RE: On Evolution (creationist arguments).

Maniacsicko, not necessarily a creationist himself, made a blog with a bunch of copied and pasted creationist arguments.

I will repost the bulk of it below, my responses will be in another color:

First off, I invite all of you to view this presentation via this link:
(unfortunately, I cannot embed the presentation video here)

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/homepage.html

It isn’t really a “documentary”, it grossly misrepresents the science and declares that the judeo-christian god made everything.  How scientific.

Do watch all the seven chapters presented (or you can stay ignorant if you want)…

Not one argument I’ve read in this blog I have not heard before.  I honestly doubt the creationist flash videos are any different.

Okay, that was somewhat a provocation, but I’d say you definitely should really watch it to shape your opinion on the subject…

Note: Whether you arrive at the same conclusion or not is a different matter altogether…   What matter is you should know the argument from all sides to make a good conclusion….

So, again, watch all the seven chapter…   I think it summarize pretty nicely of the basic arguments against evolution / Darwinism (as the video call it)…

On the issue of “intermediary species” or the “transitional forms” touched by agnophilo, the video linked above also touched on it briefly (but rather “conclusively”)….

Of course, the short video presentation cannot really elaborate or present the whole “proof” that pointed to the conclusion made…

But if you want to dig deeper on it, I think it was put into the “Atlas of Creation” for you to see and judge by yourself…

Here is a link you might want to watch:
(again, I cannot embed them)

http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/collapse_in_europe/index.html

“According to darwin’s theory, lifeless mattter came together by chance to create the first living cell…”

Already they’re talking about something that has nothing to do with evolution, which is a process which works only after life exists.  Darwin never tried to explain the origins of life.

Listening on, this video is a demented reinvention of reality.  Note also that these people are making money off of this…

The set of videos basically just lay the background, a bit on evolution and the atlas itself, and then goes on (and on) about how it affects the view of people on the subject throughout Europe….

Perhaps it is more of a teaser for the “Atlas of Creation”…

Now, if you don’t actually have a copy of it, you can actually check it out (or download the pdf, or buy a copy) here:

ATLAS OF CREATION – VOLUME I

ATLAS OF CREATION – VOLUME II

ATLAS OF CREATION – VOLUME III

Just for the sake of those who don’t have the time to go through them for now, let me just paste some of the photos from them that are related to the topic at hand…

Here are some pictures on the subject that animals from tenth and hundreds of million years ago are simply as they are now, pointing at “the fact” that evolution never took place….

Actually not one of these species is “exactly” as it was millions of years ago, and none of these fossils are of any modern species.  They are however examples of evolutionary stasis.  Evolution is driven by environmental pressures which change the rate at which different genetic and physical characteristics are passed on.  Some lineages such as alligators, sharks etc haven’t changed much over millions of years.  Or more correctly, their skeletal structure hasn’t changed much.  However it is impossible that they stopped evolving, since evolution includes adapting resistences to ever-changing viruses, bacteria, climate change etc.  This in no way “disproves” evolution, nor does it wish away the plithera of clear transitional forms in the fossil record.

Image source: here

Here are some pictures on the subject of “our ancestors”



Skull contours vary from person to person as well.  This proves what exactly?  There were several hundred distinct “races” of the same species a few thousand years ago?  Come on, anyone can find logical problems with that.



I searched and searched and couldn’t find where this illustration came from.  But given the fact that creationists have lied about this sort of thing before (read below about the pig’s tooth) I’m not shocked that they’re making this claim again.


Image source: here



I don’t speak the language.


Image source: here

Some on the intermediate species…


This is a creationist depiction which is not accurate.  No fish ever evolved into a modern frog, nor did any lizard ever evolve into a rabbit.  The actual transitions between fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals have been well documented.  Bullshit strawman argument, as usual.



How exactly do living descendants of species believed to be extinct disprove evolution?


I’ll address these in order.

