dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 0:55:27 GMT
Creationist arguments are irrelevant unless they hold religion to the same standard. Agreed. I should add, the only reasons I bother is that I hate dis-information. Also for the sake of any outside observers who don't understand how bad creationist's arguments are.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 0:57:05 GMT
I should add, the only reasons I bother is that I hate dis-information. Also for the sake of any outside observers who don't understand how bad creationist's arguments are. I would think a child is smart enough to realize how bad creationist arguments are. That is why I didn't believe much of the details to begin with when I was a child. I was like, this sounds like some BS. My BS detector was going off like crazy even when I was in Catechism.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 0:59:29 GMT
Actually had to look up the nipple one, it's been a while. One creationist explanation I found right away was that they are especially sensitive and a source of sexual stimuli. If they have a function, they would be consistent with design. Alternatively, it is part of efficient embryonic development, embryos being sexually dimorphic in early stages of development. As for the ape interbreeding, that one I know off the top of my head. They are members of the same "kind," a nebulous term often used by creationists and having it's origins in the Noah's Ark fable.
About the pre-human skeletons, one claim is that they are different species that share common traits due to efficient design.
I guess my next question would be...did Adam have nipples then?  Dammit, I hate having to go back to that creationist site to recheck...the stupid hurts my brain. Apparently, Adam would have nipples cuz of the first thing, but no navel because no umbilical cord.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 1:01:35 GMT
I should add, the only reasons I bother is that I hate dis-information. Also for the sake of any outside observers who don't understand how bad creationist's arguments are. I would think a child is smart enough to realize how bad creationist arguments are. That is why I didn't believe much of the details to begin with when I was a child. I was like, this sounds like some BS. My BS detector was going off like crazy even when I was in Catechism. In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of stupid people out there. To be fair, though, it's not all stupidity, but also indoctrination and other reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 1, 2021 1:07:37 GMT
IF someone truly does not think that evolution is true in its basic form, then I think there's precious little one can do to convince them. It took me years of schooling and reading to become convinced it is likely true.
By in its basic form, I mean descent with modification due to changes in the gene pool which are due to mutations.
But often the debate...like this one... begins without everyone agreeing on exactly what they're trying to prove/disprove.
If the debate is about evolution and abiogenesis, then showing that with good evidence is going to be difficult and I would never pretend I could do that. And even if one wants to argue that all life on earth originated from simple life forms, it is a big undertaking and there ARE a lot of roadblocks to create a convincing argument...again, if one is up against a recalcitrant person who is armed with lots of quasi-scientific data.
But if one limits it to the simple definition of generations undergo modification due to genetic variation, then that seems easier to argue.
I am happy to admit I take a lot of what I believe on faith... I don't see faith as a bad thing. In fact, I believe we all have to have a lot of faith to simply navigate life and make timely decisions in almost every walk of life. It is necessary and unavoidable to start with basic assumptions that can't be proven - that we are not living in the Matrix or something. I don't have faith that I'm not. I have no reason to believe I am in the first place. It sounds like you are just using the word faith and trust the same. That is fine, but the issue comes with the way many theists use the word faith. I have asked religious people why I should believe God exists and they say "You have to have faith." That tells me nothing and gives me no reason to believe that God exists. I think I understand the difference and while I, for example, trust that science is the only effective way to explore and learn about the physical world, I use faith in the sense that I believe some things that I don't think science has shown to be true or perhaps can show to be true.
EG I have faith that all that exists is physical or based on the physical. I have faith that the physical has an eternal form/arrangement that had no beginning. I have faith that somehow...out of that underlying eternal existence, the universe that we see around us...with matter/energy, space/time, stars, planets, atoms emerged...at least once in what we call the big bang and perhaps a gazillion times. I have faith that life as we know it arose naturally from that physical world...again at least once here on earth and, again, perhaps a gazillion times throughout the universe(s). I don't think there is sufficient actual data to support those contentions and I certainly have no explanation for a lot of it. So that's how I use faith. I believe those things with less than complete...or in some cases a severe paucity of data/support. But in that sense, I feel I am in no worse shape...intellectually and on no more shaky ground than the theist who imagines an entire other world/realm/reality and that THAT other world which we can know nothing about somehow explains all the conundrums and enigmas we face in the physical world.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 1, 2021 1:08:34 GMT
Actually had to look up the nipple one, it's been a while. One creationist explanation I found right away was that they are especially sensitive and a source of sexual stimuli. If they have a function, they would be consistent with design. Alternatively, it is part of efficient embryonic development, embryos being sexually dimorphic in early stages of development. As for the ape interbreeding, that one I know off the top of my head. They are members of the same "kind," a nebulous term often used by creationists and having it's origins in the Noah's Ark fable.
