Creation or Evolution, does it matter?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Similarity is the only evidence. Every test, every idea only points to similarity. We still have no observable or testable evidence of evolution as it's presented.

Completely false.

It's not about mere similarity.
It's about exact matches.

And not just exact matches.
But about the pattern of distribution of such matches.

It forms a nested hierarchy.
Which is, literally, a family tree.

This tree matches genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, etc.
They call that "explanatory".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so what all this evidence suppose to be?

(image from https://microbeonline.com/bacterial...ortance-and-examples-of-flagellated-bacteria/)

or this one:

(image from Flagella and Cilia: Structure and Functions (With Diagram))

or this one:

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: ATP Synthase: Advanced Look: Synthesis)

or this:

(image from June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)

It's evidence that the flagellum exists.

on the other hand we have no evidence for common descent.

Bold faced lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It matters because God said in Exodus he created life in six days. Do we believe him? It matters because Jesus and the apostles said Adam was the first man. Are they decieved? Is God a liar and a deceiver? No of course not. Jesus was the creator, he ought to know. He taught his apostles the truth.

So while it doesn't really matter when it comes to salvation and it doesn't really matter in many ways, it does matter in some. Because it cast doubt upon the veracity of the Bible and the beliefs of Christ and the apostles. If the bible isn't true about this the what else isn't it true about? Perhaps it's not true about Christ's death and resurrection. It's the easy for non believers to say the Bible is nothing but a bunch of stories and fables. And it usually starts with creation. Sadly many believers side with them.

So basically, you believe in creationism despite the evidence for evolution not because of any rational reason, but rather because you are afraid of what you will be forced to conclude about your favorite tale from the bronze age that for some reason you insist on taking literally while more then a billion christians have no problems to interpret it metaphorically?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess I should have clarified. I meant the Bible doesn't teach that evolution from common ancestry is true. Sorry about that.

It also doesn't teach that objects in a vaccuum will fall to earth at 9.81 meters per second per second.

It also doesn't teach that matter is made up of atoms that for 99% consist of empty space.

It also doesn't teach that the flow of time is relative to the observer and influenced by gravity and speed.

It also doesn't teach there are cosmic objects with a gravitational pull so strong that not even light photons can escape them and as a result are effectively invisible, only to be recognised by their gravitational effect on their surroundings.

The bible doesn't teach ANYTHING that science discovered in the past 2000 years.

The bible reads as if the authors were only aware of what was happening and existing within a 500 mile radius of where those authors lived. And even then they managed to get things incorrect. Like speaking of camels in a region where the first camel would only show up centuries later...

 

[xianghua]

OK, so now your images prove that the flagellum exists. Where is the evidence of design?

the evidence is the spinning motor itself.

 

[Speedwell]

the evidence is the spinning motor itself.

You will have to explain. None of your drawings or pictures show any evidence of intentional manufacture. Without that, there is no evidence of design. Where is it?

 

[xianghua]

No. You don't need to assume if you have overwhelming evidence in support of it with zero evidence against it.

and what is your evidence that human is related to a cat?

 

[xianghua]

You will have to explain. None of your drawings or pictures show any evidence of intentional manufacture. Without that, there is no evidence of design. Where is it?

so a motor isnt evidence for design? i cant argue with that.

 

[Speedwell]

so a motor isnt evidence for design?

Not unless there is evidence that it was manufactured. "Motorness" is not evidence of design.

i cant argue with that.

Well, neither you nor any other IDist has been able to so far. Why don't you just give it up and be content that God is the author of the flagellum, just like He is the author of everything else, even though He didn't do it with ID.

 

[rjs330]

Completely false.

It's not about mere similarity.
It's about exact matches.

And not just exact matches.
But about the pattern of distribution of such matches.

It forms a nested hierarchy.
Which is, literally, a family tree.

This tree matches genetics, biogeography, comparative anatomy, etc.
They call that "explanatory".

It's all assumption based on similarity. We have no verifiable or testable or observable evidence that evolution from a common ancestors is true. All life has similarity because of common design. Evolution assumes the rest.

 

[Speedwell]

It's all assumption based on similarity. We have no verifiable or testable or observable evidence that evolution from a common ancestors is true. All life has similarity because of common design. Evolution assumes the rest.

Can you explain how it works? Take speciation for example. Evolution has a well-developed and detailed explanation for how this occurs. What is the ID explanation? Just saying "It was designed" is not an explanation, nor is saying "It must have been designed because evolution can't work."

Your're not playing fair. IDists spend much time and effort trying to falsify evolution's explanation, but offer no explanation for us to try and falsify.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's all assumption based on similarity.

It's not. I don't know what else to tell you.
Clearly, you aren't informed on the actual sciences.

I advice you to put down the creationist propaganda and read a good introductory course of evolutionary biology or something.

We have no verifiable or testable or observable evidence that evolution from a common ancestors is true

That is insanely wrong.

I, in fact, just told you exactly how that is in fact verified, tested and observed.
The family tree that emerges from independent lines of evidence in the fields of genetics, biogeography, comparative antomy, etc etc etc.

