Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  There's quite a bit of ignorance in this thread. Allow me to expose it.

First of all, the idea that adaptation is a concept invented by creationists to combat Darwin's idea is, in a word, laughable. Adaptation precedes Darwin by millenia. That lifeforms change (adapt) has been known about as far back in human history as we can go. Plant and animal breeding -- the intentional manipulation of these adaptations -- dates back to at least 2,000 years ago.

Artificial Selection - Wikipedia

Wikipedia Wrote:Selective breeding of both plants and animals has been practiced since early prehistory; key species such as wheat, rice, and dogs have been significantly different from their wild ancestors for millennia, and maize, which required especially large changes from teosinte, its wild form, was selectively bred in Mesoamerica. Selective breeding was practiced by the Romans. Treatises as much as 2,000 years old give advice on selecting animals for different purposes, and these ancient works cite still older authorities, such as Mago the Carthaginian.

Biblical creationists know animals can evolve within certain boundaries, and have known as much for thousands of years. The question is whether or not they can evolve beyond these boundaries. That's something which has never been demonstrated in a laboratory, and the indirect evidence for it is far from convincing to the skeptical mind.

Secondly, convergent evolution does strongly imply design. Anyone who understands biology, intelligence, and who can think logically should know that. When you have identical traits evolving independently several times over, it strongly challenges the idea of randomness* playing a role in these traits' development. Rather, it overwhelming implies direction with a common goal, which is a hallmark of design.

*mutation, which is (allegedly) the creative force behind the engineering of life's traits, is said to be random, thus the end result of evolution is random, even if natural selection is not (although I contest that it is).

Remember: Darwin's idea predicts a tree of life in which traits are linear. This was one of Darwin's major predictions, and the findings of molecular biology have DEMOLISHED it; absolutely DESTROYED it. That this hasn't lead to even a single second of skepticism amongst you people is evidence of your religious-like faith in the idea. It is your creation myth.

Design proponents claim that life's development is an engineered process. Darwinists claim it's not. The evidence points towards design proponents being right, and it grows stronger by the day.

Design wins. Your creation myth fails. Ouch.

Evidence of stupidity worshiping itself.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
22-03-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
I'm still giggling over the claims that the over-2,000-year-old concept of biological adaptation is an attempt at dodging Darwin's 155-year-old "theory." That's one of the 5 dumbest things I've ever heard, and I've heard many dumb things (I spend a lot of time around atheists).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
(19-03-2014 03:20 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I can't wait for the day churches preach evolution as proof of intelligent design.

Thou can't preach what thou doesn't understand. Not trying to be offensive, but 'most' Creationists don't understand evolution enough to debate it, sensibly. There's many layers to it, and they seem to only touch upon the basics of it, and they even don't get that right.

I compare it to arguing with someone that 2+2=4, and they insist it's 5, but they don't even know how to count to 10. It's ike that.

The beauty of the heart, is the lasting beauty. - Rumi Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deidre32's post
22-03-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  There's quite a bit of ignorance in this thread. Allow me to expose it.

Thanks, kid. I can always use a laugh.

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  First of all, the idea that adaptation is a concept invented by creationists to combat Darwin's idea is, in a word, laughable. Adaptation precedes Darwin by millenia. That lifeforms change (adapt) has been known about as far back in human history as we can go. Plant and animal breeding -- the intentional manipulation of these adaptations -- dates back to at least 2,000 years ago.

Artificial Selection - Wikipedia

Shucks, you sure took a swipe at that straw man. Let 'im have it!

Except no, the fact that changes in populations do happen over time, in such a blindingly obvious manner that not even the likes of you can deny it, is relevant. Of course, you can't call that "evolution", because to you, "evolution" means a deliberate and utter mischaracterisation of real science invented for childish rhetorical purposes.

And also, Darwin's work was the single most important step (of many steps) leading to our present knowledge of biology and development. So there's that.

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  Biblical creationists know animals can evolve within certain boundaries, and have known as much for thousands of years. The question is whether or not they can evolve beyond these boundaries. That's something which has never been demonstrated in a laboratory, and the indirect evidence for it is far from convincing to the skeptical mind.

