Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
585 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tangle (5 members, 580 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,260 Year: 4,372/6,534 Month: 586/900 Week: 110/182 Day: 17/27 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 151 of 254 (894131)
05-02-2022 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Percy
05-02-2022 5:32 PM


Is that true, that you keep claiming that evolution holds that one "kind" of animal can produce a different "kind?"

He is indeed echoing that tired old standard creationist lie ignoring our repeated corrections:

Message 43

candle2 writes:

What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always
reproduces the same kind of animal.

For example, a pig's offsprings will, and always
has been pigs. The same is true for humans.

Message 66

candle2 writes:

My empirical evidence is being produced
everyday. I take great pride in the fact
(and it is indeed a fact) that human
mother's produce human babies, and
that oak trees produce oak trees. Etc...

Based on God's word in Genesis, this
is exactly what an intelligent and reasonable
person would expect to see.

In fact, I boldly predict with 100% certainly
that next week; next month; next year; and
next century (if we are still going) that human
mother's will still be producing human babies.

Message 121

candle2 writes:

And, what makes someone thinks that these
fossils were capable of doing what animals
today can't do.

And, that is to have offsprings who are of a
different "kind."

Message 136

candle2 writes:

All finches in the Galapagos are still finches. All the
different breeds of dogs are still just dogs. One can
say that minute changes over eons of time can lead
to the creation of new species/kind, but that belief
is based on faith, not science. Faith is a religion.
And religion has no place in the classroom.

Isolation can lead to speciation, which might lead to
some animals of the same kind no longer being
capable of reproducing, but this is a loss of
information. It is not evolution in any form of the
Word.

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).

Message 143

candle2 writes:

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

 
Not just in this topic, but in others before:

Message 467

candle2 writes:

It is observable science (since recorded history) that
an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The
same goes for humans. Human mothers will always
have human babies.

Professors cannot give an observable example where
one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different
kind of animal.

Message 471

candle2 writes:

Professors who preach that evolution is a fact
should put up or shut up.
Observable science supports creation. Animals and
humans produce their own kind.

Message 475

candle2 writes:

"Kind" of animal reproducing the same "kind"
is observable--again, again, and again.

This is exactly what I expect. After all, God
stated matter-of-fact that kind would produce
the same kind. He was right.

Message 482

candle2 writes:

If I can observe something, such as "kind"
reproducing the same "kind," then I can
accept that.

BUT, if I am being asked to believe that
variations in a "kind" can over long periods
of time turn one "kind" into a totally
different "kind," I won't do it.

Darwin observed finches with different size
beaks, and like an idiot, jumped to the
conclusion that this, in a way, proved
evolution.

How long do you think I would have to wait
for my 24 speed mountain bike to evolve
into a Harley?

Message 489

candle2 writes:

Bicycles have as much of a chance of reproducing
as a human mother has of giving birth to a crow.

Message 492

candle2 writes:

You still make the assertion that minute changes
over millions of years will create a different "kind"
than the parent "kind."

Message 1328

candle2 writes:

Observation proves that human parents produce human babies;
that puppies come from dogs; that piglets come from pigs; and,
chimps procreate chimps.
No poster on this site has "observed" a dog producing a cat; a
cow producing a raccoon; or, an ape producing a human.

Never has a pregnant woman asked "I wonder what kind of animal
will I give birth to?

They know for certain that their offsprings will be a human.

Message 1358

candle2 writes:

Kind refers to, in this case, animals that are biologically related; have common ancestors; and, can reproduce.
All humans are of the same kind. We fulfill the criteria. All three.

I group kind into the classification of family.

Donkeys, horses, and zebras are of the same kind because they fit the criteria. However, they are not the same species. Even though some offsprings might have great difficulty reproducing they are still of the same kind.

The same is true for dogs; coyotes; foxes; wolves; etc.... And all species grouped into the same kind.

Two animals of the same kind, but not necessarily the same species, can reproduce. And, as I previously stated not always can the offspring replicate. This is also true of humans. Sometimes "isolation" plays a role in this, but loss of genetic information is not evolution; in fact, it is the opposite.

