Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That same god could have even been the creator of the laws known to science. Scientists have argued that if the major laws, such as gravity for example, would have been any different, we could not possibly exist.

Besides, a scientist creator does seem much more appealing than a witch burning, homophobic one.

We exist in about the same space as the breadth of a hair lying on your desk, as compared to your city. The universe stops looking like it had us in mind at that point. We are more fluke than anything else. The top of the food chain in the only chain for as far as we have been able to observe. This planet, our mother, is the only one we get. That doesn't suggest forethought or consideration. We are an isolated phenomena, a tiny blip on the vast surface of what currently stands as the universal lifespan. We are not special, we are not favored. We are as subject to the great game of chance as anyone or anything else. And the game cares nothing for us.

a reply to: Jim Scott



So much halfwitted nonsense has been touted in this post that it would take hours to go line by line to correct it all.
Please no more lengthy cut/pastes, let's discuss one point at a time.

First off.. creationism makes zero predictions and has zero explanatory power. This is why there is virtually no work being done to support creationism in the positive, because it doesn't make useful predictions or provide any useful explanations and there is no model than can be tested. There is nothing to back up these claims of predictions, you simply move on to disprove evolution by misinterpreting and lying about what evolution says, as we have seen a common creationist tactic.

However, Jim Scott I'm willing to give you a shot, can you show us this model that verifies these predictions, the testing and what the results are?...
Can you pick your best argument from that model and present both it and the objective empirical evidence that supports it, so we can discuss the specific points? There are many people here with PhD's in the appropriate fields, and they can help you to reach the level of science necessary for publication. Just think, you could be the first to prove evolution wrong and win a Nobel Prize!

I enjoy reading these topics, but I question the motives for starting one.

On the one hand you have creationists, whose only 'evidence' is their choice of Holy scripture, often written in quite evident scientific ignorance. Their evidence cannot change – it is static. Creative creationists, however, will reinterpret those words into new meanings and new explanations of those original words to fit current current scientific thinking. This is clever, but undermines the whole scripture on which it is based.

Scientific endeavour will always seek, always question, always add to their pool of evidence. It is far from complete, but it is getting closer with every discovery and every experiment. Sadly, it looks like not every question will be answered, or can be answered.

My question, especially to creationists, is why do you feel the need to try to convince others of your views? For such an extremely limited reserve of 'evidence', surely anyone contemplating creationism would have already done so – they don't have to read much to understand it. I also contest that anyone considering that view would come here to be convinced.

The point that started this thread, and a couple others, is that UK State-funded schools are not permitted to teach religion in science classes. I think that's fair. I wouldn't want my son to go to a Technology class and every so often throw in a French lesson. Your insistence that religion be taught in unrelated education is fundamentalism – and I think we can all do without that, thank you.

a reply to: 321Go

Some will try to deny it, but this is a war. The whole premise of heaven and hell is that Zeus or whoever is going to return or remanifest at the end of days and wage one-sided war on the unworthy. However, the vast majority of battle will be for the mind. Hence these "debates".

If it is a war, creationist will lose very badly.

All their ammunition is gathered after spending months or years pouring over religious text and then starting a thread here or there with their revelation or new way of reinterpreting ancient text.

Their problem is evolutionary biologists, and other experts in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and genetics are not posting here – they are doing their work and actually trying to answer questions.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Maybe because you pointed out the same stupid fallacies that Creationists LOVE to use against Evolution. It's pretty much a dead giveaway.

Unfortunately, most are intellectually incapable of even understanding the flaws in reasoning and logic, let alone acknowledging them.

More like a bunch of undereducated people in science think they are intellectually better at science than actual scientists who have studied that field their whole lives.

originally posted by: KAOStheory
Dispelling some misconceptions about evolution:

www.csicop.org...

From the article:
"Have you ever heard people challenge evolution by claiming that “it’s only a theory?” The Cobb County School District in Georgia did just that when it sought to put stickers on high school biology textbooks stating that, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origins of living things.” The problem with this claim rests with two different uses of the word theory. In popular usage the word refers to an unsubstantiated guess or assumption, as when someone theorizes that a light moving across the night sky must be an alien spaceship. When scientists use the word theory, however, they're referring to a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts."

Probably won't get too many on board with this here at ATS lol.

