• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A question I don't think creationists will answer.

Herman Hedning

Hiking is fun
Mar 2, 2004
503,928
1,577
N 57° 44', E 12° 00'
Visit site
✟789,260.00
Faith
Humanist
Hmmm... lessee.... chromosomes.

How many chromosomes do people have? - Genetics Home Reference

Humans have 23 chromosomes.

In comparisons of apes of 24 chromosomes to humans' 23 chromosomes at an evolutinist's site.

Human and Ape Chromosomes

If we had evolved from apes: where is our extra chromosomes? Wopuld that not suggest a de evolution rather than macro evolution?

The point is; even if you have one speculated as ascending; where is that chromosome going to come from? Nowhere? From nothing?

Surely this is a Poe?

If not, funny that you should select an example that is actually a great argument for evolution. As already pointed out the very page you linked explains how human chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion between two ancestor chromosomes, still separate in other apes.

You also seem to imply that the number of chromosomes correlates with how "evolved" an organism is. If that is the case, the most evolved mammal is the Plains viscacha rat with 102 chromosomes. But wait, the Agrodiaetus butterfly must be even more evolved with 268 chromosomes. Now hold on a second, lots of plants have many more chromosomes than that. For instance the Adder's tongue fern has 1260 and apparently other plants can have up to 15000 chromosomes. How does that show development, hmm?
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟23,686.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"Gene duplication" disagrees.

I am talking about macro evolution: not micro evolution. Gene duplication can only diverge as per micro evolution.

No. You quote mined it and then even misrepresented the quote. What you said in that paragraph completely contradicts all the rest that was mentioned in the article you mined the quote from.

So explain how the rest of the article null & void what was quoted from that article. If it doesn't, the the plainness of speech for which macro evolution is explained should be sufficient.

It is the furtherance of explanation that is being given in respect to the evolution theory that is how suddenly that quote I mined is not the truth.

Either it means what it says in order to defer from micro evolution OR it does not which is why macro evolution opposes itself by only resorting to a series of micro evolution to explain how macro evolution happens BUT a seriies of micro evolution will only produce micro evolution: never macro evolution: but go ahead and believe that fairy tale yarn of you like.

Anyone who actually clicks the link and even only scans the article would realise that immediatly.

Except those that see the truth as God enables them to see.

What you claim it means. See, this is why it is a called a quote mine

In short: you are a liar.

In short, you have no corrective information to share. I understand your desperate need to deflect from that point by attacking the poster. Hardly conducive to the progress of any discussion, but feel free to scorn.

OR.. you explain the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution.

Science dictionary has macro evolution as defined "Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species." ~~The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.

The article pitiful attempt to explain how macro evolution happens by a series of micro evolution does not do the quote I "mined" justice.


You don't have a "layman's definition" of it. You have an "anti-science, religious misrepresentation" of it.

And I say, even though you have a christian icon, indicating you are a christian, you have an athiestic view as supplied by the evolution theory in how you look at macro evolution.

Anybody that want the truth can use their search engine "define macro evolution" & "define micro evolution" and they can find out for themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟23,686.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Someday, when God reveals the truth to you about the lie that is the evolution theory, try not to be too hard on yourself, okay?

Human chromosome 2 is the result of an end-to-end chromosome fusion. Chromosomes have one centromere and a telomere. The telomere marks the end of a chromosome.

But the human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres and 2 telomeres. One of those telomeres is found smack in the middle of the chromosome.

If we split the second human chromosome at that centered telomere, we get a near perfect match with chromosomes 2 and 13 of chimp DNA.

Here's some advice for you: actually inform yourself on the subjects before arguing against them.

And I point out to in regards to what you had shared: so what? No humaneze came as of a result. You really think that quoted factoid of yours proved anything?

The UnMuseum: Case of the Humanzee

Several adult chimpanzees from the interior of the country were brought to Conakry and Ivanov artificially inseminated three female chimpanzees with human sperm. None became pregnant.

