Arguments of a creationist?

[WhiteLion]

This person claimes to not be a creationist, believing somewhat in evolution, when it fits her agenda... furthermore I think it's obvious she's a flaming anti-semite.
Her replies below to my comments, mine are in brackets.

[I asked if her human ancestors didn't have ancestors themselves as well "Ok, so they didn't have ancestors themselves?"]

"Sure they did, but only human ancestors. I don't fall for the Jewish "common origin" lie. Like begets like. I just dont buy into the "we were once negroids, apes or one cell ameboa" crock."

[No that's actually not a very correct argument]

"Sure it is. Just as how a white couple can have a black child due to some black genetics in the blood from 5 generations ago. Or how someone looks like a spitting-image of their grandfather. Throw-backs do happen so why not any ape-like ones? Because we didn't come from apes."

[We all look "apish" in a sense, we have many resemblences to primates.]

"But we're not primates. So why didn't they "evolve"? Dogs and cats walk on four feet but they're not from a "common origin" either. What resemblences? There are no apes that can stand erect and walk like humans."

[We also share a lot of genetic structure with apes, due to all apes, humanoids etc all hailing from primates which, if you trace it back far enough, you'll find a common ancestor]

"Then humans and apes should be able to interbreed with no difficulty. "Scientists" have not been able to find any transitional bones that link us to the primates."

[Perhaps you do not believe the ancestor to dogs were wolf animals?]

"And Im still waiting for the evolutionists to prove we came from apes. They cant even prove modern birds came from the pterodactyl."

[So if one has a common ancestor one has to look alike? React alike etc?]

"Yep, because that actually makes sense. Don't you resemble your parents?"

[As if evolution stopped long time ago? Sorry but that's not correct either.
Also we do share a lot of immunative dieseases with other races.]

" it never started either. You explain how dinosaurs came from one cell beings. Sharing diseases, yet don't share all and I seriously doubt you're going to encourage race mixing if you think were "all alike" either."
---------------------------

Hmmm, never heard such irrational arguments on evolution before from a person who doesn't believe in creationism.
Are there more ideological branches out there?

[WhiteLion]

Isn't it a typical creationist argument to throw out the old "there are no transitional bones between primates and humans" etc?
Obviously a fraduelent argument.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate

However, I'm interested how people, not being creationist, can share the same logical fallacies of inquiry and selective interpretation.
Creationist at least, put their religious faith above scientific discourse but... being anti-evolution and not out of a faith-based conduct is a bit fascinating, it never occured to me that there might have been one or two out there.:boggled:

[Beady]

Here's one of my posts from another thread. It pertains to the OP, here.


"Originally Posted by Rasmus http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1827600#post1827483):
Of course, the whole question seems to assume that a single look wouldn't convince even the most cynic sceptic that he was facing a genuine alien."


Ever notice how, with some exceptions, almost all animals have similar anatomy? In all basic essentials, there's virtually no difference between, say, the face of a primate and that of an insect. Then, vertebrates have similar organs which are arranged in similar positions. If you look at the bones of a whale's flipper you can almost see a human hand. And so on. I'm told it's all evidence of some very basic shared DNA, and therefore of common ancestry somewhere in history.

What might an alien, who shares no ancestry or DNA with any earth creature, look like?

Also, your "friend's" statement, if accurately quoted, that we are not primates is dead wrong. As is her assertion that there's no resemblence between cats and dogs, which essentially differ in only the details. And so on. In fact, her statements contain so many inaccuracies that it's difficult to write an organized rebuttal. Looks to me like you've got 'hold of your stereotypical bigot, and you might as well just let her go.

[Cuddles]

So when she claims to believe in evolution, which bits does she believe? Having discounted a common origin or any relation between species there doesn't seem to be much left.

[gfunkusarelius]

reminds me of the poeple who call in to conservative radio shows and say "i am a democrat, but you are making a lot of sense" and then proceeds to spout a bunch of conservative beliefs (or vice versa). i think she is stating she isnt "on our side" so that she can have a different angle on her attacks. as if to say "i have always believed in this, i am not some sort of fanatic, but it doesnt add up, i am losing my faith and you should consider it too." from her statements, i have no reason to believe she understands evolution, much less "believes" in it

[WhiteLion]

reminds me of the poeple who call in to conservative radio shows and say "i am a democrat, but you are making a lot of sense" and then proceeds to spout a bunch of conservative beliefs (or vice versa). i think she is stating she isnt "on our side" so that she can have a different angle on her attacks. as if to say "i have always believed in this, i am not some sort of fanatic, but it doesnt add up, i am losing my faith and you should consider it too." from her statements, i have no reason to believe she understands evolution, much less "believes" in it

