Your reason for accepting evolution

But this is not true. Evolutionists look at the evidence, creationists look at creationist pamphlets and websites full of stuff that creationists have made up.That they should come to different conclusions is hardly surprising. The fossil record, comparative morphology, molecular phylogeny, biogeography, embryology, behavioral ecology, and so forth. No, of course not. This is why so many evolutionists believe in a transcendent creator. Of course it can be proved one way or the other. Specifically, it can be proved that evolution happened and that fiat creation of organisms didn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then why do the overwhelming majority of them know nothing about evolution?Have fundies invented some primitive form of brain surgery?This would explain much.For example:* You appear to believe that Evolution is "the world religion", which suggests that you have no idea what it is.* You think that the "starting point" of evolution is "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator", which again, shows that you know nothing whatsoever about it.* You assert that there is "evidence against evolution", which suggests that you are unfamiliar with the whole of natural history.You claim that creationists "only care about what is true", a proposition which would have had you rolling about on the floor half a minute after reading your first creationist pamphlet if you had even the barest familiarity with the facts.* You state that creationists and evolutionists reach their conclusions "from the same evidence", which suggests that either you have never read any scientific work on evolution, or (which I doubt) that you have never read any creationist propaganda on the same subject.So I am compelled to conclude that if you were one of those creationists who "were evolutionists before", then someone must have set about your cranium with some kind of a blunt instrument.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet, on another thread, you have just claimed: Apparently, then, we are not looking at the "same evidence". I get my information about biology from what biologists write about it. You, evidently, have a different source of "facts" about biology.This source of your "facts" --- I'm just hazarding a guess here --- would it involve reading websites and pamphlets written by non-biologists in which they repeat what they've read in websites and pamphlets written by non-biologists?

What about it?Hey, what do you think it is? But this is not true. Perhaps you could point us to this "creation model", and explain in what way it is a model, rather than an ad hoc method of ducking the facts with no detail, no physics, and no math. I guess that's why most fossils are not well-preserved, and why the soft parts are usually rotted away.Very occasionally, paleontologists do find a fossil that was rapidly buried, and is therefore well-preserved, and then they dance around singing the Happy Paleontologist Song. But this, again, is untrue. More stuff that you've made up, which is why you can't name any of these "catastrophist geologists". Well, when you say that this is what "creationists believe", you mean that this is what the creationists who you agree with believe."Some kind of" hydrological sorting, you write. No-one has yet explained what kind of hydrological sorting could sort organisms in exact accordance with evolution.No-one ever will.If you claim that this happened at Mount St Helens, the words "don't talk rubbish" spring to mind. The phrase "such as" is usually meant to be followed by specific examples.You haven't listed these "anomalous findings", or these "all sorts of things". You haven't named one.

Let me explain in more general terms what is wrong with your post.You've just given us what is known as the "Gish Gallop". You've recited falsehood after falsehood without even trying to back them up with any evidence.It's as though you said: "Pigs can fly. Only atheist materialists deny that pigs can fly, because they want to deny that pigs can fly 'cos they're atheist materialist. Why else do pigs have wings? How come their shape is perfectly aerodynamic? Why else are there so many reports of flying pigs? How do all the pigs that hijack planes get up there if they can't fly? What about all the pigs on mountaintops? This is an anomaly that atheist materialists can't explain."What else is there to reply to this but "none of this is true"?I guess there's one more thing we could say, which is: "If you think that this is true, then perhaps you could show us some evidence that it's true."Otherwise, if your sole debating tactic is to recite rubbish that you've read on some creationist website without a scrap of substantiating evidence, and expect us to take it on your say-so, then there's nothing I need to say in reply except: "That's rubbish that you people made up."

And not only that, but we are also unaware of any creationist rubbish connecting their rubbish about Mount St Helens with their rubbish about hydrological sorting.Although we are, of course, familiar with the standard creationist rubbish about Mount St Helens, which involves not knowing what the word "varves" means, and claiming that a local volcano is a good model for a universal flood.And if I had to guess what's happened, it went like this. He read on some website that hydrological sorting was what "creationists believe" about the fossil record, and he was told on another website that creationists are proved right about geology by Mount St Helens. After mixing this up in his head for a bit, he concluded that the eruption of Mount St Helens produced "hydrological sorting", even though no creationist, let alone any truthful source, had ever told him any such thing.And now he states it as fact even though this was something he made up in his own head.Sheesh.I think we might call it "second phase" creationism. The first phase is caused by creationists failing to understand science. The second phase is caused by creationists failing to understand creationism.

