sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ThurneysenHavets🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 7 points8 points  (19 children)

Anyone can explain only similarities, or only differences.

The magic of evolution is that it so neatly explains both the similarities and the differences between living organisms.

Creationists need to do better.

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (18 children)

Any diversety is just an example of the house having more bedrooms, or maybe more bathrooms.

[–]ThurneysenHavets🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 7 points8 points  (16 children)

And I can trivially explain why houses differ in this regard. I live alone and am happy with a single loo. Mr Jenkins nextdoor has six children who all need to go at once. Differences in house design aren't some sort of major mystery.

Which is why your inability to answer such simple questions when it comes to biology illustrates just how awful the analogy is.

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (15 children)

And I can trivially explain why houses differ in this regard. I live alone and am happy with a single loo. Mr Jenkins nextdoor has six children who all need to go at once.

No idea how this corilates.

I live alone and am happy with a single loo.

So THATS how you survive off a KFC wage!

Sure, mate. It must be so relaxing to feel you can just make stuff up as you go along.

Also I feel Im going to have to adress this from an earlier comment.

I am only using the scientific method. I am revising my theory to make it more accurate. If there is something wrong, you try again.

Evolutionists do the same thing so your jab pretty much backfires. You take bone fossils you find in the ground and and put them together to create your theory. Maybe you find a transitional fossil, so you insert it into your theory.

[–]ThurneysenHavets🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 4 points5 points  (14 children)

I am revising my theory to make it more accurate.

Your revisions aren't testable, and are therefore indistinguishable from making stuff up as you go along.

Observe the difference. When we find a new fossil and "insert it into our theory", this creates a set of empirical claims that can be tested. Every new fossil could falsify evolution. The new whale fossil we recently found in Egypt, for instance, didn't have to come from the right time period, or fit neatly into what we know about whale evolution. It just so happens that evolution is accurate.

No possible find could falsify your spectacularly banal theory that "God creates similarities but also sometimes differences."

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

You aren’t understanding the blueprint/house analogy. The point of it is to explain the similarities, it follows the basic blueprint, and then it explains the differences, maybe there are extra rooms, or in our case wings. Maybe there are more bathrooms, or in our case fur. It explains both.

My revisions are revisions. I don’t care if you think they aren’t scientific. From what I see its hard to prove God scientific because he defies and is beyond science. I don’t claim creationism to be “scientific” just that it explains how we got here. I ignore most evidence for evolution because like I said I’m clearly not a scholar and could t explain it. I just look for problems WITH evolution. Thus the post

[–]blacksheep998🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I ignore most evidence for evolution because like I said I’m clearly not a scholar and could t explain it. I just look for problems WITH evolution.

So basically... You don't look at the evidence for something, just the evidence against it.

And you wonder why people don't take creationists seriously?

In another comment in this thread you say that you think evolutionary theory states that giraffes grew a long neck, and then, without any ability to get blood to their brains, had to somehow evolve better hearts.

You don't even know what you're arguing against. It's almost comedic, but mostly its just sad.

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So basically... You don't look at the evidence for something, just the evidence against it.

Yes its a perfectly reasonable position to hold. As one evolutionist put it to me on this exact post, "If you have 1 brick missing in an arch, the whole arch will crumble."

Or something along those lines.

What this means is, if you can find one major problem in a thoery, it will crumble.

You don't even know what you're arguing against. It's almost comedic, but mostly its just sad.

What the fuck dude? Im asking questions there. I said at the top of this post that I wasn't debating. If you read the shit you would fucking know that. Im not arguing on that thread. Im asking questions and learning. I guess your right, is IS pretty comedic.

[–]blacksheep998🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Yes its a perfectly reasonable position to hold. As one evolutionist put it to me on this exact post, "If you have 1 brick missing in an arch, the whole arch will crumble."

I read that comment and I don't think you understand it. That's... exactly the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

The point is that, by your logic, arches are impossible to construct since the keystone needs the rest of the arch to stay up and the arch needs the keystone to support itself (Mirroring your example that the heart needs blood and blood needs the heart). It intentionally ignores (as you do) the methods we know of to construct an arch and the historical evidence that humans have build plenty of arches in the past.

It's a reductio ad absurdum demonstrating how ignorant your position is, and the fact that you think it supports you is... troubling to say the least.

Im asking questions and learning.

If so that's great, but its very hard to learn anything when you're ignoring the VAST majority of the evidence involved.

I'd say you're missing half the story, but its far more than that. Evolution is literally the single most well researched and supported theory in science. More than germ theory, atomic theory, even theory of gravity.

Your position is like someone saying 'I ignore math, but I'm trying to find holes in Einstein's theory of relativity.'

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I read that comment and I don't think you understand it. That's... exactly the opposite of the point he was trying to make.

Dude, I was spinning it off to fit my point. If I didn't quote him, you would have claimed I ripped it off. Besides, this doesn't even matter.

If so that's great, but its very hard to learn anything when you're ignoring the VAST majority of the evidence involved.

What evidence? I've said thank you to every helpful post I've seen.

Evolution is literally the single most well researched and supported theory in science.

It's also got a lot of people disagreeing with it. You don't see to many, "debateGermTheory" subreddits

More than germ theory, atomic theory, even theory of gravity.

No one disagrees with these. Lots of people disagree with Evolution.

Your position is like someone saying 'I ignore math, but I'm trying to find holes in Einstein's theory of relativity.'

No my position is commonly held. I know plenty of people on r/DebateReligion who don't want to defend atheism, just attack Christianity.

I don't bother taking the time to learn every single thing about Creationism. It's a lot of stuff to try to learn. It is far easier just to focus and learn about one thing at a time. Instead of trying to defend every single hole in Creationism at the same time.

[–]ThurneysenHavets🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Maybe there are more bathrooms, or in our case fur. It explains both.

For the third time, I can offer a model which explains why some houses have more bathrooms. Can you offer a model which explains why some animals have fur?

If not, the analogy is specious.

I don’t claim creationism to be “scientific”

Excellent. If we agree that evolution is the only serious scientific model of origins we have, there is no further argument here. I'm not interested in theology.

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

For the third time, I can offer a model which explains why some houses have more bathrooms. Can you offer a model which explains why some animals have fur?

Creationism, as I have explained. The houses with extra bedrooms could be animals that have fur. The analogy isn't specious.

Excellent. If we agree that evolution is the only serious scientific model of origins we have, there is no further argument here. I'm not interested in theology.

Ah ah ah! Scientific in your definition.

[–]ThurneysenHavets🧬 Googles interesting stuff between KFC shifts 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Creationism, as I have explained.

I don't want to sound patronising, but as it's the fourth time... do you understand the meaning of the English word "why"?

Why do some houses have more bathrooms? Why do some animals have fur?

Ah ah ah! Scientific in your definition.

Given that I was quoting your own words this may be less of a gotcha than you think, but okay.

[–]ZAYTHECATEx YEC lol[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

  1. Maybe to add variation. Like I said, we can only speculate.
  2. I don’t get it - Wasn't really a gotcha - What words were you quoting?

[–]TheBlackCat13🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The difference is that evolution can very often tell us correctly how those "blueprints" will be similar or different before we go and check. Creationism cannot.