(February 10, 2014 at 1:11 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah. Like how he's be willing to believe that evolution didn't happen if there was something that went against it. Like seeing the same fossils in different layers of earth.

Ironically, one of the things that WOULD disprove evolution is if a dog gave birth to a cat, as per one of the old creationist canards.

The discovery of the crocaduck would also do the job.

Or they could just recycle the Duckbilled Platypus argument, and pretend it "disproves evolution" while denying any creationist has ever demanded "transitionary forms".

Creationists believe they have all the data, and can twist it any way they like. This ties in with the Lying For Jesus thread:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle.

(February 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(February 10, 2014 at 1:11 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah. Like how he's be willing to believe that evolution didn't happen if there was something that went against it. Like seeing the same fossils in different layers of earth.

Ironically, one of the things that WOULD disprove evolution is if a dog gave birth to a cat, as per one of the old creationist canards.

The discovery of the crocaduck would also do the job.

No, it wouldn't.

It may indicate how our understanding of how evolution may happen at the genetic level is wrong. It says nothing about whether evolution itself happened or not.

Evolution is something that is quite hard to disprove. The reason for embracing evolution is not that it is not been disproven, as theists might duplicitiously try to justify creationism. It is there are strong evidence it did happen. It is much closer to being proven than merely being a undisprovable notion.

Quote: Minimalist Wrote: Obviously waldork thinks whoever wrote the fucking bible was looking over 'god's' shoulder when he created the earth!


No, I believe God wrote the Bible silly old man (2 Tim 3:16).

Then you are an even bigger fucking idiot than I thought. I have to lower my opinion of you.

Time to get out my shovel.

Nye should have just shown them observed instances of evolution and then walk out.

(February 10, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Laza Wrote: Nye should have just shown them observed instances of evolution and then walk out.

You mean like the transitional species between lungfish and amphibians (which he showed)? Or were you referring to something like antibiotic resistance (which he didn't)? Ham himself practically acknowledged the existence of evolution when he said that each animal family branched out, he just didn't accept speciation.

But evolution isn't really the issue is it.

The real issue is the age of the Earth and the universe.

And still the evidence is against their myth.

(February 11, 2014 at 1:44 am)Darkstar Wrote:

(February 10, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Laza Wrote: Nye should have just shown them observed instances of evolution and then walk out.

You mean like the transitional species between lungfish and amphibians (which he showed)? Or were you referring to something like antibiotic resistance (which he didn't)? Ham himself practically acknowledged the existence of evolution when he said that each animal family branched out, he just didn't accept speciation.

http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

Something like this, observed birth of new species, and even evolution of multicellular life from single celled organisms in front of our eyes.

(February 11, 2014 at 1:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: Ham himself practically acknowledged the existence of evolution when he said that each animal family branched out, he just didn't accept speciation.

That's what I really don't get: How someone can be so completely indoctrinated by their religion that they actually accept the thing they think they're against and don't even realize it, and where this bogus distinction between micro and macro evolution comes from.

Well, okay, I know where the micro/macro thing comes from, it comes from them trying to rationalize their religion with the obvious fact of evolution, what I don't get about this distinction is that they don't understand that if you sting together all the so-called micro evolution examples they do accept, you get so-called macro evolution, and thus there's no distinction and it's all just evolution.

I'm so glad I never had to claw my way out of being indoctrinated to this degree, this makes my brain hurt.

Quote: what I don't get about this distinction is that they don't understand that if you sting together all the so-called micro evolution examples they do accept, you get so-called macro evolution, and thus there's no distinction and it's all just evolution.

None of the bastards can hold a thought that long.