15 Questions for Evolutionists

[The_Squid]

Oh yeah? Then why did those "bottom feeding invertebrates" evolve into creationists?

Oh, right.

LOL

Betsy, if you are reading items during your timeout, here is a freely available audio book version of The Selfish Gene. Listen to it on YouTube or use a site like http://keepvid.com/ to download the mp3s for use on your iPod or phone. The book doesn't attack religion in any way it simply explains evolution and genetics in plain language. IMO, this is a great way to take in a lot of knowledge in a short period of time. It won't change your mind, in fact, it won't even try; but, it will allow you to make more reasonable points and avoid some of the unintelligible arguments listed in the OP.

Thanks for the link.... good stuff!

If there were Creationists swimming around in the prehistoric sand dollar's environment, they probably would have been chum for another 'living fossil'.

Holy shit!!

[DogOnPorch]

LOL

Thanks for the link.... good stuff!

Holy shit!!

Those t'wern't the largest beasties in the waters, either. Some types of Mosasaurs were over 20m in length.

Edited April 10, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[segnosaur]

Those t'wern't the largest beasties in the waters, either. Some types of Moasaurs were over 20m in length.

My god! How did Noah ever fit them all on the ark?

Oh, right.

[DogOnPorch]

My god! How did Noah ever fit them all on the ark?

Oh, right.

Big critter, indeed. Some members of the plesiosaurs genus were also in the 15-20m range such as the Kronsaurus Queenslandicus and Elasmosaurus. As a kid, I asked the same question re: Noah....and I smelled BS.

[The_Squid]

I think Noah only took land creatures... sea creatures were fine with the flood.

²⁰ Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. ²¹ You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=NIV

[DogOnPorch]

I think Noah only took land creatures... sea creatures were fine with the flood.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=NIV

That certainly explains why there are no more mosasaurs...or rhamphorhynchus flitting about.

Edited April 10, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Canuckistani]

The people who wrote that stuff weren't really dimwits. Even they must have noticed that just the birds and land animals known to them, with sufficient food for a couple of months would never fit into the ark they describe. And what, they didn't know about insects? (Better watch out for those termites). They knew this was allegory, not reportage. Why have some modern Christians become so stupid?

[DogOnPorch]

The people who wrote that stuff weren't really dimwits. Even they must have noticed that just the birds and land animals known to them, with sufficient food for a couple of months would never fit into the ark they describe. And what, they didn't know about insects? (Better watch out for those termites). They knew this was allegory, not reportage. Why have some modern Christians become so stupid?

The Tigris and Euphrates flooded on a very regular basis.

[segnosaur]

Re: How did Noah fit the Mosasaur on the ark...

I think Noah only took land creatures... sea creatures were fine with the flood.

Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. ²¹ You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=NIV

Yeah I know... it was a joke.

However, a couple of little points:

- That particular passage, the way it was written, could be interpreted to mean the larger marine reptiles/mammals. After all, it uses an 'and' between 'animal' and 'of every kind of creature'. This would imply that 'animals' (of which marine reptiles would be included) fall into a different category than 'creatures that move along the ground'. On the other hand, if you take a more restrictive approach and assume "moving along the ground" applies to all animals, then where did the bats and flying reptiles go? (as another poster suggested)

- Believe it or not, the bible is actually contradictory on this point. The section you quoted was from Genesis 6 (2 of each kind). On the other hand, Genesis 7 says that Noah had to take 7 of each clean kind, 2 of each unclean kind.

[Canuckistani]

- Believe it or not, the bible is actually contradictory on this point. The section you quoted was from Genesis 6 (2 of each kind). On the other hand, Genesis 7 says that Noah had to take 7 of each clean kind, 2 of each unclean kind.

That's because they were written by different authors at different time for different audiences.

Same with Genesis:

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[DogOnPorch]

Genesis wasn't written in English.

[Canuckistani]

It wasn't written in any language at first - it was orally transmitted for generations, then somebody wrote it down. Not sure what your point is tho.

[DogOnPorch]

It wasn't written in any language at first - it was orally transmitted for generations, then somebody wrote it down. Not sure what your point is tho.

You can't start dissecting the King James Bible (et al) in hopes of gleaning real insight to the past. As I've mentioned before, the first atoms God apparently made...according to the Bible...is oxygen and hydrogen. We know this to be impossible as it defies stellar metallicity...and Genesis, as we know it, clearly states life on Earth came before the appearance of stars. But, our star is a "metal rich" Population I star....made from exploding "metal poor" Population II stars.

