Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9057 total)
38 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,662 Year: 774/6,534 Month: 774/682 Week: 9/445 Day: 9/14 Hour: 2/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 1 of 111 (885215)
03-28-2021 8:14 AM

Online, I have known many evolutionists, even some of them for years yet they still don't know some of the basic answers creationists have to the, "problems" they put forward. It indicates floccinaucinihilipilification. (Hope I spelled that right)

I am not so much talking about complicated or difficult matters but rather SIMPLE matters, where there are actually very simple, straight forward solutions to the "problems" evolutionists pose.

And this might sometimes be reflected by the popular atheists such as Attenborough or Dawkins.

You see you may equate us as creationists, with flat-earthers but unlike flat-earthers there are provably easy answers to a lot of the, "problems" you pose.

These, "problems" are repeated ad-nauseam, endlessly, when all it would do to solve them is to read a creationist source FOR BEGINNERS. (example; "where did Cain get his wife?")

For example, such poor arguments as, "why did God create this worm for the human eyeball?" Or, "why did God create this disease?"

In fact disease and defect arise in time, not at creation week. Or do you think God invented covid for humans?
Symbiotic hosts can become extinct for example. When you think about it it doesn't really take much thinking to solve some of the "simple" level problems you pose then endlessly repeat as though there are no answers to them. (mendacious)

The wiring of the retina for example. But it's been answered now for years on end, eye-specialists have said there isn't any wrong wiring of the eye nor any defect caused by the wiring.

Also a lot of the whining from atheists isn't usually scientific but theological because their complaints usually start with, "why would God do thus and so?"

That isn't a scientific motive in asking such questions and reveals your bias. If you were objective and open to the truth you wouldn't reveal your true motive which is to attack God, you would simply and honestly WONDER if there really are answers to why God does things beyond a limited human perspective. After all it doesn't take any brain power to surmise that an omniscient mind might have omniscient reasons a human mind can't grasp.

What better demonstration of this is found in how humans make errors and jump to conclusions when they are plainly in the wrong? This behaviour is ubiqitous and we all do it. You can't tell us humans are full of bias and ineptitude and are fallible on the one hand then tell us your judgement is perfectly objective and righteous on the other.

You bore people with talk of things such as confirmation bias, post-hoc reasoning, memory bias, pareidolia, and all the other human foibles yet when you ask child-level questions about God you think your first thought is going to be accurate and then a flippant dismissal of the issue.

Another one;

"You can't define kind."

MOOT. And you should know that by now. Because not being able to define the original kinds as a classification wouldn't mean it would follow they don't exist. If one type of creature has more genomic or morphological plasticity than another and members of the kind have gone extinct it may not be possible to class them in such a way, in essence the "define kind" argument from evolutionists is just a bit of a red-herring now. "score through this hoop we know you can't score through....hehe, impressed?"

Answer; No.

The kinds arguments is evolutionists being OPPORTUNISTIC. They see there is a legitimate struggle to nail a classification simply because of a lack of data and they use this to pretend that any amount of macro change is therefore justified. But it isn't because there is generally an absence of any macro in the fossil record.

The fact is we can define kind generally by defining them as the creatures God made. As long as there was a polyphyletic special creation then it's tautological they will exist even if we can't class them accurately in the modern world because of a lack of data. But suffice to say all bats would have started out as something, "batlike". So then since we don't make any macro-scale uphill claims such as, "this bat evolved a wing", then why does it matter?

Answer; it doesn't. And all it took was some basic thought.

Next one;

"Geologists back in the day dismissed a flood."

This is the silliest one for me personally. Why? The, "geologists" back then didn't know anything. LOL. It was Berthault in the 1970s that discovered how facies can be laid down by hydraulic action, in flume experiments. It was creation-geologists POST 1970 that discovered a lot of the now-argued evidence for a flood. The geologists back in the day didn't have a clue about any of the models they put out there now such as the B.E.D.S model and it's likely evolutionist geologists themselves don't know the science-arguments for a flood and couldn't tell you what that acronym means.

