THE Evolution Thread

[Ford]

This wasn’t a debate. It was a test — and he failed it. Not because the evidence wasn’t strong, but because he refused to let it matter. And everyone watching can see that now.

This thread was the classroom, I'm the teacher, there was one easy assignment, everyone failed the class. If you can't read and follow the instructions given in the OP there is no way in hell, even in your verbose dissertation, you could ever hope to understand anything. You puke what your told and you couldn't do that with what I requested in the OP.

A classroom! Oh! Let's see how it's going!

 

[pood]

I suggest that unless he meets NHC’s discussion point by point, everyone ignore him and let him talk to himself.

That's what y'all should have been doing all along.

I say when he starts a new thread, let it keep a big empty goose egg in the reply column. Nothing is more annoying than that.

Yes, but this thread did bring us, from NHC, the most thorough torching of creationist crap I have ever seen. It was almost awe-inspiring in the comprehensiveness of its demolition job.

 

[NoHolyCows]

This thread was the classroom, I'm the teacher, there was one easy assignment, everyone failed the class. If you can't read and follow the instructions given in the OP there is no way in hell, even in your verbose dissertation, you could ever hope to understand anything. You puke what your told and you couldn't do that with what I requested in the OP.

No. You’re not the teacher here. You’re the student who walked into class, challenged everyone to explain a contradiction, got the exact answer you asked for, and then stormed out pretending the question was too hard.

You said in the OP: show me literal, observable macroevolution. No links. No long posts. No appeals to fractured fossils or vague similarities. Just clear examples. And that’s exactly what you were given.

You were shown observed speciation — like ring species of warblers, where adjacent populations can interbreed, but the ends of the ring can’t. That’s a species splitting in real time. You were shown bacteria evolving brand new enzymes to digest synthetic compounds like nylon — a function that didn’t exist in any ancestor. You were shown transitional fossils like Tiktaalik and Lucy, found precisely where evolutionary theory said they would be. You were shown shared pseudogenes and viral DNA between humans and chimps — matching in location, structure, and mutation. You were shown the internal contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 in plain English — animals before humans in one, man before animals in the other — and you admitted, word for word, that if both were chronological, it would be a contradiction.

And your answer to all of that is: “you failed the assignment.”

No. You failed the challenge — because the evidence showed up, and you had no answer.

You didn’t refute a single example. You didn’t address the core contradiction. You didn’t offer an alternative explanation. You didn’t clarify your criteria. You didn’t even engage honestly with what was said. You changed your standards every time they were met. You redefined terms mid-conversation. You pretended you hadn’t been answered — after being answered ten different ways.

And now, with your back to the wall, the best you can offer is: “You couldn’t follow instructions.”

This wasn’t a test. This was a mirror. And what you saw in it — the refusal to engage, the collapse under pressure, the deflection, the empty insults — was your own failure staring back at you.

So let’s be done with the pretense. You set the rules. The evidence met them. You blinked. And now, in front of everyone, you’re calling yourself the teacher because you have nothing left to say.

Everyone watching saw what really happened.

Class dismissed.

You flunked your own exam.

NHC

 

[Ford]

 

[Ford]

No wait...classroom, huh?

 

[Ford]

And those were fun classroom clips, but I think this one is more appropriate to what's happened here:




How do you like them apples?

 

[steve_bank]

As promised @pood here is THE evolution thread to end all evolution threads. The most important evolution thread you will ever see. Even though pood has demonstrated remarkable patience it has also manifested a cross disposition of late. It seems like an insolent child. Petulant Poo. As it were.

Anyway, what I typically do since I post exclusively on atheist or in this case infidel forums, is I sympathize with the resident heathens having to discuss so much theology when they would much rather discuss science. I have little if any interest in science, but I'm fair.