Kind is the limit to reproduction.

Observation science has shown that kind produce kind, just as Moses stated in Genesis.

Message 17

candle2 writes:

Kind produce kind is easy to understand. My youngest grandson understands it and he is in kindergarten.
In simple laymen terms, it means that humans produce humans as offsprings. And, that canines produce canine offsprings.

As a creationists this is what I would expect to see. And guess what, it is what I see. It is what we observe.

What we don't observe is apes producing humans, or bobcats producing pigs. When someone suggests this scenario I wonder about that person.

Message 27

candle2 writes:

Wrong! Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.
Don't take this personally, because it is not meant that way. But, none of the animals in this group (kind) can produce an offspring of a different kind; only a total idiot would suggest otherwise.

Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.

Message 45

candle2 writes:

What we observe is that humans produce humans; dogs produce dogs; dolphins produce dolphins; and, oak trees produce oak trees.

In other words, kind produce same kind. Anything else is just wishful thinkin. And, wishful thinking is exactly what evolutionists base their views on.

And he has mentioned that he doesn't bother to read our replies and just dismisses them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 05-02-2022 5:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 05-02-2022 7:02 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 152 of 254 (894133)
05-02-2022 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by dwise1
05-02-2022 6:35 PM


Thanks for that summary. A lot of the time candle2 is saying something we all agree with, that the offspring of a species are always the same species, but he says it in a way that makes clear he thinks we don't believe that. If he really ignores responses then there seems little point in posting to him.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 6:35 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 05-02-2022 7:51 PM Percy has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 153 of 254 (894136)
05-02-2022 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Percy
05-02-2022 7:02 PM


Percy writes:

If he really ignores responses then there seems little point in posting to him.

While there is absolutely no chance of helping someone who is willfully ignorant and willfully dishonest, the value to posting in response is to reach a possible reading audience that is NOT a member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Deceit.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 05-02-2022 7:02 PM Percy has seen this message

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 154 of 254 (894137)
05-02-2022 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


You're missing the real message
Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

Dear Candle2 (and what have you done with Candle1?!?)

Imagine that you have a gallon bucket of yellow paint and a gallon bucket of blue paint and a large pail. Pour the two buckets of paint into the pail and stir: you will get a pail of green paint, That is creationism creating a new “kind”. Now star over, but just pour the yellow bucket of paint into the pail. Then add a drop of blue paint to the pail and stir. The paint is still yellow. Take a tiny smidgen- much less than one drop - of the yellow paint (plus that one drop of blue) and make a thin stripe on a long strip of paper. Then add a second drop of blue to the pail and draw another thin strip on the long strip of paper. Continue this process until all the blue paint is in the pail and your strip of paper has hundreds of colored stripes on it. The paint remaining in the pail is now green and the last stripes on the paper are green, a distinctly different color from yellow or blue.

At what point did the stripe on the paper suddenly change from yellow to green? One of the arguments that creationists make against evolution is that a member of a population is born with a gene mutation that will lead to speciation, then that member is a new species, different the the other members of the population, and cannot successfully reproduce with other members. So what is the probability that he/she/it will just happen to find another individual with exactly the same mutation (and opposite sex) so that they can reproduce and start a new species? That probability is minuscule, so the argument goes, that evolution is disproved. But that’s not how life works. Of the almost 8 billion people on earth, no two have the exact same genome. In fact, of the approximately 30 trillion cells in your body, very few, if any, have the same genome. Cell division, in which 6 billion ATCG base are replicated, is amazingly error free, but not completely error free - there are typically several dozen errors for each cell duplication. 99.999..% of these errors are inconsequential. Some will cause cancer or other ill effects. A few will improve the survivability of that cell, and if in a gremlin cell, survivability of that individuals offspring. Another example of the genetic diversity within a population: you can look at pictures of probably over 1000 humans and identify each one; family, friends, sports figures, entertainers, politicians, historical figures, etc. And that differentiation is just from facial features. Imagine if you were a medical examiner examining 1000 differse livers and seeing the same degree of difference! OK, maybe, don’t imagine that.