You have written a lot of enormous posts here and I actually have trouble finding 2 sequentials sentences in any of them where you didn't make such statements of ignorance or were just plain wrong in every possible way.

We all have our faullts, but sticking to the topic without attacking the poster seems to be yours.

You are not arguing against evolution theory. You are arguing against something completely different. I don't know if it is sheer ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the science.

Well, it is amazing what we can find in dictionaries and school text books and science site that even favours the evolution theory, and yet I am accused of misrepresentation just because I know the difference between what macro evolution is and a theoritical application of a series of micro evolution in trying to explain how macro evolution happened which does not fit the definition of macro evolution for what it is.

Either way, it's incredibly false.

Obviously, your mind is made up, brother, but I do wonder why you have that christian icon per your identity marker.

It's also rather funny that the second link you posted in the above quote actually explains this. Did you actually read the article?

Here's the first sentence: Below, I have assembled a series of references and abstracts that document striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes independently of the usual paleontological, morphological, and molecular phylogenetic data that we usually see

Here's the TITLE: [SIZE=+1]Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry[/SIZE]

And it also goes on to explain why the rest of your nonsense about different chromosme counts is exactly that: nonsense:
We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. (...) variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case

The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring (see reference 9).

See... this is how we know that you are just full of it and shouldn't be taken seriously. If you don't even bother to read your own sources...

I have clicked 2 of the links you posted and on both occasions the articles said the opposite of the point you were trying to make, while you were pretending the opposite.

I just singled out information that you are overlooking to make my point just as you are overlooking my references to your information in making your point. What you fail to realize is how the article is opposing itself.

This makes you a liar.

Is Jesus a liar? He testified to the global flood as it was a judgment on the world of ungodly men to warn believers of a coming judgment on the world by fire.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Is Peter a liar too?

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

You think about that for a moment, brother, & this warning that any thing from science that opposes the word of God is a false science: and the evolution theory IS a false science. You are losing yourself in the theoriticals and erring from the truth in His words in believing a lie.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Tellastory
Hmmm... lessee.... chromosomes.

How many chromosomes do people have? - Genetics Home Reference

Humans have 23 chromosomes.

In comparisons of apes of 24 chromosomes to humans' 23 chromosomes at an evolutinist's site.

Human and Ape Chromosomes

If we had evolved from apes: where is our extra chromosomes? Wopuld that not suggest a de evolution rather than macro evolution?

The point is; even if you have one speculated as ascending; where is that chromosome going to come from? Nowhere? From nothing?

Seems the quote verifies that regardless of the different kinds of apes, they all have 24 chromosomes and always will have 24 chromosomes just as a human will always have 23, even though it continues with the assumption that somehow, we had evolved from apes.​




:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Human chromosome 2 is the result of an end-to-end chromosome fusion. Chromosomes have one centromere and a telomere. The telomere marks the end of a chromosome.

But the human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres and 2 telomeres. One of those telomeres is found smack in the middle of the chromosome.

If we split the second human chromosome at that centered telomere, we get a near perfect match with chromosomes 2 and 13 of chimp DNA.

Here's some advice for you: actually inform yourself on the subjects before arguing against them.

You have written a lot of enormous posts here and I actually have trouble finding 2 sequentials sentences in any of them where you didn't make such statements of ignorance or were just plain wrong in every possible way.

You are not arguing against evolution theory. You are arguing against something completely different. I don't know if it is sheer ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the science.

Either way, it's incredibly false.

It's also rather funny that the second link you posted in the above quote actually explains this. Did you actually read the article?

Here's the first sentence: Below, I have assembled a series of references and abstracts that document striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes independently of the usual paleontological, morphological, and molecular phylogenetic data that we usually see

Here's the TITLE: [SIZE=+1]Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry[/SIZE]

And it also goes on to explain why the rest of your nonsense about different chromosme counts is exactly that: nonsense:
We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. (...) variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case

The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring (see reference 9).

