Creationists: why does this bother you so much?

[Mogley52]

APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

@Mogley52 meh

[Mogley52]

Genetic information doesn’t happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

[jacobpaprotskiy]

@Mogley52 lol yes evolution does not happen across (pre-existing)"kinds" and no one says it does. we have a common ancester with the worm. we did not evolve from modern worms. but what does happen is "kinds" give rise to other "kinds" and no we cant and wont see it happen(the way you creatards want), because it is like watching a child grow up: you cant see the day to day changes, but you will be able to notice the difference in years.The "year" of evolution is too long for one to see variation

[Mogley52]

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution "across" kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.

[chemerblinker]

I think that Aspergers is the next stage of evolution

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

@chemerblinker If that's the case then the human race is fucked

[YTSurferX]

I'm a creationist with a degree in Anthropology from UCLA, and I've never heard ANY creationists use the arguments, "the world isn't meaningless," or "we can't be animals."

The real problems with evolution:

The theory is made by skipping first step of the scientific method--observation.

Not supported by the fossil record--no transitional fossils.

The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance: 1 in 10^113

We only observe life coming from life.

ETC.

You oversimplify the debate.

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

@YTSurferX

(I was talking about 2 specific mindsets by the way, not the whole thing, so it's not simplified.)

No transitional fossils? They keep on finding them, they haven't stopped finding them. That argument would have made for sense if scientists had only just started looking into evolution and digging fossils, but they've been doing it for about 150 years now and they've got more than a good enough record of fossils. Including of course those which show the transition from 1 species...

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

or genus to another. For example if you look at the early hominid skeletons and line them up you will see gradual changes. Australopithecus looks a bit like a bonobo with similar arms and face, but as you move along the time line, the bigger the cranium is the weaker the jaw so flatter the face. Until of course you get to modern humans who have very flat faces and blunt teeth compared to other primates.

Even if the odds are slim about life appearing, it's still happened. And it's not as if...

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

it just happened suddenly. No one is saying that a protein molecule or whatever just sprang up out of the ground like "PING" (tbh that sounds more like the creationist's version of the origins.) The most likely explanation is that it started off with chemicals, that started to develop life-form like traits such as taking in CO2 and "giving out" oxygen, photosynthesis in other words.

[YTSurferX]

@AbsolutelyCrackers

Again, the odds of a single protein forming from free-floating amino acids by chance is so small that it's mathematically impossible. And that's just one, non-living, protein. The odds of cells forming by chance is even smaller. Of course, the higher complexity of an organism, the smaller the probability. And remember the odds of the simple protein is already in the "impossible" zone.

Combine that with lack of fossil evidence: evolution is a weak theory.

[YTSurferX]

@AbsolutelyCrackers

Check out "List of transitional fossils" on Wikipedia and count the drawings and paintings that you see. Drawings/paintings make fine art but not fossils. Common practice is to find a bone, and render the rest of the organism from it (using assumptions about its appearance). Google Nebraska man and Piltdown man. Evolutionists also disregard unlikelihoods. Lucy's critical knee, for example, was found 1.55 miles away from her skeleton, and deeper. Is it her knee? Unlikely.

[YTSurferX]

@AbsolutelyCrackers

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation is clearly incredible."

And...

"There is no branch of zoology in which assumption has played a greater, or evidence a less, part than in the study of presumed adaptations."

DMS Watson

Chair of Evolution at the University of London

Darwin said similar things as well.

[btarded]

I had a professor back in my christian high school (I am not a christian), who was a doctor of chemistry, and he observed with almost a sort of reverence the soundness and reliability of the laws of the universe and the hard sciences (as most educated men do), yet when it came to carbon dating and evolution, some how his logic would temporarily go out the window, saying "I'm not willing to accept those assumptions". This purely because they conflicted with his biblical views.

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

*their

I mean

[garouHH]

Imagine the whole universe revolved around you. Now imagine that suddenly it didn't. That's what learning about evolution must be for creationists.

Another faction is that of the literalism-fanatics. "This book is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But if the stuff in the beginning was wrong, how could we trust anything after that? Therefore evolution must be shown to be a lie."

Well, so much for that. Ook ook ieek!

[AbsolutelyCrackers]

@garouHH

Yep. Although surely evolutionary theory has been around long enough for it to be not much of a shock any more. Unless some of these people have been living under a rock all there lives :P

[garouHH]

@AbsolutelyCrackers Well, consider what kind of people become hardcore creationists. They grow up in equally hardcore religious homes and communities. The first contact to an explanation of how evolution works that's worth a lick is in school (assuming that they're not homeschooled), long after their religious doctrines have been ingrained, and they might even have been subjected to a lot of anti-science FUD. So the rock under which those people live might actually be not that small at all.