The point is that the individual with the beneficial gene mutation can still mate with most the members of her population and so can several generations of her descendants. And that beneficial mutation might be bread out of the population or it might become pervasive in a subpopulation. It will take many such changes, and their becoming pervasive to create a new species (I won’t say “or kind” since their is no such biological categorization).

But, dear Mr./Mrs./Whatever Candle2, you are missing the really import thing about understanding and appreciating evolution. Evolution is not just a vestigial process of random chemical reactions. It is essential for the continuance of life on Earth! In high school biology we are taught that there are six processes essential for life: injestion, digestion, excretion, respiration, metabolism, and reproduction. But they need to include a seventh essential: Evolution! Evolution grants ‘Survival of the Fittest’. But fitness is determined by the environment and the environment is constantly changing. At two different times the environment can be as different as day and night. In fact, day and night represent two radically different environments. Plus there are seasonal changes, centennial changes, millennial changes, and horrendous changes over longer periods. It’s an adapt or die world we live in. The fossil record is replete with the millions of species left behind and millions that adapted, by evolution, to live on.

The real message here is that evolution is God’s gift to life. That bears repeating: EVOLUTION IS GOD’S GIFT TO LIFE!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 9:28 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action
 Message 174 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 11:29 AM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 155 of 254 (894140)
05-02-2022 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


What Evolution Really Teaches about "Kinds"
The following is the chain of descent working backwards from humans to eucaryotes. Each line would represent a "kind", if you would.

Each kind gave rise to descendant species who in turn gave rise to more species. Some of those new species formed the basis for a new "kind", and so one. However, every single "new kind" was still of the old kind! Which means that humans are still of each of those kinds listed below!

Therefore, humans are still apes and monkeys and primates and placentals and mammals and synapsids and amniotes and tetrapods and vertebrates and chordates and deuterostomes (two holes, one in and the other out) and bilaterates and animals and eukaryotes, and everything inbetween.

It's not a case of changing from one "kind" to another, but rather of evolving into a new version of the old "kind". The Darwinian model is of a branching tree, not of suddenly jumping from one branch to an entirely different one as your lie would have it.

So forsake your damned Satan-serving lies and learn what evolution actually is.

If after having finally learned what evolution really is you still want to fight it, then at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and destroying your god's reputation with outrageous creationist lies.


quote:
Species: H. sapiens
Genus: Homo
Tribe: Hominini
Subfamily: Homininae
Family: Hominidae
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Suborder: Haplorhini
Order: Primates
Mirorder: Primatomorpha
Grandorder: Euarchonta
Superorder: Euarchontoglires
Magnorder: Boreoeutheria
Infraclass: Placentalia
Clade: Eutheria
Subclass: Theria
Clade: Tribosphenida
Clade: Zatheria
Clade: Cladotheria
Clade: Trechnotheria
Clade: Theriiformes
Class: Mammalia
Clade: Mammaliaformes
Clade: Mammaliamorpha
Clade: Prozostrodontia
Clade: Probainognathia
Clade: Eucynodontia
Clade: Epicynodontia
Clade: Cynodontia
Clade: Eutheriodontia
Clade: Theriodontia
Clade: Therapsida
Clade: Sphenacodontoidea
Clade: Pantherapsida
Clade: Sphenacodontia
Clade: Eupelycosauria
Clade: Synapsida
Clade: Amniota
Clade: Reptiliomorpha
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Clade: Stegocephalia
Clade: Elpistostegalia
Clade: Eotetrapodiformes
Clade: Tetrapodomorpha
Clade: Rhipidistia
Clade: Sarcopterygii
Clade: Euteleostomi
Clade: Teleostomi
Clade: Eugnathostomata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Clade: Olfactores
Phylum: Chordata
Superphylum: Deuterostomia
Clade: Nephrozoa
Clade: Bilateria
Clade: ParaHoxozoa
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Kingdom: Animalia
(unranked): Filozoa
(unranked): Holozoa
(unranked): Opisthokonta
(unranked): Obazoa
(unranked): Unikonta
Domain: Eukaryota

And now here's A Capella Science performing the Animalia Chorus:

Share and enjoy!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 156 of 254 (894143)
05-02-2022 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals
05-02-2022 8:10 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
What you describe was the big problem for Darwin. He knew that new traits would arise and would be inherited, but he did not have a valid model for inheritance. As in your analogy, he envisioned mixing paint and a new trait would be a new tint being added. The problem with that model was that that new tint would get lost in the mix. Darwin pressed on, devising his theory of pangenesis which in some ways resembled a reverting back to Lamarckism.

