• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
*SD* said:
So? How is that in any way different from saying "I won't accept anything because we don't know everything so I'm going to believe in this other thing for which I have no evidence instead" ?
Click to expand...
I think this is a great question. But even if believed we evolved from simple molecules I would not honestly be able to explain what evidence I thought I had to you. To explain evidence for a deity would be even a more complex task. About the only thing I can really do is tell you that my belief in a creator is my "best guess"
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
*SD* said:
Are you willing to undertake this task?
Click to expand...
The only purpose It could possibly serve would be to boost my own ego. It's not as if I see all you guys as evil demons that I need to conquer. I can only strongly suggest to you the possibility that we were created to have an eternal soul, and that you should be skeptical of anything else I tell you besides that.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
hackenslash said:
When you understand properly how science operates on the working side of a lab door, you'll understand why this is an absolutely preposterous objection.

An individual scientist might succumb to such human foibles, but science does not. In particular, every expert in the same field as the scientist WANTS HIM TO BE WRONG, and will work really hard to prove he is. Indeed, the vast majority of scientists really want to find something that massively contradicts what's gone before. In terms of evolution, you'd be the most famous human in history, past, present and for a very long time in the future, if you proved Darwin wrong in any substantive way.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah right, scientists are a magical group of people who can only provide truth and goodwill towards all mankind. I have no reason at all to believe anything you have said here. You must have been reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy last night and then woke up and posted this.

THE WORLD DOES NOT FUCKING WORK LIKE THIS! You KNOW it doesn't. Aron Ra knows is doesnt! Do you think Aron Ra believes everyone who goes to court should plead guilty because the state presents evidence? You guys are talking nonsense!

Scientist are people who will lie, cheat and steal to keep their jobs, same as most of us. We do that because we need money to survive! Governments use scientists to create a better image for those who are in power and to prevent others from taking power from them.

How is it that you think any part of your above statement could possibly be real?
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
hackenslash said:
What is it about life, in particular, that you think is worth picking up on? Do you have the same incredulity when it comes to things like condensates and plasmas?
Click to expand...
That is a good question. I don't believe you would lie to me when explaining electric plasma to me. For some reason I tend to see you as a pretty honest person. I know this does not really answer your question.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="ldmitruk"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
That is a good question. I don't believe you would lie to me when explaining electric plasma to me. For some reason I tend to see you as a pretty honest person. I know this does not really answer your question.
Click to expand...
But you don't trust scientists that study evolution? That doesn't make sense
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
Scientist are people who will lie, cheat and steal to keep their jobs, same as most of us. We do that because we need money to survive! Governments use scientists to create a better image for those who are in power and to prevent others from taking power from them.
Click to expand...
As do many but in science you post your findings your studies etc so that the next person can recreate everything you did. If its repeated the studie is good if not the scientist is called out for explanation. That is the beauty of science if you say something you will need to provide evidence to support the claim. But in religion i can tell bullshit stories and i will never be held accountable.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Led Zeppelin said:
I think this is a great question. But even if believed we evolved from simple molecules
Click to expand...

That's the same mistake as John's making.

We didn't evolve from simple molecules.


Led Zeppelin said:
I would not honestly be able to explain what evidence I thought I had to you. To explain evidence for a deity would be even a more complex task. About the only thing I can really do is tell you that my belief in a creator is my "best guess"
Click to expand...

It's also not your best guess. You believed it prior to making a guess. You were introduced to the concept of the Christian God long before you were able to conceive of, or consider the vastly more complex and evidence-based naturalistic explanation.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Sparhafoc said:
You were introduced to the concept of the Christian God long before you were able to conceive of, or consider the vastly more complex and evidence-based naturalistic explanation.
Click to expand...
This is very true. I think many other creationists are afraid to admit that.
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
AronRa said:
The troll calls me a name that he knows is not mine, and challenges us to show where he was dishonest.