See... this is how we know that you are just full of it and shouldn't be taken seriously. If you don't even bother to read your own sources...

I have clicked 2 of the links you posted and on both occasions the articles said the opposite of the point you were trying to make, while you were pretending the opposite.


This makes you a liar.
I did find a thread concernin human and ape chromosomes:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7687707-9/#post61392178

Earlier, in an unrelated thread, Deadalus tried to pass off the alleged fusion of two ancestral chromosomes (pairs, e.g., analogous to a C-2 + C-23 in some proto-ape) into the Human C-2 (leaving 23 pairs instead of 24: Apes have 24 pairs or 48 chromosomes).

Of course, Evolutionists have been dancing (or pretending to dance) over this 'discovery' for over a decade (first discussed in 1991).

The sketch offered by Doofus however, really sidesteps the important questions regarding the phenomenon..................................

The huge problem with this of course, is that it requires a 'Catastrophe Theory',
to explain why it would be present in EVERY HUMAN BEING,
which in essence means something killed off all other members of our species, while only a SINGLE PAIR of parents survived...

I'll leave that event up to your imagination.
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Well, one man doesn't.

The point is that the difference in the number of chromosomes
between humans and other apes led to the prediction that
humans had a chromosome fusion at some point in our evolution.

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

There’s something fascinating about our chromosomes. We have 23 pairs. Chimpanzees and gorillas, our closest living relatives, have 24. If you come to these facts cold, you might think this represented an existential crisis for evolutionary biologists. If we do indeed descend from a common ancestor with great apes, then our ancestors must have lost a pair after our lineage branched off, some six million years ago. How on Earth could we just give up an entire chromosome.............




.
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟23,686.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You don't listen. Get the whole micro/macro nonsense out of your head. There's just evolution, which is observed. Even speciation is observed, as well as apparent in the evidence.

From The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved

macroevolution: Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species

From Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.

microevolution: 1. evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

So that is my understanding of it as to why both are not just evolution.

Now I understand your point of view because the Science Dictionary goes beyond the definition of microevolution to explaining macroevolution which does not fit the definition of macroevolution as given by that same dictionary. See below.

From The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved

microevolution (mī'krō-ěv'ə-l
oomacr.gif
'shən) Pronunciation Key
Evolutionary change below the level of the species, resulting from relatively small genetic variations. Microevolution produces new strains of microorganisms, for example, or the rise of a new subspecies. The accumulation of many microevolutionary changes results in macroevolution.

For comparison:

macroevolution: Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species

Where is the logic? Microevolution is not macroevolution but eventually, and somehow, evolutionary change below the level of the species, resulting from relatively small genetic variations of micro evolution will cause the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes results in macroevolution to occur that puts "in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species".

So when does micro evolution actually become macro evolution? Micro evolution will always produce micro evolution, no matter how long it takes which is why we still have chimps, apes, and humans.

No it's not. Nowhere did I state that live can only come from life, which is what the so-called law of biogenesis is, which is also a simple assumption based on an observation.

What you has posted was of the law of biogenesis.

I shall quote you again from post #114

Second, bacteria will always be bacteria. Humans will always be humans. Whatever bacteria or humans evolve into will simply be a subset of bacteria and humans.

Pasteur jumped to a conclusion based on what he saw and he can't be faulted for it. Now we know that the contrary is quite possible.

You will have to explain that above quoted portion of your post because you lost me there.

Which I don't. You just suck at comprehension.

I'll ignore that.

Humans and chimps came from the great apes. Humans and chimps are still apes. Humans and chimps are subsets of apes. This isn't a contradiction, nor is it a claim of life coming from non-life (which is what biogenesis actually is -- seriously... look it up. you have an internet).

If life cannot come from non-life, then man is not coming from chimps or apes.

And we see evidence for evolution at the species level of change in the evidence. Go to a natural history museum.

Of course you can observe micro evolution, but it is macro evolution that you cannot observe.

