Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[AV1611VET]

This can all be true, but none of scripture has anything to do with science and "scriptural arguments" are not going to work on non-Christians.

Ecclesiastes 11:1 Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This can all be true, but none of scripture has anything to do with science and "scriptural arguments" are not going to work on non-Christians.

I know. That's usually been the case 99% of the time for about 2,000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know. That's usually been the case 99% of the time for about 2,000 years.

Some examples of that 1% are:

In 1778 the French infidel Voltaire boasted that in 100 years Christianity would cease to exist, but within 50 years the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to publish Bibles (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1986, pp. 123, 124).

Robert Ingersoll once boasted, “Within 15 years I’ll have the Bible lodged in a morgue.” But Ingersoll is dead, and the Bible is alive and well.

In fact, many who set out to disprove the Bible have been converted, instead. The following are a few examples:

• Gilbert West
• George Lyttelton
• Albert Henry Ross
• Simon Greenleaf
• William Mitchell Ramsay
• Viggo Olson
• Josh McDowell
• Richard Lumsden
• Gary Parker
• Lee Strobel
• Jobe Martin

SOURCE

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know. That's usually been the case 99% of the time for about 2,000 years.

I neither realized you were still on this thread or had been accepting that position (mostly apparently) for the last 2000 years.

Did you lapse for a couple decades in the mid 11th century?

 

[BCP1928]

With respect, I don’t believe the claim that ID has ‘no explanatory power’ holds up. ID offers a positive framework: it infers that certain patterns, like specified, functional complexity, are best explained by an intelligent cause,

An "inference" is not evidence. But you have made claims about "specified, functional complexity' several times and have not explained or defended it. You act like it was a self-evident truth.

just as we infer intelligence when we see code, language, or machines. It doesn’t explain everything, but no theory does. And saying methodological naturalism must always guide science, even if the evidence suggests intelligence, sounds like a philosophical boundary, not a scientific one.

No, it just means that we won't accept imaginary evidence.

I’m not asking you to convert;

That's good, because you are already sailing pretty close to accusing Christians who accept evolution of apostasy. Asking us to convert really would get you kicked out.

I’m asking whether the door is truly open to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it points beyond material causes.

If there is evidence. Magical thinking about "specified functional complexity" is not evidence. The "design Inference" is not evidence. What evidence do you have?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I neither realized you were still on this thread or had been accepting that position (mostly apparently) for the last 2000 years.

Did you lapse for a couple decades in the mid 11th century?

Sometimes the Tardis malfunctions........................

 

[1Tonne]

So you have no illusion that anything you post here will have any effect on the science of evolutionary biology, right?

Correct. You must be thinking that I am arguing so well that I should go to some science website and debate. Thanks.

Maybe to you it is, but for a lot of other Christians that isn't the case. Evolution doesn't impact any of those things for me.

Here’s the concern: evolution, particularly the idea of death, struggle, and natural selection over millions of years before humans, raises serious theological questions. To accept it, it needs to water down the creation event. If death came long before sin, then what exactly did the Fall do? Why does Paul tie death to Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22)?
For me, it’s not just about scientific models, it’s about preserving the integrity of the biblical storyline: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. If evolution reshapes the beginning, it inevitably touches the middle and the end, too.
So yes, I do believe it matters, not because I'm trying to force a false choice, but because I want to be faithful to the full sweep of Scripture.

Seems to me like you're a little confused. You've been posting a series of oft-repeated and old creationist arguments that are about science, not scripture. Why? If your point here really is scriptural as you describe and you have no intention of affecting science, then I recommend focusing just on what you wrote above. Also, if the above is accurate, why are you interacting with atheists? They don't care about scripture.

Why have I been posting on here? It is because of people like you. People who believe but then water down the creation event. So I post in the hope that you may see your folly. And if atheists are on here, then I hope that their eyes are opened.

You seem to have been arguing that scientists should incorporate God into their work while also acknowledging that things in science must be empirically testable. But if you can't say how God could be empirically testable, you've defeated your own argument.