This exactly. I can't believe that they would actually put stickers like that on educational material. They should update them to say, "Evolution is a scientific theory, which means a well substantiated, evidence based, explanation of how it works." Those stickers are unconstitutional and something really needs to be done about that. People just can't stand that their religion is faith based on not fact. It truly upsets them, but it is what it is. I wonder if they put such disclaimers when they teach the theory of gravity or cell theory? The bible belt south is still decades behind the rest of the country, even 200 years after the civil war. That's just sad. It's time for people to grow up and understand that you don't have to actively fight science or even opposing viewpoints.

originally posted by: 321Go
If it is a war, creationist will lose very badly.

All their ammunition is gathered after spending months or years pouring over religious text and then starting a thread here or there with their revelation or new way of reinterpreting ancient text.

Their problem is evolutionary biologists, and other experts in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and genetics are not posting here – they are doing their work and actually trying to answer questions.

Yeah, the funny thing is that most creationists' understanding of evolution and science in general is so abysmal that the battle won't even begin, because there is no argument. These threads never even qualify as debates or even discussions, they are straight up schoolings of the science deniers and their excessive use of fallacies only makes other religious folk look bad. Most religious people are not fundamentalist in nature, but they are the ones that yell the loudest, hence why the arguments never end. Even after being thoroughly debunked, they still will not accept any explanation of reality other than the literal genesis account. So sad.

Science and religion do not have to conflict, but the hardcore religious are constantly on the attack promoting literal interpretations of ancient stories as absolute fact while pretending science as a whole is this giant conspiracy created by the devil. Oddly enough they have no problem benefiting from the many forms of technology and medicine that science has helped us create, yet anything that conflicts with ancient text is automatically false and painted into a religion by them.

The bottom line is that these threads are created to preach. They never ever actually discuss the evidence that backs evolution, they deny it whenever posted. A perfect example is how the OP claimed single cell to multi cell needed to be proven, and then put the disclaimer not to post the scientific study that backs that fact. They have no desire of understanding the opposing view or upgrading their understanding. Their position is purely to confront and attack anybody that doesn't believe the same worldview. That in itself is a direct conflict with Jesus' teachings, so I am at a loss to explain why they do it. It must be related to insecurity with their faith. It's the only possible explanation at this point. People are no longer tortured and executed for denying religious views, and as a result religion is losing its grip on society. Young people are finally starting to think for themselves and this kills the biblical literalists inside.

I've been thinking and researching how I can offer an alternative that's as easy as possible for creationists to involve themselves in and gain a little real education in the process.

Yale University is offering FREE courses in the principles of evolution and related fields. Yes, FREE world-class education. I'm going to enrol for a refresher, and I advise creationists to do the same. That way you can answer your own questions – or even put them to professors that can answer your questions much better than most people on this forum (no offence, obviously!).

Do yourself a favour and enrol. It will costs you nothing but time.
oyc.yale.edu...

a reply to: 321Go

not gonna happen. science education tends to undermine the "wow" factor that theism relies so heavily on. i mean, science gets pretty dang far into "wow" territory, but im talking christmas miracle wow. where the power lies in letting your imagination run wild.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: 321Go

not gonna happen. science education tends to undermine the "wow" factor that theism relies so heavily on. i mean, science gets pretty dang far into "wow" territory, but im talking christmas miracle wow. where the power lies in letting your imagination run wild.

The funny thing is the more we learn about the nature of the Universe and not just the big stuff we see, but the infinitely small as well. We are finding nature is more fantastic and bizarre beyond our wildest imaginings. It is a great time in history to be alive and witness to this grand reality!

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Isurrender73

No Creationists disagree merely because they want their supernatural beliefs to be true.

Do you realise that at this point you're only lying to yourself with the nonsense you just regurgitated?

Thats a strawman, you make an argument on our behalf that is untrue.

I dont believee because the evidence is lacking

How about attempting to explain the issues at hand rather than say what you want us to believe

Look here they are



However, what we see in the lab still suggests that life has barriers that it doesn't cross. We have proven that organisms can adapt to their environments and we call this speciation.

But when does a reptile become a bird? What predates the predecessor for man and ape? When did the fish become an amphibian? Did all creatures with lungs evolve from a single lunged creature? Or did multiple lineages develop lungs independently?

How did the male/female relationship evolve? How did compatible sexual organs that house two halves of one whole new life evolve? Did the split of male/female happen many times or just once in evolution?