It took Mendelian genetics to solve the inheritance problem and to obsolesce pangenesis. At the time that Mendel was rediscovered (c. 1900) and the study of genetics took off, geneticists would write that they had disproven Darwin. In reality, they had only disproven Darwin's ideas ideas about inheritance but leaving natural selection and descent with modification intact. Still, the writings of those early geneticists provide veins rich in quote-minig ore for creationists.

 
Indeed, there is no inherent conflict between God and evolution. Evolution describes how life works and it does work quite well. And any omnipotent god worth his salt should have absolutely no difficulty using natural processes. The only problem comes with hide-bound know-nothing creationists try to impose their will on God and dictate to God what He can and cannot do. Most believers should agree that bossing God around is not a good idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-02-2022 8:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 05-02-2022 9:49 PM dwise1 has taken no action
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-03-2022 8:37 AM dwise1 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 157 of 254 (894144)
05-02-2022 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by dwise1
05-02-2022 9:28 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
dwise1 writes:

Indeed, there is no inherent conflict between God and evolution. Evolution describes how life works and it does work quite well. And any omnipotent god worth his salt should have absolutely no difficulty using natural processes. The only problem comes with hide-bound know-nothing creationists try to impose their will on God and dictate to God what He can and cannot do. Most believers should agree that bossing God around is not a good idea.

The problem is that the vast majority of Christians not only have not but will not honestly read the Bible. If they did they would see that all the way through it is humans that are instructed to do and do it by using natural means. It starts in Genesis 3 when God tells Adam&Steve that they will have to grow their food and deal with the weeds and thorns and continues with humans having to build the Ark and humans having to gather the manna and hunt the grouse and partridges and humans told to grow the crops and build the store room and harvest the crops and distribute it to the needy.

Instead they just take pieces parts of two mutually exclusive stories totally out of context and pervert the meaning and value of what is written.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 9:28 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 158 of 254 (894148)
05-03-2022 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by dwise1
05-02-2022 9:28 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
dwise1 writes:

Indeed, there is no inherent conflict between God and evolution.

The Bible tells us that God created all living things according to their kinds, meaning that a kind produces it's own kind. Candle2 also believes that a kind produces its own kind. And in a biological context, we all believe that a species produces its own species. So we all believe the same thing consistent with God and biology.

What we additionally believe is something not covered by the Bible, and that's that when a species produces its own species that it isn't a perfect copy of that species. All offspring differ from their parents, even if only minutely. This means that the species produced a thousand generations from now might not be the same species because of the accumulation of tiny changes in the form of mutations. Like a game of telephone, the message produced at the end of the line may little resemble the one at the beginning because each attempt to pass the message on often includes a tiny change.

But I think now that candle2 may only be here to post his viewpoint many times, not for discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 9:28 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 159 of 254 (894151)
05-03-2022 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


candle2 writes:

It is such a simple request, and I am completely
justified in asking for it.


Well, not "completely" justified. There are (at least) two things against you:
1. None of you guys has ever defined properly what a "kind" is. It's not a scientific concept. If you want scientific evidence, you have to define scientifically what you want.
2. As others have pointed out, your idea of "evolution" is complete and utter nonsense.

candle2 writes:

I want what any competent
individual (especially what a competent scientist
should demand), and that is empirical and
operational evidence.


But you're not a competent individual. You're thoroughly incompetent to discuss anything related to science.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 160 of 254 (894156)
05-03-2022 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
05-03-2022 8:37 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
But I think now that candle2 may only be here to post his viewpoint many times, not for discussion.

