Educate your YEC 2: evolution is GRADUAL

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]"Would you be surprised to learn this idea was first broached by evolutionists who sincerely believe there is no God?"

i would be surprised indeed since it is a blatant lie.
evolutionists, theists or atheists, do not need god in their theories. they do not need to compromise.

Who said anything about evolutionists, theists or atheists needing ...[text shortened]... of that life evolved (or could have evolved) from very simple to increasingly complex creatures.[/b]

"Evolutionists know they aren't likely to change a Christians mind about God, but if they are able to convince them that God used evolution, then evolution is safe"

this is you claiming evolutionists need to compromise.

evolution is quite "safe" without getting christians to believe god used it.


"So when I said compromise it wasn't a real compromise."
i know, because evolutionists don't need to compromise. real or otherwise. it is also a lie because evolutionists don't try to convince theists god used evolution.


"This one sided "compromise" (God created life through evolution)"
evolution is a scientific fact. if god is real, he used evolution to make life evolve.


"God didn't need evolution to cause life to appear on earth, and there's nothing in the Bible to indicate he did it that way."
i agree, you are correct, god didn't need evolution to cause life to appear on earth because EVOLUTION DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE APPEARANCE OF LIFE, ONLY WITH ITS EVOLUTION. i swear your comprehension skills are weaker than a 5 year old hit in the head with a brick. repeatedly. there is not a single evolutionist that would ever claim that evolution explains how life started.

the bible also says the earth was created in 6 days, that there was a global flood, that people lived for 900 years.
we have established long ago that the bible is less reliable than a hippie high on shrooms and lsd.



"And whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, there's no real proof that life evolved"
science doesn't care for "like" or opinions. your opinion that there is no evidence to support evolution is as worthless as used toilet paper.

there is irrefutable evidence that life evolved. from genetics to simply digging out fossils.
we witness evolution happening even now with everything from diseases to higher lifeforms adapting to a changing environment.

Originally posted by C Hess
You speak of evolutionists as though they're by definition not religious. That's a false dichotomy you're pushing there: evolutionists vs. religionists. What about the thousands of evolutionists that are also religionists?

in his fanatical mind, you cannot be religious if you understand and agree with evolution.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Evolutionists know they aren't likely to change a Christians mind about God, but if they are able to convince them that God used evolution, then evolution is safe"

this is you claiming evolutionists need to compromise.

evolution is quite "safe" without getting christians to believe god used it.


"So when I said compromise it wasn't a [i]real[/i ...[text shortened]... g even now with everything from diseases to higher lifeforms adapting to a changing environment.

"Evolutionists know they aren't likely to change a Christians mind about God, but if they are able to convince them that God used evolution, then evolution is safe"

this is you claiming evolutionists need to compromise.

No, this is you telling me I'm claiming evolutionists need to compromise. When I say safe I mean unassailable, so it appears you are also assuming evolution is safely ensconced and unassailable.

And it doesn't really matter if this idea was first broached by evolutionists, or by Christians who've become weary of arguing the point, because I have yet to see an atheist or evolutionist here going after a Christian who claims God used evolution to explain how life developed on earth.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Evolutionists know they aren't likely to change a Christians mind about God, but if they are able to convince them that God used evolution, then evolution is safe"

this is you claiming evolutionists need to compromise.

evolution is quite "safe" without getting christians to believe god used it.


"So when I said compromise it wasn't a [i]real[/i ...[text shortened]... g even now with everything from diseases to higher lifeforms adapting to a changing environment.

"God didn't need evolution to cause life to appear on earth, and there's nothing in the Bible to indicate he did it that way."

i agree, you are correct, god didn't need evolution to cause life to appear on earth because EVOLUTION DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE APPEARANCE OF LIFE, ONLY WITH ITS EVOLUTION. i swear your comprehension skills are weaker than a 5 year old hit in the head with a brick. repeatedly. there is not a single evolutionist that would ever claim that evolution explains how life started.

Fine, evolution only explains how life developed. So what? If this is all it takes for you to launch a vile personal attack then I'm done with you.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]"Evolutionists know they aren't likely to change a Christians mind about God, but if they are able to convince them that God used evolution, then evolution is safe"

this is you claiming evolutionists need to compromise.

