How biologist vs creationists organizes life

[In situ]

What the nested set of life looks like:

What an abstract nested set of life looks like:

How biologist (scientist) sees how the nested set of life is related from observed facts (this is the evidences they look at):

What biologist (scientist) discover after analyzing all the evidence and removing all the differences in the nested set of life:

How Creationist (i.e. pseudo-scientists and charlatans) see the evidence and "interpret" an organization of life:

What biologist (i.e. scientists) has discovered from the carfully analyzed evidence they have:

How to prove the theory of evolution wrong:

How to prove ID wrong:

[PICTURE-NOT-FOUND]

 

[In situ]

How creatonists sees how the nested set of life is related:

 

[AV1611VET]

Connect the dots.

 

[In situ]

Connect the dots.

It should be obvious that I don't suspect creationist to be able to decode even less make any sense from these diagrams.

 

[AV1611VET]

It should be obvious that I don't suspect creationist to be able to decode even less make any sense from these diagrams.

Are you bragging or complaining?

(And did you mean "expect"?)

 

[In situ]

Are you bragging or complaining?

(And did you mean "expect"?)

I guess I do yes, thanks for the correction. And I am bragging yes. Anyhow, I'll keep you in mind next time AV and make charts for color blinds.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyhow, I'll keep you in mind next time AV and make charts for color blinds.

-- Huh?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What appears to be evolution is just different creatures made from the same stuff, more or less.

 

[AV1611VET]

What appears to be evolution is just different creatures made from the same stuff, more or less.

Yup.

That's called ontological reduction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yup.

That's called ontological reduction.

That's a little farther than I want to go with it (I was jes sniping from the cheap seats. )

 

[AV1611VET]

(I was jes sniping from the cheap seats. )

Ah!

Sorry!

I'm a little slow right now!

 

[In situ]

-- Huh?

If one does not see colors then one does not see colors. Don't you agree?

 

[In situ]

What appears to be evolution is just different creatures made from the same stuff, more or less.

Where did you find or see anything that suggest life has evolved just because it is similar? Nothing can evolve for the reasons being similar.

Life is similar because living creatures has parents. The similarity is an effect of having parents, not a cause. Thus explain the nested sets we see. Or do you claim children makes their parents look like they do?

But creationist claims the effect is the cause, and turn as always science upside down to "prove" biology wrong.

 

[In situ]

pro

Yup.

That's called ontological reduction.

No it is called a creationist lie. Creationist claims that scientist claims things has evolved because they are similar. They could as well had claimed scientist claims that parents look like their children because children pass on their look and behavior to their parents. But people would recognize how stupid that sound and not believe such claim for a second. So they phrase them self in a way that looks believable, still similarities does not, nor, exclude the opposite either - a parents cane have similar beliefs as their child because the child passed it on to the parent.

Obvious a similarity is a relation that goes in both direction. Similarity can not imply a cause with a direction such a common ancestor. Evey biologist worth its name knows this and therefore does not claim common ancestor for this reason.

Therefore, similarity in itself does not make biologist claim a common ancestor. What does then? It is a law of nature that parent-children relations implies a cause and a direction of the cause. If you superimpose this law on all life and the make a very long and extensive study of all life then the conclusion is that life has evolved from a common ancestor. Conclusions are facts (not beliefs). The evidence for the conclusion is found in the law - a law of biology that creationist are busy obscuring by turning upside down and denying all the time.

Look at the graphs I made. It is is a visualization of the evidence and the explanations proposed by the "interpretation of facts" by biologist vs.s creationist. Which explanations looks most beautiful in your opinion?

I don't like ugly looking things - that is why I don't like creation "science" and their so call interpreted facts. You may need to interpret a conclusions but you do not interpret a conclusion in the facts as creationist does - because that is just plain old circular reasoning.

 

[myarogancewasblottedout]

so you're saying ? causality + similarity(nuclear DNA) = common ancestor?
so hips are for time? as shoulders are for 3D space?
--yea you're reading the words of a real life scientific non homo sapien (homo tamilian: still children of Father Noah, this I know, because I prayed to Jesus' Eternal Noah outside bible college and holy spirit touched my hands)
=========update============
concerning first page of Holy Bible, Genesis chapter 1, the motive of the author provides to key to having believing faith .
dimensions. consider what a week is in science, consider http://www.biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/1-14.htm

Have you seen men in black 3, and the arcadian can't decide if he's going to eat the samwidge or have a peptobismol? he can see the possible futures, but he can't make his future.
God can splice the future time lines in 6 dimensions into the reality. this is because http://www.biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

so choose your future, freedom is not simply a right, freedom to us creatures is like space to a photon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Look at the graphs I made.

I saw the graphs you made; and I'm glad you made them.

It is is a visualization of the evidence and the explanations proposed by the "interpretation of facts" by biologist vs.s creationist.

It is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where did you find or see anything that suggest life has evolved just because it is similar? Nothing can evolve for the reasons being similar.

Life is similar because living creatures has parents. The similarity is an effect of having parents, not a cause. Thus explain the nested sets we see. Or do you claim children makes their parents look like they do?

But creationist claims the effect is the cause, and turn as always science upside down to "prove" biology wrong.

I'm not a 'creationist' per se, but I believe that God created everything that exists. I do look backward in that I view the finished product and make a determination based on what I see before me. Science provides the details, which really nails it down for me. We both (can) view the same evidence, as the evidence is there before us, we just come to different conclusions.

 

[In situ]

I saw the graphs you made; and I'm glad you made them. It is a game of connect-the-dots.

I don't think we have a disagreement there. But as you can tell from my graphs I don't think creationist plays this game very well. The reason for this is because they don't know the rules of the game. Creationist think it is a free for all in where you can just make up any rule you like. Or as Ken Ham put it "when I put on my Biblical glasses".

 

[In situ]

We both (can) view the same evidence, as the evidence is there before us, we just come to different conclusions.

Can you tell me what you perceive to be the evidence?
It was also unclear to me if you believe in theistic evolution or something else?

 

[In situ]

so you're saying ? causality + similarity(nuclear DNA) = common ancestor?
so hips are for time? as shoulders are for 3D space?
--yea you're reading the words of a real life scientific non homo sapien (homo tamilian: still children of Father Noah, this I know, because I prayed to Jesus' Eternal Noah outside bible college and holy spirit touched my hands)

Not sure what you are commenting on. Can you rephrase your question?