What i can't understand about evolution....

You've contradicted yourself again.First you say you accept evolution within "kinds", such as the cat "kind", which includes many species. This means you accept the evolution of one species into another, since creationists say an original species of the cat "kind" fresh off Noah's ark evolved into the lions, tigers and housecats that are different species of the same cat "kind".But now you say you reject evolution of one species into another.Were you trying to say that you reject evolution of one "kind" into another? If so, we already knew that. For the sake of discussion, let's say the first life was the creation of God, no abiogenesis. How does that invalidate evolution? It doesn't, right?Since it makes no difference to evolution whether the first life arose through abiogenesis or through an act of God, evolution is not dependent upon abiogenesis.--Percy

Hi Peg,I'm just reading along trying to catch up with all the posts from last night, but I just have to respond to this: People have been questioning you about the contradictions between your views and your claim to be a creationist for a while now, since shortly after you joined, and the light bulb only goes on now?More importantly, there are many other issues where you are equally confused, but you're just still unaware of them. At the rate of one eureka moment per month you should have everything figured out by 2012.Could you take this fundamental error that you've just made as an indication that you should accept my earlier advice to review, rethink and revise your messages before posting them? There must be many times when you're typing where a little thought murmurs in your mind, "Didn't somebody say something about this already?" Don't just keep typing, go back and find out what they said. This will at least prevent you from raising the same already rebutted issues over and over again, and maybe it will set you on the road to thinking through what you say before you post it.--Percy

Apparently one of the most common things creationists don't understand about evolution is that it doesn't include abiogenesis. Evolution and abiogenesis are clearly related to one another, but just as clearly not the same thing.Why this particular distinction is so difficult for creationists to accept cannot be due to any complexities or difficulties with the concept. After all, it's very analogous to the human life cycle we're all so familiar with and have no problem understanding. Humans are conceived, born, and grow, and these processes of conception, pre-natal development, birth, and growth are separate areas of study. Obviously they're all closely related, they're all about a single human being, but they are not the same thing.So if instead of natural conception God were to conceive a child within a women's womb, how would that change the subsequent pre-natal development, birth and growth? We have an actual example of this. Jesus was conceived by God, but he still developed in the womb, was born, then grew to adulthood, just like all other children who were not divinely conceived.God could have created the first life just like he conceived Jesus. Jesus's development was the same as all other children after his divine conception, just like evolution was like all other natural processes after the first life. Maybe the first life was divinely created, maybe it was a result of natural processes, that's a debate for another thread, but whichever it is, evolution would be the same in either case. The question here is, what is it about the first life that makes it so difficult for creationists to understand that it is not the same thing as evolution.One gets the feeling that this comprehensional wall has nothing to do with creationist comprehension skills and everything to do with not wanting to give up a cherished notion about evolution, as well as one of their most powerful talking points when proselytizing against evolution. They don't want to give up being able to say, "If you believe in evolution then you don't believe God created the first life, you don't believe in Adam and Eve, you don't believe in the flood, and you don't believe in the Bible as the word of God."The only problem with this argument is that it's not true, which brings me to the one biggest thing I don't understand about creationism: why the most religiously conservative among us seem unconcerned about getting their facts straight or misrepresenting the truth. They apparently have so much faith in the honesty and accuracy of each other that they can't believe they would ever lie or be mistaken, so if they hear from a Christian source something negative about evolution, then they'll believe it forever and forever, no matter how much factual information is actually presented to them.--Percy

The last paragraph of my Message 475 wasn't meant to divert the topic, but I will say that while the name of this thread is, "What I can't understand about evolution...", from a evolutionist perspective the title would be, "What creationists never understand about evolution".The extended discussion about abiogenesis and evolution and why they are not the same thing is just one example, though a pretty good one, of something creationists usually don't understand. Instead of seeking things that are actually wrong with evolution, creationists seek criticisms of evolution that sound good to other conservative Christians who share their lack of familiarity with science, and then they propagate them over and over and over again, whether or not they are true. The lack of concern about honesty and accuracy is ironic, but not the topic of this thread.So creationists can continue to argue that evolution is wrong because a natural origin for life is impossible, but this argument only has traction with other conservative Christians, presumably because they have a need to believe evolution must be false. Of course the argument has no traction whatsoever in scientific circles just because of the implicit illogic all by itself, let alone all the other considerations.If I wanted to make equally dishonest and inaccurate arguments against Christianity I might assert that because we cannot replicate the birth of Jesus that there's no real proof it ever happened. And that since we can't prove Jesus was ever born, therefore his ministry never happened. Any Christians out there think this is a good faith argument?So why is it a good faith argument for creationists to say that because we cannot replicate a natural origin for life, therefore there's no proof it ever happened, and therefore evolution is not possible.I agree with Coyote that creationists look at things differently. They know what is true, and all evidence is interpreted in light of what they already know is true. For a creationist, the validity of any evidence is not measured by any scientific criteria, but by the degree to which it supports what they already know is true. This is why creationist arguments are full of post hoc rationalizations.Abiogenesis (a natural origin for life) and evolution (change in species over time) are not the same thing. Creationists can start trying to wrap their minds around this fact (and we're willing to help as much as we can), or they can be wrong, but there aren't really any other options. It isn't possible to drag someone kicking and screaming to an understanding.--Percy

What a coincidence that you should mention this because I briefly considered writing a second post about another common creationist misapprehension, confusing atheism with evolution, but decided against it. But it's much the same thing. No matter how often you point out that more often than not scientists who accept evolution also believe in God, few creationists will believe it. If you remember Ray, he confused evolution and atheism for all the years of his participation here.What it comes down to is that conservative Christians think anyone who doesn't believe as they do is an atheist. In Dover a couple who taught Sunday school and ran a summer Bible camp were called atheists as soon as it was discovered they accepted evolution, their opponents apparently unconcerned whether it was true or not as long as it was politically expedient by demonizing and marginalizing them in they eyes the community. I guess it's okay to propagate a lie if it's done in God's service.Fact for creationists: All evolutionists are not atheists. Not even most are atheists. Your bias and closemindedness become obvious as soon as you confuse the two, and it also makes it clear that you approach the controversy as a religious rather than scientific issue.--Percy