When Darwin proposed evolution it was based solely on external visual data. Darwin would have never predicted that humans are as genetically similar to pigs as we are monkeys. Do we share common ancestor with pigs also? Do all mammals share one common ancestor, or did mammals evolve from amphibian life many times?

These are the types of questions the genome project will attempt to answer. Is it plausible?

I believe we will run into barriers that we can't seem to explain by evolution alone. And I believe those barriers are at class/phylum, because I believe all life was created according to it's kind, without having genetic predecessors.

The genome project itself cannot prove evolution. But it can prove that evolution is genetically plausible. However if we never identify plausible ancestory then we will continue to be left to our imaginations.

One group will say the common ancestors are extinct and the other will say pics or it didn't happen.

I understand that evolution suggests a slow process with common ancestory. The problem we have now is nothing appears to evolve outside it's Genus much less family, order or class.

Not even the simplest forms of life appear to be able to overcome Genus. The genome project will only be able to suggest that we are genetically similar enough for plausibility. However, until we witness organism adapting to form a new Genus it should not be considered ignorant for a creationist to disagree. Nor should scientist claim that it did happen, merely because it is plausible. It should be enough for scientists to work with plausible until they find definitive proof that can be replicated with the scientific method.However, what we see in the lab still suggests that life has barriers that it doesn't cross. We have proven that organisms can adapt to their environments and we call this speciation.

But when does a reptile become a bird? What predates the predecessor for man and ape? When did the fish become an amphibian? Did all creatures with lungs evolve from a single lunged creature? Or did multiple lineages develop lungs independently?

How did the male/female relationship evolve? How did compatible sexual organs that house two halves of one whole new life evolve? Did the split of male/female happen many times or just once in evolution?

When Darwin proposed evolution it was based solely on external visual data. Darwin would have never predicted that humans are as genetically similar to pigs as we are monkeys. Do we share common ancestor with pigs also? Do all mammals share one common ancestor, or did mammals evolve from amphibian life many times?

These are the types of questions the genome project will attempt to answer. Is it plausible?

I believe we will run into barriers that we can't seem to explain by evolution alone. And I believe those barriers are at class/phylum, because I believe all life was created according to it's kind, without having genetic predecessors.

The genome project itself cannot prove evolution. But it can prove that evolution is genetically plausible. However if we never identify plausible ancestory then we will continue to be left to our imaginations.

One group will say the common ancestors are extinct and the other will say pics or it didn't happen.

I understand that evolution suggests a slow process with common ancestory. The problem we have now is nothing appears to evolve outside it's Genus much less family, order or class.

Not even the simplest forms of life appear to be able to overcome Genus. The genome project will only be able to suggest that we are genetically similar enough for plausibility. However, until we witness organism adapting to form a new Genus it should not be considered ignorant for a creationist to disagree. Nor should scientist claim that it did happen, merely because it is plausible. It should be enough for scientists to work with plausible until they find definitive proof that can be replicated with the scientific method.

Now explain the answers and you win

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 321Go
If it is a war, creationist will lose very badly.

All their ammunition is gathered after spending months or years pouring over religious text and then starting a thread here or there with their revelation or new way of reinterpreting ancient text.

Their problem is evolutionary biologists, and other experts in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and genetics are not posting here – they are doing their work and actually trying to answer questions.

Yeah, the funny thing is that most creationists' understanding of evolution and science in general is so abysmal that the battle won't even begin, because there is no argument. These threads never even qualify as debates or even discussions, they are straight up schoolings of the science deniers and their excessive use of fallacies only makes other religious folk look bad. Most religious people are not fundamentalist in nature, but they are the ones that yell the loudest, hence why the arguments never end. Even after being thoroughly debunked, they still will not accept any explanation of reality other than the literal genesis account. So sad.

Science and religion do not have to conflict, but the hardcore religious are constantly on the attack promoting literal interpretations of ancient stories as absolute fact while pretending science as a whole is this giant conspiracy created by the devil. Oddly enough they have no problem benefiting from the many forms of technology and medicine that science has helped us create, yet anything that conflicts with ancient text is automatically false and painted into a religion by them.