1. piltdown man was a fraud and was very famous for the simple fact that it was not immediately debunked as frauds usually are in science.  It was not debunked mainly because it spent several decades in storage after it was thought not to be an important discovery.

2. “Nebraska man” was purely hypothetical and was never illustrated by scientists on the basis of a single tooth.  An amateur paleontologist found a fossil tooth, sent it to a natural history museum, and it was thought to possibly be a primate tooth.  A small article was published in a non-scientific non-peer reviewed publication which included an illustration with the following text in both the main article and the caption:

“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.” (Smith 1922, emphasis added)

This entire “argument” is one big fat made up lie.  Like nearly all creationist “arguments”.

3. This is incoherent.  Of course they’re different species, they’re labeled as such.  And of course they didn’t all live in one place, living things migrate.  Americans don’t live in africa or europe, so I guess we must not have any relationship with africans or europeans.

4. They “actually” were apes?  OMG noes!  That totally proves that they have no relation to humans, which are by definition apes to this day.  Ape does not refer to a species, it refers to a collective of thousands of species, living and extinct, with similar characteristics.  That group includes humans by definition.  So far as “they were deceptive”, wtf?  Vague much?

5. Ernst Haeckel studied embryology and did make embryo pictures to illustrate his theories.  Some of which he found it difficult to obtain specimines for and took a little artistic license.  This was discovered, and cost him his professional reputation.  Creationists pretend that a) haeckel’s drawings (which were published after origin of species) were the basis for evolution, and b) that they were the sole basis of the study of embryology and therefore discount the actual evidence for evolution that does exist in embryology. 

Creationists lie a lot you may notice.



A 380-MILLION-YEAR OLD TRILOBITE FOSSIL

Trilobites are some of the most abundant life forms to have emerged in the Cambrian period. They lived in various parts of the world. One of the most astonishing characteristics of trilobites is their multi-lens eye, made up of numerous units, each unit being a separate lens. Each lens perceives a different image, and these are then combined as a whole “picture.” Research has shown that there were more than 3,000 lenses in the trilobite eye, which meant the creature received more than 3000 images. This, in turn, clearly reveals how perfect were the eye and brain structure of this creature that lived nearly 530 million years ago. Such a flawless structure could not possibly have emerged by way of evolution.

This is a lazy, vague version of the intelligent design argument.  Different types of eyes have evolved independantly more than a dozen different times in different forms of life, if you don’t think eye evolution is possible, here is an excellent and brief video that explains how our eyes evolved:




This is just fucking retarded.  When creationists say “evolution is mud plus time plus ???” the “???” (and everything else) does not indicate an unknown in evolutionary theory, but their own ignorance of the science.  We know how and why life evolves, and it has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with mud or lightning.


Image source: here

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to RE: On Evolution (creationist arguments).

  1. I really like all of the pics you are finding.

  2. agnophilo says:

    @ShimmerBodyCream – The pics in this blog are copied from his blog.  The pics in my other ones were found by me.

  3. Mac_Libureet says:

    How did life come about if it wasn’t about mud and lightning?@ShimmerBodyCream – They actually are sicko’s…

  4. @Mac_Libureet – I’m confused. What are sickos? the pics?

  5. agnophilo says:

    @Mac_Libureet – Here is a good video on the subject.  It’s worth noting that evolution and abiogenesis are two entirely different fields.

  6. Mac_Libureet says:

    @ShimmerBodyCream – Yes, to respond to sicko’s blog he basically copied it over to his blog.  The stuff in red is his response, black is sicko’s writing…

  7. agnophilo says:

    @ShimmerBodyCream – Yes.I copied his blog and did an in-line response.

  8. @Mac_Libureet – oh haha. I thought you meant they were “sicko” like in a literal sense sorry lol

  9. HappyLemming says:

    Props for the hard work replying.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @ShimmerBodyCream – The opening to the blog:Maniacsicko, not necessarily a creationist himself, made a blog with a bunch of copied and pasted creationist arguments.I will repost the bulk of it below, my responses will be in another color:@HappyLemming – Thanks.  While I have refuted all of this before (many times – lies to not fall out of popularity in creationist circles, they float to the top and stay there) it was a bit of work after writing a long blog about evolution : D

  11. @agnophilo – I know. I’m retarded. I couldnt put 2 and 2 together.

