Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Frank Robert]

Can you show me a demonstration of rocks or chemicals turning into any form of life?

The ToE is not concerned with abiogenesis which is the study of OOL. However, The Miller-Urey experiment provided evidence that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components.

Can you show me any example of any kind of animal evolving into any other kind of animal? [IE, a dog changing or turning into a cat, over time]

If you are asking for an example of a cat popping out of a dog then you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. However, there is plenty of evidence that dogs and cats are related through a a common ancestor.

The fact that these links do not exist and cannot be proven, is a very simple way to see that evolution theory is simply a religious belief for people who do not wish to believe in a Creator that will hold us morally responsible for the choices we make in life.

The consilience of evidence from many scientific fields for the ToE is proof that evolution is a scientific fact regardless of what label creationist want to give it.

 

[Speedwell]

The fact that these links do not exist and cannot be proven, is a very simple way to see that evolution theory is simply a religious belief for people who do not wish to believe in a Creator that will hold us morally responsible for the choices we make in life.

The assertion that the theory of evolution is a substitute for belief in a creator or denies God's authorship of our being is an offensive lie. To characterize it as a "religious belief" is a violation of the rules of this forum.

 

[dlamberth]

The fact that these links do not exist and cannot be proven, is a very simple way to see that evolution theory is simply a religious belief for people who do not wish to believe in a Creator that will hold us morally responsible for the choices we make in life.

I find that in my spiritual life I go to a different place of inner awareness and reality than I do with evolution and I have to include a very old evolving and changing Earth. The Evolution scientist and Earth scientist have physical evidence to draw upon. It's not the same with a persons spiritual life. It's a different animal all together. Because of that very clear difference of knowing, I always chuckle when evolution is given the religious belief tag

 

[Astroqualia]

I am aware that some scientists are atheists and some are theists, but that does not effect the theory of evolution, which neither affirms nor denies the existence of God or the fundamental truths of the Christian faith.

I agree that one can be saved and believe that God was that starter of evolution/big bang. I do not hold to that, though. Out of all the branches of science I've studied, there are several that take note as having a lot of false info propagated within them, there is a lot of false information in this world held on a pedestal. Once you see how certain branches of science misinterpret the data either on purpose or accidentally [via steps they follow as part of the process] you start becoming skeptical of the infallibility of modern day, agenda and money-driven science.

For example, climate alarmism is probably the very most obvious example [or perhaps the pharmaceutical industry studies] that show just because something that was peer reviewed comes out, doesn't mean it is accurate at all. When scientists find results contradictory to the agenda at hand given by the funders of most of the research projects, they find themseves without a job, blackballed. There are many folks with degrees in said field who explain their field is like a club, and if you're the odd man out, good luck finding work in that field. How many other branches of science could that be happening in?

 

[Astroqualia]

I am aware that some scientists are atheists and some are theists, but that does not effect the theory of evolution, which neither affirms nor denies the existence of God or the fundamental truths of the Christian faith.

Perhaps my intent was not clear. I never intended to say that belief in evolution means someone can't be a Christian, too. Sometimes I do have a bad habit of saying things in a way that rubs people the wrong way. My mind when I said the above [apparently incendiary] comment was on the atheists that from their own mouths refuse to believe and seek to disprove God in their careers. I know not everyone falls into this category; I did not mean to cause anger.

I do not believe that God started evolution, that macro evolution, as the theory presents itself, does not happen, and it is a misinterpretation of evidence and improperly taking into account the proper calibration of instruments beyond a certain time frame that allows for scientists to accurately date anything to be older than a certain age.

I didn't mean to double post to the same reply, I only have a phone to talk on here on, and the website is somewhat glitchy at times, and I don't know how to merge/delete posts. To even edit a post I have to open the edit button in a new tab. Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
I am afraid that you do not understand the scientific method. There is no scientific evidence of a god so of course gods are not part of scientific explanations. Nor do you understand the concept of evidence. There is a very clear definition of evidence in the sciences. It was not made with evolution in mind, but observations only support the theory of evolution. Creationist cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Here, let me prove it to you: What reasonable test based upon the merits of creationism could possibly refute creationism?

 

[Astroqualia]

I am afraid that you do not understand the scientific method. There is no scientific evidence of a god so of course gods are not part of scientific explanations. Nor do you understand the concept of evidence. There is a very clear definition of evidence in the sciences. It was not made with evolution in mind, but observations only support the theory of evolution. Creationist cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Here, let me prove it to you: What reasonable test based upon the merits of creationism could possibly refute creationism?