It's the genetic fallacy.

You forget nobody bothered to study a flood and what evidence it might create if it was way more complicated than the "bath-tub" model of the Victorian age. LOL.

OVERALL CONCLUSION; In their eagerness to spread propaganda about us creationists it would seem evolutionists have never actually read anything we say despite them being the ones that call us ignorant. (think about it, we at least read your position, but you simply dismiss ours and therefore have a poor understanding of us generally speaking.)

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 1:37 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2021 2:04 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 12 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-29-2021 10:49 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 03-29-2021 11:17 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 03-29-2021 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Dogmafood, posted 03-29-2021 11:21 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 35 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 4:23 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 05-25-2021 3:30 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 5 of 111 (885228)
03-28-2021 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
03-28-2021 1:37 PM

PaulK writes:

The fact that you can answer weak versions of cherry-picked arguments does nothing to help your case. Indeed, it suggests that you lack good answers to more serious arguments.

It doesn't suggest that. It suggests you don't know easy answers to the complaints you repeat on boards like this ad-nauseam. That I don't deal with more serious answers because I focus on these simple ones wouldn't be appropriate if the whole point of the topic is that any adult with normal intelligence over many years should know the answers to basic objections, should know and inform themselves of their opponents position.

So the absence of more "serious" arguments not being mentioned here is not a conspicuous absence of evidence it is an expected absence of evidence which means the conclusion that I lack good answers would be an implied argumentum ad ignorantiam because clearly the aim wasn't to deal with the more complex arguments so it doesn't imply what you suggest it does.

Of course I don't expect you to know you are making these mistakes given they require a subtle and acute thinker to spot and you are coarse, crude and personal in your poor standard of debate where you focus on character-assassination instead of a fruitful discussion.

PaulK writes:

Another low-quality post.

"Another" is a question-begged epithet because it ASSERTS there were previously poor posts without proving it, also just barely asserting it is a low quality post then giving poor arguments as to why it is, doesn't prove anything. Is the reader really going to be so dumb they would be tricked into thinking, "another" would prove there were other examples of low quality when you haven't proven so much as one as of yet?

So your cleverest argument here is the use of a word, "another".

Wow, what an Einstein!

Paulk writes:

. Linnaean taxonomy shows a single tree of life, not a collection of bushes or shrubs

You always barely state your case. That is, "poor quality". You state something as though it is true if you state it. I don't accept there is any tree of life, for the reasons I give in my short book, I explained that there. I believe I put my book here at EvC forum, so I guess you haven't read the part about the tree of life.

In fact if this hypothetical tree of life existed then it's roots are missing. The transitionals that would have had to precede the main phyla in the Cambrian would be conspicuously absent because of the Cambrian explosion.

I explained that the prediction for a tree of life is that diversity would precede disparity because it takes a lot of hypothetical evolutionary time to get to the phyla level of change. But what we actually see is that disparity precedes diversity. That's a problem because in evolutionary time the explosion is relatively quick. After all they say something as, "close" as primates, with chimps and humans, would take say 5-10 million years of divergence, so how many millions of years of divergence would it take to get all of the phyla we find in the Cambrian?

So then the tree has to be inferred where it actually is not found, for all of the key elements are conspicuously absent, as expected if there wasn't any evolution-tree to begin with.

PaulK writes:

Berthault’s work hasn’t exactly done much to change the situation either - unless you are going to assume that the Flood was guided by flumes.

This is a naive comment. It's like saying, "unless you assume abiogenesis occurred in an experimental apparatus" if we were to find an example of abiogenesis in the lab.


PaulK writes:

The fact that you can answer weak versions of cherry-picked arguments does nothing to help your case

I can and have answered the more complex arguments here and at other places so the term, "cherry picked" only counts as rhetorical spin by trying to paint me as someone only mentioning the simple problems because he can't deal with the more sophisticated ones.

You tend to IMPLY things about the person FAR TOO MUCH, Paul, most likely because you haven't the intelligence to win in a toe-to-toe debate so you have to fall back on the use of flimsy rhetoric instead.

