil lie that spred by evil scientist and biolog techer! The mountain of evidence for evilution does not exist, because I don't bother to read th 10000 study report that say evilution true because there too long. Some people sau dat evilution is not what I say it is and that I use strawman, which is clearly lie becus anyone beliv evilution is a evil satan worshipper. Darwin himseelf has said that evilution is absurd to the highest degree, which is totally not quote mined adn put into creationist books. There are different types of evilution:

Micor-evilution:Da theery dat cat give birt to cafish!
Macor-eviltion:Da theery dat le bakteria com frumm le dirt in le ocean.
Stellar evilution:Da theery dat stars can form out of nebula, all 1000000000 of the so-called stellar evilution caught by telescope are evil lie by satan worship scientists that worship scientism.
Matter evilution: so-called heavier matter that form from hydrogen, which is bull because stars like the sun don't have nuclear fusion in core, instead it runs from God's power.

All the above are lie made by scientist that hat the truth of cretion!
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 11:15:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 6:34:11 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Satan has many forms, one of which is to turn into a bearded racist nazi communist muslim athiest Charles Darwin and spread lies to destroy America and promote secularism. Evilution is a evil lie that is just a theory. It impossible that somehow rock can turn into a planet, and then life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, then bacteria suddenly evilving into people, and cats giving birth to catfishes after eating fish. It evil lie that spred by evil scientist and biolog techer! The mountain of evidence for evilution does not exist, because I don't bother to read th 10000 study report that say evilution true because there too long. Some people sau dat evilution is not what I say it is and that I use strawman, which is clearly lie becus anyone beliv evilution is a evil satan worshipper. Darwin himseelf has said that evilution is absurd to the highest degree, which is totally not quote mined adn put into creationist books. There are different types of evilution:

Micor-evilution:Da theery dat cat give birt to cafish!
Macor-eviltion:Da theery dat le bakteria com frumm le dirt in le ocean.
Stellar evilution:Da theery dat stars can form out of nebula, all 1000000000 of the so-called stellar evilution caught by telescope are evil lie by satan worship scientists that worship scientism.
Matter evilution: so-called heavier matter that form from hydrogen, which is bull because stars like the sun don't have nuclear fusion in core, instead it runs from God's power.

All the above are lie made by scientist that hat the truth of cretion!

Also, evilution lie sould naot be tott in scool!
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 11:24:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/15/2013 12:10:21 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:

In any case, virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

In addition, the mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. Not to mention that the views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.

Also, when properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. Besides which, racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism. Of course, none of this has to do with how evolutionary theory is a fact in science.
While there were creationists who viewed blacks as inferior (using scripture as evidence at times), there were certainly evolutionists who proclaimed the theory of evolution as scientific proof that people of color are inferior. And I'm not referring to your average evolutionist back then, but actual scientists. Racism is not by any stretch of the imagination a strictly Christian/religion based phenomenon.

Now when you state that evolution refutes racism, are you talking strictly scientifically, or does morality play a part (in that morality is not supposed to be a part of science)?

The problem is that if this refutation is strictly scientific, then what if at some point evidence points to humans not being one biological race?

The reason I ask is because I firmly believe that the whole Creationism vs. Evolution issue is very political in nature. Politics/Political Correctness is a big issue.

Lets look at this statement made in regards to Dr. James Watson, the evolutionist accused of racism (aka scientific racism):

The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense."

"He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.


http://www.cnn.com....

Well, which is it? Genetic nonsense or un-politically correct racism?

In addition, I'm a Creationist who also believes that we are truly all one race. And I think that the scientific proof that we are all one race is valid, and is a result of God's design. However, an evolutionist, I would think, would have to come to grips with the stark reality that under the guidelines of 'naturalism', it could be very possible that scientific evidence could change in that regard. And what do you think would happen if so? If the evidence pointed to certain races being inferior (let's just say for now, Caucasians at the top), do you think scientists would be honest about it? Or smooth things over with politically correct verbage?
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 12:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 11:24:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/15/2013 12:10:21 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:

In any case, virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

In addition, the mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. Not to mention that the views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.