  12. We’d all take creationists that much more seriously if they made one decent point on their plethora of websites used to cite their credibility…

  13. yeah, that’s a problem i have with most creationists. they’ll start asking you about evolutionary biology and they end asking you about the explanation for the origins of protons. They’ll just keep moving to the next unexplained phenomena and say that a deity must be responsible for it. I will not believe in a God of The Gaps, the god of the argument from ignorance.The problem is that they want to mix all the different origins problems into one big problem… and the origins of species is a whole different ball game than the origins of life.

  14. agnophilo says:

    @ShimmerBodyCream – I didn’t mean that, just explaining is all : (@Chinese_Sait0u – Yeah I know.  Or if they debated honestly.The irony is that (excluding those that are literal con men, ie kent hovind) the ones that really believe it are actually following the golden rule, and treating others as they treat themselves.  They lie to themselves, so they lie to other people too.  And they are treating us as they would have us treat them, because they would rather us lie to them too.@lalalandsucks4ever – They pile all the branches of science into one big heap and call it “evolutionism” because it’s easier than listing the dozens of branches of science that are independently lined up against them and still pretend to have scientific “cred”.

  15. maniacsicko says:

    Okay, I didn’t meant my post to be the whole arguments for the creationist or something like that…and I think I have said that those videos linked were rather surface conclusions made on the basis of the findings not finely elaborated in such a short video…now, on the millions of years fossil that i said to be the same to the animals today…   just curious, have you downloaded the atlas of creation and just browse through all the fossil pictures?basically what they are showing is hundreds and hundreds of pages of fossil from hundreds of millions of years that are “exactly” the same as how the animal are today…now, i believe the argument is this, the countless (they are to publish the 4th and 5th volume i think) of real fossil (not merely sketching or drawings) that “prove” that those animals from hundreds of millions of years ago never undergone evolution process…on that platform, it seems to become a very lopsided findings on fossil that showed that evolution never took place with those animals, compared to some fossils that were argued to be showing that evolution took place…okay, not to cram too mane aspect of discussion in one go (coz i would then get dizzy – you know i’m no nerd), what do you think of my personal observation right here?

  16. skittler335 says:

    Truly I mean no offense, but I do think you’re being a bit harsh here (and with some of your comments on maniacsicko’s site.) I’ve taken plenty of science classes and the whole lightening plus primordial goo is definitely one of the theories we learned about when talking about the first spark of life that could reproduce on it’s own (as the lightening was seen as a potential catalyst to line up the various molecules correctly.) The wording on the pictures is done in a condescending manner, but essentially it does represent one theory.Could you, in a succinct manner tell me what you believe/think/feel how and why life evolves? You seem an intelligent person and I’d like to here from you. Hope you have a great rest of the year.

  17. agnophilo says:

    @maniacsicko – I’ve responded to this already.

  18. agnophilo says:

    @skittler335 –  “TrulyI mean no offense, but I do think you’re being a bit harsh here (andwith some of your comments on maniacsicko’s site.)” I am harsh because a) I’ve debunked these arguments more times than I can count and most of the evangelists promoting them know they are false and repeat them anyway, and b) the guy I’m responding to is not the author of these ideas, so I’m not insulting him or being rude to him.”I’ve taken plenty ofscience classes and the whole lightening plus primordial goo isdefinitely one of the theories we learned about when talking about thefirst spark of life that could reproduce on it’s own (as the lighteningwas seen as a potential catalyst to line up the various moleculescorrectly.) The wording on the pictures is done in a condescendingmanner, but essentially it does represent one theory.”No, it doesn’t.  What they are deliberately jumbling up and falsely conflating with evolution is early experiments into abiogenesis where scientists exposed basic elements believed to be common on a primitive earth before complex life arose, and exposed them to a wide range of things from radiation to intense heat to electricity to see if proteins and amino acids can spontaneously form in nature.  They found out that yes, they can very easily.At no point did they posit that lightning struck a mud puddle and that’s where life came from.  And even if that were true (which it isn’t), it would still have absolutely nothing to do with darwin’s theory, which explains how life behaves once it exists, and does not even attempt to explain how life arose.What they’re doing is like saying “einstein’s theory of relativity is the idea that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.  This was disproven centuries ago, yet “einsteinists” still insist that relativity is true!”It’s dishonest sleazy propaganda.”Could you,in a succinct manner tell me what you believe/think/feel how and whylife evolves?” Well evolution is pretty well understood and observably happens in nature.  This and this are good, brief videos explaining it simply.  And once you wrap your head around the ideas in those videos, here is a good brief video which explains how complex mechanisms like eyes can evolve.:You seem an intelligent person and I’d like to here fromyou. Hope you have a great rest of the year.”Likewise : D  Sorry if anything I said offended you personally, and I hope you find the videos above interesting.

  19. maniacsicko says:

    @agnophilo – owh, perhaps i missed it…   is it in this post?  or in one of the comments in mine?   anyway, the video about the eye show how the eye could have evolved, right?

  20. skittler335 says:

    @agnophilo – Thank you for responding. Those videos were excellent, thorough enough but not over anyone’s head. (Though a little condescending towards Christians and Republicans, but some of us make it tougher for others.) I appreciate you recommending them and I hope others watch them. I still maintain that I was taught on a few separate occasions of the theory that primordial mud + lightening = life…however perhaps those teachers and professors didn’t understand it clearly themselves and were just presenting it. Not everything that is taught is correct.This is just advice, you obviously may take it or leave it. I think you are incredibly knowledgeable and that if you want to have hopes of “converting” even one “evangelist” you may want to do so with a little more love and a few less F-bombs. I understand that Christians can be unloving and drop F-bombs too…but I feel that your words and knowledge will have more weight if you present it in a less subjective/condescending manner. You didn’t personally offend me, but I could see your remarks hurting others and then those feelings could have potentially prevented them from taking in any of the good ideas you were presenting.I am a bit of an oxymoron in that I am a creationist that believes in evolution (I believe you and I had a brief discussion on it several months ago). While you may never believe in a god or my God, I believe that nothing science finds will negate His existence (though it may make me look differently at certain Biblical texts). I do truly hope that someday other Christians will take a similar viewpoint to mine (well let’s be honest, who doesn’t hope others will take a similar viewpoint to their own). However the process to getting to that point should be done lovingly IMHO.Sorry for writing such a long response…I’ll not take up the rest of your comment section. TTFNP.S. I had always hoped to learn more about epigenetics as it was only briefly mentioned in my courses in college. Have any recommended reading/videos on that topic?

  21. agnophilo says:

    @maniacsicko – I replied to that in the blog.And yes, the video shows how the eye could have evolved.  And every stage of that evolution is found in nature today.

  22. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – Those picture, idiot, are but a total species. The rest of it is but scrap. Now if you don’t want to read my posts, don’t read them. Your arguments are without foundation, when a paste something is the point of departure to start a discussion. Use common sense. Gene546

  23. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – If you really want held a debate with me, do yourself; don’t invite a total army against me. Let me know when ready. I will refute you word by word. Gene546

  24. agnophilo says:

