What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

The question is, "What is it about man and ape both being descended from a common ancestor bothers you?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This is why many of us had high hopes for you, TheDarin. You claimed when you first appeared here that you wanted to learn more about the position of Evolutionists, that you regularly argued with them and "call them stupid," but that you want to know what the position actually is so that you could argue more effectively.And here, you've shown that you don't have the faintest idea of what Evolution is. You haven't even learned anything in your brief time here. I truly hope that you decide to stick around and follow up on that initial post of yours. Your incredulity regarding evolution has already been made abundantly clear. Adding mockery like this doesn't do anything but waste space. Apes didn't evolve into humans, TheDarin, we both evolved from a common ancestor. That's a pretty significant difference.When you say "ape EVOLVING INTO a man," are you proposing that evolution predicts that we can watch a modern ape and it will eventually turn into a human being? Or that the descendents of modern apes will eventually evolve into humans? Becasue evolution predicts neither of those things, either...the first being ridiculously silly.If you'd like to discuss primates and human evolution, I suggest starting a new thread. It's a very complex (and interesting) topic, and a real discussion would really require and deserve a full thread.More to the point of this thread, notice that you claim that any evidence produced whatsoever is irrelevant, and you'll be able to prove "design and creation." Do you not understand what evidence is? Do you understand what falsifiability is? Are you seriously just going to nod and say "yeah, but Goddidit," until we bring up human beings, and then say "nope, God said that's not the way it happened, so there?"

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Once again, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.Science doesn't prove anything at all, TheDarin. It produces the most accurate model possible based on available information by continually testing the model's predictions and modifying and discarding existing models in favor of greater accuracy. ALL science is tenuous - but a scientific theory like the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity carry the weight of mountains of evidence and verified predictions. It's a lot different from simply saying "I've got a theory."Please, read my earlier post. Nobody "leaps" out of ID. A designer simply isn't required for the Theory of Evolution, and so it isn't discussed. Just like your car, which (as far as I know) may or may not exist, is not discussed in the Theory of Evolution because it isn't necessary for the model to work.The evolution of primates including humans and modern apes is very well documented. The evidence in support of common ancestry is simply staggaring. Every attempt to falsify the model with evidence has failed - and so, while the theory is still tenuous as all theories are, it is held to be incredibly accurate given all of the information we currently posess. Discounting it as "just a theory" is nonsense, and the mark of an individual who understands neither science in general nor evolution in particular. Even a high school education does slightly better than that in most school systems. Then why have you not produced any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? If you do, we'd all love to hear it - we don't care about evolution beyond its accuracy. If you can disprove it and show its predictions to be inaccurate, we'll adopt the more accurate model you propose. What? You don't know what a mutation is. You don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts. I'm positive you haven't studied primate evolution in the slightest. How would you know the "track record" at all? And what is the track record of design and creation? Neither have ever submitted a scientific paper. Neither have ever been backed up by real evidence or experimentation. Neither even really explains anything at all!You're arguing from ignorance, TheDarin. Please, go back to what you said when you first came here. help us teach you about what the Theory of Evolution actually says. After you actually understand it enough to stop with the strawman arguments and ignorant points, you're welcome to debate with or against us - but to do so without even knowing what you're arguing against is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Why is it that the EVO charts in the textbooks indicate an ape evolving into a man. One path. Not one into two?And High hopes for what? You can see clearly that I am not denying that evolution happens. You must have had high hopes that I would go atheist on you. I answered that question on page 6; my previous response.I cling to the watchmaker argument - and as far as God being the ultimate boeing 747 - the argument is null, because we have not been given the means to process the thought of something from nothing...so while god is the ultimate Boeing 747, where God came from is not even within my ability to compute...or yours.But I can show you example after example after example of design and creation, and you cannot show me one mutation that results in something remotely resembling the look and intelligence of the human brain. It's convenient of those who have deceived you that it takes a million or so years to run a test on their theory.I hope you see that my issue is with those EVOs that deny ID - you are blind. I'm not asking you to buy the Jesus thing, well, I would ask you to...but that's another thread...I am troubled by those that see more ID in a paper napkin than DNA.

At last. Bring them on. I'm not a scientist. The problem is I see ID as being nothing but a cheap shot. Nobody has ever shown me any ID evidence. So exactly how do you hope to convince a real scientist? Bingo. And this is what it comes down to. Creationism in the classroom.

Rahvin has already addressed the problems inherent in the above statement (and others), so I'll just add my voice to the rest by expressing my amazement at your ability to ignore multiple corrections by multiple people in order to keep repeating the same errors.What you're doing is the same as if I came into a Bible thread claiming, "The Bible's wrong because no way did Jesus deliver the Egyptians from slavery in Jerusalem," and after a hundred posts was still repeating the same errors. People would be posting to me things like, "Dude, get a clue. You're being a real idiot!" And I'd deserve it and worse!People are giving you the straight story about science and evolution. No one's saying you have to accept it, but certainly at least discussion is called for. Persistently ignoring it is just incredibly poor form.Of course, the details of science and evolution are not the topic of this thread, but there are plenty of threads where those are the topic. I thought I could use your posts to further explore this thread's topic of why creationists have difficulty making valid connections between evidence and conclusions, but since you're mostly just ignoring substance and evidence there's little point in continuing in that vein.--Percy

TheDarin I doubt you can even state what the Intelligent Design hypothesis is can you?