Now, what you probably think is that the Bible creation account is contradictory to science. I don't believe it is, but I also think it doesn't matter. Science isn't the first Biblical contradictory endeavor of mankind. Prostitutes, fortune tellers, catamites, the precursor to the modern-day Olympics, for example. Et cetera. Ad Infinitum and Nauseum for good measure.

Nothing new under the sun.

Here I want you to either tell me where evolution differs from the Bible. In very simple terms. Einstein supposedly said that if you can't explain something in simple terms you don't know it very well or words to that effect. No theological or scientific jargon is necessary and if you want a 500+ post thread spanning years make one because this isn't it.

But that isn't even really necessary for the purpose of my participation in this discussion. All I need from you is actual evidence, I mean show me or explain to me literally, not give me a link where someone says macroevolution contrary to the Bible is evident.

That's it. Don't show me a photograph of fractured bone fragments or similarities between apes and humans, arms on whales. Show me macroevolution.

I will warn you right now, most of what you show me will be bullshit.

First and foremost as has already been posted.

Archeology, anthropology, genetics, and paleontology are not consistent with a single Adam and Eve human breeding pair appearing as the start of the human species some 5000 years or so ago.

Please do not try to refute the evidence by posting biblical quotes or preaching about pprotitutes and fortujne tellers.

Past theists have come fully prepared to dispute specifics of TOE. You sit hack in ignorance thinking you are clever and outfoxing us.

So now you are a teacher sent by Yahweh. The theist power trip.

As the claimant the onus is on you to show the bible is or is not consistent with science. All you have to say is THE BIBLE SAYS.....

 

[DLH]

Again, pood likes this post of a video with no explanation, even though it is, as pood keeps telling me, against the rules. Apparently, pood says, I don't care and pood gives this emoji.

I often have to decide if a person attacking me is more of a hypocrite, an idiot, or both. More often than not it turns out to be both.

Just imagine what that does to my ego. I have to constantly remind myself not to be intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, socially, politically or logically influenced. By hypocritical idiots. Ultimately that means that, no. The entire world isn't hypocritical idiots. This, with little evidence to the contrary.

You can break the rules if you are on the right side of ideological fixation. Dumacrats never learn, thankfully.

 

[DLH]

No. You’re not the teacher here. You’re the student who walked into class, challenged everyone to explain a contradiction, got the exact answer you asked for, and then stormed out pretending the question was too hard.

Wow. You just don't get it. I asked for a simple explanation of why you, the reader, might think evolution contradicts the Bible. And then, given no satisfactory answer I fuck with you and your ridiculous diversions. If pretending the question was too hard and storming out is a way of doing that, and it often is because the reader doesn't have enough sense to see how that provokes them, and so making their reaction that much more ridiculous, then damn it! [pounds on desk] that is what I will do.

But, at the same time there is, buried beneath all of the trollery, the answer, plain and simple. The examples you gave were not contradictory to the Biblical kinds meaning that macroevolution, or whatever you want to call it, isn't contradictory to the Bible.

Why would I allegedly see that as a loss on your part in a debate? Because ideologically evolution is your justification for not being accountable to God. That is the primary purpose, intended or not, of evolutionary theory.



That's how weak, feeble and ignorant evolution looks - not because it is - but because you make it look that way. I recognized this easily because it is exactly what ignorance and ideology did to religion.

You said in the OP: show me literal, observable macroevolution. No links. No long posts. No appeals to fractured fossils or vague similarities. Just clear examples. And that’s exactly what you were given.

I've already responded to this. I responded to it again above. I'll respond to it again so that maybe eventually you can intellectually grasp it. Your examples are not contradictory to the Biblical kinds. Note, that isn't to say they aren't contradictory to interpretations of creationism or evolutionary ideologues, but to the Biblical kinds themselves.

You were shown observed speciation — like ring species of warblers, where adjacent populations can interbreed, but the ends of the ring can’t.

Not contradictory to Biblical kinds.

That’s a species splitting in real time.

