Debunking Creationism #1 - How Human Evolution Works

[Mister Agenda]

70 views in 3 hours is pretty good (especially given that it is 5 AM).  Why does this continue to be such a hotbutton issue?

Thank you. And I don't know.

I'm glad to see you participating in the thread and aren't just a drive-by. Welcome! I hope you do an introduction thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, why creationism, of any of the number of things you might debunk?

[Paleophyte]

False equivalence, Creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusigve. You'd have to debunk creationism using abiogenesis.

Well creationists tend to not believe in evolution.

That depends on how you define a Creationist. There's a subspecies that believes in Theistic Evolution and arguably may not be Creationists. Amusingly, they tend to piss off hardcore Creationists by not being Biblically Literal enough/marginally sane. The problem with their particular brand of crazy is that you have to believe in a god who created everything through natural laws, evolved all the species, and ignored a few million years of murder, rape, and general horibbleness before it finally noticed one particular tribe of goat herders. Unto these lucky "Chosen People" it gave a special set of laws about precisely who, how, and when you could murder, rape, and be generally horrible to. It also gave them the only piece of land in the Middle East with no oil. Shortly thereafter it whelped a son so that it could be sacrificed to itself to help with its Anger Management Issues, becoming the only god in all of theology to have its son murdered and offered as a sacrifice to itself that didn't promptly turn the oceans to lava. I don't want to spoil the ending, but suffice it to say that it only gets whackier from there and is widely regarded as a cult classic.

[Green Diogenes]

Do these things actually really work, or do people just get locked in the false dichotomy?

The fact Jesus described the power of God being seeds planted and branches encouraged to grow, and the fact that 'kinds' in Genesis actually just means 'kinds' and doesn't mean 'a single unchanging form to be kept forever', might actually get through to them. :L

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm starting to see a pattern. Anything you aren't prepared to competently argue is written off as some sort of false dichotomy.

What do you think this term, false dichotomy, means? Additionally, are you confident that changing the understanding of a single word is truly capable of salvaging the creation narrative in old magic book with respect to biological reality?

[Jehanne]

Do these things actually really work, or do people just get locked in the false dichotomy?

The fact Jesus described the power of God being seeds planted and branches encouraged to grow, and the fact that 'kinds' in Genesis actually just means 'kinds' and doesn't mean 'a single unchanging form to be kept forever', might actually get through to them. :L

Jesus was an apocalypticist; he was referring to the end of the World.

[Green Diogenes]

I'm starting to see a pattern.  Anything you aren't prepared to competently argue is written off as some sort of false dichotomy.

What do you think this term, false dichotomy, means?  Additionally, are you confident that changing the understanding of a single word is truly capable of salvaging the creation narrative in old magic book with respect to biological reality?

I've been very open on concept of false dichotomy as being a key. I'm not here to argue, but to point it out. You're mocking the concepts you accuse me of promoting, but you're not seeing what I'm saying because you are determined to argue.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see. You're here to make a list of assertions which you will not and cannot justify. Why do you need a forum to just...say things...?

We have this quaint idea of some kind of back and forth, of some kind of grounding in reality. Of a conversation which will almost inevitably lead to people wondering why you believe the mounding list of strange things that you do. In your two decades or so as an atheist (do I have that right)..nothing even remotely like this had ever occurred to you?

[brewer]

I'm starting to see a pattern.  Anything you aren't prepared to competently argue is written off as some sort of false dichotomy.

What do you think this term, false dichotomy, means?  Additionally, are you confident that changing the understanding of a single word is truly capable of salvaging the creation narrative in old magic book with respect to biological reality?

I've been very open on concept of false dichotomy as being a key. I'm not here to argue, but to point it out. You're mocking the concepts you accuse me of promoting, but you're not seeing what I'm saying because you are determined to argue.

No, we're not seeing what you're saying because a skeptical view indicates that there is little validity in what you're saying. Then when confronted with your position you then dodge.

I have no real problem with that until you ask me/us to believe then complain when I/we don't.

[Mister Agenda]

Do these things actually really work, or do people just get locked in the false dichotomy?

The fact Jesus described the power of God being seeds planted and branches encouraged to grow, and the fact that 'kinds' in Genesis actually just means 'kinds' and doesn't mean 'a single unchanging form to be kept forever', might actually get through to them. :L

It's funny that fundamentalists think evolution means a new species will just pop up in one generation when in evolution the offspring, with a few very rare exceptions (like viable hybrids or the parthenogenesis mutation of the marbled shrimp), offspring will always be the same species as the parents. The Bible says each reproduces after its own kind and so does evolution.

Hundreds of millions of Christians are able to reconcile their faith with evolution itself, if not the actual theory that explains it scientifically.