You've only just now figured that out?

And how does that make him any different from any other creationist? Do you know of any creationists who are not just like candle2?

Do you know of any creationists who are open to discussion and not "only here to post his viewpoint many times"? I cannot think of any, but maybe you can though I doubt that their number would come close to exceeding your right hand's ability to count them.

The Bible tells us that God created all living things according to their kinds, meaning that a kind produces it's own kind. Candle2 also believes that a kind produces its own kind. And in a biological context, we all believe that a species produces its own species. So we all believe the same thing consistent with God and biology.

No, we most definitely do not all believe the same thing. candle2 and his ilk believe quite the opposite, that there is insurmountable conflict between evolution and God that can only be resolved by killing evolution.

In order to support his fiction of insurmountable conflict with evolution, candle2 and his ilk must construct and perpetrate outright lies about evolution and science. Such as the ones that I listed for you in Message 156. Vicious lies to justify whatever actions they may think of to "defend their God from atheistic evolution". Like Putin invading Ukraine in order to fight the "Nazis".

Lies to justify any act. Lies which must be called out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 05-03-2022 8:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-04-2022 7:44 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 161 of 254 (894157)
05-03-2022 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

It is such a simple request, and I am completely
justified in asking for it.

No, you are completely unjustified to ask us to prove your stupid lie! We can only prove what is true, whereas you are demand that we prove your lie!

We cannot provide any proof of a dog giving birth to a cat or the like, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!

We cannot prove how babies are born by plotting the migratory paths of storks BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!

We cannot prove that airlines have elaborate ways (indeed, an international conspiracy!) to work around Tinker Bell's inability to produce enough pixie dust needed to keep all the planes aloft BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!

We cannot prove that thermos bottles need to be highly intelligent in order to know when to keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!

So stop your hypocritical posing with demands that we prove things that are NOT HOW ANYTHING WORKS! You lying piece of shit!

 
Pull your head out of your ass and wake the fuck up!

 
In sharp contrast, we are completely justified in asking you to explain what you think evolution is and how you think that it works.

Furthermore, since you YEC creationists believe that the earth is young and that you have "mountains of evidence" to prove it, present some of that "evidences" for a young earth!

I have been studying "creation science" since 1981 and discussing it with creationists since about 1986. In all that time, I have not found even one single creationist claim that has even proven to be true or even valid. Not even one! All I have ever gotten from creationists is a pack of lies.

So, here's your chance. Prove that the earth is young. No other creationist has ever been able to, so you can be the first. And then you can go on to answer the other challenge that creationists cannot run away from fast enough: present positive evidence for creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 162 of 254 (894160)
05-03-2022 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


Two Commercials candle2 was In
You never told us that you were on TV:

 
That's not how it works! That's not how any of it works!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2022 7:02 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 163 of 254 (894162)
05-03-2022 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by dwise1
05-03-2022 5:54 PM


Re: Two Commercials candle2 was In
That's not how it works! That's not how any of it works!

Are you absolutely sure?

You can say that. But can you get him to say that? That is the problem.

I wonder if candle2 even reads posts.

Continue to tilt at this windmill, Sr. Quixote. Others are watching and may learn.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 5:54 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 164 of 254 (894164)
05-04-2022 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by dwise1
05-03-2022 3:09 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
dwise1 writes:

But I think now that candle2 may only be here to post his viewpoint many times, not for discussion.

You've only just now figured that out?

I rejoined this thread less than a week ago after a long absence. Does that seem slow on the uptake to you?

And how does that make him any different from any other creationist? Do you know of any creationists who are not just like candle2?

I judge everyone as individuals.

Do you know of any creationists who are open to discussion and not "only here to post his viewpoint many times"? I cannot think of any, but maybe you can though I doubt that their number would come close to exceeding your right hand's ability to count them.

They are not a bunch of clones.

The Bible tells us that God created all living things according to their kinds, meaning that a kind produces it's own kind. Candle2 also believes that a kind produces its own kind. And in a biological context, we all believe that a species produces its own species. So we all believe the same thing consistent with God and biology.

