22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

[Schleicher]

Creationists mostly deserve kindness and understanding, not scorn.

Not anymore.

Their blatant attempt to corrupt and twist science in order to re-package their delusion is unforgivable.  It will be met head on with reason and logic.

OK, then how can you logically explain these FACTS:

-All the major plant groups (‘divisions’) also appear out of nowhere – mosses, ferns, horsetails, cycads, ginkgos, conifers, gnetophytes, monocots and so on. There is no gradual evolutionary progression leading up to these forms.

-There is no satisfactory explanation for the existence of large amounts of water on the primeval Earth. During the formation of the Solar System, Earth is believed to have been red-hot and therefore could not have hosted liquid water, yet the very oldest mineral evidence shows that continents and liquid water were already present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Early_Earth

Study of zircons has found that liquid water must have existed as long ago as 4.4 Ga, very soon after the formation of the Earth.[7][8][9] This requires the presence of an atmosphere. The Cool Early Earth theory covers a range from about 4.4 Ga to 4.0 Ga.
In fact, recent studies of zircons (in the fall of 2008) found in Australian Hadean rock hold minerals that point to the existence of plate tectonics as early as 4 billion years ago. If this holds true, the previous beliefs about the Hadean period are far from correct. That is, rather than a hot, molten surface and atmosphere full of carbon dioxide, the Earth's surface would be very much like it is today. The action of plate tectonics traps vast amounts of carbon dioxide, thereby eliminating the greenhouse effects and leading to a much cooler surface temperature and the formation of solid rock, and possibly even life.

[C10H15N]

I'm still awaiting your logical explanation of stasis in the fossil record:

Easy: "Punctuated Equilibrium"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml


Again, a quick Google search will turn up the current scientific theory as well as the ranting and ravings of butthurt creationists.

[BCEmporium]

The worrying part of those questions is to see that Creationists still lack any basic sense of what Science is.
Science isn't a belief system, up to deal with philosophical non-sense, such as "why are there sunsets" or to cast dogmatic "truths" based on deities.
Science is a stone cold system where one must assume to not know what isn't yet known, and of that you can formulate theories and have them challenged by the community until it becomes accepted as theory, a theory which isn't anywhere nearly assumed as "truth" as any Creationist does about that Adam and Eve thing.

Obviously Evolution has evidences, such as fossils, Creationism lacks any form of evidence at all but a rotten book that must be assumed as "true" because itself says it is "true".
Under the scientific view Creationism and Evolution are two theories about the origin of life where one of them is more accepted due to evidences provided and the other is just a plain load of magical bullshit.

[garcias]

OMFG  
plz RKO...

[the joint]

The worrying part of those questions is to see that Creationists still lack any basic sense of what Science is.
Science isn't a belief system, up to deal with philosophical non-sense, such as "why are there sunsets" or to cast dogmatic "truths" based on deities.
Science is a stone cold system where one must assume to not know what isn't yet known, and of that you can formulate theories and have them challenged by the community until it becomes accepted as theory, a theory which isn't anywhere nearly assumed as "truth" as any Creationist does about that Adam and Eve thing.

Obviously Evolution has evidences, such as fossils, Creationism lacks any form of evidence at all but a rotten book that must be assumed as "true" because itself says it is "true".
Under the scientific view Creationism and Evolution are two theories about the origin of life where one of them is more accepted due to evidences provided and the other is just a plain load of magical bullshit.

Referring to bolded sections:

1) Stone cold for empirical study; useless for abstract study.

2) Peer-review is great...

3) ...ad-populum is not.  The peer-review system is the scientific community's greatest asset, and largest weakness.

4) The theory of evolution has basically nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth.

5) You can have proof without empirical evidence -- that's what philosophy and math are all about.  Don't fall victim to false dichotomies.