Yes I think you hit the nail right there.
Here's a few of her posts:

Like I just said, all I have simply done is point out that white caucasians once lived in ancient Africa. I really don't care if some of them had Nordic phenotypes or Med phenotypes. Point is they were white caucasians Med OR Nord living in Egypt. It just so happens and I am sure you agree, that it is easier to find "nordic-looking" Egyptians that just so happen to have "nordic" hair traits (red/blonde) that just so happen to be ____white___. Find me a white Med Egyptian with dark hair, I don't care. Ponit is white Caucasians were in Egypt.

I have stated numerous times that there were hardly any Europeans in Europe at the time of early Egypt. They came from Sumer . So really there weren't "Nordics" at all. Thin lipped, narrow nosed, red/blonde people that happen to look similar to the modern Nordics as we know them today.


And this:
I never claimed that all the ancient Egyptians were Nordics. Likewise, I also stated that they were not Europeans because Europe really didn't exist ~6,000-7,000B.C. But there are white Caucasians that did live in Egypt as seen by their mummies, similar to how the Tocharians weren't European, but lived in China a few thousand years ago.


Queen Tiye (18th Dynasty), was the daughter of Thuya, a Priestess of the God Amun. Thuya's mummy, which was found in 1905, has long, red-blonde hair. Examinations of Tiye's mummy proved that she bore a striking resemblance to her mother. [B. Adams, "Egyptian Mummies," (Aylesbury: Shire Publications, 1988), p. 39.]

The French Egyptologist Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, has this to say about the famous Egyptian beauty, Queen Nefertiti: "...her beauty was of the noble Theban type seen in the necropolis paintings..." She goes on to state that "...the coloured bust now in Berlin shows the rosy tint of her complexion, which suggests that she was careful to avoid sunlight or, alternatively, that she was of northern stock." [Desroches-Noblecourt, op. cit., p. 90.]

A painting of the mother of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (18th Dynasty), reveals that she had blonde hair, blue eyes and a rosy complexion. [W. Sieglin, "Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Volker des Altertums," (Munich: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1935), p. 132.]

American Egyptologist Donald P. Ryan excavated tomb KV 60, in the Valley of the Kings, during the course of 1989. Inside, he found the mummy of a royal female, which he believes to be the long-lost remains of the great Queen Hatshepsut (18th Dynasty). Ryan describes the mummy as follows: "The mummy was mostly unwrapped and on its back. Strands of reddish-blond hair lay on the floor beneath the bald head." [Ibid., p. 87.]

Manetho, a Graeco-Egyptian priest who flourished in the 3rd century BC, wrote in his "Egyptian History," that the last ruler of the 6th Dynasty was a woman by the name of Queen Nitocris. He has this to say about her:

"There was a queen Nitocris, braver than all the men of her time, the most beautiful of all the women, blonde-haired with rosy cheeks. By her, it is said, the third pyramid was reared, with the aspect of a mountain." [W. G. Waddell, "Manetho," (London: William Heinemann, 1980), p. 57.]


She's trying to squeeze in her racist agenda of white people being the ones who descended directly from the "great Egyptian, Sumerian and Tocharian heritage" in her attempt to claim civilization to "white people" almost overall.
And that many of them later packed their bags and settled in Europe so it could create civilization too :eye-poppi

Well I think you know how this woo-song is sung.

[Asolepius]

I suppose there would be no point in mentioning to her the overwhelming body of data from molecular biology? It is so frustrating when people object to evolution and genetics without actually having the slightest understanding of what they really are. Has she ever read a single book on the subject? I know this sounds supercilious, but I have to line up with Dawkins - "You say that because you actually don't know anything".

[Soapy Sam]

She is absolutely right. We have consistently failed to prove that birds come from pterodactyls.

Silly bitch.

[Beleth]

Either humans have always existed or they haven't. If they haven't, then they came from somewhere.

Does she think that humans have always existed? If she doesn't, then where does she think they came from?

[HidariMak]

Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but the phrase "you can't save everyone" comes to mind here.

When an animal is too sick, the veterinarian would sometimes recommend shooting it. Doctors sometimes encourage patients to just go home to die, or may admit them to a special ward where they can do whatever they want (including having pizza or prostitutes) for the same reason. And the creationalist you're quoting is spouting so many inaccurate statements, apparently more in support of her racist agenda than anything else, that any rebuttal might just be a waste of your time. Just my 2¢.

