15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

by JanH 114 Replies latest jw friends

  • JanH

    At the end of evolution debate threads, there is always a bunch of posts from die hard creationists who'd rather drink poison than getting an education. Oh well.


    Without life, there would be no periodic table. Without the periodic table, there would be no life.

    Only insofar as the periodic table was created by humans as a representation of the elementary blocks of the physical world, and humans are of course life.

    You are simply wrong in saying that all life form only live off organic material. Restating nonsense does not make it less so.

    New sources of nutrition provides new evolutionary niches for life to exploit. In a world full of life, naturally species will find ways to use all these rich sources of nutrition. The earliest life forms did not have this luxury, so they lived off the basic materials than they first originated in, and non-organic food.

    So, are we to theorize that all life on earth has evolved from BACTERIA? That must be true if bacteria is first life. BUT, bacteria is an ARCH-ENEMY of evolution.

    This is just ignorant nonsense. First, bacteria was not the earliest life. Second, the bacteria's role in decay does not make it an enemy of evolution. Quite the opposite. You seem to assume some teleological evolution, which is not what scientists do.


    You simply reiterate your original "argument", already solidly rebutted, and stupidly assume that nothing in the universe can behave in ways different from the materials in your back yard. I don't think your redneck approach to biochemistry really merits any serious response.


    In fact, at least here in the UK, the only information we get on the subject assumes that the audience already accepts evolution as a fact. I'm still waiting to see all this evidence that has "established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt".

    If you have not seen it, it is because you haven't looked very much. As I have done before, I request you to read the article "29+ evidences for macroevolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    But somehow I believe you will not read this, and yet lament on never having seen the evidence that makes the whole scientific community regard evolution as a fact beyond serious debate.

    You did not need to single out evolution. Lots of scientific facts are presented as such in popular media, yet most people have never seen the actual evidence. Doing so would require reading some quite technical books and articles. People generally take on the say-so of the scientific community e.g. that most diseases are caused by microorganisms, that stars are light years away, that continents rest on massive but moving plates, etc, etc. If you want the evidence for such things, it is readily available in scientific textbooks. So also with evolution. So why do people just lament the lack of in-your-face evidence for evolution? Because it runs counter to some deeply held religious convictions. That is the only reason.

    One may ask that since, "evolution's truth" is "beyond reasonable doubt", then why would teachers feel besieged?

    Because in the country where this happens, fundamentalist Christianity has a very strong hold on people, and fundies don't like evolution. They also are very unlikely to read scienfitic articles.

    There is no scientific opposition to evolutionary biology. Only religious opposition, sometimes masqueraded in pseudo-scientific jargon. People on this message board, of everyone, should realize how deep religious convictions run, and how massive amounts of evidence can be brushed aside in the most braindead fashion by the True Believer.

    We have no tangible evidence that one species evolved into another.

    False. Numerous species have been observed to evolve into new species in our own time.

    See for example "Observed Instances of Speciation" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    Your argument seems to be that since nobody tied you to a chair and forced the evidence you have been too lazy to look up yourself down your throat, evolution is not a fact. You demonstrate so very well yourself the reason there exists opposition to evolutionary science. It is called deliberate ignorance.

    - Jan

  • Xander
    Without life, there would be no periodic table






    What grade level is your education?

  • Xander

    there is always a bunch of posts from die hard creationists who'd rather drink poison than getting an education

    Yeah, they always come out of the woodwork.

    I just don't get why they can't accept evolution. I mean, if the Catholic church can still have their faith and their god and accept evolution....

    It's not like it HAS to conflict with religious beliefs.

  • plmkrzy


    Eh, that is pretty much the point, isn't it?

    And this is definite evidence that all these organisms share a common ancestor. Thus, evolution is a fact. That is all there is to it

    There is obviously no getting around the connections. Everyday we learn more and more about life and we will continue to keep learning, hopefully.

    Plm, I just don't get what you are trying to say. True, humans are violent towards each other. But this is not uncommon in nature. Many modern humans have a very romantic view of animals, and are shocked to learn the truth.

    I never claimed I was the greatest at verbally expressing myself. I do get what you are saying. I agree with the evolution theory but not to the extent that everyone else here probably does. Ill try to re-word my comments and make them a bit clearer and post them later.

    Btw, good thing some of your vicious lovers knew where to draw the line it would be a shame to loose such a head as yours.

    Mostly I think humans think too much. All this started in the first place because some humans pondered the meaning of life. Dolphins arent doing it.



    Can't that same comment be made about all animals?

    The only thing that separates any animal is a simple strand of DNA

    Actually, no. The closer the DNA and genes are (was that redundant) is a molecular clock the scientists have. It shows how recently the species separated from their common ancestors.

    Ive seen what you are referring to. It is pretty interesting. The deal with me is finding the perfect balance between the evolution process and creation.

    I believe in the future there will be one. How far in the future who knows.


  • Sentinel

    Thanks for the excellent site, JanH. I have printed out the material, and will devour it at lunch, along with my tuna salad.


  • dubla

    i have no desire to argue the creationist points in that article, but i will point out that the writer of the article uses reasoning that is just as nonsensical as the points he is trying to refute. heres an example:

    6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

    This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

    The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?"

    even proponents of evolution must see how ridiculous of an analogy this is. the question he asks (as if it were analogous to the question hes refuting), bares no relevance to the argument being made, at all. we can visually watch children being born from adults......can we watch humans evolving from "monkeys" or whatever earlier ancestor we supposedly have? im not sure how answering "nonsense" with nonsense really gives solid backing to his argument.


  • Xander


    You missed the point of the analogy. It was asking 'why are there still adults alive after they give birth to children'.

    The point being that nothing in the process of creating a new generation causes the previous to suddenly disappear. Or, as the analogy goes, there is nothing in the change of a small group of a species that causes the rest of the species to disappear.

    If you were actually trying to understand it, it isn't very hard to see.

  • dubla


    i dont really think it has anything to do with "trying to understand it". your explanation of the analogy leaves the same hole.......youre comparing generations to entire species changes. again, we can watch a new generation being born......we cannot watch monkeys (or whatever species we evolved from) evolving into humans.


  • JanH


    You just don't get the point. The analogy is as perfect as analogies get. Your first posting on this just reveals confusion:

    we can visually watch children being born from adults......can we watch humans evolving from "monkeys" or whatever earlier ancestor we supposedly have?

    Read the question it was directed at:

    6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

    You bring up a totally different, unrelated question, namely whether evolutionary change has been observed (answer is yes, btw, both today, in the genes and in the fossil record). Thus, you missed the entire point of that analogy.

    Let me try to explain it even clearer:

    Is there any reason a parent species can not be around even after a 'child' species has evolved? Of course not. For exactly the same reason parents are still alive after their children are born.

    Thus, the whole creationist argument is stupid, for this and for many other reasons.

    - Jan

  • dubla


    i didnt miss the point as you imagine, and there is no confusion. i understand your stance, and xanders....and you both compare evolving to being born, which is where your analogies fall short with me. im sure it makes perfect sense to you though, just as the apple analogy (skin-meat-core) makes perfect sense to the trinitarian when trying to explain how three can be one and seperate.


Share this