But, since Creationists tend to not understand even layman's cosmology...they ignore this wee issue.

[Canuckistani]

Thanks for the lecture. My point was that there are other contradictions in the bible, same as with the flood myth. Of course you're not going to get an understanding of creation that meets scientific scrutiny from the bible, no matter how well you parse it.

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks for the lecture. My point was that there are other contradictions in the bible, same as with the flood myth. Of course you're not going to get an understanding of creation that meets scientific scrutiny from the bible, no matter how well you parse it.

I have no clue as to what you do and do not know. Few here know what OBAFGKM means w/o a Google search. Not a lecture.

Many Creationists will beg to differ on the other points. Thus the 'teach the controversy' line I'm hearing from them these days.

[betsy]

There has been some amount of caterwauling in the "How Intelligent Design Works" thread due to the fact that I have been making fun of betsy's "top 100 list" in that thread without actually confronting it. Ok, due to popular demand, here it is.

I could have a go at any or all of those items, but I will just take this one:That's it. That's all I need. That is irrefutable evidence that the writer doesn't understand the theory he says he's trying to ridicule.

If you say you're going to disprove calculus and then proceed to demonstrate that you can't even do basic algebra, you've forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

If you say you're going to disprove evolution, and offer up "why have cockroaches and horseshoe crabs stayed the same for eons?" you've forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

It is such a dead giveaway that he has no idea what he is talking about that he might as well include "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" on his list too.

There you go, Betsy. Happy now? -k

　

And?

I'm still waiting for you to confront that! All you say is that you don't agree with his opinion.

Taking the advice from your own lips:

"if you're going to disprove someone else's opinion and then proceed to demonstrate that you can't even offer any explanation as to why, you've forfeited the right to be taken seriously."

Practice what you preach.

Oh yes, I'm definitely happy! How couldn't I be? You're turning out to be another gift that keeps on giving! You've done nothing except prove my point that the little clique of evolutionists like you on this board are nothing but all hot air!

Edited April 27, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

There has been some amount of caterwauling in the "How Intelligent Design Works" thread due to the fact that I have been making fun of betsy's "top 100 list" in that thread without actually confronting it. Ok, due to popular demand, here it is.

What's wrong with you? Your comprehension is askew. Read again and understand.

betsy

Of course you're bold to say that here, instead of going to the thread where that 100 list was posted. Shouldn't you post something specific to the appropriate thread? If you think you've got a legitimate argument on that specific matter (100 things evolutionists hate), wouldn't you rebutt it there? That's what a rational person would normally do.

Had you posted your comment in the other thread, you know you'll be challenged to support your assertion.

And you know eventually, links and videos will be used to expose your bs.

　

My caterwauling was not because you made fun of the "100 things..." in that thread, without actually confronting it.

My caterwauling was that you made fun of the "100 things..." in that other thread! Period.

Thus I questioned your motive for not posting that in the appropriate thread....something a sensible person participating in a forum would normally do.

Not to mention that your stunt would certainly result in Canuckstani's thread going off-topic....and yes, he did whine about it, but of course, being Canuckstani - it's understandable that he'd be baying at the wrong tree. Whether it's due to his bias or something else....that's another story.

Going back to you, Kimmy....for all the years of experience you've debated on this board, that's being very amateurish, don't you think?

Edited April 27, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Kimmy, the reason why this list was written by the author is explained. In his website, he also explained that he is not a scientist. The author is responding more with his emotion, I think....

This author gave his personal reason for creating that article - in defense of people who believe in the literal 6-day creation who were being mocked and ridiculed.
Like I said, I found his article interesting and amusing - and indeed he mentioned some things that I've never heard about, which might be another good lead for my research.

As for the accuracy of his information (or dis-information), I am in no way relying on his list as the foundation for any of my arguments.

You, on the other hand, were quick to latched on to a list made by someone who's not a scientist, who'd explained why he made such a list, and which I've described as, amusing.

Just the fact that I'd described it as amusing - which doesn't mean that I'm making fun of it or belittling it - means that it's been posted here as a way to lighten things up a bit.

If you're going to critique any opinion for "scientific mis-information," then critique the ones who are seriously engaging your theory - serious enough to be thoroughly organized about it, and quite aggressive about it. Like the 15 questions for evolutionists.

There. I hope that answered you. I'm busy at another site. See you whenever.

