Creationist questions evolution

[Dinosaur]

I posted remarks like the following to this or some similar Thread.

There are two interesting sets of related fossils (among others) which strongly support evolution.​

Eohippus to modern horse

Early primates to modern man.​

The above could be called facts of evolution, requiring an alternative & better explanation to refute the current Darwinian explanation.

Such an explanation could be called the creationist explanation of those facts.​

I do not remember anyone posting a plausible alternative to the explanation based on Darwinian evolution.

 

[DaveC426913]

Genetic remnants.

Well yes. We know what the answer is, because: evolution.
Jan's answer will be different.

 

[Write4U]

I do not remember anyone posting a plausible alternative to the explanation based on Darwinian evolution.

No, they prefer to question the origin of the "flagella", but Behe doesn't ever admit total scientific defeat of this ID concept.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No, they prefer to question the origin of the "flagella", but Behe doesn't ever admit total scientific defeat of this ID concept.

A snake with legs it does not use is intelligent?
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

But you are not entitled to your own facts

Neither are you.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

A snake with legs it does not use is intelligent?
Alex

According to Behe, it is intelligently designed. IMO, it is poorly designed, even by minimum quality standards...

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Jan, I'd like to hear where you heard that dogs supposedly change into whales. No evolutionary scientist has ever suggested such a notion.

Alas, it was figurative.
I believe it was a creature known as pakicetus, etc.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

This thread, although in my name, is not mine, as I don’t question evolution. Plus I am not a creationist in the commonly used way.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Alas, it was figurative.
I believe it was a creature known as pakicetus, etc.

Well acknowledging the existence of the ancestor of both dogs and whales is certainly a step in the right direction.

So, what are you saying? That pakicetus and a dog are not different species? You don't expect them to interbreed do you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, what are you saying? That pakicetus and a dog are not different species? You don't expect them to interbreed do you?

I don’t expect them to, no.
Do you?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread, although in my name, is not mine, as I don’t question evolution. Plus I am not a creationist in the commonly used way.

Jan.

Er, OK. There are a number of posts that directly contradict that first claim.

Which of these Jans would you have us believe?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don’t expect them to, no.

OK, so we have a modern dog and a modern whale. And we have the creature that is the common ancestor of them.
Yet you say you doubt the occurrence of a pakicetus' descendants evolving into dogs.
This appears pretty contradictory.
And it also appears to contradict your more recent claim that you don't question evolution.

 

[billvon]

Which of these Jans would you have us believe?

Whichever one he needs to be in the moment to win an Internet argument.

But don't worry. If you prefer a different Jan - wait ten minutes.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Er, OK. There are a number of posts that directly contradict that first claim.

Which of these Jans would you have us believe?

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Where have I questioned “evolution?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
Where have I questioned “evolution?

Literally, just on the previous page:

The idea that one kind of animals turns into a completely different kind of animal...

My main point of contention is massive changes like [one] type into [another] type.

(I've altered your quote to give you the benefit of having retracted your figurative example.)

But the contentions themselves still stand out though - that you question massive changes.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Literally, just on the previous page:


(I've altered your quote to give you the benefit of having retracted your figurative example.)

But the contentions themselves still stand out though - that you question massive changes.

That is pure speculation, and religious wishful thinking, unless you can show that it actually happened, as opposed to just saying it happened.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

That is pure speculation, and religious wishful thinking, unless you can show that it actually happened, as opposed to just saying it happened.

Which has been done - from the earliest of evolutionary theorizing, the great bulk of Darwin's writing and Wallace's paper and all the rest, that has been exhaustively addressed and with rock solid results.

Plus I am not a creationist in the commonly used way.

Of course you are - at least, on a science forum. You are a stereotypical creationist here - you have posted every single bogus misconception of Darwinian theory from it's 'random' to 'it cannot create new information', every single typical ignorance of macro vs micro and kinds turning into other kinds and so forth, and so forth.
And in addition, you have used all that stereotypical creationist crapola not for discussion but as a pretext for disparaging reasoning from evidence and those who reason from evidence, science and scientists, personally.
Which is also stereotypical creationist behavior on science forums.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is pure speculation, and religious wishful thinking, unless you can show that it actually happened, as opposed to just saying it happened.

I'm giving as much benefit as possible, but which is it?

You have made contradictory statements:

You have said you find the idea of one animal evolving into another to be "contentious".
And you have said "you don't question evolution".

Which is it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm giving as much benefit as possible, but which is it?

You have made contradictory statements:

You have said you find the idea of one animal evolving into another to be "contentious".
And you have said "you don't question evolution".

Which is it?

Show that one type of animal has turned into a completely different type of animal. Then it will be simply “evolution”.

So far it’s simply an idea taken on faith, and forced down people’s throats, which is why it is, regarded as a religion, by people who do not pander to your presets.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So far it’s simply an idea taken on faith, and forced down people’s throats, which is why it is, regarded as a religion, by people who do not pander to your presets.

And Jan besides being tricky you are talking through your hat which you are clearly sitting on☺.

But its clear that for you "discussion" here is only a game for you.

I think you set out to annoy folk and can only say that you are very good at that task.
If you believe the bronze age offers superior wisdom go for it because as you say you can believe what you want.
I do think you are an athiest behaving as you do to draw attention to the dishonest behaviour practiced by some believers ... you run a sirt of false flag opperation...and thats good because I for one have looked at religion so as to conclude it is even a bigger lie than I first thought.
And no doubt the site traffic is up because of your hard work and many folk get a mental stimulation trying to present reason and your action drives folk like me to work hard to crush you☺
But of course you are uncrushable.
I respect your trickyness but I dont regard it as a virtue.
Anyways now that you accept evolution and leave behind notions of creation you have taken yet another step on the path of enlightenment.
I think all of us here can be proud that in some small way we have helped you slowly let go of the superstition that has crushed your existence.
Alex