I’m not saying scientists should be running lab tests on God. What I’m challenging is the assumption that all explanations must exclude intelligent agency from the outset. That’s not an empirical rule, it’s a philosophical one called methodological naturalism, and it limits what kinds of conclusions are allowed before the evidence is even considered.
We infer intelligence in other fields, like archaeology, forensics, or SETI, based on the nature of the evidence, not because we can test the intelligence directly. If a pattern or system exhibits specified, functional complexity beyond what chance and natural processes can explain, it’s at least reasonable to consider design as a possible cause.
So, the point isn’t to put God under a microscope; it’s to avoid excluding intelligent causes by definition, even if the evidence might support them. Science should follow the evidence wherever it leads, not only where naturalism allows it to go.

Whenever I see someone say something like that my response is usually to tell you, if you think you have a better way to do science then go forth and do it! Go show the world how much better your method is and they'll beat a path to your door!

Wow. I take that as a compliment that you are telling me to go and be a scientist. You must think very highly of my arguments.

Do you think agreeing with scientists on evolution is a salvation issue? Do you think such agreement will keep someone out of heaven?

I’m not the judge of anyone’s salvation, only God knows the heart. But I do believe this: if someone knowingly chooses to disbelieve what God has plainly said in Scripture, especially about foundational truths like creation, it raises serious concerns about their trust in His Word overall.
Jesus and the apostles consistently treated Genesis as real history. If we begin redefining or dismissing parts of Scripture because they conflict with current human theories, we’re not just disagreeing with a passage, we're challenging God's truthfulness. That’s not a small issue.
It’s not about whether someone believes in a young earth or debates about the age of the universe. It’s about whether we take God at His Word or reshape it to fit popular opinion. I wouldn’t want to stand before God and explain why I treated His Word as something to be edited rather than obeyed.
Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, but faith that deliberately ignores God's clear Word is something that should make us pause and reflect and shudder, not just brush it off.

Do you think agreeing with scientists on evolution is a salvation issue? Do you think such agreement will keep someone out of heaven?

When people begin to suppress the clear truth of God’s role as Creator, give credit to random processes or animals, and treat Scripture as secondary to human theories, they risk exactly what Paul described: exchanging the glory of God for something lesser, and allowing their hearts to be darkened. It’s a reminder that we should never compromise God’s truth to fit into a man-made framework. The glory belongs to Him alone.
So, if someone calls themselves a Christian but rejects what God says about creation, replacing it with a theory built on human speculation, they’re not just disagreeing with a detail; they’re disagreeing with the Author. That’s serious. Belief in God isn’t just abstract; it’s trusting what He’s revealed. If we rewrite or override what He says in Genesis, we’re not believing God; we’re believing man. And faith that doesn’t believe God’s Word at the start of the Bible casts doubt on whether it truly trusts Him at the Cross.
But in the end, I am not the judge, but I can still warn people.

Not in my experience. I've had kids bring me creationist material that quotes, cites, or refers to scientific work, and after I give them the original paper or book to read themselves they come back appalled at how the creationists completely misrepresented it. The practice of "quote mining" is particularly shady.

Many students are never actually exposed to strong, thoughtful arguments for creation. They're handed a caricature: that it's just pseudoscience or blind faith. But when people take the time to seriously engage with qualified scientists and scholars who hold to biblical creation (and there are many), they often find the material isn’t as shallow or dishonest as it’s been made out to be by evolutionists.
Yes, there are bad arguments and poorly written materials on both sides. But the existence of bad creationist writing doesn’t mean biblical creationism as a whole is dishonest. The core issue remains: Is Scripture the lens through which we view the world, or is science the authority that tells us what parts of Scripture we can keep? That’s the bigger concern.

As for my quote from Darwin. It still stands.
Darwin asked this question himself, and it remains a serious one today. He suggested that the fossil record is too incomplete to capture all the transitional forms his theory predicts.
But over 150 years later, with vastly more fossils discovered, the Cambrian Explosion still stands out. In a short geological window, a huge variety of complex animals with entirely new body plans suddenly appear, fully formed.
If evolution is supposed to be gradual, we would expect to find a chain of fossils showing how these complex creatures developed from simpler ones, but that’s largely missing.
Even secular palaeontologists admit this is a major puzzle.
And for Christians, Jesus puts it plainly: "In the beginning God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)

This is a direct affirmation of creation, not the result of countless mutations over millions of years. So, we have to ask: Do we believe Jesus, or try to reinterpret Him to fit evolutionary theory?

But you're persisting in characterizing people having different interpretations than you as "undermining" and "watering down" scripture. That type of language in itself puts people off because it immediately puts them on the defensive. If you want to persuade other Christians to your POV, that language is probably counter-productive.

