Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

As it turns out, 1 in 1.

Interesting, same for creation.

 

[eyes4grandpa]

Indeed they are. People tend to tie them together, so I did so expecting that is what the mindset was here. Obviously, it is understood that these two are separate, so my apologies.
I was simply trying to show how a lack of faith canlead to people trying to explain what they cannot see., For example, telescopes can only see so far into space. Does that mean that the universe or galaxy stops there? We cannot see the air we breathe. Does that mean it doesn't exist either? I think you see where I'm going with this. I am not here to cause an argument... Just to express how important that is. We have faith that the Universe continues past but we cannot see. We have faith that there is air for us to breathe every breath. They both exist. Science does a wonderful job of exposing what God has created in its complexities, and has even learned how to modify some of those things. But that is the extent of it. Whether you like it or not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But the pectoral fins of a shark are ONLY for maneuvering while the wings of a penguin are for maneuvering AND propulsion. Two completely different things. That's completely ignoring the bone structure and makeup of the fins versus the wings.

The similarities are minor while the differences are major.

I was focusing on the similarities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science does a wonderful job of exposing what God has created in its complexities, and has even learned how to modify some of those things. But that is the extent of it. Whether you like it or not.

I like it!

 

[AV1611VET]

I have. They aren't the same thing.

Oh, of course not.

You have to separate abiogenesis from evolution somehow.

And coming up with cosmic evolution is a neat trick to compartmentalize everything you can't explain.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was focusing on the similarities.

While you are completely ignoring the differences.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, of course not.

You have to separate abiogenesis from evolution somehow.

And coming up with cosmic evolution is a neat trick to compartmentalize everything you can't explain.

You could definitely fill a dump-truck with the amount of garbage you spew, you know that right?

 

[AV1611VET]

You could definitely fill a dump-truck with the amount of garbage you spew, you know that right?

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

One man's garbage is another man's treasure.

Your comments are anything but treasures.

 

[rjs330]

As it turns out, 1 in 1.

You can't prove that.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm not an "evolutionist." I'm an informed, educated citizen. I defer to those who study it. Thank goodness for specialization. I am extremely grateful for their work.

 

[SteveB28]

Indeed they are. People tend to tie them together, so I did so expecting that is what the mindset was here. Obviously, it is understood that these two are separate, so my apologies.
I was simply trying to show how a lack of faith canlead to people trying to explain what they cannot see., For example, telescopes can only see so far into space. Does that mean that the universe or galaxy stops there?

No. This is why we only try to explain and investigate those things which we can see. Anything beyond that is speculation or hypothesis.

We cannot see the air we breathe. Does that mean it doesn't exist either?

You've chosen a poor example there. Although the air is invisible, we can nevertheless very accurately measure its existence.

I think you see where I'm going with this. I am not here to cause an argument... Just to express how important that is. We have faith that the Universe continues past but we cannot see.

Not true. "Faith" is not the mechanism we employ.

We have faith that there is air for us to breathe every breath.

Wrong again. We have EVIDENCE that it exists. Faith is not required.

They both exist. Science does a wonderful job of exposing what God has created in its complexities, and has even learned how to modify some of those things. But that is the extent of it. Whether you like it or not.

Give evidence that something exists beyond which we can detect through a naturalistic process.



.

 

[Speedwell]

You can't prove that.

Not to you. You aren't even interested in finding out how evolutionary biologists claim it happened.

 

[Kylie]

Yes. All three have at least one function in common, among several.

But you cannot say they do the same thing.

 

[Kylie]

How far are you willing to go with hair splitting, speaking of the OP?

Oh please, you are literally the only person here who thinks I am being unreasonable. Even other people have brought this up. You are attempting to claim that these things are the same when you can only do so by ignoring large differences.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, and the similarity.

So you ignore the LARGE differences, and yet focus on the small similarities, thus trying to make the similarities out to be of much more importance than they actually are, while making the massive differences to be much less important than they actually are.

In short, you are cherry picking and creating a straw man.

 

[Kylie]

What gets me are the people that simply say..."What about the Big Bang?"
They seem to always leave out the word "theory" from that statement. I tend to remind them about that. I also ask them a question myself. Who do you think caused it?
Remember God's timetable is quite different from ours.
No... This is not a complicated study that science lights to see and to perform. However, it covers and answers that particular statement. Faith... You have to have faith.

Ah yes, the old creationist trick of pretending a scientific theory is something a bunch of guys in lab coats came up with one night while out drinking.

I suppose you feel that way about the theory of gravity? Or maybe the germ theory of medicine? Or electrical theory?

Or do you only use this technique to belittle the theories you disagree with?

 

[Kylie]

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Actually...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150309082930.htm

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

*Sigh* I'm sure you've been told countless times that cosmic evolution is entirely unrelated to biological evolution.

Have you been told this before, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

*Sigh* I'm sure you've been told countless times that cosmic evolution is entirely unrelated to biological evolution.

Have you been told this before, AV?

Have you happened to notice that biological evolution falls under the aegis of cosmic evolution?

Mt Dew is pop, but not all pop is Mt Dew.

 

[Kylie]

Have you happened to notice that biological evolution falls under the aegis of cosmic evolution?

So? You could say that EVERYTHING is.

Mt Dew is pop, but not all pop is Mt Dew.

So let's keep the conversation limited to Mountain Dew, shall we? If we're talking about Mountain Dew, then bringing in Fanta is just going to muddy the issue, not to mention it would be irrelevant.