Edited April 27, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, if you are reading items during your timeout, here is a freely available audio book version of The Selfish Gene. Listen to it on YouTube or use a site like http://keepvid.com/ to download the mp3s for use on your iPod or phone. The book doesn't attack religion in any way it simply explains evolution and genetics in plain language. IMO, this is a great way to take in a lot of knowledge in a short period of time. It won't change your mind, in fact, it won't even try; but, it will allow you to make more reasonable points and avoid some of the unintelligible arguments listed in the OP.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness, AC.

[The_Squid]

Thank you for your thoughtfulness, AC.

Hopefully you read it during your hiatus.

[Mighty AC]

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

They found another particularly interesting fossil, to human evolution, from a particularly interesting time period.

They estimated that the ape lived about 11.9 million years ago, arguing that it could be the last common ancestor of modern great apes: chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos, gorillas and humans. Now, a University of Missouri integrative anatomy expert says the shape of the specimen's pelvis indicates that it lived near the beginning of the great ape evolution, after the lesser apes had started to develop separately but before the great ape species began to diversify.

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-million-year-old-fossil-great-ape-evolution.html

[gullyfourmyle]

While humans have yet to create life from nothing in a lab and thus replicate the process by which life started on earth, I believe it's a question we don't want answered until we've learned how to deal with other issues in a responsible manner.

The answer to how life started originally will one day be solved if we remain viable as a species long enough. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt time and time again.

Humanity is evolving rapidly right now from what we were a century ago to what we have become. For instance our senses are being modified as a species. Our senses of hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch are all substantially diminished and will diminish further. That will not migrate us from the species we are now to the species we are about to become.

The species we are about to become will be one that has somehow developed through genetic transformation due to increased radiation levels on the planet. Nuclear accidents and Chemical winter are going to weed out non-competitors. The genetic mutations once established will set a new norm. Those life forms able to live in the presence of much higher radiation will be substantially different from life forms living today.

We are seeing the weeding out process with the escalation of cancer in all species not just humans. Some survive, some don't. It will get much worse before it gets better. All life forms will be weaker than those living today since radiation and the chemical emissions are ultimately totally anti-life as we know life. At some point the radiation will recede and the process will work backwards. But in the meantime the genetic damage to life on earth will be profound. Life forms will not longer be as robust as they are now.

Genetically Modified crops and higher forms of animals have proliferated to the point where natural forms are threatened. If we become capable of replicating life beyond cloning and genetic mutations, we can expect that companies like Monsanto will quickly emerge and before you know it, artificial humans will have the vote.

How badly do you want that?

Oh and about the fossils - only a tiny number of everything that ever lived has been fossilized. Very special conditions have to be present. How many people do you know of right now that have become candidates for fossilization? Do you expect to find them any time soon? Obviously with the amount of disturbance we've created on the planet, stuff is going to survive but possibly not what we think due to wars and natural events. New York could be washed away any day now and California could slide into the Pacific at any given moment. Stuff happens but not so as to provide us with a convenient chronology so we can sort out our past. Even though events aren't human friendly, that is no reason to doubt that evolution is a plausible course of events.

One thing that is for certain is that Creationism is claptrap and a human created fiction created to justify the abuse and control of women and also as a method of maintaining a form of law and order in the absence of a technology based communications net. The bible, the Koran and other "religious" documents were the official instruments of justice in a time where superstition was rife. History tells us it worked and worked reasonably well all things considered.

One of the problems we face now is how to wean humanity off what has become an outdated sociological boat anchor (religion that is) before it sinks the ship?

So from my perspective, the fifteen questions are irrelevant.

The questions that really need to be answered are all related to how we reduce human population enough so we don't have to experience the Reign of the Fourth Horseman.

[Mighty AC]

The spontaneous formation of self replicating RNA molecules, from nucleic acids, has been demonstrated. Separately, the formation of nucleic acids from compounds and conditions present on an ancient earth (cyanide, water, copper and UV light) have also been demonstrated. A full abiogenesis demo is just around the corner.

[gullyfourmyle]

Yes and a transitional ape skeleton has now been found as reported on the Science Daily website.

So the evolution question has been put to bed conclusively. Sacred cows die hardest.

[CliffStir]

Yes and a transitional ape skeleton has now been found as reported on the Science Daily website.

I'm sure someone will claim god put it there for some unfathomable reason. God does work in mysterious ways, haven't you heard?