Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.

​

I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.

​

I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

---

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

---

Ye olde argument from incredulity....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Listen, explain to me (as if I was 6 years old) how life came about, survived to even "evolve", became the immense variety we see around us today, and why there's so much variety from one cell...

---

How life came about is not part of evolution, and is still in the realm of hypothesis. If it makes you happy, you can believe God did it miraculously. I think you're lining yourself up for trouble that way, but feel free. Darwin did propose this in Origin.Moving on...The initial population didn't need to survive long because evolution is pretty much inevitable. Why? Well, organisms have far more offspring than survive to reproduce. There is variation within the population. Those most suited to the environment are those most likely to be the lucky ones. They therefore pass on their beneficial characteristics to their offspring, causing a change in the proportions of different characteristics in the population.Diversity - when a population spreads into new environments, different characteristics will be beneficial in one environment compared to another. Therefore, evolution will follow different paths in different environments. This will lead to a diversity of forms.I'm sorry if this is post 6 year old level, but I can no more get it any simpler than I can do are picture book version of War and Peace. At least it's in ordinary language. Doesn't sound too preposterous to me. Please explain why it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.

​

I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

---

​

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

---

Yes. Talking donkeys... Curing leprosy by killing pigeons... The ark story... the Son of God having to work as a carpenter to most of his life....Yes - does seem pretty preposterous, doesn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I'm sorry you don't want to go out of your way to learn enough about evolution to follow us in the threads, but that is like asking us to to explain String Theory with no math.

​

I'd be much more interested to hear you tell us about evolution, to see if you really understand it.

---

​

If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.

---

++++++++++++++++++++So your statement is in effect, that if something cannot be simplified to a level that you understand, it is false and therefore your views on science are correct and should be taken seriously? That is ridiculous. Scientific understanding is not determined by the lowest common denominator. I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?And you are still asserting that evolution is false without even providing YOUR own definition.

[QUOTE][B]If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually very little in science can be accurately explained to a six year old. Otherwise we could teach Thermodynamic Meteorology to first graders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Actually very little in science can be accurately explained to a six year old. Otherwise we could teach Thermodynamic Meteorology to first graders.

---

Right-o.Sonnikke,Try explaining something like calculus to a six year old. If you can't, we must ditch calculus. You can't be serious?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

++++++++++++++++++++

​

So your statement is in effect, that if something cannot be simplified to a level that you understand, it is false and therefore your views on science are correct and should be taken seriously? That is ridiculous. Scientific understanding is not determined by the lowest common denominator. I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?

​

And you are still asserting that evolution is false without even providing YOUR own definition.

---

Did I say that science was false if you can't understand it? NO!
There's also a HUGE difference between non-evolution science and evo-science.
Any decent scientist should be able to simplify something so a layman can understand it...it seems when the truth is too hard to swallow, it's easier to hide behind complex calc's and terminology so the avg. person loses interest in the topic and just says "well, I guess it's true...".---Life appears out of nowhere - un-explained by evolutionists.
The first life is a single celled organism living in a hostile environment, un-protected, for who knows how long before it magically divides into two organisms.
What protects it?
What supports it?
What force causes it to change?
How can all life we see, with all the different complexities and information codes, come from that?
When everything around us breaks down and deteriorates, believing the opposite to be true and for unimaginable periods, is certainly a fairytale.
Anyway, the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life (ie. atmosphere).
Ages pass, simple life miraculously becomes more complex...all of a sudden there are two different species...male female? Who knows, evolution doesn't care, it can explain everything...ages and ages pass, somehow there's food, somehow species reproduce, somehow they change to different species (it's very complex, you know, math and stuff) ...they live they die..yada yada yada...behold! Humans!!And that, little 6 year old Johnny, is how we came about...without any intelligence and guiding force...just accidentally...---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

++++++++++++++++++++

​

... I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?

​

---

I would imagine you probably don't know much about finite element analysis, yet when you see a building you don't think it just made itself...you recognize that there was a designer behind it, right??Toodles

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

++++++++++++++++++++

​

So your statement is in effect, that if something cannot be simplified to a level that you understand, it is false and therefore your views on science are correct and should be taken seriously? That is ridiculous. Scientific understanding is not determined by the lowest common denominator. I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?

​

And you are still asserting that evolution is false without even providing YOUR own definition.

---

​

Did I say that science was false if you can't understand it? NO!
There's also a HUGE difference between non-evolution science and evo-science.
Any decent scientist should be able to simplify something so a layman can understand it...it seems when the truth is too hard to swallow, it's easier to hide behind complex calc's and terminology so the avg. person loses interest in the topic and just says "well, I guess it's true...".

​

---Life appears out of nowhere - un-explained by evolutionists.
The first life is a single celled organism living in a hostile environment, un-protected, for who knows how long before it magically divides into two organisms.
What protects it?
What supports it?
What force causes it to change?
How can all life we see, with all the different complexities and information codes, come from that?
When everything around us breaks down and deteriorates, believing the opposite to be true and for unimaginable periods, is certainly a fairytale.
Anyway, the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life (ie. atmosphere).
Ages pass, simple life miraculously becomes more complex...all of a sudden there are two different species...male female? Who knows, evolution doesn't care, it can explain everything...ages and ages pass, somehow there's food, somehow species reproduce, somehow they change to different species (it's very complex, you know, math and stuff) ...they live they die..yada yada yada...behold! Humans!!

​

And that, little 6 year old Johnny, is how we came about...without any intelligence and guiding force...just accidentally...

​

---

​

---

**************Despite your obvious confusion of abiogenesis and evolution (a common creationist problem so don't take offense) is this really the basis of your understanding of evolution or are you joking? You always end with a so it is hard to tell...but there is so much wrong in what you said I would like to know if this is where your knowledge really stands before proceeding.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

++++++++++++++++++++

​

... I guess you don't know much about genomic imprinting or prions either so should all scientists studying these phenomenon quit because you don't understand them?

​

---

​

I would imagine you probably don't know much about finite element analysis, yet when you see a building you don't think it just made itself...you recognize that there was a designer behind it, right??

​

Toodles

​

---

I also know that a building does not reproduce and is not subject to heritable mutations so the analogy is inapplicable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

​

---Life appears out of nowhere - un-explained by evolutionists.
The first life is a single celled organism living in a hostile environment, un-protected, for who knows how long before it magically divides into two organisms.
What protects it?
What supports it?
What force causes it to change?
How can all life we see, with all the different complexities and information codes, come from that?
When everything around us breaks down and deteriorates, believing the opposite to be true and for unimaginable periods, is certainly a fairytale.
Anyway, the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life (ie. atmosphere).
Ages pass, simple life miraculously becomes more complex...all of a sudden there are two different species...male female? Who knows, evolution doesn't care, it can explain everything...ages and ages pass, somehow there's food, somehow species reproduce, somehow they change to different species (it's very complex, you know, math and stuff) ...they live they die..yada yada yada...behold! Humans!!

​

And that, little 6 year old Johnny, is how we came about...without any intelligence and guiding force...just accidentally...

​

---

​

---

And this, little fundamentalist, is a straw man of wondrous stature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:

And this, little fundamentalist, is a straw man of wondrous stature.

---

It is a rather convenient position to find yourself in when all you have to do to avoid dealing with a fallacy is accuse the opposition of concocting a straw man...you guys are certainly never guilty of making creationists straw men right??

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
you guys are certainly never guilty of making creationists straw men right??

---

Creationist do a fine job of it without our assistance ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com