Define species. Define kind. I had already done that before you posted your insufferably tedious diatribe. I even linked that again in the same fucking thread. Here. Again. For the not so intelligent as they might think.

From Revelation In Space: Bible Data: Science and the Bible: Evolution:

Observable evolution, which aligns with the biblical creation account of "kinds," refers to changes within species or groups, where variations occur but do not cross the threshold into another "kind." This contrasts with speculative evolutionary theories that propose mechanisms not directly observed, suggesting transformations across "kinds."

In terms of biblical "kinds," these are often seen as divisions where species or groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The boundary of "kinds" could be interpreted as where fertility between different groups ceases, suggesting that while there can be significant variation within a kind, there's a natural limit to how far this variation can extend before it no longer crosses with another kind. This understanding aligns with a view where evolution is acknowledged within the bounds of what is observed in nature - that is, variation and adaptation within species rather than across them into entirely new kinds.

You were shown bacteria evolving brand new enzymes to digest synthetic compounds like nylon — a function that didn’t exist in any ancestor.

Yes. And like I've said repeatedly. Not contradictory to the Biblical kinds.

You were shown transitional fossils like Tiktaalik and Lucy, found precisely where evolutionary theory said they would be. You were shown shared pseudogenes and viral DNA between humans and chimps — matching in location, structure, and mutation. You were shown the internal contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 in plain English — animals before humans in one, man before animals in the other — and you admitted, word for word, that if both were chronological, it would be a contradiction.

And your answer to all of that is: “you failed the assignment.”

I asked for something that contradicts the Biblical kinds, your examples don't. Can't you get that? You failed the assignment because you told me things that didn't contradict the Biblical kinds. I asked for something that did. Like I said, if that's too complicated for you to comprehend how am I to take your dissertation seriously anyway?

No. You failed the challenge — because the evidence showed up, and you had no answer.

I issued the challenge! And actually, if anyone did meet the challenge it was me. I said microevolution wasn't contrary to the Biblical kinds but macroevolution was. That wasn't even right, which I posted when I compared the two with the same images of the finch. Someone could have at least said, well maybe we should take a look at that. What is micro and macro? You can answer that question without giving an answer to my request. It doesn't matter what you call things, what's involved in them like genus, etc. Does the damn thing contradict the Biblical?

I haven't been showed anything. I never asked for an argument. There was no argument. It wasn't about creationism vs evolution. It was a simple question. Where does it contradict?

Fuck!

You didn’t refute a single example.

Why would I?! I said they don't contradict. You want me to argue a contradiction when there isn't one?

You didn’t address the core contradiction.

There was none outside of your mind.

You didn’t offer an alternative explanation.

The alternative explanation is that they don't constitute a contradiction. Evolution doesn't contradict the Bible outside of ideology. It's a perceived contradiction that doesn't exist for sociopolitical justification. Moral and intellectual cowardice. Stupidity.

You didn’t clarify your criteria.

Make me a list of all the ways I failed because you couldn't briefly answer a simple request you say you answered.

Jesus.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH

What odes biblical kinds have to do with the validity of creationism?

Biblical creationism is a belief as stated in the bible a god created everything and Adam and Eve.

Is there something else to it?

As to human existence the bible is inconsistent with archeology and paleontology .

 

[DLH]

Perfect! Years ago I was translating an archaic version of the Quran into modern English with notes [he said, with a certain smug self righteousness] and the translation used two words I thought were just funny as hell, due to, more than anything, just their archaic-ness. Niggardly and churlish.

The substitute teacher in the video, which I saw when it first aired on their show, I absolutely loved because it is EXACTLY my sense of humor. Or humour as you English speaking people would say. And ironically, that is pretty much the cheek I use in my subtle (?!) approach to discussions with atheists.