    @skittler335 – “Thank you for responding. Those videoswere excellent, thorough enough but not over anyone’s head. (Though alittle condescending towards Christians and Republicans, but some of usmake it tougher for others.)” It’s actually condescending towards creationists, which are a small minority of christians.  You’d have to study the creationist movement to realize why creationists get so much derision, they tend to be a combination of incredibly stupid + intellectually dishonest.  Creationism is not the belief that there’s a god, or even a belief that the bible is in some sense true, it’s a belief in the literal creation account of christianity, islam or any other religion.  Creationists believe the universe is a few thousand years old, dinosaurs and men lived together, etc.Creationists tend to obnoxiously lecture people about science they don’t even know the very basics about, and literally make it up as they go along.Here are some videos from a series on youtube “why do people laugh at creationists?”Link1, link2, link3, etc.The guy in the first video btw was the most popular evangelical blogger on youtube for years until his parents yanked his account when they discovered he was using it to raise many thousands of dollars for kids with cancer and keeping the money for himself.I’m not kidding.Here also is an excellent video from another video series debunking a few common creationist claims from a muslim creationist video and citing positive examples of human evolution : D”I appreciate you recommending them and Ihope others watch them. I still maintain that I was taught on a fewseparate occasions of the theory that primordial mud + lightening =life…however perhaps those teachers and professors didn’t understandit clearly themselves and were just presenting it. Not everything thatis taught is correct.”That’s a bit of an oversimplification, either way it has zero to do with evolution.”This is just advice, you obviously may takeit or leave it. I think you are incredibly knowledgeable and that ifyou want to have hopes of “converting” even one “evangelist” you maywant to do so with a little more love and a few less F-bombs. Iunderstand that Christians can be unloving and drop F-bombs too…but Ifeel that your words and knowledge will have more weight if you presentit in a less subjective/condescending manner. You didn’t personallyoffend me, but I could see your remarks hurting others and then thosefeelings could have potentially prevented them from taking in any ofthe good ideas you were presenting.”To be fair I dropped one “f-bomb” and it was an adjective, not a verb : DYour advice is duly noted however.  I’m a bit brisk because a lot of creationists promote this stuff knowing it’s a lie and have been doing so for decades.  Evanglists also deny the basic facts of the holocaust to smear and villify anyone who doesn’t agree with them on religion or science, suggesting often that the holocaust was caused by darwin or atheists alternately.Ben Stein recently made an incredibly sleazy “documentary” about evolution where they actually lied to atheists and scientists about what they were interviewing for and then barred them from attending the premier, and this is from one interview on a religious show to promote the movie: Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [biologist P.Z. Myers],talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself thelast time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to dothey were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that washorrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, thisis just an opinion — that’s where science leads you. Crouch: That’s right. Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people. Crouch: Good word, good word.This is the kind of sleaze the creationism movement produces on a regular basis, so if I’m a bit edgy in my debunking of it maybe you see why.I don’t feel any anger or hostility toward you or christians or people who believe in a creator, but the creationism movement is a very slimy, dishonest affair.”I am a bit of an oxymoron inthat I am a creationist that believes in evolution (I believe you and Ihad a brief discussion on it several months ago).” Actually you’re not.  Creationism is belief in a literal interpretation of some religion’s creation account.  You are not a creationist.  You believe in a creator and presumably believe that the god of the bible is that creator.  I used to believe that.  Darwin himself believed in a creator all his life, he went from being a creationist in his youth to a non-fundamentalist christian in his teens and eventually became a deist and remained one the rest of his life.”While you may neverbelieve in a god or my God, I believe that nothing science finds willnegate His existence” Nothing science will ever find will establish his existence to begin with.  I mean science can’t prove unicorns don’t exist, that isn’t a point in their favor.  We don’t believe hypothetical beings exist unless they can be disproven by science, otherwise we’d believe in everything.”(though it may make me look differently at certainBiblical texts).” That’s good : D  Creationists tend to be incapable of any intellectual mobility.”I do truly hope that someday other Christians willtake a similar viewpoint to mine (well let’s be honest, who doesn’thope others will take a similar viewpoint to their own).”I don’t.  The journey is the point, not the destination.  I want people to think and question, I don’t care if they disagree with me at the end of the day.The only reason non-believers butt heads with religious people is because of the harm religious institutions do.  I can talk to a deist or a pantheist or a philosophical buddhist and it never gets hostile or disagreeable.”However theprocess to getting to that point should be done lovingly IMHO.”I agree.  Though when the guy on the other end of the aisle is lying through his teeth mockery is a potent weapon against that sort of shoddy behavior.”Sorry for writing such a long response…I’ll not take up the rest of your comment section. TTFN”Heh, mine is longer : D  And thanks for reminding me of tigger (ttfn) : D”P.S.I had always hoped to learn more about epigenetics as it was onlybriefly mentioned in my courses in college. Have any recommendedreading/videos on that topic?”There’s a video in that foundational falsehoods of creationism video that talks about it, but I can’t remember which one, lol.

