Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

I'm not ignoring the large differences, just pointing out the similarities, nothing more.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not ignoring the large differences, just pointing out the similarities, nothing more.

So then you agree that a shark's fin is a totally different structure than a penguin's wing.

Glad we are agreed on that.

So now, can you tell me why no other underwater creature has wings, despite the fact that penguins find them very useful?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So then you agree that a shark's fin is a totally different structure than a penguin's wing.

Glad we are agreed on that.

So now, can you tell me why no other underwater creature has wings, despite the fact that penguins find them very useful?

Where do you think you're going with this?

 

[Kylie]

Where do you think you're going with this?

That evolution explains the nested hierarchy we see in life much better than creation does, which is exactly what I said in post 354.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

Yes. And it's not the same as biological evolution, which is what the theory of evolution refers to.

No matter what Kent Hovind has to say.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That evolution explains the nested hierarchy we see in life much better than creation does, which is exactly what I said in post 354.

Science is the study of creation, regardless of terminology.

But I understand how scientists think. I hunt on public land, and because I'm there so much I get to thinking that I own the place. It's a feeling of 'territoriality' for land that I don't own.

 

[Speedwell]

Science is the study of creation, regardless of terminology.

But I understand how scientists think. I hunt on public land, and because I'm there so much I get to thinking that I own the place. It's a feeling of 'territoriality' for land that I don't own.

Not quite. Science is the study of how it came about, whether it's creation or not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not quite. Science is the study of how it came about, whether it's creation or not.

Some day the light will go on.

 

[Speedwell]

Some day the light will go on.

What light are you talking about? I believe it is creation but I still want to know how it came about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What light are you talking about? I believe it is creation but I still want to know how it came about.

Sorry, I meant with science in general.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry, I meant with science in general.

"Science" wants to find out how it came about. "Science" doesn't care whether it is creation or not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Science" wants to find out how it came about. "Science" doesn't care whether it is creation or not.

Advocates of evolution science seem to care a great deal in these forums.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Advocates of evolution science seem to care a great deal in these forums.

That's because none of the evidence that you and other creationists provide, which you claim supports creation, does everything but.

 

[Speedwell]

Advocates of evolution science seem to care a great deal in these forums.

Not about creation as such, but about whether the scientific method ought to be abandoned in favor of a shallow and inadequate interpretation of an ancient text.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not about creation as such, but about whether the scientific method ought to be abandoned in favor of a shallow and inadequate interpretation of an ancient text.

The scientific method is great, for examining the creation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's because none of the evidence that you and other creationists provide, which you claim supports creation, does everything but.

The creation supports creationism. Science confirms the complexity of it, i.e. "fearfully and wonderfully" made.

 

[Speedwell]

The creation supports creationism. Science confirms the complexity of it, i.e. "fearfully and wonderfully" made.

But when you sign an oath that nothing you discover or conclude can contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, you have repudiated the scientific method.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But when you sign an oath that nothing you discover or conclude can contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, you have repudiated the scientific method.

I don't think we're through interpreting Genesis. I don't accept the traditional or the orthodox view.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The creation supports creationism. Science confirms the complexity of it, i.e. "fearfully and wonderfully" made.

No it doesn't. You have not shown in any shape or form that complexity supports creation. You just said it does and just left it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't. You have not shown in any shape or form that complexity supports creation. You just said it does and just left it.

It's obvious that it does. What more can be said?