The bottom line is that these threads are created to preach. They never ever actually discuss the evidence that backs evolution, they deny it whenever posted. A perfect example is how the OP claimed single cell to multi cell needed to be proven, and then put the disclaimer not to post the scientific study that backs that fact. They have no desire of understanding the opposing view or upgrading their understanding. Their position is purely to confront and attack anybody that doesn't believe the same worldview. That in itself is a direct conflict with Jesus' teachings, so I am at a loss to explain why they do it. It must be related to insecurity with their faith. It's the only possible explanation at this point. People are no longer tortured and executed for denying religious views, and as a result religion is losing its grip on society. Young people are finally starting to think for themselves and this kills the biblical literalists inside.

Maybe the problem is Barcs, some people are docile and accept what others tell them readily because they want to believe what the rest believe, others not so and want better evidence than a few vague links from those who know everything.

Maybe the problem is the docile teachers dont understand what they believe and cant relate it to others in a logical way.

I see evolution as a religion because the evidence is so vague.

So many questions on this thread have not been answered and you wont even consider even looking at them.


Lizards grew feathers, seriously did they plan to fly, was it decision the lizards made to grow feathers.
Hey lizards, lets all grow feathers to see what will happen, one day we might fly

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Start finding the missing links in the fossil records, or this remains in your imagination.

Missing link is a fallacy. There is no way to adequately fill in the missing links because every time you fill one link in, two more are created. There just comes a point when you accept that evolution is a gradual process of change over time.

Again evolutionist claiming to prove something, without the proof. Your imagination is not proof.

I could have SWORN I posted an article to Scientific American in my post showing that dinosaurs are now believed to have had feathers. Oh wait I did! So now you are actually being dishonest.

I am not against evolution, I am for the truth. The truth is we don't know, and we can't prove.

Using terms like "evolutionist" shows that yes you are against evolution. You are SO against it that you disbelieve it religiously and have to invent slurs to bring the opposing argument down to your level.

Dinosaurs with feathers might not have the same ancestry as dinosaurs with scales. W e don't know much of anything yet.

So? It still proves that reptiles of the past were different than reptiles of the present. You can't just casually dismiss things that prove you wrong.

Comes a time when you just believe by faith, you are preaching with these statements, kaching

Why did dinosaurs have feathers, what were they planning, on growing jet engines or propellers at some stage, are you suggesting their end goal with feathers was flight, they had a plan, a design for flight

I am not against evolution any more than I am against scientology, I am against religious science and stupid science


Barcs all I hear from you when questions are asked is the same faith statement over and over

originally posted by: Krazysh0tThere just comes a point when you accept

Thats a faith statement, you are as religious as those you oppose

originally posted by: borntowatch

Thats a strawman, you make an argument on our behalf that is untrue.

I dont believee because the evidence is lacking

Not just a ridiculous double standard, but also utterly and blatantly intellectually dishonest. You will lap up religious garbage based on no evidence at all, then turn around and spout this nonsense when talking about evolution.

Not surprised one bit - you crossed the line into self parody long, long ago. Thanks for the laugh.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Isurrender73
However, what we see in the lab still suggests that life has barriers that it doesn't cross. We have proven that organisms can adapt to their environments and we call this speciation.

But when does a reptile become a bird? What predates the predecessor for man and ape? When did the fish become an amphibian? Did all creatures with lungs evolve from a single lunged creature? Or did multiple lineages develop lungs independently?

If I may, your main problem is that you are thinking like a creationist to begin with, and not using a rational and logical method – which just happens to be the way of science...

You are correct in that species have developmental barriers that they live within during normal circumstances. You can think of this range as a bell curve, where the extremes are 'selected' out and the mean represents the confines of the species. Factors such as environment, predators, availability of food, or any other affecting criterion will then start to affect the curve, and if sustained will effectively split the bell into two bells, which could be of any size relationship with each other. This is speciasation – one species has become two, and one of those could become extinct due to the change of conditions. If the conditions are sudden or the rate of speciasation is too slow then the whole species will become extinct.

Feathers were not the preserve of birds when they first evolved, as there were no birds of any type when they first appeared. The different theories of why they evolved initially has not been confirmed, but the likely candidate is for thermo-protection; they trap warm air very well. Bipedal dinosaurs also had an entirely different way of breathing (they could breath and run simultaneously) and their lungs developed to be the most efficient type of any organism at that time – it was a time of very low oxygen content. Also, their bones were a hollow matrix, which allowed them to grow to enormous size without a skeletal weight penalty.

