Evolution would have you believe that we evolve to survive, this is a lie. If it were true that we evolve to survive we would never develop a sense of a constant, something which science bases itself on. That is why you must believe in Creationism.
47 comments
I think he's saying that the fact that we believe certain things to always be true must come from a creator. Since science always changes, it can't explain the fact that some things remain constant.
But still, WTF?
I get it now. If evil-ution is true, then there cannot be a constant c because photons mate and have litters of baby photons, which have to move faster than the other photons in order to catch whatever it that photons eat. I've seen the (ahem) light.
"Evolution would have you believe that we evolve to survive, this is a lie. In a sense, yes. We don't evolve to survive more than a waterfall throws water of a cliff to the village below to keep people from dying of thirst.
Nature has no purpose or plan. Evolution "just happens" like waterfalls, snow crystal formation, and death do.
If it were true that we evolve to survive we would never develop a sense of a constant [...] And yet we do. We give each "step" of evolution a name and describe it.
That is why you must believe in Creationism. Wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, evolution says nothing about how we came to be. Second of all, even if it did and it was proven false, there's still no concrete, rational evidence of Creationism.
Constant, yes, as if you´re a baby and remind you all your life, or history, or butterflies which haven´t been crysalids or larvae.
That is why you must believe in Creationism.
Can't I just believe in humans being brought here from aliens instead?
So is this yahoo playing definitional games with the word "constant" or what? (And in any case, although fundies as a general rule don't get the proper scientific definition of evolution to begin with, if evolution isn't about survival, why are wolves as a general rule in such trouble while coyotes are everywhere?)
"Evolution would have you believe that we evolve to survive, this is a lie. If it were true that we evolve to survive we would never develop a sense of a constant, something which science bases itself on. That is why you must believe in Creationism." - Gottservant
Your arguement has made me believe that you are full of walrus poop, this is a fact. If it is true that you are indeed full of walrus poop, you would never develop a sense of a commonality (sic), something which you pretend to base yourself on. That is why you must shut the bloody fuck up. Thankyou... next.
The Jamo wrote:
A constant is an abstract that is possible to conceptualise through our imaginations. Our imaginations are a product of evolution that allow us to operate within our environment more effectively and efficiently.
Don't bother arguing with Gottservant. I'll bet you dollars to donut-holes that he honest-to-God [sic] cannot grasp the survival value of mentally treating some things in a pre-historic environment as unchanging. That would require him to actually understand evolution, after all, and his pastor told him he's not allowed to do that.
I think why he fails in logic here is that they think everything survives. It's one of their mindsets, one that allows for constants like nothing died once long ago.
Logic derail
probable cause:
Dogma or religious indoctranation.
I've seen a few posts on this creationist concept lately. Y'see the creationist always say the universe is perfect, completely balanced and planned that way by God. That's bad enough but they also claim scientists confirm this and that's a straight out lie.
The regular, nearly clockwork appearance of our systems planets are controlled by gravitational forces but they aren't constant, they tug or push at each other, change is the only constant.
“If it were true that we evolve to survive we would never develop a sense of a constant,”
You’re an idiot. The individual does not evolve. That’s a basic tenet of evolutionary theory which you claim you can lecture us about.
We can certainly develop a ‘sense of a constant,’ whatever the fuck that means, in each individual, even though the long-term outlook for the gene pool is in flux.
Two completely separate issues. Proving one does not impact or preclude the other.
"something which science bases itself on.”
You’re in a poor position to think you can tell anyone else what science is, needs, or does.
And it’s not really our ‘sense’ of constancy which is science, it’s just that science uses constants and variables, because we’ve observed both.
“That is why you must believe in Creationism.”
Actually, this mismash of bullshit is exactly why we reject creationism. You started with this conclusion and select evidence you think leads to it.
You’re wrong.
And still stupid.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.