[BCEmporium]

Becomes accepted -> by the peer review system and here is important to put a note that it may become accepted as viable theory, not yet as factual data.
The theory of evolution goes around the development of the species until what we know today, it's not about the "origin of life" itself but "life as we know it" if you prefer.
You can have strong evidences without empirical evidence, but you won't get out of the theory realm unless you can prove it empirically. And still, science isn't meant to assume something to be true beyond contest, even the most proved thing can be being analyzed by the wrong prism and therefore providing false results. "Truth beyond contest" that's what the religious Dogma is for.

[the joint]

Becomes accepted -> by the peer review system and here is important to put a note that it may become accepted as viable theory, not yet as factual data.
The theory of evolution goes around the development of the species until what we know today, it's not about the "origin of life" itself but "life as we know it" if you prefer.
You can have strong evidences without empirical evidence, but you won't get out of the theory realm unless you can prove it empirically. And still, science isn't meant to assume something to be true beyond contest, even the most proved thing can be being analyzed by the wrong prism and therefore providing false results. "Truth beyond contest" that's what the religious Dogma is for.

1)  To me, the major problem with the peer review system it that it prevents grant funding for anything that isn't backed by academia, e.g. the hobbyist genius who fucks with explosives in his methlab and sent his cat on a round trip to outer space.  Consequently, this leads to 'business' science in which the vast majority of grant money is funneled to corporations and product research.  Basically, keeping the peer-review system as the staple for scientific progress is a good way to ensure that progress happens slowly.

2)  Not even "life as we know it." All it's about is adaptation and the mechanisms that cause it.  One of the reasons for this is that a theory on the evolution of specific species requires a good definition of species.  The problem is that there's currently no known (at least, I've never seen it) definition of species that includes every single living thing, without exception.  My personal opinion is that the best definition of species is "the offspring of the same species."  For example, I am human because I have two human parents.  Science has yet to figure out a way to model a theory of species on top of evolution.

3)  No, you always have theories in science.  The only proof in science is 'proof within a margin of error'.  A sound math proof or a logical tautology contains no margin of error.

4)  Science makes assumptions it can't even study via its own methods.  And, interestingly, every scientific theory ever produced contains assumptions; this is self-evident because of the statistical margin of error I mentioned in point #3.

5)  Science itself is simply a theory about knowledge acquisition.  Any discipline is such a theory, but they range in scope.  Philosophy is the most broad and it provides the tools necessary to analyze both abstract and empirical information.  Mathematics and physics represent the abstract and empirical descendants of philosophy.  Math then branches off into other abstract disciplines (e.g. geometry, calculus, trigonometry, etc.), and physics branches into other empirical disciplines (e.g. biology, chemistry, anthropology, etc.).  

[cp1]

Sorry.  Someone asked about why God would create us with cancer, sickness etc.  This is my only explanation.  Do you have a better one?  It seems that those that believe in evolution just think this crappy world is all we have though.  Seems a bit hopeless to me.

Why is your go to explanation for everything you like god did it and everything you hate satan did it?  Don't you see that's just silly?

Science is based on facts, not what you wish to be true.  Science doesn't discard facts because they make the world "Seem a bit hopeless".  Can you imagine where we'd be if they did? 

[BitChick]

Sorry.  Someone asked about why God would create us with cancer, sickness etc.  This is my only explanation.  Do you have a better one?  It seems that those that believe in evolution just think this crappy world is all we have though.  Seems a bit hopeless to me.

Why is your go to explanation for everything you like god did it and everything you hate satan did it?  Don't you see that's just silly?

Science is based on facts, not what you wish to be true.  Science doesn't discard facts because they make the world "Seem a bit hopeless".  Can you imagine where we'd be if they did? 

Every "good and perfect gift" comes from God and the world was good before sin entered it.  I see the world with that perspective.

[BCEmporium]

Every "good and perfect gift" comes from God and the world was good before sin entered it.  I see the world with that perspective.

Ever wonder that what is good to me isn't necessarily good to you and vice-versa? Two Godly persons can be one thanking God and the other blaming the Devil over the very same event.
Perfection never existed, good doesn't exist without evil.