And transitional fossils are not evidence for macroevolution. Those are just assumptions covering up the evidence for a global flood that God had judged the world of ungodly men with & will judge it again with fire soon.
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟23,686.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Surely this is a Poe?

If not, funny that you should select an example that is actually a great argument for evolution. As already pointed out the very page you linked explains how human chromosome 2 is the result of a fusion between two ancestor chromosomes, still separate in other apes.

I understand the theoritical attempts to explain how we came from apes, but it does oppose itself when the chromosomes are not similar in spite of the near number of chromosomes given for man & ape to crossbreed, but of course, they cannot.

You also seem to imply that the number of chromosomes correlates with how "evolved" an organism is. If that is the case, the most evolved mammal is the Plains viscacha rat with 102 chromosomes. But wait, the Agrodiaetus butterfly must be even more evolved with 268 chromosomes. Now hold on a second, lots of plants have many more chromosomes than that. For instance the Adder's tongue fern has 1260 and apparently other plants can have up to 15000 chromosomes. How does that show development, hmm?

Sorry if I was appearing to correlate that, but I believe I was hyping the de-evolution theory instead, in an attempt at dry witty humor. I had failed.

Anyway, that was not my point, but thanks anyway.

As per your reference & per my banter: how can we say we or anything is becoming more complex through time if there is no evidence that suggests that per the chromosome comparison of the evolutionary tree?
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
but it does oppose itself when the chromosomes are not similar in spite of the near number of chromosomes given for man & ape to crossbreed, but of course, they cannot.

To the best of my knowledge, it's never been established that humans can't crossbreed with other apes. Some scientists have speculated that it might be quite possible, since we've successfully interbred with animals farther apart genetically, but for ethical reasons, it's never been attempted and likely never will be.
 
Upvote 0

Herman Hedning

Hiking is fun
Mar 2, 2004
503,928
1,577
N 57° 44', E 12° 00'
Visit site
✟789,260.00
Faith
Humanist
I understand the theoritical attempts to explain how we came from apes, but it does oppose itself when the chromosomes are not similar in spite of the near number of chromosomes given for man & ape to crossbreed, but of course, they cannot.

Chromosomes are not similar? Maybe argumentum ad Youtubeum works better. Here's Christian biologist Kenneth Miller explaining about human chromosome 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

And about crossbreeding humans and other apes, are you sure that's impossible? Most everybody would consider trying it out a tad unethical, so there hasn't been any known research on the subject. But it might still be possible.

Sorry if I was appearing to correlate that, but I believe I was hyping the de-evolution theory instead, in an attempt at dry witty humor. I had failed.

Yes, you did.

As per your reference & per my banter: how can we say we or anything is becoming more complex through time if there is no evidence that suggests that per the chromosome comparison of the evolutionary tree?

Maybe because evolutionary theory doesn't claim that "we or anything is becoming more complex through time"? And what is complexity in this context anyways?
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟18,021.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Macro/Micro evolution. Generally science does not use these terms all that much but the concepts are easy to understand.


First to Microevolution:
Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift
Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population.
Defining populations For animals, it's fairly easy to decide what a population is. It is a group of organisms that interbreed with each other
Defining microevolution



Now to Macroevolution:
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selectioin +3.8 billion years = Macroevolution.
What is macroevolution?

To recap:
Microevolution is simply the genetic changes within a population. Changes within a single species in other words.

Macroevolution is when the genetic changes are in more than one population usually with shared genetics. Changes involved with more than one related species.


A couple of quick definitions:

A population is a group of organisms that interbreed with each other (cited above)

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions
Defining a species


When speciation occurs, then the description moves from Microevolution to Macroevolution. Rather simple really.


This is all easy to look up if one is interested and there are plenty of references out there if one cares. If not, continued ignorance is easier than learning I guess.


Dizredux
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You don't listen. Get the whole micro/macro nonsense out of your head. There's just evolution, which is observed. Even speciation is observed, as well as apparent in the evidence.