No, this is you telling me I'm claiming evolutionists need to compromise. When I say safe I mean unassailable, so it ...[text shortened]... re going after a Christian who claims God used evolution to explain how life developed on earth.[/b]

The mistake you seem to be making is to think that atheists and agnostics want to "shake you out of your faith". OK. some may do but then again some Christians want to convert atheists. I think there is a problem with believing in things that are totally contrary to empirical evidence. Basically because that way madness lies.

I can't think of a reason why God shouldn't exist. There's no universally incontrovertible evidence for his existence, but then again there isn't any against. As we have the assumption that God's independent of the Universe and therefore not bound by the laws of physics then I see no reason that he can't produce the odd miracle. But, miracles - at least of the supernatural kind - are necessarily rare (otherwise we wouldn't call them miracles they'd be something ordinary). But there is too much wrong with creationism (at least of the young earth variety). There's a fossil record, there are distant stars we shouldn't be able to see, there's genetic evidence. I'm sure you've heard most of the arguments before. If there is a creator then he or she created the universe 13 odd billion years ago. This is why we go after the young earth creationists and not the Christians who go for a "compatibilist" creationism - to borrow the term they use in Philosophy when discussing Free Will.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The mistake you seem to be making is to think that atheists and agnostics want to "shake you out of your faith". OK. some may do but then again some Christians want to convert atheists. I think there is a problem with believing in things that are totally contrary to empirical evidence. Basically because that way madness lies.

I can't think of a rea ...[text shortened]... ompatibilist" creationism - to borrow the term they use in Philosophy when discussing Free Will.

The mistake you seem to be making is to think that atheists and agnostics want to "shake you out of your faith".

No, I wasn't thinking that. But if this is what they are trying to do then they are going about it the wrong way.

OK. some may do but then again some Christians want to convert atheists.

I'm just here to tell people what I think, and why. It would be silly for me to try making anyone change their mind... so all I'm really trying to do is to point out what I agree with and don't agree with, and explain why. That's all I can do.

I think there is a problem with believing in things that are totally contrary to empirical evidence. Basically because that way madness lies.

That's a tricky topic, mostly because it starts off assuming the madness part and then works backwards to explain why someone like me believes in madness. I'm not sure I can overcome the initial stereotype and convince anyone I'm sane, seeing as how the jury has already come back and given their decision.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]The mistake you seem to be making is to think that atheists and agnostics want to "shake you out of your faith".

No, I wasn't thinking that. But if this is what they are trying to do then they are going about it the wrong way.

OK. some may do but then again some Christians want to convert atheists.

I'm just here to tell people what ...[text shortened]... convince anyone I'm sane, seeing as how the jury has already come back and given their decision.[/b]

No I don't think you are mad and therefore believe in creationism - I think if you believe in creationism then there is a risk you could start believing anything.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe in things for which there is scant empirical evidence and even with no evidence at all I don't think there is a problem. Children grow out of believing in Father Christmas they're sort of robust against it, besides as far as they are concerned there is evidence for Father Christmas until they work it out. Believing in things which are contradicted by the evidence is a different matter.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No I don't think you are mad and therefore believe in creationism - I think if you believe in creationism then there is a risk you could start believing anything.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe in things for which there is scant empirical evidence and even with no evidence at all I don't think there is a problem. Children grow out ...[text shortened]... work it out. Believing in things which are contradicted by the evidence is a different matter.

I think if you believe in creationism then there is a risk you could start believing anything.

I could say the same about evolution, but you and I both know what the response to that would be. I can't overcome a deeply entrenched belief in evolution with a wave of the hand, so I won't even try.


Edit: I should probably explain what I mean by "a wave of the hand", otherwise it's a private joke that only I will understand. The only effort I've seen here to dissuade from me from believing creationism are dismissive waves of the hand.

I can't simply wave my hand in the air and dismiss evolution as a theory, because no one in their right mind would fall for that. So why does anyone here believe they can simply dismiss creationism in the same way? If you refuse to look at or consider creationism then you're limiting yourselves to arguments from ignorance. I don't know why you think evolutionists should be your source for understanding creationism, especially in light of the fact that most creationists have familiarized themselves with both theories... yours and theirs.