The evidence is overwhelming.

It consists of, oh, every single observation ever made. So there's that.

But you do know that speciation has been observed and documented many, many times, right?

And our knowledge of the fossil record grows exponentially richer, right? And that every finding is entirely consistent and commensurate with the evolution of new species by means of natural selection from common ancestry?

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  Secondly, convergent evolution does strongly imply design. Anyone who understands biology, intelligence, and who can think logically should know that. When you have identical traits evolving independently several times over, it strongly challenges the idea of randomness* playing a role in these traits' development. Rather, it overwhelming implies direction with a common goal, which is a hallmark of design.

That's incoherent.

You're making two different arguments. The first was "evolution is not real". The second, seen here, is "okay, maybe it is real, but it proves God anyway because IT JUST DOES OKAY".

Convergent evolution demonstrates nothing of the sort. It demonstrates that it is statistically possible for the same solution to the same problem to occur more than once.

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  *mutation, which is (allegedly) the creative force behind the engineering of life's traits, is said to be random, thus the end result of evolution is random, even if natural selection is not (although I contest that it is).

Mutations are indeed random. Natural selection is not random. If you think otherwise you don't understand it. Protip: the keyword is selection.

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  Remember: Darwin's idea predicts a tree of life in which traits are linear. This was one of Darwin's major predictions, and the findings of molecular biology have DEMOLISHED it; absolutely DESTROYED it. That this hasn't lead to even a single second of skepticism amongst you people is evidence of your religious-like faith in the idea. It is your creation myth.

Except no, Darwin did not know the mechanics by which heredity worked. He only knew that they were real. Although "a tree of life in which traits are linear" appears to be a thing you just made up; likewise "the findings of modern biology have DEMOLISHED it".

Bonus marks for "nuh-uh, you guys are religious". I'm winning creationist bingo!

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  Design proponents claim that life's development is an engineered process. Darwinists claim it's not. The evidence points towards design proponents being right, and it grows stronger by the day.

Design wins. Your creation myth fails. Ouch.

At which point the only explanation for "acceptance" of modern science by the vast and overwhelming part of the modern scientific community becomes "lol conspiracy". How compelling.

Your delusional phantasm is propped up by ever more histrionic dishonesty. Ouch.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
22-03-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
(22-03-2014 01:44 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  I'm still giggling over the claims that the over-2,000-year-old concept of biological adaptation is an attempt at dodging Darwin's 155-year-old "theory." That's one of the 5 dumbest things I've ever heard, and I've heard many dumb things (I spend a lot of time around atheists).

Hmm you spell very well for a creationist and given your name I'm guessing you are just a poe. But it is always cute seeing someone try and use an argument from ignorance against an overwhelming amount of evidence and the full consensus of the scientific community.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
22-03-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
Wait. I just noticed this.

(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  That this hasn't lead to even a single second of skepticism amongst you people is evidence of your religious-like faith in the idea.
(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  ... amongst you people...
(22-03-2014 01:22 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  you people

[Image: 500x1000px-LL-ee721afa_36alk0.jpeg]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
22-03-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
First of all, the idea that adaptation is a concept invented by creationists to combat Darwin's idea is, in a word, laughable.


Ya you a right on the word, but it is how creationist use it. Adaptation is getting used to not changing. So if an animal adapts and doesn't need to change and pass on new traits, that is not evolution. The smallest change is micro, while species level and up is macro.


Biblical creationists know animals can evolve within certain boundaries, and have known as much for thousands of years.

First is the fact that creationist change boundires that are limited. First you say all owls are the same kind but the bible says that little owls and owls are different kinds. You say ravens and crows are the same kind, but the bible says they are different. Back in the past creationist say that speciation can never happen and each kind is limited at the species level. However after seeing ring species, creationist changed the boundry. Eventually this will end up becoming evolution. Also define kind or I will kid.

Secondly, convergent evolution does strongly imply design.

No it doesn't. This is again an example of the fact that creationist will change things that they claim are once absolutely true(like how it was once claimed that speciation can never happen is the absolute truth.)