No, we most definitely do not all believe the same thing. candle2 and his ilk believe quite the opposite, that there is insurmountable conflict between evolution and God that can only be resolved by killing evolution.

I'm seeing more and more of this kind of behavior here, and it distresses me. This is not who this place is, or at least it isn't the type of place I set out to build. I posted about a specific subtopic, noting that we all believe the same thing with regard to kinds and species reproducing the same kinds and species, and you pounced on that because we don't all believe the same thing generally, which isn't remotely what I said.

Lies to justify any act. Lies which must be called out.

Just be sure the lies you're calling out are the one actually expressed. Don't go, "Oh, you're a creationist, therefore your guilty of any creationist lie I happen to choose."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 3:09 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by dwise1, posted 05-06-2022 10:41 AM Percy has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 165 of 254 (894180)
05-06-2022 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Percy
05-04-2022 7:44 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
They are not a bunch of clones.
Except that they are when it comes to creationism.
They have been thoroughly indoctrinated with creationist lies. They are incapable of independent or individual thought on this subject. All they are capable of doing is to mindlessly repeat the creationist lies that they have been indoctrinated with without any knowledge of what they're talking about and any understanding of their own claims. And all their claims and "arguments" are identical, often with the exact same wording. Not a single shred of independent individual thought in evidence anywhere.
Ever since circa 1986 I have personally witnessed almost ever single creationist do exactly the same thing. They post long lists of creationist claims -- in many cases I could identify the specific professional creationist that they lifted a claim from since they would used the exact same wording (ie, they just copy-and-pasted everything). I would respond by pointing out what their claims got wrong and try to get them to reply, to engage in a discussion about their own claim. Their reaction would be to avoid discussion by any means possible, such as trying to change the subject in a variety of ways (eg, just throw more creationist claims at us, become very hostile and try to pick a fight (eg, when I asked Kent Hovind about his solar-mass-loss claim, he twice tried to pick a fight with me over my moniker, DWise1) ), completely ignoring my repeated requests for discussion of their own claim, or just plain running away.
Why would almost every single creationist I encountered for decades all do the same thing? I took me a while but I finally realized the reason: because they do not understand anything, especially their own claims. All they have done has been to follow their indoctrination by memorizing the claims and trying to bury all of us in their creationist bullshit. They never learn anything, so when asked to explain or discuss their own claims they are completely incapable of doing so.
None of them have arrived at this level of creationism through anything even remotely resembling individual thought. They all think and say the same things because their indoctrination has indeed turned them into clones. And that same indoctrination has also turned them into mindless drones.
I judge everyone as individuals.
As do I. Until they prove that they are not. candle2 has decisively proven that he is not acting as an individual, but rather as a mindless creationist drone.
Buried somewhere within that drone there is still a human. We need to awaken that human lying dormant within that mindless hulk.
 
I repeat my question:
DWise1 writes:
Do you know of any creationists who are open to discussion and not "only here to post his viewpoint many times"? I cannot think of any, but maybe you can though I doubt that their number would come close to exceeding your right hand's ability to count them.
Just be sure the lies you're calling out are the one actually expressed. Don't go, "Oh, you're a creationist, therefore your guilty of any creationist lie I happen to choose."
Because of their identical indoctrination, we can readily recognize their lies -- the same as we can readily recognize an anti-democracy MAGAt the moment they utter the dog-whistle "ensuring election integrity".
candle2's repeated claims of "What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always reproduces the same kind of animal." as I listed for your benefit in Message 151 has been firmly established over decades of creationist claims as falsely accusing evolution of requiring the opposite (eg, dogs giving birth to kittens).
We all know what he's saying, because it has been firmly established as fundamental in his indoctrination.
If candle2 were to think that I am misrepresenting his claims in any manner, he is always free to challenge me and to correct me.
Yet he never ever does so. He never ever even attempts to do so. Why not? Obviously because I am spot-on about his claims. He is always free to show otherwise, but he never does.
Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-04-2022 7:44 AM Percy has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022