FYI, my love, I didn't respond to what NWR said in message 63, because;
a) I didn't read message 63 in its original context. I was responding purely to what you said in message 76.
b) I agree with what NWR said in the bit you quoted, and, having now read the whole of message 63, I agree with that as well.
There is no need to take umbrage and leave. No-one on this board is out to get you, or is interested in making you look a fool. Most are here because they feel that those on the other side of the debate (whichever side that may be) are operating under a misapprehension, and they want help create understanding by sharing and debating the evidence. Don't take it personally, because what you have said about your motivations makes me think that you are here for much the same reason. Few punches are pulled here. Get used to it.
If you decide to stick around, you might start by answering something more related to the question from the OP; what would it take to convince you of evolution?

---

Mutate and Survive

Then we can count on Rahvin to put any given evolutionist in his or her place when they invoke the ending of the Origin of Species as proof that Darwin was intending his theory to be the work of God?Personally, I think Rahvin is a hypocrite talking out of both sides of his mouth....Rahvin: "Evolution doesn't exclude the existence of a deity (as you can see, we have quite a few theists who also accept Evolution right here on this site, including the actual site administrator), and neither does it say that one cannot exist. It just doesn't count the deity as relevant."....looks like I am correct. The above comment is self-evidently contradictory. This is what happens when neutrality is asserted when in fact evolution is anything but neutral - contradictory statements are made that make no sense."Evolution doesn't exclude the existence of a deity.... It just doesn't count the deity as relevant."We know this is BS since no Atheist evolutionist protested. Evolution says the attributes of God are not seen in biological reality, that is why material causation instead of Deity causation is postulated. Rahvin is attempting to trick a creationist into believing that ToE is friendly to Deity when the main and OBJECTIVE claim of ToE says the God of Genesis did not produce living things.Professor Richard Dawkins: "For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution." (The Blind Watchmaker 1996:249).Professor Steven Jay Gould: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." (Ever Since Darwin 1973:267). "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature (though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature" (Darwin's Legacy 1983:6-7).Charles Darwin "But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted...." Autobio:p.85; context: speaking of his beliefs in the years 1837 and 1838, twenty years before his theory was published.Again, the equivocation and deception coming out of Rahvin's mouth is inexcusable, unless he is ignorant. There is no way to tell. Now Rahvin admits that the Genesis Deity (= God) is not seen in nature (but remember evolution is neutral toward God). Again, he is clearly insulting the intelligence of everyone with these contradictions. Unless, of course, he is ignorant or deluded. There is no way to tell for sure. Very predictable Atheist ideology. We already know Atheists reject the scientific facts of design = Designer, what is the point? Evolution is a presupposition; once it is accepted the same is not eligible to ever be falsified since the only other option (Genesis) is not an option. Evolution is a one horse race.This means there are no predictions just more equivocation from the mind of Rahvin. Here Rahvin does not understand. ID is a scientific fact whether evolutionists accept it or not. Evolution is Scientism, not Science, since it worships Atheist ideology. Creationists and IDists have always accepted science; we just reject Darwinian "science" because it makes no sense and is "true" by how they define 'science'. All this says is that because fiction authors use real places in their stories this means the Bible is the same - a work of fiction. It's hard to believe that any educated person would think that this is a good point or argument.Rahvin: we already know Atheists believe their enemy - the Bible - is a work of fiction, what is the point?Ray

Cold Foreign
Object Sorry to bust your bubble ray but ,as an atheist, I can categorically state that I can not consider the bible an enemy since it has no ammunition. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

That's not a modern ape at the end opposite man, it's an artist's rendering of an ancient common ancestor of modern apes and modern man. It is probably likely that this ancient ancestor would also be considered an ape, just not a modern one. This would be an excellent example of an invalid connection between evidence and conclusions if you actually had any evidence. Looking at something and saying, "This was obviously designed," does not constitute evidence of design. We know what evidence of human design looks like because we live amidst innumerable examples. We could define criteria for judging whether something was created by humans, like possessing straight lines and 90^o angles and regularity and so forth.But what would be the criteria you apply for a divinely create thing? How do you distinguish between a complex molecule that came about naturally versus one that was designed? ID has no answer for these simple and obvious questions. Something that was an actual theory would have undergone rigorous testing and replication showing precisely how one goes about deterministically determining design, but ID has never done this. That's why it's not science.The ideas of people like William Dembski, Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner define no criteria for identifying design. The best they can do is produce terms like "specified complexity," but they provide no criteria by which to identify it, leaving their ID followers with nothing of substance, just pathetic repetitions of, "If it looks designed, it was."Clearly, ID is not a theory. Perhaps one could say that ID is a theory in search of evidence, except that scientific theories are built around evidence, not the other way around. Successful theories are constructed around real-world evidence, not religious ideas derived from ancient texts. While the human brain is not the result of one mutation, a number of brain abnormalities have been traced to genetic causes, i.e., mutations. Down syndrome is a very well known example. What we are is resistant to drawing conclusions in the absence of evidence. Present the evidence and persuasion will quickly follow. What you're doing is providing evidence not only of the creationist ability to draw inappropriate conclusions from evidence, but even from no evidence at all.--Percy

quote:

---

Apes didn't evolve into humans, TheDarin, we both evolved from a common ancestor. That's a pretty significant difference.