Birds share all of these features. Their feathers, which are essentially a highly developed versions of dinosaur feathers, allow them to adapt them for different purposes, from downy insulation at altitude to aerodynamic surfaces for flight. They have the most efficient lung of any creature alive today, including all mammals, and are exactly the same in design as dinosaurs. Finally, their light, hollow bones allow them to use as little energy as possible to enable them to fly. The arrangement of their skeleton is also exactly the same as bipedal dinosaurs.

I could go on explaining, but it is much better that you explore this subject yourself. The development of the lung, for example, is a very interesting story.You will learn nothing at all from scripture – not a single question will be answered scientifically this way. This, of course, depends on if you really want to learn or you're absolutely convinced you are correct. In that case I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life writing this, but the several years it took to learn it was incredible and awe inspiring. I highly recommend it.

I forgot to mention dinosaurs (not lizards) evolved into birds that we see today over millions upon millions of generations, each one adapting to its particular conditions and challenges, occasionally splitting one species into two time and time again.

The full story contains more miracles than all religious texts combined several times over.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Comes a time when you just believe by faith, you are preaching with these statements, kaching

Why did dinosaurs have feathers, what were they planning, on growing jet engines or propellers at some stage, are you suggesting their end goal with feathers was flight, they had a plan, a design for flight

What the hell kind of argument is this? Where does it say that an animal with feathers has to eventually fly? Why doesn't the ostrich or the emu fly? Do you really listen to the stuff that you type? It is completely ridiculous.

I am not against evolution any more than I am against scientology, I am against religious science and stupid science

THAT'S a joke!

Howdy,

sorry I got bit late on this discussion, let's not comment on opening of your post as everything can be clearly explained in closure of your post.

Evolution has become the science of imagination. If you can imagine it happened then you can be a scientist.

Only reason you might feel this way is because you don't understand science, witch you showed in opening of your post. I am not sure if education, or more correctly lack of eduction might be the cause. Science works on observation and has nothing to do with imagination, except that some things we can only imagine today they make possible tomorrow.

I am a creationist who believes that when God speaks of the animals according to their kind, he is talking about the class/phylum. I put both because I believe it is possible we still have much to learn about class/phylum and the adaptation of life, which is also known as micro evolution.

Good for you! Not sure how this will help you with life... but you can believe in rest of fairy stories as well. We don't have issues with that...

I do not believe that life arose absent a creator. I believe that all life was created according to their kinds.

Your belief has nothing to do with reality and as its being purely based on fairy tales its not different then belief of a kid looking for coin under his pillow after he left tooth night before. It's based on story he heard and believe being true... only difference, kids grow and learn story being just that, story... while some hold on those childish wishful thinking.

This is how I use my imagination. They tell me I can't be a scientist because what I my imagine is not what they imagine.

No, this is not correct. Only reason you can't be scientist is because you don't follow how science works nor believe in experiments and observed. For example, you can't understand universe if you don't believe its ~ 13 billions year old. For you God created everything without much fuss OUT OF NOTHING in few days, but then when he realized he needs to create one more thing, he needed Adam's rib?! Do you ever ask your self - why??

When scientists stop claiming to prove what they have not proven, then I will rearguard them as scientists. Currently they resemble theologians.

I think this is bit misleading - science likes to prove everything we can find EVIDENCE for, so yes, scientist proved (many times over) evolution as being true, correct and latest genetic research just proved what has been already known. We still don't have workable model for Abiogenesis, thus it's still hypothesis - not theory yet.

There, hope this helps ya cope with time. In the case you are more interested how science works, I can provide you few good references and as well couple college/university level classes that might help you better understand.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: borntowatch

Thats a strawman, you make an argument on our behalf that is untrue.

I dont believee because the evidence is lacking

Not just a ridiculous double standard, but also utterly and blatantly intellectually dishonest. You will lap up religious garbage based on no evidence at all, then turn around and spout this nonsense when talking about evolution.

Not surprised one bit - you crossed the line into self parody long, long ago. Thanks for the laugh.

Very pretty picture and link and talk

But

what

No evidence

might as well throw leaves in the air for all the substance your post contains

Might get the evolutionist fan boys clApping but intellectually its invalid

Evidence wins the ARGUMENT NOT PRETTY PICTURES.

sTEP UP AGAIN PLEASE