Also, when properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. Besides which, racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism. Of course, none of this has to do with how evolutionary theory is a fact in science.
While there were creationists who viewed blacks as inferior (using scripture as evidence at times), there were certainly evolutionists who proclaimed the theory of evolution as scientific proof that people of color are inferior. And I'm not referring to your average evolutionist back then, but actual scientists. Racism is not by any stretch of the imagination a strictly Christian/religion based phenomenon.

Now when you state that evolution refutes racism, are you talking strictly scientifically, or does morality play a part (in that morality is not supposed to be a part of science)?

The problem is that if this refutation is strictly scientific, then what if at some point evidence points to humans not being one biological race?

The reason I ask is because I firmly believe that the whole Creationism vs. Evolution issue is very political in nature. Politics/Political Correctness is a big issue.

Lets look at this statement made in regards to Dr. James Watson, the evolutionist accused of racism (aka scientific racism):

The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense."

"He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.


http://www.cnn.com....

Well, which is it? Genetic nonsense or un-politically correct racism?

In addition, I'm a Creationist who also believes that we are truly all one race. And I think that the scientific proof that we are all one race is valid, and is a result of God's design. However, an evolutionist, I would think, would have to come to grips with the stark reality that under the guidelines of 'naturalism', it could be very possible that scientific evidence could change in that regard. And what do you think would happen if so? If the evidence pointed to certain races being inferior (let's just say for now, Caucasians at the top), do you think scientists would be honest about it? Or smooth things over with politically correct verbage?

I was trying to show how certain objections to evolution by creationists don't work as they are based on strawmans, ad hominems, non-sequiters, and sometimes outright ignore the evidence for evolution and make claims that directly contradict what we observe.

E.g."Macroevolution has never been observed" (speciation, or the creation of new species, has been observed. An example is a new goatbeard species that formed with out artificial intervention http://www.talkorigins.org...) or "There are no transtional fossils" (there are: http://www.talkorigins.org...) outright contradict what we know.

Others are just pure strawmans. Peanut butter and bananas? Peanut butter is not suitable for abiogenesis, and only animo acids can form in a short amount of time, it takes time for abiogenesis to happen. Abiogenesis is different from spontaneous generation, which has been disproven, and evolution.
Wild bananas have big seeds, while bananas at the supermarket are domesticated and cultivated so that they don't have seeds.

Some don't even make sense: "evolution is just a theory" A scientific theory is not just a guess.

JonMilne did not get my point and went on for a rant about how evolution disproves racism. :P
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 1:19:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 12:10:29 PM, jh1234l wrote:

JonMilne did not get my point and went on for a rant about how evolution disproves racism. :P
Yes, they are 2 different topics. If JonMilne or anyone feels inclined to address the issue of racism in science further, we can start a new thread.

In anyone's defense however, these types of forums can get a bit confusing. For instance, it took me awhile before I realized that none of these discussions have anything to do with The Wizard Of Oz.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 1:29:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 11:24:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 12/15/2013 12:10:21 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:

In any case, virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery (Darwin 1913, especially chap. 21), and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

In addition, the mention of "favoured races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. Not to mention that the views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.

Also, when properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. Besides which, racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism. Of course, none of this has to do with how evolutionary theory is a fact in science.
While there were creationists who viewed blacks as inferior (using scripture as evidence at times), there were certainly evolutionists who proclaimed the theory of evolution as scientific proof that people of color are inferior. And I'm not referring to your average evolutionist back then, but actual scientists. Racism is not by any stretch of the imagination a strictly Christian/religion based phenomenon.

Now when you state that evolution refutes racism, are you talking strictly scientifically, or does morality play a part (in that morality is not supposed to be a part of science)?

The problem is that if this refutation is strictly scientific, then what if at some point evidence points to humans not being one biological race?