Your post was about as difficult to deal with as eating cake.

Keep stating false and evil things about the Lord's servant, for your time grows ever shorter, so as they say, "enjoy it while it lasts".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 1:37 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2021 2:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 12:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 6 of 111 (885229)
03-28-2021 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AZPaul3
03-28-2021 2:04 PM

AZPaul writes:

Oh good gawd. The historical revisionism is strong with this one. There is nothing in your screed that is new, that is factual, that hasn't already been tossed in the dustbin by reality.

It's been, what, almost 5 generations now and you folk just keep bringing up the same old arguments that were, not just dismissed, but refuted, decades ago as if we'd never seen them before. I know. I was there. As we argue on into my second century I grow weary of the repetition.

At least present a case. I am going from things I have actually heard from people. You are just saying things about creationists that are only true from your own TWISTED and highly limited thinking.

So what. So you get a kick out of insulting people when you can't win against them in debate because it makes you feel big?

"Then perhaps you should have made me a mechanic, so I could work on little tin gods like you." - Dr McCoy - Star Trek.

So if you're going to insult, at least come up with an impressive, brainy insult.

AZPaul writes:

Ok, I'm not that old but, Mikie, this crap is. This crap is way old and already dead.

This is a waste of electrons. But, it's hard to ignore an ignorant religious automaton trying to burn the world down.

No this is, "crap", and I will be frank, I don't even know what you're on about or how this addresses anything I have said.

AZPaul writes:

Except for the opportunity to slap you around insulting you, which is actually quite fun, there is nothing here worth responding to.

Well you admit you have evil motives then don't you. You admit all you can offer is insults and you derive fun from them. And we both know the real reason you won't respond is because you can't respond because I am correct in the opening message, these are oft touted PRATTS repeated even by "knowledgeable" evolutionists even though there are basic answers to the silly "problems" they pose.

Like I said to the other Paul, enjoy your sin, WHILE IT LASTS.

The joy I get is seeing that none of you have any answers. When you do insult and admit it like this you might as well hang a sign saying, "WE CAN'T WIN AGAINST YOU IN A TOE TO TOE DEBATE SO WE'RE GOING TO PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT BY ACTING DISGRACEFULLY."

In other words, you confirm my faith more and more in that you behave just like the bible says you will.

I mean what do you think would impress me, a bunch of insults a three year old can make or some powerful arguments for evolution?

But then there aren't any such powerful arguments for evolution which is why you rely and just ASSERTING things pretty much 100%.

Gee, that's really up there with Einstein, SAYING THINGS at me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2021 2:04 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminPhat, posted 03-29-2021 1:21 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 7 of 111 (885230)
03-28-2021 7:34 PM

There really should be a "report" button for message 4 like on EFF. It was an all out personal attack of the crudest type where someone just offers false insults and admits they are getting joy from the insults.

And you guys wonder why creationists don't come here?

Is the admin going to admit message 4 shouldn't be allowed or do the admin have no moral standards whatsoever?

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 8 of 111 (885231)
03-28-2021 7:40 PM

I have reported message 4 to adminphat in the hopes that he might be more objective since he isn't an anti-theist admin.

I think if there are any more personal attacks from the Pauls, a good standard would be to ban them for 14 days. Especially AZPaul.

PaulK is slightly more subtle in his character-assassination technique but AZPaul is always a crude person generally.

I suspect most posters are just likely to be trolls that have been given a free pass to just troll any creationist that stops by.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 03-30-2021 10:47 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 127 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 9 of 111 (885232)
03-28-2021 7:48 PM

PaulK writes:

The very fact that geologists could come up with successful models based on old-Earth ideas, but not on Young Earth Flood geology ideas is a real issue.

Generally I don't see how old-earth "uniformity" has born out at all. They constantly need to find new answers.

It's catastrophe that answers for a lot of things these days, and on a big scale. There is so much evidence that fits with the flood scenario that basically evolutionists behave ridiculously when they pretend it doesn't, they basically argue contradiction by saying local catastrophe would create catastrophic signal but a larger catastrophe wouldn't.

