What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Ophiolite]

The lack of evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life should be enough to seek an alternative, God's Word.

The weakness in your argument is that the volume of evidence in favour of evolution is greater than you could properly study in a lifetime.
If I concede, for argument's sake, the existence of the Christian God, then God wrote his message in two places: Scripture and the World. The Bible says nothing about evolution, while the world declares its existence and its character in a clear voice that resonates throughout nature. I've never understood why Creationists choose to ignore that word of God.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Correct you are.Nor does It say the crucifixion took place 1988 years ago.

The Gospels repeatedly say that Jesus lived in the first century.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Gospels repeatedly say that Jesus lived in the first century.

Um ... where?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Um ... where?

Here's an example:

Luke 1:5
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

 

[HitchSlap]

Um ... where?

Well, we know that Jesus was born when Quirinius was/wasn’t governor. So there’s that.

 

[renniks]

An example of the memes you present in the form of buzzwords such as "muck" in your present comment. Most of your anti-scientific claims appear to be a replication of DI, AIG and ICR endeavors to demean and deflect from the overwhelming body evidence for the ToE. If you want to say, like @AV1611VET that the "bible settles," that is fine, but your statements to demean and deflect from the evolutionary science are a waste of time.

Would you prefer "formless matter to man " ?
Or " goo to you?"

 

[Phred]

In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Not everyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flintstones was a true story. Christian geologists discovered earth’s antiquity before Darwin was even born:

Ok, just drag out the designer. Prop him up right here and have him explain what happened. If you can't then the likelihood of there being a designer is close to zero.

I'll tell you what, there was a designer. It's called evolution. Your skepticism of it changes nothing.

 

[Astrid]

The Gospels repeatedly say that Jesus lived in the first century.

Quotation?

 

[Frank Robert]

Would you prefer "formless matter to man " ?
Or " goo to you?"

Buzzwords and childish memes are not a shield for drivel but are a waste of time.

 

[renniks]

Buzzwords and childish memes are not a shield for drivel but are a waste of time.

Using " buzzwords" simplifies otherwise long boring posts.
Not everyone knows what I mean if I say I don't believe in evolution.
If I say I reject " muck to man" evolution they hopefully understand that I don't mean species don't change at all.
And you all do it all the time, by claiming for example that creationist reject science. Not true of course but it's easier than typing out the so called science they actually reject.

 

[renniks]

I'll tell you what, there was a designer. It's called evolution. Your skepticism of it changes nothing.

Quite amusing. A series of blind mutations " designed" everything?
That's not how design works in the real world. We have to plan, make a blueprint, check it twice, do the math, and so on.
In essence, you're saying it just happened with none of that, just because, for no discernible reason.

 

[Astrid]

Buzzwords and childish memes are not a shield for drivel but are a waste of time.

So is humouring the source, which I quit doing some time back.

If I ever need a dose, I've an uncle who was red guard,
cultural rev., Mao all the way, and never got over it.

Do NOT get him started (if you speak Chinese), unless,
well..just don't.

 

[Frank Robert]

Using " buzzwords" simplifies otherwise long boring posts.
Not everyone knows what I mean if I say I don't believe in evolution.
If I say I reject " muck to man" evolution they hopefully understand that I don't mean species don't change at all.
And you all do it all the time, by claiming for example that creationist reject science. Not true of course but it's easier than typing out the so called science they actually reject.

I am just filtering your anti-science rhetoric to what it is and that drivel. And just like AIG, EvolutionNews, UncommonDesent, etc, you miserably fail to present a cogent argument against the ToE.

 

[renniks]

I am just filtering your anti-science rhetoric to what it is and that drivel. And just like AIG, EvolutionNews, UncommonDesent, etc, you miserably fail to present a cogent argument against the ToE.

And you miserably fail to make the ToE sound even close to plausible.

 

[Astrid]

I am just filtering your anti-science rhetoric to what it is and that drivel. And just like AIG, EvolutionNews, UncommonDesent, etc, you miserably fail to present a cogent argument against the ToE.

k

Out of all the research in all the institutions on
earth, in health, physics, geology, all fields of
biology, in chemistry...
Nobody has ever come across data that is
contrary to ToE.

The one that does will have a Nobel winner
on their faculty.