It is a virtually untestable theory, because almost all of the scientists who choose to get a degree in that field are not Christian, and if they are, they follow in line with the fundamentals built upon by non-Christians.

There is nothing involving the scientific method in slanting data and misinterpreting evidence. At very base logic, if you believe scripture, it clearly says man's wisdom is foolishness to God, suggesting that even the pinnacle of human wisdom is prone to errors and misinterpretation when Godly wisdom is absent from the equation.

"Observations supporting the theory of evolution" such as all the old archeological hoaxes that were only used to promote missing links in history, for the fame of the discoverer? And the obvious ones were the only ones that got found out. But because a group of humans says that there is or is no evidence to support something, means its objectively true, eh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a virtually untestable theory, because almost all of the scientists who choose to get a degree in that field are not Christian, and if they are, they follow in line with the fundamentals built upon by non-Christians.

There is nothing involving the scientific method in slanting data and misinterpreting evidence. At very base logic, if you believe scripture, it clearly says man's wisdom is foolishness to God, suggesting that even the pinnacle of human wisdom is prone to errors and misinterpretation when Godly wisdom is absent from the equation.

"Observations supporting the theory of evolution" such as all the old archeological hoaxes that were only used to promote missing links in history, for the fame of the discoverer? And the obvious ones were the only ones that got found out. But because a group of humans says that there is or is no evidence to support something, means its objectively true, eh?

Don't complain to me about not being able to test it. The burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim. But thanks for admitting that creationism is not scientific and there is no reliable evidence for it.

Now you need to be careful. It appears that you are breaking the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbors. If you claim that there is "slanting data and misinterpreting evidence" the burden of proof is upon you. If you make a claim about others that is false, whether you believe it or not you just broke the Ninth Commandment.

By the way, you are quite wrong there were no "old archeological hoaxes". There was one hoax, and it was not used to support the theory of evolution. The use of it was pretty much limited to the British. And as a Christian this is an amazingly bad argument to use. Hoaxes that people make for their own personal gain are not evidence against an idea. There have been far more hoaxes by Christians, most "relics" the Shroud of Turin, various scam artists taking advantage of Christians too eager to believe. There are countless such examples. But they do not disprove Christianity. You are simply trying to ignore the endless fossil evidence for evolution. And that is not even the strongest evidence. DNA is a slam dunk for evolution. Once again creationists have no answer to the DNA evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

The evolution Iearned about involved monkeys evolving into humans...

Yikes! Where did they teach you that? No wonder you exhibit no real understanding of the subject. The school you went to was teaching you nonsense. So I guess it's not your fault that you are posting bad arguments if you started with bad information.

Look, I was at Catholic Answers until recently and they had an evolution sub forum there. And I often jousted with a guy who was a creationist. But gee, he knew his science. And if you wanted to argue with the guy, you really had to know your stuff. Over a period of few years I really learned a lot about very many aspects of the evolutionary process simply in order to be able to counter what he posted. I really enjoyed our discussions.

But...there are a few guys posting against evolution in this forum who are sadly lacking in the basics. They can cut 'n' paste with the best of them but without a real understanding of what they post. And every now and then, they'll come up with a comment that indicates how little they know. Like 'monkeys evolved into humans'.

I don't really have any advice for you how you as to how you combat this lack of knowledge. Because unless you just read creationism web sites (and they will lie to you because they know their arguments are fatuous and your lack of knowledge won't put you in a position to know that) then you'll need to read up on scientific web sites about the subject. And that will directly contradict your views.

Anyway, you're in a fight that you cannot win. Just thought I'd let you know...

 

[Mr Laurier]

So satanic pseudoscience is reality? Huh, interesting. Didn't know I had to accept satanic propaganda in this world to "understand the basics of science".

Your second point doesn't at all address what I said. It's funny, they say with full force that evolution works X way, when that is proven wrong, they change the story to it working Y way, and when that is proven wrong, they change it to Z way. The evolution Iearned about involved monkeys evolving into humans, which are two entirely different species with a huge amount of genetic difference. If the DNA of monkeys changed to humans, then how did some monkeys avoid that DNA change, and not die out? If monkeys wasn't threatened to die out, then why did they allegedly evolve into humans? Also, why didn't other crcreatures, when presented to unfavorable conditions that led to extinction, evolve, and others did?

