Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[tyrantqueen]

What is the point of this? I don't think there is anyone on the board who seriously denies that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

[thelordsgym]

Actually I don't buy that theory for one second...but that's me, I've done a lot more research on this topic than I care to discuss. I will never buy into that whole deal of one species evolving into another, regardless of how people interpret evidence.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[suspsy]

Actually I don't buy that theory for one second...but that's me, I've done a lot more research on this topic than I care to discuss. I will never buy into that whole deal of one species evolving into another, regardless of how people interpret evidence.

Given that speciation has been observed and documented on numerous occasions, I'd say that you haven't done ANY proper research whatsoever on this topic. Heck, even prominent creationist groups like Answers in Genesis have been forced to admit that speciation is real.

Like so many other hopeless creationists, no evidence would ever convince you that you're wrong, and hence your objection to evolution is based purely on misguided faith, not science.

Sad.

[Patrx]

Great TetZoo article, feel free to keep discussing it. However, please curtail the creationist debate stuff; maybe take it to PMs.

[thelordsgym]

Suspsy, I don't really care what your opinion on this is, and I don't care to discuss this topic any further unless you are willing to meet me and discuss this face to face, not behind a computer where you are safe to belch off anything you wish. Respect my beliefs because they are founded on profound research and off many evidences that most don't even consider. And also don't assume that we who don't believe in evolution are stupid or deceived, because I have looked at both sides of this topic extensively, and concluded that evolution is not where I will place any credibility. You are welcome to PM me, but don't be disrespectful just because I don't happen to agree with the majority here. I am sure there are few more of us on this forum that believe the same as me, but they are most likely more reserved.
And in all reality, I joined this forum to discuss, commission the talented to paint, and trade dinosaur and extinct mammal toys, not to discuss origins. I only chimed in because it was mentioned that all believe in evolution, specifically that birds came from dinosaurs.

[suspsy]

Suspsy, I don't really care what your opinion on this is, and I don't care to discuss this topic any further unless you are willing to meet me and discuss this face to face, not behind a computer where you are safe to belch off anything you wish.

You're the one who boasted that no evidence would ever convince you that you're wrong about evolution. If you don't care to discuss the topic, then don't respond in the first place.

Respect my beliefs because they are founded on profound research and off many evidences that most don't even consider.

Nope. Respect is earned, not freely given. There's no more reason to respect denying evolution any more than there is to respect denying that the planet is round and that it revolves around the sun. And again, the fact that you proclaimed that speciation doesn't exist, in spite of the fact that the evidence for it is so overwhelming that major creationist organizations have been forced to admit as much, strongly indicates that you have NOT done the proper research.

And also don't assume that we who don't believe in evolution are stupid or deceived, because I have looked at both sides of this topic extensively, and concluded that evolution is not where I will place any credibility.

Which again only demonstrates that you haven't done proper research into evolution at all. But then, very few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence for evolution even exists, let alone that it is profoundly strong. Todd Wood is one of the very few exceptions.

Oh, and nobody "believes" in evolution. Rather, one understands and accepts the scientific evidence for it. Science is not based upon belief.

You are welcome to PM me, but don't be disrespectful just because I don't happen to agree with the majority here.

You haughtily proclaim that speciation doesn't exist, then get into a huff when I call you on it. You declare  that you don't care what I think and that you don't care to discuss anything further, then invite me to PM you. You're being hopelessly self-contradictory here.

And while I have no doubt that I would trounce you in any debate about science or Scripture (I am not some angry atheist), you've already admitted that no evidence would ever convince you, so what would be the point?

And in all reality, I joined this forum to discuss, commission the talented to paint, and trade dinosaur and extinct mammal toys, not to discuss origins. I only chimed in because it was mentioned that all believe in evolution, specifically that birds came from dinosaurs.

Again, if you don't wish to discuss science, then you shouldn't have responded in the first place.

[BlueKrono]

Sigh... This makes me think we couldn't even agree on this forum that the Earth is round or that water is wet. Tempers don't seem to flare as much when we keep discussion to just toy figures. Are we really going to end up not being able to discuss paleontological news since even the most reasonable assertions get met with dissent and outrage?