Originally posted by C Hess
Lesson 1: Thread 161600

Lesson 2: Evolution is a gradual process.

It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of chan ...[text shortened]... ecies whose DNA doesn't appear to fit the hierarchial nature of things, and evolution is a bust.

It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years later you realise you're in a very different body from how it used to be; you're old. Speciation is also a smooth, hardly noticable process on the surface, and then one day the difference between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.

I thought it is more like -

monkey -> monken -> monkan -> monman -> monkuman -> monhuman -> mohuman -> mhuman -> human

Originally posted by sonship
I thought it is more like -

monkey -> monken -> monkan -> monman -> monkuman -> monhuman -> mohuman -> mhuman -> human

Do you understand that the offspring is the
same kind (to use your language) as the parents?

Do you understand that nobody is proposing man evolved from monkeys?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I could say the same about evolution [that if you believe evolution you're prone to believe anything]

No, you really couldn't.

Accepting evolution is merely to be convinced by hard scientific evidence. Put forth evidence against evolution and we'll drop evolutionary theory like old underwear. In the context of this thread, such evidence would be to find an individual of one species giving birth to an individual of a different species, or to demonstrate that there's no change whatsoever between progenitor and progeny, or to demonstrate a natural mechanism that prevents tiny changes from accumulating into larger ones. If you could bring forth evidence to demonstrate any of that, you will have disproven evolution, and evolutionists will cease to be evolutionists.

Good luck.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Do you understand that nobody is proposing man evolved from monkeys?

That is a little more complicated than you make it sound. Biological classification systems are somewhat broken when it comes to past life forms. However, most people would classify the common ancestor of present day humans and present day monkeys as a monkey.
The classification system for monkeys/apes and humans is itself somewhat broken in that it doesn't conform to usual norms in biological classification. This has been somewhat corrected for apes with humans nowadays typically being classified as apes, or more specifically great apes. However the monkey situation has not really been resolved. Apes are a subset of a group comprising Old World Monkeys, and Apes whereas New World monkeys are a separate group.
In general it might be better to stick to scientific names rather than the common names. We are primates and so are monkeys and we are all descended from a common ancestor that was a primate.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I think if you believe in creationism then there is a risk you could start believing anything.

I could say the same about evolution, but you and I both know what the response to that would be. I can't overcome a deeply entrenched belief in evolution with a wave of the hand, so I won't even try.


Edit: I should probably e ...[text shortened]... at most creationists have familiarized themselves with both theories... yours and theirs.[/b]

It's not a "wave of the hand" you need the universe to be 6 orders of magnitude younger than it appears to be - or light from distant stars to have been created in-flight. The methods they use to date zircon are robust. I don't see how an incompatibilist theory of creationism can be sustained. Every creationist argument I've ever heard just attempts to undermine the observational evidence for evolution. I've never heard anyone claim that Ecclesiastes should be interpreted literally, that the writer did all those things, but the text also does not have a preface saying "Don't read this literally - it's moral advice" so we are expected to recognise it as not being literally true, so why not with Genesis?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a little more complicated than you make it sound. Biological classification systems are somewhat broken when it comes to past life forms. However, most people would classify the common ancestor of present day humans and present day monkeys as a monkey.
The classification system for monkeys/apes and humans is itself somewhat broken in that it does ...[text shortened]... primates and so are monkeys and we are all descended from a common ancestor that was a primate.

Yes, I agree ... but it seems to me the anti-evolutionists have
this idea that one random day a monkey (same as a monkey today)
gave birth to a human, or at least proto-human.

The big conceptual problem for them seems to be TIME.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a little more complicated than you make it sound. Biological classification systems are somewhat broken when it comes to past life forms. However, most people would classify the common ancestor of present day humans and present day monkeys as a monkey.
The classification system for monkeys/apes and humans is itself somewhat broken in that it does ...[text shortened]... primates and so are monkeys and we are all descended from a common ancestor that was a primate.

It appears broken in evolutionary terms because there was never any evolution, but they were created different by God in the beginning. 😏