"Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At?"

reply to post by TheGreatDivider


Wrong again, we have observed it in the lab and in nature: LINK

We have tons of examples, so claiming it's hasn't been observed is simply WRONG.

By the way, this is another issue I have with creationists like yourself. You come here and make a random claim that evolution hasn't been observed, a claim that is DEMONSTRABLY wrong. A 3min google search for "evolution, observed" would have shown you how wrong you are. Don't be lazy, at least make an effort to do a bit of research.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

Wrong again, we have observed it in the lab and in nature: LINK

We have tons of examples, so claiming it's hasn't been observed is simply WRONG.

Have you yourself, you... ever witnessed any of this personally? I mean literally with you standing there observing and checking the data and stats?

reply to post by TheGreatDivider

Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don't bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don't insult us by thinking that we will believe that they are.

You are trying to take a small part of evolutionary theory and use it to try and claim it's not a fact while ignoring we don't need the fossil record what-so-ever to establish it as a fact. It's naive to assume biological systems today don't operate under the same mechanisms, pressures, and processes in the past. What makes evolution a theory is the study of these processes and how individual organism evolve. This is like how Earth is a fact, but also a theory as Earth keeps changing over time, and we will keep studying it, exploring it, and getting more knowledge about it as a planet we live on. Evolution is like that, it's both a proven fact, and a scientific theory. And I had gone over the definition of evolution before, and even provided examples of positive mutations, gene duplication ect ect ect. I even gave the example of algae evolving into a multi-cellular organism to which was directly observed and recorded in no less than 60 days.

Now if one want's to dispute evolutionary theory regarding the history, one needs to abide by the empirical system vs making things up and asserting them as absolute facts. Science takes all the evidence and paints the best picture possible that accounts for all the evidence to where the evidence itself paints the picture, or governs the out come of what that picture will look like. That is the only reliable method to establishing any level of certainty.

reply to post by TheGreatDivider

Have you yourself, you... ever witnessed any of this personally? I mean literally with you standing there observing and checking the data and stats?

Have yourself gone to the sun to make sure it's not a spot light as the flat Earthers claim? Are you seriously going to rely on the science conspiracy theory?

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

Wrong again, we have observed it in the lab and in nature: LINK

We have tons of examples, so claiming it's hasn't been observed is simply WRONG.

Have you yourself, you... ever witnessed any of this personally? I mean literally with you standing there observing and checking the data and stats?

Have you ever taken meds? A lot of them have been developed by applying the theory in modern medicine. Millions of people have experienced it

Your question is pointless in the first place though. Why? Because just because you haven't seen it in real time with your eyes doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen. You weren't alive when miners walked Chilkoot Trail during the gold rush...yet we know for a fact they did that. In short, your argument is nonsense.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

Have you yourself, you... ever witnessed any of this personally? I mean literally with you standing there observing and checking the data and stats?

Have yourself gone to the sun to make sure it's not a spot light as the flat Earthers claim? Are you seriously going to rely on the science conspiracy theory?

I don't see any difference in evolutionists claiming creationists are just following what they are taught and the other way around. MOST evolutionists are not scientists or biologists and "believe" and have 'faith" in what they are told. So if you haven't performed the experiments yourself, you are no more "intelligent" than anyone else.

I don't see any difference in evolutionists claiming creationists are just following what they are taught and the other way around.

Again, there is no established group called "evolutionists".. Evolution is a field of science.

MOST evolutionists are not scientists or biologists and "believe" and have 'faith" in what they are told. So if you haven't performed the experiments yourself, you are no more "intelligent" than anyone else.

Incorrect. Saying most is a pretty bold claim... But I don't have a problem with theists that aren't threatened by science, evolution theory, or the advancement of human knowledge. I know more than a few Christians that are disgusted by Creationist pseudoscience. And your argument is an appeal to ignorance, and you didn't address my question that puts your argument into context here. Hence your argument here is the same sort of argument we get from flat Earthers... Have you personally flown around the world to verify it isn't flat? See, your argument requires assuming "all" scientists in this field are magically all in a conspiracy and lying.. Positions that solely rely on conspiracy arguments are very weak because the evidence isn't something they can directly address.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


If you haven't noticed you are on a conspiracy website. If you believe in TPTB or NWO and don't think they are pushing the evolution "science" you are fooling yourself with your lack of intelligence.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Oh, and to answer your question, yes... I have flown around the world.

You get laughed at in the same sense adults laugh at children when they hang stockings over fireplaces and put their baby teeth under their pillow.

After so much frustration over why people continue to believe in something with no proof, it just becomes funny, what else are we suppose to do but laugh?

We ask for proof, you (not you directly but creationists) give us scripture. We ask for evidence you point to things science just doesn't understand yet. We ask for intellectual debate and you quote unproven miracles.

When faced with such absurdity what else is one to do but laugh?

reply to post by TheGreatDivider




-



-
And even a fossil snake shows how snakes lost their legs:

www.examiner.com...