 

[DLH]

One of my most common positions to take in the atheist vs. theist debate is that atheists don't need a reason to reject God. They don't have to explain, justify, defend, or rationalize it. If there is a God it is perfectly acceptable to him without explanation. Atheists never get that because like almost everything these days, it's all ideology.

Why is it all ideology? Because of the Prussion form of educational system developed during the industrial revolution and adopted later in the US by people like Skinner. Their objective was to destroy whatever belief the student had, whetehr it be God, country, democracy. Whatever it was, so they don't believe in anything. That way they could instruct them on how to be mindless cogs in an industrial revolution.

 

[steve_bank]

Addled
1.
unable to think clearly; confused.
"this might just be my addled brain playing tricks"
2.
(of an egg) rotten.



not playing with a full deck
phrase of deck

informal•North American
mentally deficient.
"this guy has a screw loose—he wasn't playing with a full deck"

 

[DLH]

And those were fun classroom clips, but I think this one is more appropriate to what's happened here:




How do you like them apples?

Look, people. No more tomfoolery, no more ballyhoo.

 

[steve_bank]

Proverbs 1:5-7 New King James Version (NKJV) A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel, To understand a proverb and an enigma, The words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Do you fear god DLH?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The boundary of "kinds" could be interpreted as where fertility between different groups ceases, suggesting that while there can be significant variation within a kind, there's a natural limit to how far this variation can extend before it no longer ...

By the description of kinds provided, bacteria, viruses, anything that reproduces asexually would not be of a biblical kind. Likewise, self-pollinating plants would not be of a biblical kind. Also, based upon the above description, species would not be identical to kind. For instance, if neanderthals were a species different from humans, then, by the description provided, neanderthals and humans would be of the same kind - by necessity of the kind description. I take it that the idea of "fertility between different groups ceas[ing]" is supposed to allow for the possibility of macroevolution.

I am guessing that the challenge put forth with regards to macroevolution is not that the theory is flat out unreasonable. That is to say that the challenge sort of acknowledges the theory as reasonable speculation. I am guessing that the challenge is such that it is only to be met by an example of when and where and maybe even why "fertility between different groups ceased".

If my guesses are correct (or close enough), the challenge is set up to make matters such as microbial evolution and paleontology irrelevant. The challenge is not even to make macroevolution seem reasonable. The reasonableness is already admitted. Sort of. I guess.

 

[pood]

Your examples are not contradictory to the Biblical kinds. Note, that isn't to say they aren't contradictory to interpretations of creationism or evolutionary ideologues, but to the Biblical kinds themselves.

Calling bullshit on your nonsense is as easy as pie.

In addition to the fact that “kinds” as a classification scheme is NOT the same as modern taxonomy — meaning taxonomy alone does contradict kinds — that is not the issue, and you know it. You specifically DEFINED “kinds” as not undergoing macroevolution. What NHC, I, and others showed you, is that all living things, however you want to classify them, undergo macroevolution and speciation. In the OP, you specifically asked us to show you macroevolution. We gave you exactly what you asked for.

 

[pood]

I would add that I have read the bible, and to my knowledge it says nothing at all of evolution, micro or macro (which are really the same thing).

And this is not surprising. People back then didn’t know anything about evolution. How could they? Some thinkers in antiquity speculated about various kinds of possible evolution, which has been discussed, but none until Darwin hit on the key mechanism of natural selection to undergird it. And even he did not know about genetics and genetic drift, another propellant of evolutionary change, though he correctly speculated that his natural selection would not be the whole of the story.

Of course, people in biblical times could have known about evolution, if only Yay! Hovah, in all his majestic, ineffable nonexistence, had deigned to tell them.

 

[DLH]

The boundary of "kinds" could be interpreted as where fertility between different groups ceases, suggesting that while there can be significant variation within a kind, there's a natural limit to how far this variation can extend before it no longer ...

By the description of kinds provided, bacteria, viruses, anything that reproduces asexually would not be of a biblical kind.

