From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/28/2025 12:07 AM, jillery wrote:   
   > Here's a link to a 32-minute Youtube video I found both entertaining   
   > and informative:   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > Sponsored by Center For Inquiry.  Forrest Valkai identifies specific   
   > examples of some standard Creationist anti-evolution arguments, and   
   > then gives his answers to them.  For those allergic to clicking on   
   > Youtube videos, here are his first few examples:   
   >   
   >     ***   
   >   
   > @2:47 Is it just me or is it impossible to line up animals in the way   
   > they "evolved"?   
      
   Could be one of the reasons why the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy,   
   that were given in the order in which they must have occurred in this   
   universe, killed ID-creationism on TO.  It is why Sewell dropped the   
   flagellum as a designed machine and the Cambrian explosion out of the   
   Top Six.  IDiots can't deal with the fact that life evolved on this   
   planet in a different order than that depicted in the Bible.  For YEC   
   there was no period of time over a billion years ago when bacteria were   
   evolving the flagellum.  There was no Cambrian explosion over half a   
   billion years ago that resulted in a multitude of sea creatures over a   
   hundred million years before land plants evolved.  The Biblical order of   
   creation doesn't match up with what actually happened.  The angiosperm   
   plants described in the Bible were not created before sea creatures.   
   They were created after terrestrial tetrapod vertebrates had evolved,   
   and after Dinos were walking around.   
      
   As written this isn't the usual creationist argument against evolution.   
   It is a no brainer that you can just take the human lineage and work   
   back through the types of animals that would have needed to exist.   
   Humans then apes, then monkeys, then prosimians, and then primates like   
   tree shrews.  Normally they have the argument about why these obvious   
   links still exist.  "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still   
   monkeys?"  I do recall the claim that we can't line up evolutionary   
   examples from existing species.  There has always been the fossil gap   
   stupidity, but the claim is that things like apes and monkeys should not   
   exist if evolution were true.  Creationists do not understand the   
   concept of descent with modification from a common ancestor.   
      
   >   
   > @3:36 So, if we're taking that view of Darwinism we can ask how could   
   > something like this, something like a mouse trap, be put together one   
   > tiny step at a time?   
      
   The failure of IC was likely one of the main reasons why the ID perps   
   decided to start running the Bait and switch instead of teach their "ID   
   science" in the public schools.  The ID perps already knew that their   
   junk like gaps in the fossil record, fine tuning, and Cambrian explosion   
   god-of-the-gaps denial had already failed as scientific creationism.   
      
   >   
   > @3:48 There are transitions within kinds but not from one kind to   
   > another kind.  A cat doesn't evolve into a dog or vice versa.   
      
   Just a failure to understand descent with modification from a common   
   ancestor.  Carnivores like cats and dogs evolved from hooved mammals.   
      
   >   
   > @3:56 Both humans and squid have a lens that projects an image onto a   
   > retina.  That means that a very similar eye had to evolve twice.   
      
   The creationist denial is that the eye could not have evolved.  It is   
   the science side that has noted that the camera lens eye has evolved   
   independently twice, and that mollusca (squids) have a better designed   
   eye.  The vertebrate eye started to evolve in cordates, and their simple   
   brains were organized with the support cells for photoreceptors in   
   front.  This created forward pointed photoreceptors to have the support   
   cells on the wrong side.  The support cells and blood vessels created a   
   layer in front of the photoreceptors, and a blind spot was needed to be   
   created in order to get this backwards network to the rear of the eye.   
   For mollusca the support cells and blood vessels evolved to be behind   
   the photoreceptors so that no blind spot was needed to be created.  So   
   the eyes evolved independently, and we know that in cordates with   
   rudimentary "eyes" with no lens or eye structure, they have the support   
   cells in front of the photoreceptor cells.  So the position of the   
   support cells was just an accident of evolution in the ancestors of   
   vertebrates.   
      
   >   
   > @4:04 No way! An eye is so amazing!  It seems impossible that it could   
   > have evolved in the first place.  But now they believe it happened   
   > twice?  Yep, that would be impossible times two.   
      
   This is the usual eye argument.   
      
   >   
   > @4:15 The discovery of information at the foundation of life in even   
   > the simplest living cells provides strong grounds for inferring that a   
   > designing intelligence played a role in the origin of life.   
      
   Gap denial that is still in use by creationists like MarkE, but the Top   
   Six means that the origin of life on earth is not Biblical.  MarkE found   
   this out when he was trying to define the gap well enough to claim that   
   life could not have originated on this earth by natural means.  Just   
   what he put together meant that the Bible was wrong about the origin of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)