[Gwangi]

Flat earthers still exist so BANDits don't surprise me. Thankfully they're a dying breed, as are the few holdouts that ascribe to any of these non-sense fringe science beliefs. Even compared to when I first joined this place the number of people that deny the dinosaur-bird connection has dropped dramatically. We don't have debates about feathered dinosaurs anymore, we have debates about which dinosaurs had feathers. Progress marches on, even if slowly at times. I think Fedducia and company have done about as much damage as they can. Soon they'll fade into obscurity.

[Loon]

Flat earthers still exist so BANDits don't surprise me. Thankfully they're a dying breed, as are the few holdouts that ascribe to any of these non-sense fringe science beliefs. Even compared to when I first joined this place the number of people that deny the dinosaur-bird connection has dropped dramatically. We don't have debates about feathered dinosaurs anymore, we have debates about which dinosaurs had feathers. Progress marches on, even if slowly at times. I think Fedducia and company have done about as much damage as they can. Soon they'll fade into obscurity.

Yeah, always gives me a little hope for humanity when you see that some sort of social selection is making these anti-science types an endangered species. Creationists, flat-earthers, climate change deniers, etc., all seem to be in a decline, which I think is a good sign, but you'll always have a few floaters hanging around.

Few remember the names of those who persecuted and called Galileo a liar, but the astronomer is one of the most celebrated figures in history for challenging dogma. Unfortunately, Feduccia and these creationists all see themselves as defying the "dogma" of evolution; intrepid free-thinkers and "skeptics" who think they are "censored" because they are wrong. They only have one form of attack towards evolution, and it comes from ignorance, not honest inquiry. These people, as loud as they are now, will be forgotten, not due to censorship, but intellectual progress. Unfortunately, man will always be an irrational animal and will cower behind fragments of the past in the face of an ever-changing future.

[suspsy]

Emily Willoughby summed it up very well in the interview she did for Dinosaur Art II:

One of my mentors growing up told me that scientists rarely change their minds—they just die off. I am confident that in a few decades, the BANDit movement will be more of less relegated to the dustbin of forgotten failed hypotheses.

For someone like Alan Feduccia to admit now that birds are indeed dinosaurs would be to admit that he has spent a vast chunk of his life defending a failed hypothesis. That doesn't change or excuse the fact that he and the other BANDits are wrong, but it's understandable why they are so determined to deny that.

[stargatedalek]

That BANDit claims have changed from "birds aren't dinosaurs" to "maniraptorans or potentially coelurosaurs aren't dinosaurs" just goes to show how desperate the concept is for any vaguely plausible evidence they can grasp.

At this point "birds are not dinosaurs" is sounding more like "dinosaurs aren't ornithodirans".


There is a big difference between creationism and young earth belief. Most formal creationist organizations acknowledge and recognize evolution as correct while questioning the initial origins of life. Even Darwin acknowledged the plausibility of an initial intelligent origin for life, but the concept of the earth and all life being designed individually in a period of days is generally considered metaphorical by most formal religious organizations.

[Loon]

That BANDit claims have changed from "birds aren't dinosaurs" to "maniraptorans or potentially coelurosaurs aren't dinosaurs" just goes to show how desperate the concept is for any vaguely plausible evidence they can grasp.

At this point "birds are not dinosaurs" is sounding more like "dinosaurs aren't ornithodirans".


There is a big difference between creationism and young earth belief. Most formal creationist organizations acknowledge and recognize evolution as correct while questioning the initial origins of life. Even Darwin acknowledged the plausibility of an initial intelligent origin for life, but the concept of the earth and all life being designed individually in a period of days is generally considered metaphorical by most formal religious organizations.

Isn't young earth belief a form of creationism? I think you mean Intelligent Design, which likes to pretend it isn't creationism, despite its roots. The age of the earth plays little into the broader definition of creationism, which is "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."  Creationism, as Darwin put it, is simply a rejection of evolution, for a belief in the biblical account of the divine creation of the current form of any given animal. Of course, there are outliers, like Michael Behe, who believes humans and the other apes share ancestry, yet does not go further than that; but, they mostly believe in the creation of organisms in their current state. I doubt any "Creationist" organizations accept evolution, it's kind of the reason they are a Creationist organization. Most more "progressive" religious organizations(The Vatican, some religious universities, etc.) take the Genesis 1 account of the creation to be metaphorical and do believe in evolution, and the big bang, etc. However, I think you may be confusing creationism/intelligent design as believing in a god when most modern Christians would be insulted by being compared to the actions of these fundamentalists.