Anyone who understands biology, intelligence, and who can think logically should know that.
I do all three of those things and I don't see design. Why? Because you have to have evidence of one first. Saying it is ever where is begging the question, which is a logical fallacy, which would mean that you are not thinking logically. If saying it looks designed there for it is, is also begging the question. So what evidence can you show that even a deistic god exist? What predictions can you make? Because science doesn't have an answer. That would be an argument from ignorance, which is also a fallacy.

When you have identical traits evolving independently several times over, it strongly challenges the idea of randomness* playing a role in these traits' development. Rather, it overwhelming implies direction with a common goal, which is a hallmark of design.
There is no goal. There is no evidence of a goal. You saying convergent evolution is a proof of design is a bad example here is why. First two animals like a loon and a duck are in different orders. However they have the same body frame due to the fact of their environment. Evolution works with environmental factors. So if a animal from even a different class(like cetacea and mosasaurs for example) Will evolve in a similar way because they are in the same environment.

*mutation, which is (allegedly) the creative force behind the engineering of life's traits, is said to be random, thus the end result of evolution is random, even if natural selection is not (although I contest that it is).
Mutation is not the only part of evolution. Envrionmental factors, other organisms, population, and natural selection. Also natural selections is not random because it is the environmental factors that decide the organisms fate(this is personification by the way).

Remember: Darwin's idea predicts a tree of life in which traits are linear.
Strawman. First, I don't give a shit about Darwin, I know more then him. Second, darwin proposed the tree of life, Aristotle and his friends said it was linear.

This was one of Darwin's major predictions, and the findings of molecular biology have DEMOLISHED it; absolutely DESTROYED it.

Ya maybe your strawman version. However molecular biology had confirmed

Darwin's tree of life, in fact molecular biology is dependent on it.

You said this right after your fallacious argument? Damn you stupid.

That this hasn't lead to even a single second of skepticism amongst you people is evidence of your religious-like faith in the idea. It is your creation myth.
There is a difference between asking questions, and being a ignorant mother fucker. You sir are being an ignorant mother fucker. I ask quesitons like, what age did these animals first appear if we haven't found it yet. Where can we place placozoans if they have true tissues but are more simple then sponges? You ask questions that have been answered like where are the transitional fossils.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

or where is the evidence humans are apes.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

Design proponents claim that life's development is an engineered process. Darwinists claim it's not. The evidence points towards design proponents being right, and it grows stronger by the day.

You should meet kingschosen. He believes and both design and evolution. Evolution does not equal no god. Also Again Fuck darwin everybody besides you knows more about evolution then him. The evidnece shows the creationist are slave owners and that people like you are there slaves. You mother fuckers steal evidence we work hard for and then twist it beyond what it originally was. First with macro and micro evolution, then speciation, and now beneficial mutations. You creationist just go and stop kissing our scientific, sexy, smarter then you all, educated, peaceful, and more willing to be honest then you asses and get the fuck out.

Design wins. Your creation myth fails. Ouch.

Projection another fallacy. Jezz kid read a damn book. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
22-03-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
(22-03-2014 01:44 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  I'm still giggling over the claims that the over-2,000-year-old concept of biological adaptation is an attempt at dodging Darwin's 155-year-old "theory." That's one of the 5 dumbest things I've ever heard, and I've heard many dumb things (I spend a lot of time around atheists).

Andn, the other four dumbest things were dealing with Creationism? Laugh out load

The beauty of the heart, is the lasting beauty. - Rumi Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: Soon creationist are going to say beneficial mutations prove creationism
(22-03-2014 01:44 PM)Atheist Destroyer Wrote:  I'm still giggling over the claims that the over-2,000-year-old concept of biological adaptation is an attempt at dodging Darwin's 155-year-old "theory." That's one of the 5 dumbest things I've ever heard, and I've heard many dumb things (I spend a lot of time around atheists).

Your right evolution is an old idea, but not evolution by means of natural selection using mutations and environmental factors. Gravity was known before Newton and Helicentrism before capricious. Are you miss mengs boyfriend by any chance?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: