A question I don't think creationists will answer.

justlookinla said:

Ok.

Go!

Click to expand...

Good. Evidence has always been a hotly debated subject. Even in science. Just like many creationists improperly deny evidence against their beliefs, the same happened with many scientists. They would simply deny the evidence of others without doing any work to debunk that evidence.

So as a result scientists devised a reasonable definition of evidence. Quite simply scientific evidence is:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Click to expand...

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if I have evidence that fits into the evolutionary paradigm that is evidence for evolution by definition. If you find evidence that does not fit into the evolutionary paradigm is evidence against evolution.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Subduction Zone said:

Good. Evidence has always been a hotly debated subject. Even in science. Just like many creationists improperly deny evidence against their beliefs, the same happened with many scientists. They would simply deny the evidence of others without doing any work to debunk that evidence.

So as a result scientists devised a reasonable definition of evidence. Quite simply scientific evidence is:



Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if I have evidence that fits into the evolutionary paradigm that is evidence for evolution by definition. If you find evidence that does not fit into the evolutionary paradigm is evidence against evolution.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Click to expand...

Look, it's late. Simply give this "mountain of evidence" you have to support the claim that all the variety and complexity of life we observe today was created solely, completely, only, totally by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

justlookinla said:

Look, it's late. Simply give this "mountain of evidence" you have to support the claim that all the variety and complexity of life we observe today was created solely, completely, only, totally by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Click to expand...

There is no rush. The mountains of evidence will still be there tomorrow. You can think about what qualifies as evidence overnight. I do not expect you to instantly smack yourself in the head and say "How foolish I have been". I can wait. First we need to iron out this evidence problem. What is evidence. What is not evidence. How do you use evidence. Before I give you evidence we must work out those ideas first. Otherwise I would just be wasting my time.

We will probably also have to go over the Null Hypothesis too.

Subduction Zone said:

There is no rush. The mountains of evidence will still be there tomorrow. You can think about what qualifies as evidence overnight. I do not expect you to instantly smack yourself in the head and say "How foolish I have been". I can wait. First we need to iron out this evidence problem. What is evidence. What is not evidence. How do you use evidence. Before I give you evidence we must work out those ideas first. Otherwise I would just be wasting my time.

Click to expand...

Sure will be glad when you get around to giving this "mountain of evidence" you have for the creation of all life we observe today being the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I await.

Subduction Zone said:

We will probably also have to go over the Null Hypothesis too.

Click to expand...

Ok, as long as your "mountain of evidence" isn't based on guesses and suppositions, might be's, could be's, possibly's and maybe's. That's all the 'evidence' I've seen from Darwinist creationists.

justlookinla said:

Ok, as long as your "mountain of evidence" isn't based on guesses and suppositions, might be's, could be's, possibly's and maybe's. That's all the 'evidence' I've seen from Darwinist creationists.

Click to expand...

And I don't see any evidence offered by you for your position at all.

PsychoSarah said:

And I don't see any evidence offered by you for your position at all.

Click to expand...

My position, as is every creationist position including Darwinist creationism, is essentially a faith-based position. I could point out the incredible complexity and variety of life and personally infer a supernatural creator from that alone, but it would simply be my subjective opinion.

justlookinla said:

Sure will be glad when you get around to giving this "mountain of evidence" you have for the creation of all life we observe today being the sole result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I await.

Click to expand...

You still have not passed the evidence class. Once you understand evidence I will be more than happy to show it to you.

But as long as you keep yourself purposefully ignorant, and that is a sin that should have been in the Ten Commandments, there is no point in trying to help you out.

justlookinla said:

My position, as is every creationist position including Darwinist creationism, is essentially a faith-based position. I could point out the incredible complexity and variety of life and personally infer a supernatural creator from that alone, but it would simply be my subjective opinion.

Click to expand...

And there you have it, you even admit your position is an opinion. If your position is merely that, you couldn't criticize any opposing opinion for also having that quality, regardless as to whether or not that quality actually applies.

justlookinla said:

Ok, as long as your "mountain of evidence" isn't based on guesses and suppositions, might be's, could be's, possibly's and maybe's. That's all the 'evidence' I've seen from Darwinist creationists.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. You can only get that by quote mining and that is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. That is a form of bearing false witness.

As a Christian you should not be doing this.

Subduction Zone said:

You still have not passed the evidence class. Once you understand evidence I will be more than happy to show it to you.

But as long as you keep yourself purposefully ignorant, and that is a sin that should have been in the Ten Commandments, there is no point in trying to help you out.

Click to expand...

Well....I guess that's the end of the "mountain of evidence".

justlookinla said:

Well....I guess that's the end of the "mountain of evidence".

Click to expand...

No, I have mountains of evidence. Honest creationists have admitted to it. Though they are an extreme rarity.

I am interested, do you consider yourself to be honest?

justlookinla said:

My position, as is every creationist position including Darwinist creationism, is essentially a faith-based position. I could point out the incredible complexity and variety of life and personally infer a supernatural creator from that alone, but it would simply be my subjective opinion.

Click to expand...

But it is not.

And your lack of understanding of what qualifies as evidence may be what is leading you to this obviously false statement.

lasthero said:

To the best of my knowledge, it's never been established that humans can't crossbreed with other apes. Some scientists have speculated that it might be quite possible, since we've successfully interbred with animals farther apart genetically, but for ethical reasons, it's never been attempted and likely never will be.

Click to expand...

Actually, it has been established one way but not altogether.

The UnMuseum: Case of the Humanzee

Several adult chimpanzees from the interior of the country were brought to Conakry and Ivanov artificially inseminated three female chimpanzees with human sperm. None became pregnant.

Click to expand...

In spite of somewhere in the DNA, there is a chain that is an exact match per evolutionist's point of view, the dissimilarity of the other chromosomes has to be why no reproduction was possible.

But of course, inseminating human females with chimp's sperm was never done, but one would think that because it did not work one way, one can safely assume without risk of an unethical practise that the other is bound to not work as well.

Herman Hedning said:

Chromosomes are not similar? Maybe argumentum ad Youtubeum works better. Here's Christian biologist Kenneth Miller explaining about human chromosome 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Click to expand...

The chromosomes are not similar enough in spite of that.

And about crossbreeding humans and other apes, are you sure that's impossible? Most everybody would consider trying it out a tad unethical, so there hasn't been any known research on the subject. But it might still be possible.

Click to expand...

Actually, it has been established one way that it cannot happen but not altogether.

The UnMuseum: Case of the Humanzee

Several adult chimpanzees from the interior of the country were brought to Conakry and Ivanov artificially inseminated three female chimpanzees with human sperm. None became pregnant.

Click to expand...

In spite of the video, the dissimilarity of the other chromosomes has to be why no reproduction was possible.

But of course, inseminating human females with chimp's sperm was never done, but one would think that because it did not work one way, one can safely assume without risk of an unethical practise that the other is bound to not work as well.

Maybe because evolutionary theory doesn't claim that "we or anything is becoming more complex through time"? And what is complexity in this context anyways?

Click to expand...

Try a dictionary then. Here's one from Bing Dictionary defining evolution.

1. theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
2. developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

Click to expand...

So the different variety & number of chromosomes that goes against the so called advancement of the evolution tree of life suggest what? That it is a lie and thus we have a Creator.

Dizredux said:

Macro/Micro evolution. Generally science does not use these terms all that much but the concepts are easy to understand.


First to Microevolution:

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift

Click to expand...

Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defining microevolution

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your research of information for the progress of the discussion; however, do note the emboldened portion of your quote for future reference as you read on.

Now to Macroevolution:
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.

Click to expand...

What is macroevolution?

Click to expand...

Now please note the emboldened portion of your quote of what macroevolution actually is.

Now see how your recap opposes itself as per the definition of what macroevolution actually is as per your above quote.

To recap:
Microevolution is simply the genetic changes within a population. Changes within a single species in other words.

Macroevolution is when the genetic changes are in more than one population usually with shared genetics. Changes involved with more than one related species.

Click to expand...

And so how can there be shared genetics to have chnages with more than one related species when macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools?

A couple of quick definitions:

A population is a group of organisms that interbreed with each other (cited above)

Click to expand...

If they can interbreed and still produce fertile offsprings, then it is within the confines of microevolution as a cow will always be a cow no matter what kind of cow it is for the most part, but when an evolutionary fish start sprouting legs, then it can no longer interbreed with regular fish.

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions
Defining a species

Click to expand...

Again, that is microevolution: not macroevolution.

When speciation occurs, then the description moves from Microevolution to Macroevolution. Rather simple really.

Click to expand...

No, because in cows, you can create a different kind of cow by crossbreeding just as one can create a hybrid rose as the saying goes, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

No interbreeding can be proof of macroevolution when the results can still breed and with its former species too. It is hardly befitting the definition of macroevolution.

This is all easy to look up if one is interested and there are plenty of references out there if one cares. If not, continued ignorance is easier than learning I guess.

Click to expand...

I shall not accuse you of ignorance, but I will point out, brother, that you did not respond to those verses I had given you that Jesus & Peter had proved that there was a global flood given as judgement by God on the world of ungodly men and that it was serving as a warning of a future judgment of fire from God that is coming on the earth.

So believers should lean on Jesus for wisdom in seeing the difference in theoritical science that opposes itself in order to realize that the evolution theory is a lie running amok & unchecked in science in how it is being presented as fact when it is not so they can disregard it.

Tellastory said:

Thanks for sharing your research of information for the progress of the discussion; however, do note the emboldened portion of your quote for future reference as you read on.



Now please note the emboldened portion of your quote of what macroevolution actually is.

Now see how your recap opposes itself as per the definition of what macroevolution actually is as per your above quote.



And so how can there be shared genetics to have chnages with more than one related species when macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools?



If they can interbreed and still produce fertile offsprings, then it is within the confines of microevolution as a cow will always be a cow no matter what kind of cow it is for the most part, but when an evolutionary fish start sprouting legs, then it can no longer interbreed with regular fish.



Again, that is microevolution: not macroevolution.



No, because in cows, you can create a different kind of cow by crossbreeding just as one can create a hybrid rose as the saying goes, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

No interbreeding can be proof of macroevolution when the results can still breed and with its former species too. It is hardly befitting the definition of macroevolution.



I shall not accuse you of ignorance, but I will point out, brother, that you did not respond to those verses I had given you that Jesus & Peter had proved that there was a global flood given as judgement by God on the world of ungodly men and that it was serving as a warning of a future judgment of fire from God that is coming on the earth.

So believers should lean on Jesus for wisdom in seeing the difference in theoritical science that opposes itself in order to realize that the evolution theory is a lie running amok & unchecked in science in how it is being presented as fact when it is not so they can disregard it.

Click to expand...

What's that old line...?

"The stupid.........it burns...!"

USincognito said:

Yes there is. Evolution both at and above the species level has tons of evidence.

Click to expand...

Speculations on the fossil records given in an evolutionary viewpoint under the assumption that they are transitional are hardly tons of evidence.

You do know that there are different number of chromosomes as well as different sizes and shapes of chromosomes in insects and larger animals and even in comparison of apes to humans, that they decry the evolution tree of life in its testimony of life becoming more complex over time?

From Bing Dictionary:

1. theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
2. developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material
3. gradual development: the gradual development of something into a more complex or better form

Click to expand...

So Darwinian creationism does exist & it takes as much faith, and even moreso when it goes against the laws of science; mainly the law of biogenesis & the 1st law of thermodynamics & the second law of thermodynamics when Time's arrow is pointing life as going downward as in breaking down; not building up as Evolutionary's time arrow suggests.

Subduction Zone said:

Good. Evidence has always been a hotly debated subject. Even in science. Just like many creationists improperly deny evidence against their beliefs, the same happened with many scientists. They would simply deny the evidence of others without doing any work to debunk that evidence.

Click to expand...

That can also apply to evolutionists. Saying that you can do no wrong is conning us into agreeing with you no matter what.

So as a result scientists devised a reasonable definition of evidence. Quite simply scientific evidence is:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if I have evidence that fits into the evolutionary paradigm that is evidence for evolution by definition. If you find evidence that does not fit into the evolutionary paradigm is evidence against evolution.

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Click to expand...

Are you willing to follow that same guideline? I think not, because a crime scene and evidence that follows will result in many suspects for the crime, but detectives are to prove or disprove the suspects in the process of elimination and not favour the ole "the butler did it" when there is no butler.

So how about this guideline?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The law of biogenesis as per Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005

the principle that a living organism must originate from a parent organism similar to itself

Click to expand...

The law of biogenesis as per McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. in relations to biology

Development of a living organism from a similar living organism.

Click to expand...

Both definitions from this link for verifiable evidence.

Law of biogenesis definition of Law of biogenesis in the Free Online Encyclopedia.

Some have defined it as life cannot come from nothing. Life comes from pre-existing life, but I will emphasized that kind begets similar kind as in a cow will not become anything else but a cow just as a rose by any other name is still a rose. That is the law of science. It is impossible for a cow to become anything else but a cow. When crossbreeding occurs between horses & donkeys or lions & tigers, sterility will result. A few rare crossbreeding would testify to the contrary but a horse is still a horse.

The fact that life cannot come from nothing and that life comes from pre-existing life and thus a living organism must originate from a parent organism similar to itself should tell you that no matter how long the series of microevolution occurs, it is still microevolution as a cow is still a cow because no genetic information can be added to a living organism for it to cease being that "kind" to no longer be able to mate with that former kind for macroevolution to be true.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.

Click to expand...

See the impossibility of macroevolution? How's that for evidence?

Now are you going to debunk it without resorting to microevolution, because microevolution will always be microevolution as the law of biogeneisis makes it impossible to ever result in macroevolution?