[interlagos]

Every "good and perfect gift" comes from God and the world was good before sin entered it.  I see the world with that perspective.

Ever wonder that what is good to me isn't necessarily good to you and vice-versa? Two Godly persons can be one thanking God and the other blaming the Devil over the very same event.
Perfection never existed, good doesn't exist without evil.

It would seem that "good" and "evil" (in a sense of "positive" and "negative" or even "creative" and "destructive") must exist for there to be one important third component - a choice. For there to be a choice those two opposites need to be equal in size, but then the paradox is, that having a choice tilts the table towards "positive" because having a choice is a "good" thing.

Thus choice is as far as creation can go in terms of growing its destructive part. Once the two parts are equal, the choice is born and the whole thing becomes again slightly more positive. It would oscillate around this boundary indefinitely.

To the question of where diseases come from, it becomes apparent, that they are simply a reflection of the choices between "creative" and "destructive" made along the way.

The paradox is essential to understanding our existence, because that's the thing that sets everything in motion. As paradox cannot settle either way, it must oscillate indefinitely and that makes it a perpetual push-pull engine of creation. That is why the nature of existence is vibratory, every little particle out there is always in motion. The whole Universe oscillates around the fringe of the paradox and what you see around you is a shape of that fringe.

[jcoin200]

I'm still awaiting your logical explanation of stasis in the fossil record:

Easy: "Punctuated Equilibrium"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml


Again, a quick Google search will turn up the current scientific theory as well as the ranting and ravings of butthurt creationists.

Your cartoons, although cute, have still failed to show a shred of physical evidence.  And I dont buy the "relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location" caused the "lack of preservation."

But to sum up your cartoons, you are saying:  over the course of 100 million years, a small amount of a species ran away from the others like them, then mutated into a better or even new species, and then re-incorporated and caused their old friends to go extinct?

And please, that little graph on the bottom about single celled organisms proves nothing.  Please tell me you can find something better than that.  I just don't buy the idea that over hundreds of millions of years, and that of 8 million or so species, none have left evidence that they all came from a common ancestor.

I don't dispute that there is plenty of so called "horizontal variation" within species, but there just is no physical evidence to back evolution as it is stated.  There is plenty of MONEY behind evolution, propagating its theories and assumption and guesses, but sorry there is no hard evidence.

[Peter Lambert]

I don't dispute that there is plenty of so called "horizontal variation" within species, but there just is no physical evidence to back evolution as it is stated. 

Earlier in a thread I linked to a study that observed E. coli evolving into salmonella. I would call that physical evidence.

[Akka]

I'm still awaiting your logical explanation of stasis in the fossil record:

Easy: "Punctuated Equilibrium"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml


Again, a quick Google search will turn up the current scientific theory as well as the ranting and ravings of butthurt creationists.

Your cartoons, although cute, have still failed to show a shred of physical evidence.  And I dont buy the "relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location" caused the "lack of preservation."

But to sum up your cartoons, you are saying:  over the course of 100 million years, a small amount of a species ran away from the others like them, then mutated into a better or even new species, and then re-incorporated and caused their old friends to go extinct?

And please, that little graph on the bottom about single celled organisms proves nothing.  Please tell me you can find something better than that.  I just don't buy the idea that over hundreds of millions of years, and that of 8 million or so species, none have left evidence that they all came from a common ancestor.

I don't dispute that there is plenty of so called "horizontal variation" within species, but there just is no physical evidence to back evolution as it is stated.  There is plenty of MONEY behind evolution, propagating its theories and assumption and guesses, but sorry there is no hard evidence.

There is plenty of proof, but you choose to ignore it.

Go by retroviruses for example.

Retroviruses reproduce by altering the DNA of a cell, adding their own code to the host cells code.