---

Because those visual aids in textbooks are greatly simplified to help show the process and morphological similarities for a few of the steps. Most of the diagrams you're talking about are in high school textbooks. That level of education is literally the most basic - it's like telling a child that they get their blue eyes from mommy. It's a vastly simplified explanation that requires further education to really comprehend. Not at all - I don't particularly care what you believe, TheDarin, I just want you to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says before you start arguing against it. It sounded, at first, like that was what you wanted to do, and that was why I replied to you in the first place. Frankly, I'm tired of the Creationists who argue against a false version of the Theory of Evolution, and calling them on their misunderstandings and occasional blatant lies. I was hoping you would at least take the time to learn so that you could have an honest debate. So, without investigating the evidence behind evolution, you simply throw up your hands and say "I could never understand how we got here, and neither can you, let's just give up and say Goddidit!" The point of science is to determine how, not who or why. Your reasoning would have left us in the middle ages, where the Church would simply say "Goddidit" and leave it at that. Again, you don't understand what a mutation is, or how a feature forms through evolution. If you can show evidence of creation and design, do so. I'm asking you, right now, TheDarin, to put up or shut up. Youve made that claim multiple times, but you refuse to back it up.A single mutation cannot result in a brain of any type, let alone the human brain. It's the cumulative result of millions of mutations. I can show you examples of how brains have evolved from the most basic nervous systems to real brains, and from reptiles to mammals to primates to humans. No single mutation was responsible for even one of those steps, though - again, it was the cumulative result of millions of mutations.Do you know what evolutionary programming is? You should look it up - it's fascinating to see what amazingly efficient (and sometimes wildly complex and nearly incomrehensible) solutions can be found by using random generation and selection. It's a great model of real evolution in action. And I'm troubled by people who insist design exists without understanding the very nature of the thing they claim is designed. You don't know what DNA is. You don't know the models that suggest how DNA formed. You simply insist, from total ignorance, that it is too complex to have been designed.Shame on you for such intellectual dishonesty.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Irrelevant to the modern Theory of Evolution. Many people who accept evolution believe that it is the work of god - but regardless of whether that is or is not the case, it is not relevant to the process the Theory of Evolution describes. I'll leave out the personal insults, myself Ray. It's not contradictory, and any rational person can see that. If I am describing the workings of my car and how it operates, I don't need to discuss whether it was restored by hand or assembled as-is in a factory - manufacturing processes are irrelevant to the workings of the engine. Rather, we know you are full of BS due to the existence of millions of Christians who accept evolution. We have several right here on this site. While many have seen evolution as evidence that there is no god, many have also not. Again, there are millions of Christians around the world who accept evolution, yet keep their faith. I may disagree with them, as may Dawkins and others, but that doesn't mean evolution completely excludes the possibility of a deity.Yes, it contradicts a literal Genesis. That's what happens when you decide a stone-age myth passed down for a few thousand years must be literaly true. Not all Christians believe Genesis is a literal account, Ray. You know that. Evolution is neutral towards the existence of a deity. I didn't say it was neutral towards a literal account of Genesis. There's that cognitive dissonance again. Funny how, even though this thread has gone way off-topic, its topic still pops up unintentionally from posts like this. Not Atheist - scientific and legal. You insist they are facts, Ray, but neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to produce those facts. In fact, aren't you going to publish that paper you've been working on for so long? The one you claim dismantles evolution completely, but you never seem to be able to finish, and whose evidence you consistently refuse to bring up to back your arguments? Genesis is certainly not the only other option, and evolution is a conclusion. Don't we have a thread about that, too? No, you don't understand. You never have. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism,excepting that nearly all atheists accept evolution. Most Christians do, too. and so your point is refuted yet again. How long will you keep lying? It means that using the same logic to assume the veracity of the Bible is just as flawed, Ray. Even if the Bible were compeltely true, saying the Flood happened because Jericho existed is still false. Again, the topic of this thread shows itself in an amusing (yet frustrating) way.Also, it's nice to see you had to resort to personal insults, as always, Ray.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

One of many examples of design and creation...A paper napkin on the simple side and a wristwatch. There are two examples of things that an intelligent being designed and created.I'll set my alarm clock for one million years from now to see your results.Shame On Me???? Geesh you got me on that one....boy. Dang! Dang! You got me good. Shame on you...wow...what a zinger...why didn't I think of saying that.Find some other posts to respond to...I'm not worthy of your time. Shame Shame Shame on me.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, or ID, and you know it. You don't have to. How would you like some examples of new species evolving from pre-existing species, which have actually been observed? As in, within the human lifespan, documented and recorded. Your mockery, again, does nothing but waste space.Many of us have been replying to you with civility, despite this nonsense. Can you not even return that level of respect?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.