Oh, the missing links that many of were proven hoaxes, and the rest being hoaxes that haven't been found out, yet. I gotcha. I just don't buy into obvious pseudoscience hook line and sinker.

Wow.
You were taught that silly nonsense as evolution? Sounds like your teachers were creationists too.
There are over 100 separate and distinct species of old world monkeys OUTSIDE the ape clade.
Apes are one subset of old world monkeys.
There are over a dozen species of ape.
Humans are one of those species.

If you are descended from your grandparents, how did your cousins not die out? Thats what you sound like.

 

[Estrid]

Wow.
You were taught that silly nonsense as evolution? Sounds like your teachers were creationists too.
There are over 100 separate and distinct species of old world monkeys OUTSIDE the ape clade.
Apes are one subset of old world monkeys.
There are over a dozen species of ape.
Humans are one of those species.

If you are descended from your grandparents, how did your cousins not die out? Thats what you sound like.

Someone still using the "how come there are still monkeys" thing.
Amazing.

 

[driewerf]

Can you show me any example of any kind of animal evolving into any other kind of animal? [IE, a dog changing or turning into a cat, over time]

Do you believe that that is what the Theory of Evolution teaches. That "a dog" changes into "a cat"? Do you believe that if you were to open a textbook on evolution you will see that?

 

[Mr Laurier]

*post deleted by author*

 

[Astroqualia]

Wow.
You were taught that silly nonsense as evolution? Sounds like your teachers were creationists too.
There are over 100 separate and distinct species of old world monkeys OUTSIDE the ape clade.
Apes are one subset of old world monkeys.
There are over a dozen species of ape.
Humans are one of those species.

If you are descended from your grandparents, how did your cousins not die out? Thats what you sound like.

You legit say what I said is wrong, then proceed to say what I was trying to say, haha. I think some folks just get excitable by the idea of winning an argument. And that is not what I sound like.

 

[Estrid]

You legit say what I said is wrong, then proceed to say what I was trying to say, haha. I think some folks just get excitable by the idea of winning an argument. And that is not what I sound like.

Mostly you sound like you don't even know
you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Astroqualia]

Mostly you sound like you don't even know
you don't know what you are talking about.

Yall should ask yourselves why this was what evolution used to teach before it was apparently debunked. Why does evolution always shift the goalposts when Christians and skeptics of evolution prove what they say as wrong as the theory becomes more refined. It's like they refine the theory of evolution only in order to make it more believable. The truth doesn't need that treatment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yall should ask yourselves why this was what evolution used to teach before it was apparently debunked. Why does evolution always shift the goalposts when Christians and skeptics of evolution prove what they say as wrong as the theory becomes more refined. It's like they refine the theory of evolution only in order to make it more believable. The truth doesn't need that treatment.

What on earth are you babbling about? And yes, you are using extremely poor arguments. No one is getting excited about beating you in a debate. It would be like getting excited by pinning a five year old in a wrestling match. People are trying to help you to learn. You should be asking questions and trying to learn, not try to refute that which you do not understand.

We would get excited if you tried to learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mostly you sound like you don't even know
you don't know what you are talking about.

Are you consol ?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Yall should ask yourselves why this was what evolution used to teach before it was apparently debunked. Why does evolution always shift the goalposts when Christians and skeptics of evolution prove what they say as wrong as the theory becomes more refined. It's like they refine the theory of evolution only in order to make it more believable. The truth doesn't need that treatment.

Actually Humans were classed with apes and not monkeys by Linnaeus 100 years before Darwin's theory was written. Furthermore they were both Christians, so unless your education was 200 years ago, I suspect your memory of your early education is mistaken.

As to refining theories, that is what the scientific method is about. If new information is presented then the theory is refined to include it or as in a case such as the cosmic aether, the theory is abandoned and a new theory is accepted.

 

[Astroqualia]

What on earth are you babbling about? And yes, you are using extremely poor arguments. No one is getting excited about beating you in a debate. It would be like getting excited by pinning a five year old in a wrestling match. People are trying to help you to learn. You should be asking questions and trying to learn, not try to refute that which you do not understand.

We would get excited if you tried to learn.

No, you clearly get excited by being degrading to people. Perhaps if you dialed back the ego about 20 clicks, things would seem different.