Why not? If bacteria stay bacteria or germs, pathogen, while it evolves it wouldn't present as contradictory to the Biblical kinds. What criteria are you suggesting for the Biblical kind?

Likewise, self-pollinating plants would not be of a biblical kind.

If you plant self-pollinating plants they reproduce those self-pollinating plants.

Also, based upon the above description, species would not be identical to kind.

I think I pointed that out. I did once on a forum like this and they said it (the Biblical kind by my description) was species. I have pointed out the difference. I don't remember if I did it here. Between the biological species and the Biblical kind. I think there is a difference, but you have to realize, I'm just not conversant on the subject from either position because I was never interested enough to look at it closely from either side.

I could give you links of threads I've posted over the years on other forums saying just teach it to me and all it ever ends up being is an atheist tirade against God. As if that were its very essence. Honestly, I don't know or care. You can show me if you wish but don't think that will change me or my position. I don't care. I never will care. And that's about creationism as well as evolution.

For instance, if neanderthals were a species different from humans, then, by the description provided, neanderthals and humans would be of the same kind - by necessity of the kind description.

Which, it turns out, we Neanderthals are humans. Creative men of science that we are.



Anyway, I made the same point earlier. If evolution says that humans are apes and we evolved from apes that wouldn't constitute a contradiction with biblical kinds. Of course, as I pointed out, chimps don't reproduce fertile humans. Thus, the boundary of Biblical kinds and the difference between that and the biological term species.

I think. I don't know. I don't care. It's all ideological nonsense.

I take it that the idea of "fertility between different groups ceas[ing]" is supposed to allow for the possibility of macroevolution.

I am guessing that the challenge put forth with regards to macroevolution is not that the theory is flat out unreasonable. That is to say that the challenge sort of acknowledges the theory as reasonable speculation. I am guessing that the challenge is such that it is only to be met by an example of when and where and maybe even why "fertility between different groups ceased".

If my guesses are correct (or close enough), the challenge is set up to make matters such as microbial evolution and paleontology irrelevant.

No. First of all, it is all irrelevant to me. Creationism vs evolution. Nothing can make it more irrelevant.

SCIENCE DENIER!

Fuck off. Science, religion, ideology, theology denier. GUILTY. Idiot denier. Never take sides because you can be sure someone somewhere has fucked it up. Why add to that? Why take it away? It serves a purpose. Chaff and wheat. Chaff protects the grain and can be fed to the livestock. Get that analogy? Ideological fixation, like that of evolution vs creationism protects the wheat (truth) from the idiots who don't really care about it anyway. It's just blind ideological fixation. You feed that (nonsense) to the livestock (idiots). They love it.

Me? I don't care.

What were we talking about? Oh. I presented a simplistic request hoping for a simplistic answer. Evolutionists, those slippery heathens, change and interchange meanings. I should have left the term macroevolution out of it as I did in my take 2. Take 1 was ideology. Take 2 was truth. Same response, though.

If you get them to hate you, you can get them to argue against their own points just by claiming them for your own. Emotionally blinded to logic or reason.

This was a part of my evil, nefarious plan all along. [maniacal laugh] I don't know if I answered your question but I did type a fair amount.

The challenge is not even to make macroevolution seem reasonable. The reasonableness is already admitted. Sort of. I guess.

Sort of. 1. Science is important until it becomes religion which is only ideology, then it becomes much more important and profitable. 2. Fundamentalist militant atheism, the minority of atheism by a substantial margin, is in reality a sociopolitical frustration in a quasi-theocratic state. 3. Stand back. 4. Let 'em work it out amongst themselves, destroying one another in the process. 5. Then inherit the earth and live forever in peace and quiet upon it.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Why not? If bacteria stay bacteria or germs, pathogen, while it evolves it wouldn't present as contradictory to the Biblical kinds.

It was the "between" in "fertility between different groups" that seemed to make kinds inapplicable to microbes and self-pollinating plants.