[NobbyNobbs]

I don't think this is a disbelief in evolution, per se. I think it is an excuse to spout bigotry and elitism.

I'll tell you when I was well and truly convinced...I remember it well. High school biology. Dissection day. Open up the frog and...look! A heart! Liver! A gall bladder! Kidneys! Now turn to the drawing in the book of a human. Look in the same places, and see the same things.

Would a truly, *truly* differently evolved (or created) creature be so incredibly alike?

[Foster Zygote]

"Sure they did, but only human ancestors. I don't fall for the Jewish "common origin" lie. Like begets like. I just dont buy into the "we were once negroids, apes or one cell ameboa" crock."

Not only is she perhaps anti-semitic, but she seems to be a racist as well. Is she suggesting that "Negroids" are not members of the human species? Maybe, maybe not. I wonder how she feels about the fact each "race" of humans contains nearly all of the bio-diversity of the human species. Aboriginal Australians, for instance, have been shown to contain about 85% of the total genetic diversity of the whole human population. In other words, if aliens abducted everyone but the native Australians to make their favorite condiment, the aboriginal Australians would eventually re-populate the Earth with nearly all of the genetic diversity that we have now. That isn't to say that we would have "Asians" back in Asia and "Africans" back in Africa and "Europeans" back in Europe but we would see most of the diverse features that we are familiar with. And the truth is that all humans are descended from African ancestors who no doubt had dark skin to cope with the sun. This element of her argument is so ignorant it's pathetic.


"Sure it is. Just as how a white couple can have a black child due to some black genetics in the blood from 5 generations ago. Or how someone looks like a spitting-image of their grandfather. Throw-backs do happen so why not any ape-like ones? Because we didn't come from apes."

What about babies born with caudal appendages, better known as tails? She keeps trying to use the language of science but she can't hide her profound ignorance of the matters she's discussing.


"But we're not primates. So why didn't they "evolve"? Dogs and cats walk on four feet but they're not from a "common origin" either. What resemblences? There are no apes that can stand erect and walk like humans."

Carl Linnaeus once stated that he wished someone would show him a single generic feature by which he could distinguish humans from apes because he couldn't find one. Dogs and cats do have a common origin, as do dogs, cats and humans. As for standing erect: humans are apes.


"Then humans and apes should be able to interbreed with no difficulty. "Scientists" have not been able to find any transitional bones that link us to the primates."

This statement is so ignorant that it refutes itself. I find her use of quotes betrays a bit of frustration. And "scientists" have thousands of transitional bones linking us to primates. Even more important than bones though, is DNA itself, which is greatly strengthening evolutionary theory.


"And Im still waiting for the evolutionists to prove we came from apes. They cant even prove modern birds came from the pterodactyl."

That's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks. Could she be confusing pterodactyl, a species of pterosaur with archaeopteryx lithographica, a species of theropod? Her ignorance of biology would be excusable if she didn't think she knew so much about it.


"Yep, because that actually makes sense. Don't you resemble your parents?"

With two consecutive generations one would naturally expect a resemblance, but what about a pair of random ancestors from 5000 generations ago? Would they have just as close a resemblance? Did she study logic at Bob Jones University or the Moody Bible Institute?


" it never started either. You explain how dinosaurs came from one cell beings. Sharing diseases, yet don't share all and I seriously doubt you're going to encourage race mixing if you think were "all alike" either."

The explanation for one celled beings leading to dinosaurs is called evolutionary biology! She might want to learn something, anything about it before making declarations about it. And again with the racist rhetoric. My son is Puerto Rican, Italian, Polish, English, Irish, German, Swedish, Cherokee and due to my Cherokee ancestry probably a little bit West African too. I not only encourage "race mixing" I practice it. It leads to increased genetic diversity which improves the species' evolutionary potential. "Scientists" have a name for racial purity, they call it "inbreeding".
---------------------------

Hmmm, never heard such irrational arguments on evolution before from a person who doesn't believe in creationism.
Are there more ideological branches out there?

I'm not sure if these are the arguments of a creationist but they are definitely the arguments of a moron. Where, might I ask, did you encounter this person?

Steven

[WhiteLion]

I'm not sure if these are the arguments of a creationist but they are definitely the arguments of a moron. Where, might I ask, did you encounter this person?

Steven

Steven, I think it will suffice to say... Stormfront ;)