The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dust.....

So basically, you're just going to call any random collection of molecules "dust".

 

[Kylie]

Nor a single "common ancestor" on any of the evolutionary trees, but that hasn't stopped them from imagining them either.....

The evidence from DNA strongly indicates a common ancestor. What could account for that evidence if the idea is wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence from DNA strongly indicates a common ancestor. What could account for that evidence if the idea is wrong?

A common designer, using ontological reduction.

Do you remember my snowman challenge thread, where a person (common designer) makes both a snowape and a snowman from the same blanket of snow (DNA); giving the impression that B cam from A when, in fact, A and B were created separately?

 

[VirOptimus]

A common designer, using ontological reduction.

Do you remember my snowman challenge thread, where a person (common designer) makes both a snowape and a snowman from the same blanket of snow (DNA); giving the impression that B cam from A when, in fact, A and B were created separately?

No, the evidence is very clear, its for common descent.

There is no evidence at all for a designer.

Belief in a designer is a religious conviction, not science.

Your so called "challange" is also quite stupid and only shows that you dont understan DNA or science in general.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the evidence is very clear, its for common descent.

What evidence are we talking about? the snow or DNA?

 

[VirOptimus]

What evidence are we talking about? the snow or DNA?

Snow? That is just your post, it isnt evidence for anything as it has nothing to do with the subject.

You need to educate yourself so you understand what you are trying to argue against.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The evidence from DNA strongly indicates a common ancestor. What could account for that evidence if the idea is wrong?

We share 97% of genes with mice, more than with apes, don't see you claiming them as a common ancestor.

But if you understood that everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons, it would be no surprise to you that we could find similarities with all life on this planet. Since apes and mice were created from the same molecules, why wouldn't they share common DNA?

You are under the false assumption creation demands everything be unique, when all were created from the same dust.

Plus we won't get into the fact that those shared sites you toute as proof come from virus insertions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A common designer, using ontological reduction.

Do you remember my snowman challenge thread, where a person (common designer) makes both a snowape and a snowman from the same blanket of snow (DNA); giving the impression that B cam from A when, in fact, A and B were created separately?

They don't want to comprehend that everything is made up of the same protons, neutron and electrons.

 

[VirOptimus]

We share 97% of genes with mice, more than with apes, don't see you claiming them as a common ancestor.

-snip-

As we are apes we have 100% of the genes apes have.

Learn the science.

 

[AV1611VET]

They don't want to comprehend that everything is made up of the same protons, neutron and electrons.

It's amazing too that they're willing to turn their back on science ... general relativity in this case ... to claim the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

 

[AV1611VET]

As we are apes we have 100% of the genes apes have.

Just like a snowman would have 100% of the snow snowapes have.

 

[VirOptimus]

Just like a snowman would have 100% of the snow snowapes have.

Your argument is incredibly weak. Snow-whatever is not a living thing that replicates so it has nothing to do with the ToE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your argument is incredibly weak. Snow-whatever is not a living thing that replicates so it has nothing to do with the ToE.

But it does demonstrate ontological reduction quite well.

God created apes with basically the same parts as He created man.

Evolution says they are linked by DNA, whereas creation says they are two separate creations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So basically, you're just going to call any random collection of molecules "dust".

Ummmm, isn't that what Dust is, a random collection of molecules?

 

[VirOptimus]

But it does demonstrate ontological reduction quite well.

God created apes with basically the same parts as He created man.

Evolution says they are linked by DNA, whereas creation says they are two separate creations.

No, it really doesnt.

Its just, well, stupid actually.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ummmm, isn't that what Dust is, a random collection of molecules?

It's not what I think about when I think about dust, no.
There's a bit more to it then that.
When hearing the word "dust", I'm visualising the stuff that gathers on my pc case when I don't clean it for a while.

I don't visualise just any random collection of molecules.

A rock or mud could be said to be a random collection of molecules.
I hardly think you'ld call that "dust", would you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's amazing too that they're willing to turn their back on science ... general relativity in this case ... to claim the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

But they teach geocentrism, redshift according to their false belief shows we are the center of the universe.

Oh my bad, everything is expanding away from everything else no matter where you are located, even if what was moving away from us and towards something else is now moving away from it and towards us. And they call us irrational......

But that being besides the fact they don't really care about science. Everything in existence shares the same subatomic particles so similarities should abound, not the opposite as they want us to believe creation would demand.

Since God created both man and ape from the same Dust, they come to the incorrect conclusion that they share a common ancestor.

But as I have been trying to explain to them this belief arises from the incorrect classification of the different infraspecific taxa that exist in every species as seperate species in the fossil record.

I understand why they have this false belief, but it is based upon a classification error.

They continually refuse to accept what we observe around us and apply it to the fossil record. If they did the number of actual species in the fossil record would drop dramatically as most were correctly labeled as infraspecific taxa and the gaps would become chasms. Which is why I also understand their reluctance to accept the reality we see around us.

 

[Jimmy D]

But they teach geocentrism, redshift according to their false belief shows we are the center of the universe.

Oh my bad, everything is expanding away from everything else no matter where you are located, even if what was moving away from us and towards something else is now moving away from it and towards us. And they call us irrational......

But that being besides the fact they don't really care about science. Everything in existence shares the same subatomic particles so similarities should abound, not the opposite as they want us to believe creation would demand.

Since God created both man and ape from the same Dust, they come to the incorrect conclusion that they share a common ancestor.

But as I have been trying to explain to them this belief arises from the incorrect classification of the different infraspecific taxa that exist in every species as seperate species in the fossil record.

I understand why they have this false belief, but it is based upon a classification error.

They continually refuse to accept what we observe around us and apply it to the fossil record. If they did the number of actual species in the fossil record would drop dramatically as most were correctly labeled as infraspecific taxa and the gaps would become chasms. Which is why I also understand their reluctance to accept the reality we see around us.

You forgot to mention huskies..... or finches.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Convenient" is a strange word to use in such context.

It's no applicable either way.

Life factually exists and we can study it - no matter where first life came from.

Just like we don't need to know the origins of matter in order to study and observe the effects of mass and gravity.

Where matter came from and how existing matter behaves, are 2 different questions.

The same goes for life.

But existing life is not evolving. Rabbits have been rabbits forever and will always be rabbits.

But since you incorrectly classify the different infraspecific taxa in the species as seperate species in the fossil record, you come to the false belief of evolution.

You and I both understand that many infraspecific taxa exist in every species living today. So please show me the infraspecific taxa in the species in the fossil record?

Or is the classification of the fossil record so far divorced from reality that you can't provide that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You forgot to mention huskies..... or finches.

Obfuscation and childish remarks get you nowhere except to prove to all you have no response as to why the fossil record is divorced from reality.

But if I was watching birds mating right in front of my eyes and ignoring the DNA data too and refusing to accept it, I'd probably obfuscate too.