creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.

[justin]

Group page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/72377803763/

The next social is on the 11th at Dilworth.

Dilworth Neighborhood Grille:
911 E Morehead St
Charlotte NC 28204

Site: http://charlotteatheists.com/

---

As it's past Easter and on a Thursday, there's even a good chance David and I will be there.

awesome do you know what time it is?

[thesummerqueen]

7 PM, but some people can stay until 1 in the morning if it's a great night.

[Statler Waldorf]

okay so i was talking to this older lady the other day about some different things. she started off by asking when did i become an atheist and then talking about some pretty friendly stuff like people we knew from churchs, death, etc. Well we hit upon creationism and Evolution somehow (surprise suprise). I was telling her how i love genetics and Evolution. She then tells me to look into ICR.com and how there is alot of proof supporting the bible and dissproving evolution. i asked her If this was the same orginization ken ham was in works with and she said yes (and i laughed). I said i knew who these people were and was familar with ken ham. I skipped the whole creation vs. evolution debate for a second and said even if evolution is wrong how does that have anything to do with creationism? that wouldn't bring validation to their propersition. that was that god of the gaps argument and flaw. she just looked at me funny. i then told her that i have found more evidence for evolution than the theory of gravity. she start talking about ICR again and how evolution has thing that are proven wrong. i said like what? she began to tell me about how embrology didn't support evolution and it was just a bunch of drawings and should've been taken out of the books a long time ago. she said that evolutionist were saying we went from fish to reptiles to mammals etc. i was kinda of amazed of the ignorance but i attempted to explain the similar development every species has and how DNA is pretty much all the same up till a point for animal etc. during this it was like her mind shut off and her response was just, "yeah, they have pretty much proven that wrong". talking about evolution. anyone wanna shed some light on what argument she was trying to make? kinda reminded me of wendy wright talking to dawkins to be honest. bitch was crazy1

As a creationist member on here, do you have any objections to me taking a stab at clarifying some of your confusion?

-SW

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd highly recommend it Justin, Stat reliably brings the funny.

[thesummerqueen]

Dammit, who said Statler's name three times in succession?

[Statler Waldorf]

Dammit, who said Statler's name three times in succession?

You know you missed me... :-P

[thesummerqueen]

Actually, old sport, I did. I told Shell that on the hangout the other night.

[Statler Waldorf]

Actually, old sport, I did. I told Shell that on the hangout the other night.

Well I missed a few of you too, but not everyone of course :-P

i asked her If this was the same orginization ken ham was in works with and she said yes (and i laughed). I said i knew who these people were and was familar with ken ham.

Ham worked for ICR in the early 90s but I believe you are confusing ICR with Answers in Genesis which is the organization Ham later founded. He no longer works for ICR.

I skipped the whole creation vs. evolution debate for a second and said even if evolution is wrong how does that have anything to do with creationism? that wouldn't bring validation to their propersition. that was that god of the gaps argument and flaw.

I believe you are confusing a gaps argument (an appeal to ignorance), with disjunctive logic. In logic, in certain instances it is completely valid to demonstrate your position by destroying its negation. There may be a debate as to whether creation is the logical negation of evolution (I think a case can certainly be made that it is), but if it is then what the lady was doing was completely logically valid.

i then told her that i have found more evidence for evolution than the theory of gravity.

That’s quite the assertion; I’d be very interested to see how you’d try to demonstrate that claim.

she began to tell me about how embrology didn't support evolution and it was just a bunch of drawings and should've been taken out of the books a long time ago.

As it was pointed out earlier, I believe she was referring to Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryological drawings that still find their way into textbooks today. I think it’s safe to assume that most evolutionists (with the exception of Eugenie Scott who hates creationists for “lying to children” but has no issue with still using the faked drawings today) do not approve of using fraudulent examples to teach evolution to children.

she said that evolutionist were saying we went from fish to reptiles to mammals etc. i was kinda of amazed of the ignorance

I am somewhat amazed that you were ignorant of the Haeckel fraud.

but i attempted to explain the similar development every species has and how DNA is pretty much all the same up till a point for animal etc.

Where is your proof that similarities demonstrate common descent and not a common creator?

Hope that helps!

-SW

[justin]

Statler i actually have to study for a biology test tonight so i will respond in detail when i get a chance. test is in the morning so kinda need to focus. just didn't want you to think i am ignoring you. and summer thank you i will try to make it thursday looking foward to meeting people around here.

[thesummerqueen]

We can be a pretty raucous and in-your-face group, so just jump on in.