Atavism is also something you find in humans. Yes we once had tails, and it's why you have a tailbone. We can see this in embryology (see photo), and by a direct example of Atavism in regards to it:

Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) attached to the pelvis, in the same place which other mammals have tails. The tail bone is formed of fused vertebrae, usually four, at the bottom of the vertebral column. It doesn't protrude externally, but retains an anatomical purpose: providing an attachment for muscles like the gluteus maximus." Source and further information: en.wikipedia.org... "The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals had a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31-35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. In rare cases a short tail can persist after birth, with 23 human babies possessing tails having been reported in the medical literature since 1884." Source and further information: en.wikipedia.org...

Human tails and pseudotails.
Dao AH, Netsky MG.
Abstract

A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized. The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects.

We actually have the tail genes, the same genes we find in Chimps and other mammals with tails. But of course one would need to ignore genetics and post pseudoscience from discredited sources like creation.com, or creationist books ect for an argument for ID. But lets further look at what a true tail example is:




And this has a lot to do with the Hox Code during embryonic development to which suppresses the development of the tail. Hence, there is times where the tail isn't fully absorbed..So here is a PDF on the HOX CODE:

scienceblogs.com...

And no the example is not spina bifida like creationists try to claim as shown in the picture below.. Hence it's not a pseudo-tail or this:

I am curious as to why some of my picture links didn't display the pictures

Which tailed ape is this anomaly supposed to be throwing back to anyway? If you go through the apes and alleged ape-men claimed to be in humans' evolutionary lineage, you can't find one that had a tail.

And isn't natural selection supposed to favor improvements, and not impediments? Why then would natural selection cause something as useful as a tail to wither into an encumbrance and then disappear?

reply to post by TheGreatDivider


The throwback is present in the embryology, your argument is meaningless considering "throw back".. That's like backpedaling or admitting it while denying it at the same time. This gene goes much further back in our history, and resides in before we became bipedal. The point you are ignoring is that Atavism alone proves evolutionary theory as a fact. That snake example is all the evidence one needs in the fossil record to demonstrate evolution theory. I could go into chickens with teeth, or whale evolution along with their embryology as well. You can try play GOD of the Gaps all you like, it's not going to change the fact that we have the genes for tails as all mammals do. This is hardcore empirical evidence of evolution.. You would require some seriously dishonest thought gymnastics and apologetics to ignore it.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

The throwback is present in the embryology, your argument is meaningless considering "throw back".. That's like backpedaling or admitting it a denying it at the same time.

I am asking did we come from apes or monkeys? Apes do not have tails.

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
reply to post by TheGreatDivider

 

The throwback is present in the embryology, your argument is meaningless considering "throw back".. That's like backpedaling or admitting it a denying it at the same time.

I am asking did we come from apes or monkeys? Apes do not have tails.

And yet they come from ancestors who did. Your trying to devalue the evidence by our nearest ancestor which isn't a very good argument. :/ Atavism in itself alone, regardless of everything else is enough evidence to make evolution a solid and well grounded science.. And I don't think the trickster GOD argument is going to be a very intellectually honest position here.

EDIT:

I will add to this.. If we inhibited the HOX CODE from oppressing the tail genes, we would literally grow tails. This is just to tell you how solid this evidence is.., and it requires you to read up on how the HOX CODE works.. There was even a Talk Ted episode to where Chickens could throw back to being a dinosaur by inhibiting the HOX CODE from oppressing genes..:

Why do creationists get laughed at?

Because they are funny to me, they think the entire universe (& other alien races in it) including this world was made by some ‘all loving powerful entity’ (apparently around 6000 years ago?) but it did not make everything perfect just to screw us over…..

Apparently it can help an old lady with a stalled car engine, but yet turns a blind eye to thousands of children being murdered and starved to death every day.

Yep, this entity of yours really sounds like he can create a universe and look after it :-/

If it was a job, he / she or it would have been fired for total incompetence a long time ago.

If our alien ancestors don’t return and by some ‘miracle’ your entity in the clouds shows itself – I would never ‘follow’ or ‘repent’ and would love to tell it just how much of a crap job it’s done – then I would flip it the bird and walk away to ‘burn in fire for all eternity’…… as the other option of spending an eternity with something that allows really bad things to happen everyday which could be prevented really does not do it for me at all.

That is why your funny to me, because you believe in something that really does not make sense at all and never will to me and millions of others.

Mickierocksman

reply to post by Mickierocksman


And you are just sad to me. To think you know it all and there is nothing that could possibly escape your massive ego driven intelligence.

Turns out we DID come from monkeys!

Phenotypical taxonomy is character-based, an in-depth analysis of every morphological, developmental, genetic or physiological trait. Systematic classification surpasses this by comparing these collectives to determine derived synapomorphies indicating a nested phylogeny -and that determines the clade! Because phylogenetic hierarchy is the only consistent criteria for classifying diverse forms stemming from an evolutionary lineage, and that evidently is where we came from.

The ID/ creationist movement is the best anti-religion public relations campaign in the world.
The deception... like all lies have short legs and will eventually become extinct.

Originally posted by TheGreatDivider
reply to post by Mickierocksman

 

And you are just sad to me. To think you know it all and there is nothing that could possibly escape your massive ego driven intelligence.

Creationists think they know it all….. Why can’t I (backed by science, logic and common sense)

Troll much? Because your rapier wit certainly did me no harm, perhaps sharpen the blade before your next thrust at me – it’s obviously the christian, religious, creationist thing to do you know when your 'god' has been proven to be illogical, senseless and heartless ……

Mickierocksman