  25. agnophilo says:

    @gene546 – This is incoherent.@gene546 – I didn’t invite anyone to your blog, theologeanscafe who has hundreds of thousands of viewers of his blog clicked “recommend” on your blog and that’s why it got so much traffic.  Every single person except like 1 who went to your blog strongly disagreed with you.

  26. skittler335 says:

    @agnophilo – Yay for being verbose! 😀 I’ll check out those vids sometime after Christmas.

  27. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – Granted, let us forget about that incident. It is my fault; I’m responsible, only you and myself; would yo be willing to discuss any single theme of your choice; I let you chose whatsoever is in your mind. Gene546

  28. @agnophilo – yeah. that’s exactly what most of them do. @skittler335 – “lightening was seen as a potential catalyst to line up the various molecules correctly”  Primordial goo or ‘mud’ are not the terms that should be used to explain the hypothetical process to the lay person. The hypothesis that life is the result of a naturally rare but still consistent with the laws of physics process should be explained in terms of the Miller Urey experiment and research done by Sydney Fox on phospholipid bilayers (or the fact that complex protiens are found on meteorites). it’s important that we don’t restrict the hypothesis to lightening either. “I’ve taken plenty of science classes”me too but i usually found that i had a much better understanding of science than that the professors teaching those classes did.

  29. agnophilo says:

    @skittler335 – Sorry, I can be a bit long-winded.The videos are good though.@gene546 – It’s a waste of time to talk to you, you don’t listen.@lalalandsucks4ever – “me too but i usually found that i had a muchbetter understanding of science than that the professors teaching thoseclasses did.”That’s kind of why education is screwed in the US.  Uneducated people make up the next generation of teachers.  Similar dilemma to “who will guard the guards themselves”.  Who will teach the teachers themselves?

  30. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – Hey man, I need to tell you somethinga)      For the last fourthly years of my life I have been reading scientific articles, especially on Physics, and Astrophysics.b)      When I arrived here, in Xanga, my only intention was to get some people to talk to in my leisure time, and I like your style of writing because I never have see anything beyond what is ethical.c)      Finally, let forget about anything regarding debates. It is not profitable for none of the two parties, why? Because is a no winning game. And I enjoy my family very deep in did. Yo got that piece of idiot. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Sorry, I know you are agnostic. Gene546

  31. agnophilo says:

    @gene546 – I didn’t understand some of that, but I appreciate the sentiment.  Merry christmas to you too.

  32. gene546 says:

    @agnophilo – I was very clear in my post: I have no quarrel against you, because I do respect you my friend. I have no power to convert you that power belongs to God alone, not me. Gene546

  33. @gene546 – what about “yo got that piece of idiot”[sic] ? where is the respect in that out of place sentence?

  34. agnophilo says:

    @lalalandsucks4ever – It has come to my attention that english is not his first language, I am not sure what he meant to say with that sentence.  As it doesn’t make sense I didn’t assume he meant offense.

  35. skittler335 says:

    @lalalandsucks4ever – I forget that a hint of sarcasm is often lost on the internet.  (I was joking when I said primordial goo…I didn’t think most people would take me seriously when I said goo.) Sorry for over generalizing, for clarifications sake I’m aware that the possible catalyst could have been a dramatic change in pressure, a meteor or a plethora of other possibilities. Like agno said though, the start of life and evolution are different topics. Hope you have a merry Christmas. 

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s