About the pre-human skeletons, one claim is that they are different species that share common traits due to efficient design.
I guess my next question would be...did Adam have nipples then? Yes...he had Eve's
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 1:08:57 GMT
I would think a child is smart enough to realize how bad creationist arguments are. That is why I didn't believe much of the details to begin with when I was a child. I was like, this sounds like some BS. My BS detector was going off like crazy even when I was in Catechism. In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of stupid people out there. To be fair, though, it's not all stupidity, but also indoctrination and other reasons. I know. I don't hold anything against children that are indoctrinated into this, but it is just obvious that some people are weaker minded than other people. Once God started not making sense, the belief just disappeared. I don't even really understand Pascal's Wager to any high degree. I mean that I understand what the argument is, but it has never served any purpose for me. My fear isn't great enough to care. If Hell is real, so be it. I guess I'm just fucked.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 1:13:08 GMT
I guess my next question would be...did Adam have nipples then? Yes...he had Eve's I like your answer better than mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 1:18:43 GMT
It is necessary and unavoidable to start with basic assumptions that can't be proven - that we are not living in the Matrix or something. I don't have faith that I'm not. I have no reason to believe I am in the first place. It sounds like you are just using the word faith and trust the same. That is fine, but the issue comes with the way many theists use the word faith. I have asked religious people why I should believe God exists and they say "You have to have faith." That tells me nothing and gives me no reason to believe that God exists. I think I understand the difference and while I, for example, trust that science is the only effective way to explore and learn about the physical world, I use faith in the sense that I believe some things that I don't think science has shown to be true or perhaps can show to be true.
EG I have faith that all that exists is physical or based on the physical. I have faith that the physical has an eternal form/arrangement that had no beginning. I have faith that somehow...out of that underlying eternal existence, the universe that we see around us...with matter/energy, space/time, stars, planets, atoms emerged...at least once in what we call the big bang and perhaps a gazillion times. I have faith that life as we know it arose naturally from that physical world...again at least once here on earth and, again, perhaps a gazillion times throughout the universe(s). I don't think there is sufficient actual data to support those contentions and I certainly have no explanation for a lot of it. So that's how I use faith. I believe those things with less than complete...or in some cases a severe paucity of data/support. But in that sense, I feel I am in no worse shape...intellectually and on no more shaky ground than the theist who imagines an entire other world/realm/reality and that THAT other world which we can know nothing about somehow explains all the conundrums and enigmas we face in the physical world. Maybe the difference is that I don't have faith in those things. I have no reason to believe that the UNIVERSE isn't eternal, because logic tells me it has to be. That doesn't mean I know that for a certainty, but I am forced to believe based on my reasoning. It has nothing to do with trust or faith, because I don't care whether it is eternal or not. I experience a physical world and I have seen no evidence that anything but a physical world exists. If there is more than that, then someone needs to show me hard evidence of it. I don't even know what a non-phyisical world is. When people talk about a "spiritual" world or whatever, I don't even know what they are talking about really.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 1:20:08 GMT
I like your answer better than mine. Was that a sex joke? That he had her nipples as in he had them when he wanted to suck on them or play with them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 1, 2021 1:25:31 GMT
I really want to visit the creationist museum, but my good friend won't go with me because it's stupid, but that's exactly why I want to go.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Jul 1, 2021 1:30:10 GMT
I really want to visit the creationist museum, but my good friend won't go with me because it's stupid, but that's exactly why I want to go. I'd probably get myself kicked out...