The original agreement, which you can read here, was as follows:

Now, however, he says he has "zero interest" in answering any of my questions, and that he never intended to. We agreed to "a couple dozen mutual exchanges", but he now says it was only twelve, none of which have yet happened because he broke the first and most important rule on the excuse that he says that whether two species are biologically related or not is not a yes or no question. Yet he says I'm the one who failed this challenge, and he blames his own deplorable behavior on a projection of his own arrogance onto me. Very disappointing even from a creationist!
Click to expand...
No Susan. I am NO LONGER interested in answering your questions because you're a tosser. And I never said "I never Intended to"
Show us where I said that?
Yes , I said a dozen exchanges. It was a Couple dozen. Ok. I remembered it wrong. It's not like I saved that shit. Didn't consider remembering the exact number of exchanges as overly important. Lol
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
ATTENTION EVERYONE.
I have a new challenge. It's for Aron.
* Aron. Some time ago there was a debate. It was between a guy who calls himself NephilimFree and another man. If I remember correctly it was on the nonsequiter show or hosted by someone from that show. You then rang into the show. You started calling the NephilimFree person "dickless" or "dicklessfree". Just attack no conversation.
You weren't even in the debate. So, was he not answering your questions? Was he acting deplorable or projecting? Or are you just exactly what I say you are ? ".

For the rest of you guys. This is a true story. This is the kind of person your beloved Larry is.
I will find the video. I just remembered this and wanted to put it out there.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
JohnHeintz said:
Yes. Because I believe that was his name. I could be mistaken. That's very different than DISHONEST.
Click to expand...
You got that from listening to Hovind.
JohnHeintz said:
L. Aron Nelson. What does the L stand for then ? So you've shown ..... nothing.
Click to expand...
It does not stand for Larry, and you got Larry from Hovind. So that shows that you were lying about not being influenced by religion.

Beyond that, I already showed where you were lying in this very thread.
We are Borg said:
What is weird is that only creationists call him Larry or Lawrence but never other people.
Click to expand...
They all get it from Hovind.
We are Borg said:
What’s interesting is that all creationists start the challenge but never can answer simple questions because they know they will fail. Do they know just enough or do they no nothing at all.
Click to expand...
They know enough that their doublethink starts to turn into cognitive dissonance. That is why they always fail.
JohnHeintz said:
For the rest of you guys. This is a true story. This is the kind of person your beloved Larry is.
Click to expand...
NephilimFree is a dickhead.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
JohnHeintz said:
ATTENTION EVERYONE.
I have a new challenge. It's for Aron.
* Aron. Some time ago there was a debate. It was between a guy who calls himself NephilimFree and another man. If I remember correctly it was on the nonsequiter show or hosted by someone from that show. You then rang into the show. You started calling the NephilimFree person "dickless" or "dicklessfree". Just attack no conversation.
You weren't even in the debate. So, was he not answering your questions? Was he acting deplorable or projecting? Or are you just exactly what I say you are ? ".

For the rest of you guys. This is a true story. This is the kind of person your beloved Larry is.
I will find the video. I just remembered this and wanted to put it out there.
Click to expand...


John - you've been given more than ample chances by everyone here. Yet you insist on trolling everyone. Do you think this reflects on other people somehow, or just on you?
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
You got that from listening to Hovind.

It does not stand for Larry, and you got Larry from Hovind. So that shows that you were lying about not being influenced by religion.

Beyond that, I already showed where you were lying in this very thread.

They all get it from Hovind.

They know enough that their doublethink starts to turn into cognitive dissonance. That is why they always fail.

NephilimFree is a dickhead.
Click to expand...
Not a big thinker are you ? You know that "Larry" comes from Hovind saying it. Are you influenced by religion? Or have you watched Kent Hovind before ?
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
Sparhafoc said:
John - you've been given more than ample chances by everyone here. Yet you insist on trolling everyone. Do you think this reflects on other people somehow, or just on you?
Click to expand...
I have no idea how what you have written is a response to what I wrote.
I'm demonstrating that Susan Nelson talks to people like shit. That he's an arrogant tool. That's not trolling.
I'm doing this so you guys can sit back and think. Was John's intention to not answer the questions? Or was Larry /Susan/ whatever being an unreasonable douchebag? So John had enough and told him to get stuffed?
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
AronRa said:
Yet you admit that you deny the facts that can be objectively demonstrated.
Led Zepplin said:
I never said that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Then someone hacked into your account a day or two ago and posted the following in your name:

"As a Creationist, I am a bit disappointed that John does not want to respond. My answer would have been that I reject evidence of common ancestry. That's why I am a creationist."

You said that you deny evidence. Evidence is a body of facts, objectively verifiable data. Like I said, creationists have to deny reality, which you already admit that you do.
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Someone is triggered.
Click to expand...
You should have stopped after you admitted that you're not a big thinker.
It's all we really need to know.
Not that you had to confirm it. We all knew when you're response to Larry attacking NephilimFree for absolutely no reason was....."he's a dickhead". You must be the scholar of the group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top