If an retrovirus alters a sperm cell, there is a change that part of it's code becomes part of a species general code. This happened so often in our evolution, that early 8% of our code are remains of retroviruses.

This remains, except some very few newer ones are also at the exact same location and from the same virus in the code of chimps, which proofs that humans and chimps have a common ancestor that must have been infected by this virus.

And this goes for all species, the closer related, the more of this retrovirus traces they share.

[hilariousandco]

I'm still awaiting your logical explanation of stasis in the fossil record:

Easy: "Punctuated Equilibrium"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml


Again, a quick Google search will turn up the current scientific theory as well as the ranting and ravings of butthurt creationists.

Your cartoons, although cute, have still failed to show a shred of physical evidence.  And I dont buy the "relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location" caused the "lack of preservation."

But to sum up your cartoons, you are saying:  over the course of 100 million years, a small amount of a species ran away from the others like them, then mutated into a better or even new species, and then re-incorporated and caused their old friends to go extinct?

Can you show any proof for an alternate theory?

[the joint]

I'm still awaiting your logical explanation of stasis in the fossil record:

Easy: "Punctuated Equilibrium"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml


Again, a quick Google search will turn up the current scientific theory as well as the ranting and ravings of butthurt creationists.

Your cartoons, although cute, have still failed to show a shred of physical evidence.  And I dont buy the "relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location" caused the "lack of preservation."

But to sum up your cartoons, you are saying:  over the course of 100 million years, a small amount of a species ran away from the others like them, then mutated into a better or even new species, and then re-incorporated and caused their old friends to go extinct?

Can you show any proof for an alternate theory?

The evidence which supports evolution can be used to equally support alternative theories, e.g. one in which the mechanism for adaptation isn't vertical and lateral gene transfer, but rather adaptations of consciousness which are evidenced by vertical and lateral gene transfer.

[BCEmporium]

About equilibrium:
You have a nice example, atmospheric pressure. Your body's internal counter pressure has to be slightly equal to the outer pressure, otherwise your body will get smashed if outer pressure prevails or implode if inner pressure prevails.

About stasis and isolation:

An easily observable, yet a bit doggy, parallel can be established with spoken languages. Dialects, accents and vocabulary changes occurs fast within isolated populations, while main languages tends to keep up in a more stable form with large populations.

[pedrog]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

[the joint]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

1) Creationism is a theory.  Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc.  Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 

2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about.  But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies?

3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda).

4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid.

[pedrog]

Wow, this topic is way too big for a simple joke at creationists.

Creationism isn't a theory, it isn't even a scientific hypothesis and there's no debate between Creationism versus Evolution!

Creationism is propaganda from some particular sects of Christianity in the US, like Jehovah Witnesses and other Evangelical sects, it has a religious agenda and a political agenda.

The vast majority of Christians doesn't even consider this kind of propaganda, like Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians and so on.

1) Creationism is a theory.  Theories can be good, bad, weak, strong, etc.  Theories need not be scientific; a scientific theory is simply one that meets a certain set of criteria. 

2) There shouldn't be much of a debate because the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, which is what Creationism is about.  But, out of curiosity, what would you say about a debate between theories based upon empirical evidenced and theories based upon logical tautologies?

3) It's more than propaganda, and even if we assume its sole purpose is to facilitate a religious or political agenda, that doesn't make it invalid (I'm not suggesting its true, but rather merely stating that its illogical to conclude Creationism is invalid based upon the premise that its used to facilitate a political or religious agenda).

4) Ad-populum never indicates that a theory is more or less valid.

Sure, but they are pushing it as a scientific theory, and even trying it to be taught in biology classes.

I would discard anything that cannot be falsifiable.

I was pointing that creationism didn't came from scientific skepticism, it's only purpose is to serve a political and religious agenda.

Sorry, didn't wan't to give the impression of ad-populum, just pointing out, those other sects eventually gave out creationism and have accepted reality, only some US sects are still pushing creationism mainly for political purposes.