The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Educatees are worse.

They are familiar with general relativity; yet they refuse to use it so they can claim Joshua spoke of geocentrism.

When [the late] Henry Morris pointed out their error, they buried their heads in the sand and repeated the same old/same old later on elsewhere.

At least creationist have an excuse: it seems they haven't understood it (according to you).

Educatees do understand general relativity, yet refuse to use it.

So which is worse?

Making a mistake because you didn't understand something, or making a mistake because you suspended what you understand?

LOL!

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL!

Imagine a Christian suspending his belief in miracles to say the Flood wasn't global?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Imagine a Christian suspending his belief in miracles to say the Flood wasn't global?

Indeed.... The horror!
That christian might actually become a bit more rational!

 

[AV1611VET]

That christian might actually become a bit more rational!

Yup.

They usually end up thinking Mark wrote the first Gospel, then the other Gospel writers copied from him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yup.

They usually end up thinking Mark wrote the first Gospel, then the other Gospel writers copied from him.

Or.... they just realise that evidence of reality beats bronze-age stories.

Or else we might just as well believe that lightning INDEED is the result of Jupiter throwing lightning bolts and that sea storms are the result of Poseidon being in a bad mood.

 

[Speedwell]

Yup.

They usually end up thinking Mark wrote the first Gospel, then the other Gospel writers copied from him.

Who do you think wrote the first Gospel?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you have not one fossil of any common ancestor on any tree? That's what I thought.

Why would you need a single fossil to evidence common ancestry? DNA is more than enough proof.

Of course, virus insert genomes which the host then uses to produce proteins. That you confuse the insertion point of these viruses with common inheritance is understandable, but still wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Why do you think you and your siblings and/or extended family have the same ERV insertions at the same positions in your genomes? The answer is that it is due to common ancestry. We can directly observe that common ancestry produces ERV insertions at the same position (i.e. orthologous ERVs).

Except everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. Can you explain why a deity would be required to use different codon tables for all life?

If you can't explain why a deity would be required to use the same codon table, then creationism can not explain shared codon tables. You would just as likely see different codon tables as the same one.

So if you were making life you would make everything different even though it must all survive in the same environment?

If I were omnipotent and omniscient with unlimited time and resources, it would be just as easy to start from scratch for each species as it would to copy designs from other species.

Do you think the creator deity is not omniscient, not omnipotent, limited in both time and resources, and fallible in all the ways that humans are? If find it interesting that you would project your own human frailties and limitations on the creator deity. Of course, it may make sense if the creator deity is simply something made up by us frail humans.

Commonality, the point you are overlooking. When you design different cars do you use square wheels on one, triangle wheels on the other and round wheels on the third.

Do you distribute wheels to different cars so that they fall into a nested hierarchy? No.

Life does fall into a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is what evidences common ancestry, not simply having similarities.

Why would a designer use something different for every creature when what works, works?

Why couldn't a designer find an infinite number of solutions, and start from scratch for each species?

That they share commonality points to a common designer more than your belief in random processes. Random processes should produce random results in every case, not commonality. You got less of a reason to accept commonality than I do.

The non-random process of evolution and common ancestry produces a nested hierarchy, and that is exactly what we see. Intelligent designers do not force their designs into nested hierarchies.

Except if it was all random then there should be no commonality.

If common ancestry does not produce commonalities, then how do you explain the commonalities found between you and your relatives?

That nested hierarchy is your incorrect listing of infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as separate species. You are aware are you not that infraspecific taxa abound within every species?

The nested hierarchy applies to living species that even you agree are separate species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or.... they just realise that evidence of reality beats bronze-age stories.

The same evidence that they see is the same evidence that we see.

We both interpret it differently.

Or else we might just as well believe that lightning INDEED is the result of Jupiter throwing lightning bolts and that sea storms are the result of Poseidon being in a bad mood.

Those aren't options available to Christians.

First of all, Christians aren't polytheistic; so they wouldn't appeal to polytheism to rebut a Christian belief like a scientist would.

Second of all, Christians would realize that God created lightning ...

Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:

... by instilling in nature the ability to produce it.

Thirdly, Christians would realize that God can and does use the weather at His will ...

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

 

[Kylie]

Educatees are worse.

They are familiar with general relativity; yet they refuse to use it so they can claim Joshua spoke of geocentrism.

When [the late] Henry Morris pointed out their error, they buried their heads in the sand and repeated the same old/same old later on elsewhere.

At least creationist have an excuse: it seems they haven't understood it (according to you).

Educatees do understand general relativity, yet refuse to use it.

So which is worse?

Making a mistake because you didn't understand something, or making a mistake because you suspended what you understand?

First of all, you are the Biblical literalist.

Secondly, I think the people living back then were geocentricists.

Thirdly, not understanding it is no excuse, since it is very easy to find out about it, given the age we live in.

 

[Loudmouth]

The same evidence that they see is the same evidence that we see.

We both interpret it differently.Those aren't options available to Christians.

You need to show the logic and reasoning behind your interpretation.

Second of all, Christians would realize that God created lightning ...

Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:

... by instilling in nature the ability to produce it.

That is indistinguishable from what we would expect if there is no God.

Thirdly, Christians would realize that God can and does use the weather at His will ...

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

Where is the evidence that God does anything with weather?

 

[AV1611VET]

Secondly, I think the people living back then were geocentricists.

Because science and observation said so, or because you think Joshua said so?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is indistinguishable from what we would expect if there is no God.

Myopic, aren't we?

Where is the evidence that God does anything with weather?

You musta missed this post, eh?

Why does God leave no tracks?

 

[Loudmouth]

Myopic, aren't we?

How am I myopic?

You musta missed this post, eh?

Why does God leave no tracks?

God doesn't leave tracks because non-existent deities leave no tracks.

 

[AV1611VET]

How am I myopic?

Can you make glasses that can do this?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

If not, you just might be myopic.

God doesn't leave tracks because non-existent deities leave no tracks.

I'm sure that's what the loudmouths of the areas in question thought, just before they lost loved ones/property.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you make glasses that can do this?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Can you prove that any of it actually happened?

If not, then all you have are stories written by men. It doesn't take glasses to find made up stories.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can you make glasses that can do this?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

If not, you just might be myopic.

How do you know that wasn't a one-time event?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you prove that any of it actually happened?

All I have to "prove" is scientific myopia.

And believe me, that's not hard at all; as you're demonstrating.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that wasn't a one-time event?

It probably was.

But how would it being done over and over by God make science any more capable of doing the same thing with their junk?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It probably was.

But how would it being done over and over by God make science any more capable of doing the same thing with their junk?

... because it's a one-time event. The clue is in the name.

 

[AV1611VET]

... because it's a one-time event. The clue is in the name.

Then it looks like you're SOL, doesn't it?

* short on luck