Evolution happens

[Astrid]

Do you have a point to make?

Technology isn't constant or even consistent.

You're an Australian, think about the technology the indigenous peoples had before the Europeans came.


I don't think you answered my question earlier: What science do you reject? Is it just biology, geology and archaeology? Or do you dispute physics and astrophysics too?

Its necessary to reject all of it

 

[Hans Blaster]

Humans didn't start domestcating animals until less than 10,000 years ago. So according to Darwinist folklore, it took our ancestors at least 290,000 years to discover that one!

Let me take your timeline the way you take mine:

Humans did start flying until 120 years ago (240 if you want to include balloons). So according to your timeline why did it take our ancestors at least 5800 years to discover flight?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tomato / Tomatto

Potato / Potatto

Polonium / Plutonium

 

[AV1611VET]

Polonium / Plutonium

Gold aurum.

 

[Astrid]

Let me take your timeline the way you take mine:

Humans did start flying until 120 years ago (240 if you want to include balloons). So according to your timeline why did it take our ancestors at least 5800 years to discover flight?

There are isolated Amazon tribes that must not be human yet!
They dont even have wheels!

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are isolated Amazon tribes that must not be human yet!
They dont even have wheels!

That brings to mind a good question...

When does the bible say wheels come about?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are isolated Amazon tribes that must not be human yet! They dont even have wheels!

They don't need wheels.

Evolution is second to none at calling human beings anything but human.

Neanderthal, Cro-magnon, Peking, Nebraska, you name it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gold aurum.

Wow. You really *don't* get Mr Laurier's point. Gold (English) and Aurum (Latin) are just different words in different languages for the same thing. Plutonium and Polonium are chemically different elements.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They don't need wheels.

Evolution is second to none at calling human beings anything but human.

Neanderthal, Cro-magnon, Peking, Nebraska, you name it.

Except that's not true in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. You really *don't* get Mr Laurier's point. Gold (English) and Aurum (Latin) are just different words in different languages for the same thing. Plutonium and Polonium are chemically different elements.

Oh, sorry.

I meant to say:

descended / came from

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that's not true in the slightest.

Not in academia ... no.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not in academia ... no.

It's not even true outside of academia.

 

[Shemjaza]

Its necessary to reject all of it

I agree.

But, I'm trying to figure out how in depth their ideas are about science. It's a little strange, they are going into more detail than usual about the Cambrian explosion, but seem hung up on the age of humanity and the rate of technological development.

 

[Astrid]

I agree.

But, I'm trying to figure out how in depth their ideas are about science. It's a little strange, they are going into more detail than usual about the Cambrian explosion, but seem hung up on the age of humanity and the rate of technological development.

Ive yet to find a creationist who who is not clueless
in any area of science, and many are proud of that.

 

[Astrophile]

I agree with you. However, for a being to have the kind of wisdom, knowledge, intelligence and power to create such a stunning variety of life, it sounds an awful lot like the God of the Bible. I can see no reasonable alternative.

From my own studies, I think that the stunning variety is in the stars and galaxies rather than in the different forms of life. For example, I can list red dwarf stars, flare stars, chemically peculiar stars (e.g. metallic-line stars, Sr-Cr-Eu stars, Hg-Mn stars, helium-weak stars, helium-strong stars, helium-3 stars), carbon stars, technetium stars, Cepheid variables, delta Scuti stars, gamma Doradus stars, pulsating white dwarfs, beta Cephei stars, alpha Cygni variables, luminous blue variables, Wolf-Rayet stars, Mira variables, semi-regular variables, interacting binary stars, eclipsing binaries, Algol binaries, beta Lyrae binaries, W Ursae Majoris stars (contact binaries), dwarf novae, recurrent novae, classical novae, kilonovae, Type Ia supernovae, pulsars, magnetars, etc., etc. One could spend a lifetime studying any one of these classes without exhausting their wonders. If there is a Creator, I can only stand in awe of the stellar and galactic universe that He/She/It/They has or have created.

On the other hand, since we have no compelling evidence of life even on any of the other planets of the solar system, let alone anywhere else in the universe, it looks to me as if life comes very low on the Creator's list of priorities. It may give you some impression of the insignificance of life on Earth if I tell you that the total mass of life on Earth is about 5.458×10^14 kg (less than a ten-billionth of the mass of the Earth), that the Sun converts the same mass of hydrogen into energy every 35.5 hours, and that the supergiant star Rigel achieves this feat every 1.1±0.2 seconds.

Finally, if you identify the Creator with the God of the Bible, it seems strange to me that a being who has been able to create this vast and wonderful universe is unable to make the inhabitants of one small planet orbiting a medium-sized star in the outskirts of a medium-sized galaxy behave themselves.

 

[Buzzard3]

You deny science.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I agree that evolution - the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population - is a demonstrable fact.

Don't try to pretend that your personal conviction trumps evidence.

Okay ... as long as you do the same thing.

Common ancestry and punctured equilibrium are supported by evidence.

Common ancestry is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record, yet there is also evidence that contradicts common ancestry (ignored by Darwinists). A so-called theory based on cherry-picking the evidence is rubbish and an insult to science.

My understanding is, Punctuated Equilibrim is not testable, in which case it isn't science, but just a story.

You keep bringing up the Cambrian explosion. Do you believe it was a real event?

Yes.

Do you believe in the physics and geology that demonstrate the age of the Earth and Universe?

I have no reason to doubt it.

Do you believe in the astronomy that demonstrates the scale of the universe?

Yes.

DO you believe in the astro-engineering that allowed for all the probes, satellites and space craft?

Yes ... although I often wonder how chimps and dogs beat humans into space ... I didn't know they were that smart!

 

[Buzzard3]

See, it's saying things like "Depends what you mean by "evolution"" That really makes me think that you aren't here to talk in good faith.

"evolution" could mean microevolution or macroevolution (eg, mammals evolving from fish). The former is a demonstrable fact; the latter is not. One needs to make the distinction to avoid confusion.


Btw, you didn't answer my question, so I'll try again:

How do you test the theory that eyes, for example, evolved via a process of mutations and natural selection?

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that the evolution from bacteria to non-bacterial life is simply the change from single cellular organisms to multi-cellular organisms. It would basically be lots of bacteria coming together and forming a colony of bacteria, with then through outside pressures evolves things like singular locomotion, a resistant outer layer, light reactive photosensors, etc.

Oh, so a mutation occurred that suddenly provided "a resistant outer layer" and another mutation occurred that suddenly provided "light reactive photosensors"?

 

[Buzzard3]

Do you have a point to make?

Let me get this straight... you don't find it odd that it took human beings about 300,000 years to start domesticating animals?

 

[Yttrium]

How do you test the theory that eyes, for example, evolved via a process of mutations and natural selection?

You can't test it directly. What you can do is arrange all the known eyes in order of complexity, and see if you can come up with genetic paths from simple to complex. If you do come up with such a genetic path, you can't actually demonstrate that it happened that way, but you do demonstrate that the evidence still fits within the theory.

Now, if you were able to find something that blocks development from simple to complex at some points, then the theory has a problem. It would certainly be fun to find something like that, but so far we seem to be out of luck. There's no known limit in the genes to how much accumulated change that can eventually take place.