Just as we have "no use" for the "greater faith-based extrapolation" that the Roman Empire existed.No, accurate knowledge of the past is not always useful. But it's interesting. But again, this is stuff you've made up. Geologists had rejected the flood model long before Darwin published the theory of evolution. They did so not because they were "evolutionists", but because they'd looked at the rocks.Will you please stop making stuff up and then asserting it without a shred of evidence. They don't. This is something else you made up. Some creatures have no eyes, spiders usually have eight, scallops can have over a hundred ...Why didn't you try to find out if what you were saying was true before you said it? These are basic biological facts, you just have to count the eyes. Ah yes, the Argument From Undesign. This is one of my top 10 favorite creationist arguments.You are saying that evolution ought to produce good results, but what we have is a rather poor result. We don't have enough eyes.But remember, you are meant to be arguing in favor of the hypothesis that we were designed by a perfect, all-knowing, all-wise God. Who, according to you, gave us too few eyes.Shouldn't the mighty power of God have given us the right number of eyes? It's conceivable that mutation and selection produced our intellect, since (1) there are variations in intelligence (2) intelligence can be useful. What about it?You claimed to have facts that would blow away evolution. It appears that what you mostly have is incoherent questions. The bananas that we eat are a product of artificial selection acting on random mutation. Humans bred them to be edible. So in a sense, it is not just possible, but certain, that "the banana was created for us to eat". By us.This is another fact that passed you by. All our domesticated plants and animals have been domesticated. By us.Again, I have to wonder why you came to lecture people about biology without bothering to learn a few basic facts about it.

That's an interesting fantasy you have about your opponents.As with all your other untruths, you don't have a scrap of evidence for it. YOu just say it and expect us to believe it.But it's bollocks.The reason that people who know about biology disagre with you about biology must be apparent by now to everyone reading this thread --- except possibly you. It's because we know about biology and you don't. More stuff that you've made up.Which is why the stuff that you've put in quotes is not real quotations of anything that anyone has actually said.You had to make it up, 'cos it's not true. Which is, of course, why no-one has ever said so.You rant and rave about paleotology and you've never learnt the first damn thing about it, have you? Which is, of course, why no-one has ever said any such thing.You can't argue against what your opponents actually say, so you argue against crazy shit that you've made up in your head. Ah, you're back to fantasising about the motivations of your opponents.Let me spell it out again. The reason that we disagree with you about biology is that we know about biology and you do not.

Well, you could name them and quote them, except that this is some more rubbish that you made up in your head. I have already told you why I find evolution convincing. No, you are not going to be crucified. Calm down.What you might do --- but I'm not betting on it --- is you might stop talking rubbish about subjects of which you are ignorant. So ... you still think that God got it wrong, yes? So, you still haven't bothered to find out what the theory of evolution is?Why don't you come back and argue with us when you know what it is? Try to lie less often.You wrote, here"I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation."That is what you wrote. Are you trying to deny that the modern banana was produced by artificial selection? If so, please present your evidence. You don't need to apologise for meeting people better informed than you are. Just take the opportunity to learn from them. And this is your central delusion, the mad stupid thing that you believe that you must stop believing before you can be cured.You know bugger all about biology, which is why everything you say about it is wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To summarise.The reason that people accept evolution is that they know the relevant facts about biology and geology. And the reason we know these things is that we are interested in nature. It's endlessly fascinating, and we like learning about it.The reason that you reject evolution, besides not knowing what it actually entails, is that you are completely ignorant of even the simplest facts about nature. And this is because you've never been remotely interested in nature, and because everything you think you know about it has been gleaned by reading silly creationist lies about the subject and learning to repeat these lies without ever bothering to find out whether any of the stuff you're reciting is actually true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why do you "have to assume" things that aren't true? By "the real God", you mean the one that you've chosen to believe in, yes? As to your honesty, I refer you to post #45; and to your habit of reciting rubbish without bothering to find out if it's true. Then how come you know damn-all about biology? Then let me refer you to the entire natural world --- y'know, that thing that you know nothing about?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What were you doing when the other kids were studying biology?The whole point of a fruit is to be eaten; it's a method of dispersing its seeds.Of course, in the case of the modern cultivated banana, it's undergone a chance mutation for seedlessness, which has been propagated by humans through vegetative cloning, 'cos we prefer them seedless.However, here, for your edification, is a picture of a wild banana. Note the seeds.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You don't think much of this "real God" of yours, do you?Not only did he give you the wrong number of eyes, but the great supernatural silly-billy was also stupid enough not to provide you with a tail.Perhaps next time you're praying, you could explain to him how you know better than him how humans should have been designed and how you could have done a much better job.---Note for the biologically challenged: humans are descended from Old World monkeys, which don't have prehensile tails. Hence, if we had retained this feature, we could not use it to open doors.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The cultivated banana evolved from the wild banana by a series of fortuituous mutations, some of which produced a fruit more palatable to us and which we therefore selected.Wild bananas are not particularly good to eat --- they have a starchy flavor and texture, they require cooking, they're not sweet, and, as you can see, they're full of black, rock-hard seeds.The modern banana, with its sweet flavor, is the result of a mutation discovered in Jamaica in 1836 by a chap called Jean Francois Poujot. No, of course not. Nature, being mindless, doesn't know anything, and we do not eat bananas with seeds in, but instead eat the mutant seedless variety that we propogate through vegetative cloning.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

See my previous post. It's a proven fact.