From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:47:46 -0500, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
      
   God knows the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally ;-)   
      
      
   >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.   
      
      
   Only God knows why this essay didn't make Behe crawl back into his   
   irreducibly complex mouse hole.   
      
      
      
      
   >> @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.   
      
      
   It's also an evolutionary strawman;  no crocoducks need apply.   
      
       
   >> @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.   
      
      
   As if incredulity was evidence for anything but itself.   
      
       
   >> @4:15 The discovery of information at the foundation of life in even   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)