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 1, 2021 19:08:34 GMT
Was that a sex joke? That he had her nipples as in he had them when he wanted to suck on them or play with them? Considering Adam was both male and female prior to Eve being cloned from the DNA in his rib, he could play with his own bodacious tatas for while. He was? I don't remember that being in Genesis. I never saw it as her being "cloned" from him. Just that God took his rib and magiced Eve into existence. Where is it implied that he is a mix of both male and female? People back then didn't know what cloning was and I don't think they really thought that part through. Did Adam have ovaries too? I mean it also says Adam was made from the Earth. That is extremely vague. Like he used the Earth like clay to make a human being and then he used Adam's rib in the same way to make a woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 2, 2021 1:59:30 GMT
He was? I don't remember that being in Genesis. I never saw it as her being "cloned" from him. Just that God took his rib and magiced Eve into existence. Where is it implied that he is a mix of both male and female? People back then didn't know what cloning was and I don't think they really thought that part through. Did Adam have ovaries too? I mean it also says Adam was made from the Earth. That is extremely vague. Like he used the Earth like clay to make a human being and then he used Adam's rib in the same way to make a woman. I’m not being serious as there was no Adam and Eve. Of course. I thought you were talking about in context of the myth, but you must have been being sarcastic and it just went over my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 2, 2021 2:30:17 GMT
Of course. I thought you were talking about in context of the myth, but you must have been being sarcastic and it just went over my head. Yeah, females are second hand male rib material? the story is ridiculous even for a myth. And is a separate myth from the Six Day creation myth which is actually a call and response hymn. I have heard that and is sort of how I saw it when I read it. That the second part is just filling in other details. I had to look up what "call and response hymn" meant right now actually. I had just never heard it described using that phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 2, 2021 2:45:34 GMT
I have heard that and is sort of how I saw it when I read it. That the second part is just filling in other details. I had to look up what "call and response hymn" meant right now actually. I had just never heard it described using that phrase. If you look at the text of the “In the beginning” passage in Genesis, you can see how the hymn is set up. John’s “In the beginning” passage in his Gospel is modeled on Genesis’. Oh, I thought you meant something else. You are talking about stuff now that I haven't looked into. Your interest level is way more extreme than mine. The New Testament bored me and I haven't read it since I was a kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 2, 2021 2:48:49 GMT
Oh, I thought you meant something else. You are talking about stuff now that I haven't looked into. Your interest level is way more extreme than mine. The New Testament bored me and I haven't read it since I was a kid. Reading myth is one way to get inside the heads of the people who wrote them. I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 2, 2021 5:23:07 GMT
If pressed, they'll claim that micro-evolution happens-that is, small adaptations-but not macro-evolution, new species evolving from other species. Scientists make no distinction between micro and macro and consider them part of the same process. As for cross-breeding, they will claim this is not evolution and sometimes bring up Bible verses about placing spotted rods in front of the animals, or some such, to get spotted offspring. What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. The big one is ERVs. To me, that should've been the death-knell for creationism. ERVs are essentially viruses that embed themselves into our DNA randomly like bar codes and are passed on across generations, so all species that share a common ancestor should share the same ERV codes, and that's exactly what we find, eg, between humans and apes, especially our closest ancestors like chimps. If you read the page on Answersingenesis about ERVs it's actually quite funny. A whole lot of word-salad that does nothing to actually explain this. They spend most of the time arguing ERVs have purpose, but the purpose/lack-of-purpose of ERVs has nothing to do with why they're good evidence for evolution. If humans and chimps didn't evolve from the same common ancestor there's no reason why we should share the same ERVs, much less so many of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 2, 2021 5:26:10 GMT
That is the one I have heard, that they believe in micro-evolution. I didn't even know there was such an idea until I heard creationists use the term. What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. What is their explanation of the pre-modern human skeletons being different than us and that you can literally line up skeletons from different periods and see the small changes over time and that they look more ape like the further back you go? Actually had to look up the nipple one, it's been a while. One creationist explanation I found right away was that they are especially sensitive and a source of sexual stimuli. If they have a function, they would be consistent with design. Alternatively, it is part of efficient embryonic development, embryos being sexually dimorphic in early stages of development They aren't wrong about male nipples, unfortunately that's only true for some men, not all of them. Of course, the "alternate" explanation is actually correct: it's part of embryonic development and haven't disappeared because they impose no barrier towards survival and reproduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 2, 2021 5:38:53 GMT
What about nipples on men and all the other stuff that points towards evolution on at least some level? What about the fact that some apes can interbreed and some can't? All of this points to the process of evolution being accurate to me. And that is just the genetic stuff. The big one is ERVs. To me, that should've been the death-knell for creationism. ERVs are essentially viruses that embed themselves into our DNA randomly like bar codes and are passed on across generations, so all species that share a common ancestor should share the same ERV codes, and that's exactly what we find, eg, between humans and apes, especially our closest ancestors like chimps. If you read the page on Answersingenesis about ERVs it's actually quite funny. A whole lot of word-salad that does nothing to actually explain this. They spend most of the time arguing ERVs have purpose, but the purpose/lack-of-purpose of ERVs has nothing to do with why they're good evidence for evolution. If humans and chimps didn't evolve from the same common ancestor there's no reason why we should share the same ERVs, much less so many of them. I don't know what to tell you. Well, actually I know exactly what to tell you. There are creationists who know that it makes no sense and are talking to the the people who aren't very bright. Then there are the people who need so much for all of the stuff in the Bible to be true and they do insane amounts of mental gymnastics because they are terrified of it not being true. Most probably don't even think about it much. Many people don't even know much about even the basics of the theory of evolution. Then they don't even bother looking into it, because their religious family or whoever tells them it is all lies or that a scientific theory is just a random guess.
|
|