No, there's a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution (Darwinist creationism). While micro evolution may be a fact with observable evidence, the creationist view of macro evolution (Darwinist creationism) has no evidence other than a series of guesses and suppositions.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, there's a big difference between micro evolution and macro evolution (Darwinist creationism). While micro evolution may be a fact with observable evidence, the creationist view of macro evolution (Darwinist creationism) has no evidence other than a series of guesses and suppositions.

Yes there is. Evolution both at and above the species level has tons of evidence. You keep using "Darwinist creationism" as if it were a real phrase and it's not. The more you talk through your hat, the more snort derisively in your direction.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes there is. Evolution both at and above the species level has tons of evidence. You keep using "Darwinist creationism" as if it were a real phrase and it's not. The more you talk through your hat, the more snort derisively in your direction.

Darwinist creationism is the creationist viewpoint that all of life is completely, totally, solely the creation of naturalistic mechanisms, an inherently atheistic view of creation. There is absolutely no evidence for such a creationist view, it's a faith-based belief system.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Darwinist creationism is the creationist viewpoint that all of life is completely, totally, solely the creation of naturalistic mechanisms, an inherently atheistic view of creation.[/color=red] There is absolutely no evidence for such a creationist view, it's a faith-based belief system.


Continuing to spam a made up definition for a made up phrase might make you feel better in your own mind, but won't change us here in the real world one bit. Continuing to spam mash-ups of falsehoods (there is literally mountains of evidence for evolution) with more of your made up definitions ("creationist view") simply make you look foolish.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Continuing to spam a made up definition for a made up phrase might make you feel better in your own mind, but won't change us here in the real world one bit. Continuing to spam mash-ups of falsehoods (there is literally mountains of evidence for evolution) with more of your made up definitions ("creationist view") simply make you look foolish.

There's not even a molehill of evidence for the creationist view that all of life is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There's not even a molehill of evidence for the creationist view that all of life is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.


There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of that supports creationism.

Your problem is that you probably do not know what qualifies as evidence. I would be more than happy to help you to understand this fairly simple idea.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of that supports creationism.

Your problem is that you probably do not know what qualifies as evidence. I would be more than happy to help you to understand this fairly simple idea.

Yes, please provide the evidence for the view that all of life we observe today is the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Note that the request isn't asking for common ancestry, but for evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms was the creative force for the complex and varied life of today.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes, please provide the evidence for the view that all of life we observe today is the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Note that the request isn't asking for common ancestry, but for evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms was the creative force for the complex and varied life of today.

First let's clear up your idea of evidence.


Do you realize that it is indisputable that there are mountains of evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

There is no point in listing the evidence for evolution if you are going to simply deny that evidence out of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
First let's clear up your idea of evidence.

No, let's see your "literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution". Again, the request is concerning the view that all of life we observe today is the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long ago.

Do you realize that it is indisputable that there are mountains of evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

There is no point in listing the evidence for evolution if you are going to simply deny that evidence out of ignorance.

Simply offer a bit of the "mountains of evidence" for the creation of all of life from a single life form only, completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms. You made the claim, now prove it.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No, let's see your "literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution". Again, the request is concerning the view that all of life we observe today is the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long ago.



Simply offer a bit of the "mountains of evidence" for the creation of all of life from a single life form only, completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms. You made the claim, now prove it.

I will prove it, but on my own terms.

It is obvious that you have no idea what "evidence" is. Don't worry, that is a flaw that many people, even scientists have had.

So once you agree to try to learn what counts as evidence we can continue. Until then I will simply point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I will prove it, but on my own terms.

It is obvious that you have no idea what "evidence" is. Don't worry, that is a flaw that many people, even scientists have had.

So once you agree to try to learn what counts as evidence we can continue. Until then I will simply point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence.

Ok.

Go!
 
Upvote 0