And it sure won't be a creationist who stumbles
across it.

It's so unfair to expect a creationist to argue with facts.

We are though very impressed when says something
to the effect of, " Well, I ain't never seen anything to
convince ME!"

It's at least true.

 

[renniks]

Buzzwords and childish memes are not a shield for drivel but are a waste of time.

You want memes? How about a spoof instead instead?

" Hello, Evolution?
"Yes?"
"I have a job for you. I want you to design the human genome."
"Ok, well that sounds fairly simple.,"
" Not really. I need it so complicated we won't understand it at all even twenty years after we sequence it."
" Seriously? I'll need hundreds of workers, engineers, architects .."
" No, no, random mutations will take care of all that. You just sit and drink coffee for billions of years. It'll all work out."
Evolution: "This is a joke right? I'm hanging up. Darn prank callers!"

 

[renniks]

It's so unfair to expect even the best educated
creationist who ever got a diploma from
Sheetrock State U to be able to argue
with facts.

There's no " facts" in theory. Naughty, naughty! Using the " f" word where it doesn't fit again!

 

[Humble_Disciple]

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Darwin wrote that within the human kind, some groups were closer to their ape-like ancestors than others. No wonder the late evolutionist Stephen J Gould wrote: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
Darwinian Dangers

Some people believe what the Bible teaches about man's origin, while others believe in what an outright racist had to say. Since it cannot be proven that natural selection acting on random mutation was responsible for the complexity and diversity of life, I might as well go with the Bible.

You can extrapolate, based on the oscillations of finch beak sizes or the coloring of peppered moths, that natural selection acting on random mutation was responsible for the vast complexity and diversity of life, but that's a philosophical assumption, rather than a scientific observation.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead...

Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.
What are some flaws in the theory of evolution? | GotQuestions.org

As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)...

As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution? | GotQuestions.org

Punctuated equilibrium attempts to answer a major problem with the fossil record. For almost a century, naturalistic science assumed that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually be filled, and there would be a semi-complete record of so-called “transitional forms” between the various species. In fact, the opposite happened, and the gaps became even more pronounced. The actual fossil record indicates species seemingly appearing from nowhere, and without the long, slow, gradual changes expected by classical evolutionary theory. Punctuated equilibrium seeks to answer this problem by supposing that evolution doesn’t occur steadily, but sporadically...

The mechanism for punctuated equilibrium is assumed to be small groups of a particular organism separated in some way from the main population. This would accelerate the transmission of mutated genes through the population, and much more quickly produce a new species. However, multiple studies have found that inbreeding such as this produces extremely negative effects, which run counter to the idea of rapid advancement. The fossil record also calls into question the plausibility of this notion. The so-called “Cambrian Explosion,” for instance, is the sudden emergence of almost every biological type known to man, in a geological blink of an eye. This seems to contradict the idea of broad genetic stability intermixed with localized change.
What is the theory of punctuated equilibrium? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Astrid]

Some people believe what the Bible teaches about man's origin, while others believe in what an outright racist had to say. Since it cannot be proven that natural selection acting on random mutation was responsible for the complexity and diversity of life, I might as well go with the Bible.

You believe in the Bible or in yourself?
Your version of what it says is True
because? Tell us, for lo, educated
Christians, like other educated people who
actually understand evolution have no
problem accepting it.

The "chosen people" bit is nothing racist*
and your chosen reading of the
Bible account cannot be proven,
because- there is zero evidence at all!
So may as well go with zero evidence?
Is that actually a sensible position?

Nothing in science is proven ( haven't you ever heard that?)
but there is an immense body of fully consistent evidence for
ToE.
Reason enough to make up a reason
to reject it, is that?

* the mean spirited deliberate misrepresentation of one
phrase in Darwins book to make him a racist, and thus
make his work invalid is a shameful thing, unworthy of
any reasonable person.

Bearing false witness, unjust accusation is supposed to
be against God's word.
To do so, so casually and to no gain speaks little good
about the person doing it.

We suggest cease and desist,
the only discredit goes to the one saying it.

 

[Frank Robert]

And you miserably fail to make the ToE sound even close to plausible.

I might agree with you except for one blaring fact. Namely, the consilience of evidence from independent, unrelated sources that provide compelling evidence for evolution and your only refutation was muck.