I appreciate the reminder. My intent isn’t to offend, but to speak plainly about what’s at stake. I do understand that not everyone who reads Genesis differently is trying to attack the Bible. But from my perspective, once we begin reinterpreting foundational parts of Scripture, not because the text demands it, but because current scientific theories do, it does raise concerns about biblical authority. That’s not a personal attack; it’s a conviction about how we approach God’s Word.
I agree that tone matters, and I want to be careful not to sound dismissive. But persuasion can’t come at the cost of clarity. If I truly believe that the Gospel rests on the historical foundation laid in Genesis, then I have to speak to that. Not to win arguments, but to encourage confidence in the full authority of Scripture, from beginning to end.

That's not the same as me saying you have to listen to me or arguing from authority. You had made some unsupported claims about specific fields of science, which makes it reasonable to ask about your qualifications in those fields. If a random person came up to me on the street and told me the same things, my first question would be "who are you and how are you qualified to make such assertions".

Thanks for clarifying, but let’s be honest, phrases like “FYI I’m a biologist, so there’s no need to lecture me about science” and “how did you get to be such an expert in palaeontology?” don’t exactly sound like neutral curiosity. They read as dismissive, especially when used to deflect from the point I was making. That’s why I took it as an appeal to authority.
The truth is, arguments should stand or fall on their merits, not on who’s delivering them. I’ve read both sides of this debate because I care about the truth, not because I claim to be an expert. If something I’ve said is wrong, I’m open to correction, but I think we should be weighing ideas, not resumes.

Right, you keep making baseless claims about specific fields of science, so it's entirely in bounds to ask about your qualifications. If you had provided some support for your claims we could check into that, but because you posted them with nothing other than your own statements, you leave us no choice but to examine your qualifications to make them.

If you have no qualifications and give no support for your claims, why should anyone believe them over the conclusions of actual professionals?

You’re missing the point entirely. Scientific claims are not validated by someone's job title; they're validated by evidence and sound reasoning. What you’re doing is classic gatekeeping: demanding credentials instead of engaging with the actual content. That’s not science. That’s intellectual elitism.
Plenty of scientific breakthroughs came from people who weren’t credentialed in the field they challenged. The real test is whether an argument holds up under scrutiny, not whether the person making it has a degree that satisfies your standards.

If I’ve said something incorrect, then refute it with logic and evidence, not with appeals to your own authority. Otherwise, all you're doing is sidestepping the conversation and proving my point: some people hide behind credentials when they don't want to answer hard questions.

 

[1Tonne]

This is what I was talking about in my last post to you.

Those are quite the series of claims about specific fields of science, but you posted them with no support, other than your authority. But if you have no qualifications, why should anyone believe your claims instead of the conclusions of actual professionals?

You're repeating the same flawed premise that arguments stand or fall based on the speaker’s credentials. That’s not how science works. If a claim is wrong, demonstrate why it’s wrong using logic and evidence, not by defaulting to, "You're not a professional."
By that logic, no layperson could ever question or discuss science without a PhD in the field. That would shut down public discourse entirely and conveniently excuse you from engaging with uncomfortable challenges.
I’m not making arguments based on personal authority; I’m pointing to a distinction that even many philosophers of science acknowledge, that historical science, which interprets past events, operates differently than experimental science, which tests repeatable phenomena in controlled settings.
You don’t need a lab coat to recognise that interpreting unrepeatable past events through the lens of naturalism is not the same as directly observing gravity or testing chemical reactions. If that distinction bothers you, address it on its merits, not by demanding a resume.

 

[1Tonne]

the question is whether random, stepwise changes, acted upon by natural selection, can realistically account for the emergence of complex, interdependent systems like the closed human circulatory system.

Have you done any work on that?

I don’t need to have personally dissected the genome or run lab experiments to ask valid, critical questions. That's a diversion. Science welcomes scrutiny from anyone willing to think critically and engage with the evidence.
If the only acceptable voices are those who’ve “done the work,” then by that logic, most people should never question climate models, pharmaceutical trials, or evolutionary theory, unless they’ve personally published in the field. But we both know that’s not how public discourse or critical thinking works.
The point still stands: has anyone demonstrated, not just assumed, how such interdependent systems arose gradually through unguided processes? Because asserting it’s possible is not the same as showing how it happened.
If you're confident the research backs it up, then cite the step-by-step evolutionary pathway for the closed circulatory system, showing how each step provided a functional advantage. If that hasn't been done, then my question remains entirely fair, and unanswered.