Note: This is not here to bash anyone's religious beliefs, I honestly don't care, just felt like I should clarify.

[thelordsgym]

Ok Suspsy, there is very little fruit to be had here. Your attitude is a huge turn off, and you are not educating or proving anything here. When people are brainwashed, they can interpret evidence any way you want...but even Darwin admitted in his book The origin of species by means of natural selection in Chapter VI, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
Now again, you can run your mouth/keyboard as much as you want, but I seriously doubt you can back any of it up. This conversation has gotten old really fast, I like the other responses, which are well thought out and articulated well, but not yours. You have zero tact or professionalism, and I will not waste any more time on this.

[suspsy]

Ok Suspsy, there is very little fruit to be had here. Your attitude is a huge turn off, and you are not educating or proving anything here.

You're the one who erroneously insisted that speciation is false, then declared that you refused to discuss anything any further. Again, it would be greatly appreciated if you made up your mind already. And again, why should I even bother to educate you when you've stated clearly that no evidence would ever sway you?

When people are brainwashed, they can interpret evidence any way you want...but even Darwin admitted in his book The origin of species by means of natural selection in Chapter VI, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Really? This is nothing but quote mining, and it's dishonest on your part. Allow me to post the entire quotation from Darwin:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Now again, you can run your mouth/keyboard as much as you want, but I seriously doubt you can back any of it up.

You mean aside from shooting down your above attempt at quote mining? Moreover, you are aware, are you not, that the theory of evolution does not rest solely upon Darwin's long dead shoulders? There have been numerous discoveries and developments since the publication of The Origin of Species. It is quite futile to attack Darwin these days.

This conversation has gotten old really fast, I like the other responses, which are well thought out and articulated well, but not yours. You have zero tact or professionalism, and I will not waste any more time on this.

That's quite fine by me.

[Loon]

Ok Suspsy, there is very little fruit to be had here. Your attitude is a huge turn off, and you are not educating or proving anything here. When people are brainwashed, they can interpret evidence any way you want...but even Darwin admitted in his book The origin of species by means of natural selection in Chapter VI, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
Now again, you can run your mouth/keyboard as much as you want, but I seriously doubt you can back any of it up. This conversation has gotten old really fast, I like the other responses, which are well thought out and articulated well, but not yours. You have zero tact or professionalism, and I will not waste any more time on this.

This has been disproven, multiple times. If you have done as much "research" as you claim, you would know this. This is one of the most common creationist claims, and I'm sure actual academics are honestly quite tired of it. Here's the thing,  we dont care what Darwin said(outside of a historical context, of course), he's dead. He has been dead for almost 150 years, his words aside from beginning modern evolutionary thought mean nothing. Darwin was wrong  about a lot of stuff; however, what he was wrong about was proven wrong, not by creationists, but by other evolutionary scientists who took the time to do the research, they are not "brainwashed" like you think. And please, do not call suspy's attitude unproffesional, he showed the upmost respect towards you, he did not insult you (which you seem to have found fit to do to him), he rubuked your claims. This interpreting the evidence thing creationists like to do so much is such an insult to the actual scientists who, unlike them, only start with a wanting to know the truth. To qoute the bible, "'For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.' (NASB, Ecclesiastes 3:18-19)."


Here are a few links:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMpdyn8cPXAhWKgVQKHZ_xC-UQFgguMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2F15-answers-to-creationist%2F&usg=AOvVaw2F1VHcOR0c4rlwSScrJqKs

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMpdyn8cPXAhWKgVQKHZ_xC-UQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnalc.org%2Fview%2F16982-The-Eye-and-Irreducible-Complexity-Creationism-Debunked.html&usg=AOvVaw1v8brcSciXiYDwNZ9yp-A0

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

EDIT: Dang, suspy beat me to it!