Especially so when sediment-volume would be far more explainable in terms of a flood, for the types of evidence found in modern times they didn't know about back then such as massive evidence of erosional remnants and inselburgs. Planations of a massive scale, explainable as the abative phase of the flood.

The fact is what I said was correct, none of this was studied back in Darwin's time and a lot of the new evidence is explained well by the flood but poorly with slow incremental eons.

link writes:

Using uniformitarian assumptions—to defeat long ages
The oceans present us with another way of ‘dating’, because we can measure the rates of various processes with respect to the oceans. And using the long-ager’s own belief system of uniformitarianism, we get ‘maximum ages’ that do not square with the secular long-age paradigm. They do not, however, present any problem for the biblical timeline of history. Thus, uniformitarianism is self-refuting with respect to the scientific evidence we have available.

Ocean salt
The salinity of our oceans can give us a ‘clock’ of sorts, because we are able to estimate the amount of salt entering our oceans as well as the amount that leaves. It turns out that much more is entering than leaving, so the oceans are getting saltier over time. So let’s use this as a uniformitarian ‘clock’ by assuming the processes have stayed much the same. Starting with fresh water, how long would it take for the oceans to become as salty as they are?

A study by creation scientists Steve Austin and Russell Humphreys, using the most conservative numbers available, gave an absolute upper limit (not actual age!), of 62 million years.1 While this may seem like a long time, it is actually far too low a number to accommodate the secular age for the ocean of 3.8 billion years.2 And note that the oceans would have started out with some salt in them, plus a stupendous amount of salt and other minerals would have been added during the Flood from erosion and volcanism

The oceans show us a young Earth - creation.com


link writes:

We can also measure the rate at which nickel enters and leaves Earth’s oceans. If there is too much nickel dissolved in ocean water, it becomes toxic. According to a UK environmental health guideline, concentrations higher than 30 parts per billion are toxic for marine life—yet that concentration would have already been reached in just 1,076,000 years at current rates of input!

However, we also know that mineral ‘nodules’ containing nickel form on the sea floor, so could this explain the low level of nickel for the long-ager? Simply, no—even if all the nickel entering the ocean were being deposited in these nodules, based upon current estimates it would only take 168,000 years to accumulate all the nickel currently found in the nodules. Just as for salt, nickel is also entering our oceans far too quickly for the old-earth timeline of history.4


link writes:

We observe the accumulation of sediment on the ocean floor coming from the erosion of our continents. In some places, like river mouths, our coastlines are gradually growing as the process of erosion dumps sediment from the land into the seas; at the same time, canyons and gorges on land are growing deeper by these same erosional processes. Everything is getting closer to sea level, with the faster changes happening at the highest elevations and steepest areas.

On average, the depth of sediment on the ocean floor is less than 400 metres (about 1,300 feet), with some areas of the ocean floor having no mud at all. We would not expect to find this if the oceans were extremely old. We can also estimate the maximum rate at which subduction (one crustal plate gradually being thrust under another) could be pulling sediment back into the crust. Assuming that this rate has always been the same (again, uniformitarianism against itself), it is far too slow to account for this result; not enough seafloor mud is getting eliminated by this process. In fact, at the present rate, all the sediment would have been accumulated in under 12 million years

So I don't believe evolutionists are willing to do an honest appraisal of eons, they just REPEAT the dating-claims and don't look at exacting extrapolations and rates that don't favour eons.

The fact is more and more they argue punctuated catastrophism as some sort of mixture of uniformity and neo-catastrophism.

Conclusion; the fact is you had to be born post 1880 to know a lot of this stuff and some of the evidence for a flood recently found is only recently found because they dismissed the idea of a flood all those years ago.

There are some great examples of uniformity being overturned by new research in petrology for example, where evolutionists argue outdated old canards.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2021 2:59 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 14 by JonF, posted 03-29-2021 11:25 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 36 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 6:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022