 

[1Tonne]

Sorry guys, but I think that for me, this thread has run its course. I have been struggling to keep up with answering all the posts, and for me, it is getting to the point of not being able to make enough time in the day to answer all of them.
So, hope you enjoyed the discussion. I did. Blessing

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry guys, but I think that for me, this thread has run its course. I have been struggling to keep up with answering all the posts, and for me, it is getting to the point of not being able to make enough time in the day to answer all of them.
So, hope you enjoyed the discussion. I did. Blessing

You'd probably be more effective in your apologetics if you applied the "less is more" principle.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry guys, but I think that for me, this thread has run its course. I have been struggling to keep up with answering all the posts, and for me, it is getting to the point of not being able to make enough time in the day to answer all of them.
So, hope you enjoyed the discussion. I did. Blessing

It's also less tiring that way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry guys, but I think that for me, this thread has run its course. I have been struggling to keep up with answering all the posts, and for me, it is getting to the point of not being able to make enough time in the day to answer all of them.
So, hope you enjoyed the discussion. I did. Blessing

Standard academics.

Every answered question genders two more.

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Standard academics.

Every answered question genders two more.

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Does every answered question tell us whether the next two questions will be either masculine or feminine questions?

Also, maybe be very careful to whom you alot the application of a verse like 2 Timothy 3:7. They might take you to 3:8.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry guys, but I think that for me, this thread has run its course. I have been struggling to keep up with answering all the posts, and for me, it is getting to the point of not being able to make enough time in the day to answer all of them.
So, hope you enjoyed the discussion.

I can't say that I did. As has been pointed out, you are trying to use science to promote a theological view. It's a nonstarter. I was hoping for some reasonable discussions on aspects of the evolutionary process that can actually be questioned. But that hasn't happened, obviously because you don't believe that evolution has even occurred. And you haven't reached that conclusion from an honest study of the evidence. You reached the conclusion before you even started looking at the evidence.

What you have done, and so many others in countless discussions like this have done, is take the Genesis account as being literally true (the conclusion) and then gone to look for evidence to try to prove it. Despite the galactically monstrous amount of evidence against it. And evolution is only a small part of that evidence. You've also got to deny basic physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology, oceanography, zoology, botany and even history. The list just goes on and on.

But hey, now you've exhausted all your ID claims, maybe you can come back at some point and we can all discuss astronomy and how it's all completely and utterly wrong as well.

By the way, all those subjects above are classed as natural sciences. So don't be asking why we all can't consider supernatural explanations. The clue is in the name.

 

[Bradskii]

If you're confident the research backs it up, then cite the step-by-step evolutionary pathway for the closed circulatory system...

I'm certain that you haven't looked for it anywhere. But here's one single paper on the matter. It's 50 pages or so with about 70 cross references.

Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium - PMC

Every biological trait requires both a proximate and evolutionary explanation. The field of vascular biology is focused primarily on proximate mechanisms in health and disease. Comparatively little attention has been given to the evolutionary basis ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Don't bother responding to this. As you said, you're done. And I know you won't read it anyway because it is a reasonably long and complex paper that needs a lot of background knowledge. I'm only posting it to refute your ridiculously simplistic claims that evidence is missing. It's not. There are countless libraries full of it.

 

[River Jordan]

Correct. You must be thinking that I am arguing so well that I should go to some science website and debate. Thanks.

Then why do you keep trying to argue against the science?

Here’s the concern: evolution, particularly the idea of death, struggle, and natural selection over millions of years before humans, raises serious theological questions. To accept it, it needs to water down the creation event. If death came long before sin, then what exactly did the Fall do? Why does Paul tie death to Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22)?
For me, it’s not just about scientific models, it’s about preserving the integrity of the biblical storyline: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. If evolution reshapes the beginning, it inevitably touches the middle and the end, too.
So yes, I do believe it matters, not because I'm trying to force a false choice, but because I want to be faithful to the full sweep of Scripture.

Why have I been posting on here? It is because of people like you. People who believe but then water down the creation event. So I post in the hope that you may see your folly. And if atheists are on here, then I hope that their eyes are opened.