[Faelrin]

Honestly Anchiornis is probably my favorite example of the bird dinosaur connection: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/anchiornissofttissue I mean, I seriously look at that wing meat and just have to wonder if they would have tasted like chicken.

There's also Microraptor, Zhenyuanlong, Confuciornis, Archaeopteryx, those bird wings in amber. Even ostrich wings might be a good example since ostriches still retain claws (as do their relatives). Bird feet are totally theropod feet. I mean just look at a duck's foot (ignoring the webbing). I made that connection years ago before I was interested in prehistoric creatures again, just from caring for a duckling, and looking at its feet. Probably dozens of other fossil examples out there too that I forgot to mention, or just am not aware about. Regardless the point is, there's just so much out there right now that it is painfully obvious there is a connection between modern birds and prehistoric theropods.

[stargatedalek]

Isn't young earth belief a form of creationism? I think you mean Intelligent Design, which likes to pretend it isn't creationism, despite its roots. The age of the earth plays little into the broader definition of creationism, which is "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."  Creationism, as Darwin put it, is simply a rejection of evolution, for a belief in the biblical account of the divine creation of the current form of any given animal. Of course, there are outliers, like Michael Behe, who believes humans and the other apes share ancestry, yet does not go further than that; but, they mostly believe in the creation of organisms in their current state. I doubt any "Creationist" organizations accept evolution, it's kind of the reason they are a Creationist organization. Most more "progressive" religious organizations(The Vatican, some religious universities, etc.) take the Genesis 1 account of the creation to be metaphorical and do believe in evolution, and the big bang, etc. However, I think you may be confusing creationism/intelligent design as believing in a god when most modern Christians would be insulted by being compared to the actions of these fundamentalists.

Note: This is not here to bash anyone's religious beliefs, I honestly don't care, just felt like I should clarify.

I had always thought that the belief in a universe created or guided (even broadly) by a creator was called creationism since a lot of religions don't include the concept of an intelligent creator. But I guess at that point something so broad might rather just vary by organization rather than needing a word at all. Nice to know at least someone learned something from all of this!

[Loon]

I had always thought that the belief in a universe created or guided (even broadly) by a creator was called creationism since a lot of religions don't include the concept of an intelligent creator. But I guess at that point something so broad might rather just vary by organization rather than needing a word at all. Nice to know at least someone learned something from all of this!

Yeah, belief in a god is, in itself, a spectrum. A lot of religions lack a godhead, and are more broadly just doctrines/spiritual paths, i.e. Buddhism. I believe what you confused creationism with was just plain theism, the belief in a god which adheres to certain religious doctrines, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism. Theism is usually viewed by most modern Christians as compatible with evolution, and these same individuals are usually strong opponents of creationism/intelligent design, i.e. Robert Bakker. Creationism is usually a strict fundamentalist doctrine, based on literal interpretations of the first Genesis creation account; it's one of those many things that is an individual thing, rather than a necessary religious belief, like the resurrection of Christ. The belief in a creator that just created the universe and does not interfere with it is usually referred to as deism, which is not religious, just spiritual. Similar is the belief that a "god" created the universe and eventually became one with it, as in god and nature are one in the same, this is called Pantheism. This is usually referred to as Spinoza's god, the same invoked by Einstein, Sagan, etc. when referring to the nature of reality itself.  This god is more symbolic, which Richard Dawkins (funny he shows up in a thread about denying evolutionary processes) summed rather interestingly, calling it "sexed-up atheism." Just figured I'd clarify a bit more, if you already knew any of this, sorry for droning, just find this stuff really interesting despite my own lack of affiliation.
 

[Halichoeres]

@thelordsgym: I was raised in a pretty religious household, in a sect that interprets Genesis literally in most respects. In fact, I was groomed to be a missionary. I always had an interest in nature, though, so I had to reconcile the fossil record, and DNA, and all of that, with what I'd been taught. I went through a series of compromises until eventually I had to give up the ghost. As the (observant Orthodox Christian) biologist Theodosius Dobzhandsky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Having earnestly been on both sides, and now with a PhD in biology, I'd be happy to hash out any questions if you're willing to present any evidence you feel supports your claims. I have sympathy for your position--I probably held some version of it once upon a time.