It's called a phylogenetic tree.
You should look it up sometime. On proper scientific sources of course, not on propaganda channels like answers in genesis that operate under a dogmatic "statement of faith" where they literally tell you that they start from the position that the bible is true and all data that disagrees is regarded false by default.

All life has similarity because of common design. Evolution assumes the rest.

No.

Common design, does not produce nested hierarchies. In fact, nested hierarchies are the very last pattern one would expect from artificial design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IDists spend much time and effort trying to falsify evolution's explanation

I very much disagree with this.
They spend no time and no effort to try and falsify evolution. At all.

They just call it wrong.
The only time and effort they spend, is in misrepresenting evolution and lying about it.

Not a single creationist has ever undertaken even only a half decent attempt to tackle evolution head-on without strawmanning it. Ever.

Well.... not to my knowledge at least.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes it matters because if you say anything other then creation from God in 7 days then you are calling God a liar as he is the one who told the creation story in the book of genesis.

Then God said let there be light, and there was light.

Alternatively, Genesis isn't intended to give us a literal description of creation. God isn't a liar.

On the other hand if God is the maker of all things and all the evidence we have says the universe and earth are very old, on the magnitude of billions of years, and that life has evolved over millions of years on this planet--if all the evidence in God's creation says X but we aren't supposed to believe what God has written in His creation about His creation, then that would definitely suggest that God is deceiving us.

I don't believe God is a liar, that's why I accept the scientific analysis and explanations for the natural order. In order to be a Creationist I would have to believe that either God is a liar or be intentionally ignorant about God's creation. Neither of those options seems particularly great. As such I would much rather be a Christian than a Creationist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Danielwright2311]

Alternatively, Genesis isn't intended to give us a literal description of creation. God isn't a liar.

On the other hand if God is the maker of all things and all the evidence we have says the universe and earth are very old, on the magnitude of billions of years, and that life has evolved over millions of years on this planet--if all the evidence in God's creation says X but we aren't supposed to believe what God has written in His creation about His creation, then that would definitely suggest that God is deceiving us.

I don't believe God is a liar, that's why I accept the scientific analysis and explanations for the natural order. In order to be a Creationist I would have to believe that either God is a liar or be intentionally ignorant about God's creation. Neither of those options seems particularly great. As such I would much rather be a Christian than a Creationist.

-CryptoLutheran

So you are believing men who are stupid, wrong and faulty for your information on how old the earth is over God who said then the evening and the morning was the first day, so on and so forth.

You are more willing to bet on mans understanding on science or what man wants to call science over what God spoke him self?

I have way to much love and support and faith to belive man over God. I belive our God has all power over all things and he has the very power to create all the universe in 7 days.

If you are saying you do not belive he can create everything in 7 days then you do not know my God.

On the other hand, I would rather die then belive man, I am one, and I know there is no way in hell any one knows how old the earth is, its impossible to know this.

With the given materials we have on the earth, it can not use its self to test its self on age.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What evidence for evolution?

Fossils that remain the same across millions of years?

Bacteria that remain bacteria despite countless mutations and generations?

Fruit flies that remain fruit flies regardless of over 60 years of trying to produce something new?

Or do you prefer taking a random genome sequence, then randomly matching it to any other random part of a reference genome with algorithms and calling that a match? Yet this pseudoscience is not how we do ancestry tests..... No court of law would allow you to randomly match any part of a DNA sequence to another random part and let you call it science and convict a criminal or prove ancestry..... Pseudoscience .......

Just what evidence? Your belief in "missing" common ancestors that are one and all missing for every single creature on every single tree where your imaginary splits take place? Imagination is now evidence???

What evidence? Lay it out if you got it and stop the PR about how you got evidence. It's getting old real fast.....

 

[HitchSlap]

What evidence for evolution?

Fossils that remain the same across millions of years?

Bacteria that remain bacteria despite countless mutations and generations?

Fruit flies that remain fruit flies regardless of over 60 years of trying to produce something new?

Or do you prefer taking a random genome sequence, then randomly matching it to any other random part of a reference genome with algorithms and calling that a match? Yet this pseudoscience is not how we do ancestry tests..... No court of law would allow you to randomly match any part of a DNA sequence to another random part and let you call it science and convict a criminal or prove ancestry..... Pseudoscience .......

Just what evidence? Your belief in "missing" common ancestors that are one and all missing for every single creature on every single tree where your imaginary splits take place? Imagination is now evidence???

What evidence? Lay it out if you got it and stop the PR about how you got evidence. It's getting old real fast.....

Thanks for the chuckles.

(Anyone who understands science knows what I mean.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What evidence for evolution?

Fossils that remain the same across millions of years?

You should really stop lying.

 

[Danielwright2311]

You should really stop lying.

View attachment 250598

You do know thats a drawing right? not real pictures?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You do know thats a drawing right? not real pictures?

Right, right, it's just made up and not at all a detailed representation of actual found fossils/