The reason I ask is because I firmly believe that the whole Creationism vs. Evolution issue is very political in nature. Politics/Political Correctness is a big issue.

Lets look at this statement made in regards to Dr. James Watson, the evolutionist accused of racism (aka scientific racism):

The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense."

"He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.


http://www.cnn.com....

Well, which is it? Genetic nonsense or un-politically correct racism?

In addition, I'm a Creationist who also believes that we are truly all one race. And I think that the scientific proof that we are all one race is valid, and is a result of God's design. However, an evolutionist, I would think, would have to come to grips with the stark reality that under the guidelines of 'naturalism', it could be very possible that scientific evidence could change in that regard. And what do you think would happen if so? If the evidence pointed to certain races being inferior (let's just say for now, Caucasians at the top), do you think scientists would be honest about it? Or smooth things over with politically correct verbage?

Evolution, science and naturalism only deals with differences. In fact there is a lot of evidence that races have differences that make them better and worse at certain things. Europeans can digest milk aim adulthood, Kenyans are better at long distance running and Tibetans can deal better with low oxygen conditions: all down to genetic differences.

The value judgement, that one of those races is worth more is not a naturalistic issue as value is not objective.

Even if it was, even if we could unanimously and objectively show that one race was significantly smarter and stronger than another (which we can't) what would it mean?

It would simply mean that one race is objectively significantly smarter and stronger than another. Whether you like the empirical facts or not, it would not change the empirical facts.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is going to happen any time soon (this side of the morlocks), but if it did, no amount of moral objection or "not wanting to believe" would change those empirical facts. As they are empirical facts.

Using "what if science showed something you don't like is true" as an argument against accepting various aspects of science (this appears to be what you are arguing, apologies if it isn't) misses the point. If you don't like it and it's true, you can reject what you like, the thing you don't like is still true.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 2:45:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 9:41:53 PM, jh1234l wrote:
Monkeys don't give birth to goats, which is why a theory explaining biological diversity with "mutations can be beneficial or negative, and organisms are more likely to pass on beneficial mutations because it makes them more likely to survive and reproduce" is wrong.

Oh please. You obviously have very little knowledge about Evolution and the theory.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 3:25:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 1:29:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:


Using "what if science showed something you don't like is true" as an argument against accepting various aspects of science (this appears to be what you are arguing, apologies if it isn't) misses the point. If you don't like it and it's true, you can reject what you like, the thing you don't like is still true.
I created a new thread using your quote. I didn't want to veer off topic from this thread.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 9:13:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 5:54:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
An interesting question would be whether mutations can make weasels whales.

No. Impossible.

If you actually researched the subject you would understand that any subspecies of weasel would remain a weasel for the same reason it would remain a eukaryotic, jawed vertebrate craniata Chordata duetrostomic placental mammal. Mutations will drive generations to differences over time, significant differences in significant time from the original but they will always remain part of the same inherited clade structure as any ancestor by definition. Weasels can never ever become whales, because without biologically impossible hybridization between the cetation clade and the weasel clade they will always remain different AND seperate clades.

It is such misinterpretation and misunderstanding of how the nested heirarchy works that is rampant within creationist circles.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:17:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 9:13:42 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/28/2013 5:54:01 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
An interesting question would be whether mutations can make weasels whales.

No. Impossible.

If you actually researched the subject you would understand that any subspecies of weasel would remain a weasel for the same reason it would remain a eukaryotic, jawed vertebrate craniata Chordata duetrostomic placental mammal. Mutations will drive generations to differences over time, significant differences in significant time from the original but they will always remain part of the same inherited clade structure as any ancestor by definition. Weasels can never ever become whales, because without biologically impossible hybridization between the cetation clade and the weasel clade they will always remain different AND seperate clades.

It is such misinterpretation and misunderstanding of how the nested heirarchy works that is rampant within creationist circles.

I wonder if evolutionists have a sense of humor.

I was talking about the origin of whales, when there was no whales.