Then let's focus on that last bit (Christians who interpret scripture differently than you).

I’m not saying scientists should be running lab tests on God. What I’m challenging is the assumption that all explanations must exclude intelligent agency from the outset. That’s not an empirical rule, it’s a philosophical one called methodological naturalism, and it limits what kinds of conclusions are allowed before the evidence is even considered.
We infer intelligence in other fields, like archaeology, forensics, or SETI, based on the nature of the evidence, not because we can test the intelligence directly.

Really quick, do you see the contradiction? You complain that science doesn't allow for intelligent agency and then you cite fields of science where they do exactly that.

Wow. I take that as a compliment that you are telling me to go and be a scientist. You must think very highly of my arguments.

You're deflecting. If you really think the way science is currently carried out is fundamentally flawed and you have a better way, then why aren't you doing it?

I’m not the judge of anyone’s salvation, only God knows the heart. But I do believe this: if someone knowingly chooses to disbelieve what God has plainly said in Scripture, especially about foundational truths like creation, it raises serious concerns about their trust in His Word overall.
Jesus and the apostles consistently treated Genesis as real history. If we begin redefining or dismissing parts of Scripture because they conflict with current human theories, we’re not just disagreeing with a passage, we're challenging God's truthfulness. That’s not a small issue.
It’s not about whether someone believes in a young earth or debates about the age of the universe. It’s about whether we take God at His Word or reshape it to fit popular opinion. I wouldn’t want to stand before God and explain why I treated His Word as something to be edited rather than obeyed.
Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, but faith that deliberately ignores God's clear Word is something that should make us pause and reflect and shudder, not just brush it off.

When people begin to suppress the clear truth of God’s role as Creator, give credit to random processes or animals, and treat Scripture as secondary to human theories, they risk exactly what Paul described: exchanging the glory of God for something lesser, and allowing their hearts to be darkened. It’s a reminder that we should never compromise God’s truth to fit into a man-made framework. The glory belongs to Him alone.
So, if someone calls themselves a Christian but rejects what God says about creation, replacing it with a theory built on human speculation, they’re not just disagreeing with a detail; they’re disagreeing with the Author. That’s serious. Belief in God isn’t just abstract; it’s trusting what He’s revealed. If we rewrite or override what He says in Genesis, we’re not believing God; we’re believing man. And faith that doesn’t believe God’s Word at the start of the Bible casts doubt on whether it truly trusts Him at the Cross.
But in the end, I am not the judge, but I can still warn people.

This is the heart of the matter. Do you see how you characterize your brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to read scripture differently than you? To quote:

"chooses to disbelieve what God has plainly said in Scripture"

"raises serious concerns about their trust in His Word "

"redefining or dismissing parts of Scripture because they conflict with current human theories"

"treated His Word as something to be edited rather than obeyed"

"deliberately ignores God's clear Word"

"suppress the clear truth of God’s role as Creator"

"treat Scripture as secondary to human theories"

"compromise God’s truth to fit into a man-made framework"

"rejects what God says about creation"

"rewrite or override what He says in Genesis"

"not believing God"

"casts doubt on whether it truly trusts Him at the Cross"

Not only are those complete inaccurate, they're terrible things to accuse Christians of, especially when literally the only thing you know about them is that they interpret some parts of scripture differently than you.

Who are you to level such language at anyone?

Many students are never actually exposed to strong, thoughtful arguments for creation. They're handed a caricature: that it's just pseudoscience or blind faith. But when people take the time to seriously engage with qualified scientists and scholars who hold to biblical creation (and there are many), they often find the material isn’t as shallow or dishonest as it’s been made out to be by evolutionists.
Yes, there are bad arguments and poorly written materials on both sides. But the existence of bad creationist writing doesn’t mean biblical creationism as a whole is dishonest. The core issue remains: Is Scripture the lens through which we view the world, or is science the authority that tells us what parts of Scripture we can keep? That’s the bigger concern.

Interesting claims. Let's see this honest creationist material you say exists.

As for my quote from Darwin. It still stands.
Darwin asked this question himself, and it remains a serious one today. He suggested that the fossil record is too incomplete to capture all the transitional forms his theory predicts.
But over 150 years later, with vastly more fossils discovered, the Cambrian Explosion still stands out. In a short geological window, a huge variety of complex animals with entirely new body plans suddenly appear, fully formed.
If evolution is supposed to be gradual, we would expect to find a chain of fossils showing how these complex creatures developed from simpler ones, but that’s largely missing.
Even secular palaeontologists admit this is a major puzzle.

Why should I take any of that as true? I know for a fact that paleontologists don't agree, so why should I believe you over them?

This is a direct affirmation of creation, not the result of countless mutations over millions of years. So, we have to ask: Do we believe Jesus, or try to reinterpret Him to fit evolutionary theory?

Do you not understand there are more than those two options?

I appreciate the reminder. My intent isn’t to offend, but to speak plainly about what’s at stake.

Too late. The things I quoted above are terrible.

I do understand that not everyone who reads Genesis differently is trying to attack the Bible.

Your other rhetoric says otherwise.

But from my perspective, once we begin reinterpreting foundational parts of Scripture, not because the text demands it, but because current scientific theories do, it does raise concerns about biblical authority. That’s not a personal attack; it’s a conviction about how we approach God’s Word.

You're still wrong.

I agree that tone matters, and I want to be careful not to sound dismissive. But persuasion can’t come at the cost of clarity. If I truly believe that the Gospel rests on the historical foundation laid in Genesis, then I have to speak to that. Not to win arguments, but to encourage confidence in the full authority of Scripture, from beginning to end.

Then you really need to work on your sales technique. All you seem to have done so far is offend several groups of people.

Thanks for clarifying, but let’s be honest, phrases like “FYI I’m a biologist, so there’s no need to lecture me about science” and “how did you get to be such an expert in palaeontology?” don’t exactly sound like neutral curiosity. They read as dismissive, especially when used to deflect from the point I was making. That’s why I took it as an appeal to authority.

They're me asking you why I, or anyone else, should believe the things you say here about science over the conclusions of professionals. If you have no qualifications or experience in any of the fields of science you're speaking to, there's no reason to just blindly accept your claims, is there?

 

[River Jordan]

You're repeating the same flawed premise that arguments stand or fall based on the speaker’s credentials. That’s not how science works. If a claim is wrong, demonstrate why it’s wrong using logic and evidence, not by defaulting to, "You're not a professional."
By that logic, no layperson could ever question or discuss science without a PhD in the field. That would shut down public discourse entirely and conveniently excuse you from engaging with uncomfortable challenges.
I’m not making arguments based on personal authority; I’m pointing to a distinction that even many philosophers of science acknowledge, that historical science, which interprets past events, operates differently than experimental science, which tests repeatable phenomena in controlled settings.
You don’t need a lab coat to recognise that interpreting unrepeatable past events through the lens of naturalism is not the same as directly observing gravity or testing chemical reactions. If that distinction bothers you, address it on its merits, not by demanding a resume.

You're missing the point entirely. You presented zero support for anything you said about the state of various fields of science. So why should anyone blindly accept them as true?

 

[BCP1928]

Why have I been posting on here? It is because of people like you. People who believe but then water down the creation event. So I post in the hope that you may see your folly. And if atheists are on here, then I hope that their eyes are opened.

I hope you are able to learn something about evolution and come back to try again, but leave this kind of false and unnecessary nastiness at home.

 

[River Jordan]

I don’t need to have personally dissected the genome or run lab experiments to ask valid, critical questions.

But you're not asking questions, you're making all sorts of claims about a lot of different fields of science while not offering any support for those claims.

Science welcomes scrutiny from anyone willing to think critically and engage with the evidence.

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you told me you weren't here to affect science, but now you're saying you're scrutinizing science?

If the only acceptable voices are those who’ve “done the work,” then by that logic, most people should never question climate models, pharmaceutical trials, or evolutionary theory, unless they’ve personally published in the field. But we both know that’s not how public discourse or critical thinking works.

This isn't about what's acceptable in science, it's about you making a series of completely unsupported claims about the states of various fields of science.

The point still stands: has anyone demonstrated, not just assumed, how such interdependent systems arose gradually through unguided processes? Because asserting it’s possible is not the same as showing how it happened.
If you're confident the research backs it up, then cite the step-by-step evolutionary pathway for the closed circulatory system, showing how each step provided a functional advantage. If that hasn't been done, then my question remains entirely fair, and unanswered.

Why such a high standard coupled with an all-or-none framework, where it's either a 100% complete scenario or nothing?