Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Moral Orel]

And who defined primates? We did based upon criteria also defined by us based upon similarities.

That's generally how definitions work. Do you not see those similarities, or do you just resent how specific those similarities are? I mean, it's probably okay to say humans and gorillas are both mammals. Is there something sinister and agenda-driven about the way we defined "mammal"? Seems to me you have a subjective line about how close we should be compared to other apes, whereas I don't see a problem with finding as many similarities as there are with any given thing. It isn't as though we didn't give humans a special name (homo sapiens, as someone else mentioned) to distinguish our special features from other animals that don't possess them.

It means nothing more than human beings setting definitions for God's creation and coming to an assumptive theory that all things came from one thing.

There's that "assumption" word again. Do you still "assume" you can count to a billion, or have you observed it directly? You can't know for certain with direct observation, so it's nothing more than an assumption, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You only have the bones from the past, no soft tissue to study.

I'm pretty sure all extant organisms have soft tissue from which we can extract DNA, to study.

I'm also pretty sure that the anatomy of fossils can be studied as well.

I'm also pretty sure we were succesfull in extracting things like Neanderthal DNA.

I'm also pretty sure that we are aware of how species are geographically distributed and how we can relate this distribution to what we know about continental drift in geology etc.


All these things can be studied and tested in light of an evolutionary past.
In fact, it's the study of all these things that lead us to the conclusion of an evolutionary past.

And many of those 'evolved' species are simply the bones of adolescents and juveniles of the same critter presented as having 'evolved'.

That is just not true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The complexity that science discovers supports special creation.

Complexity is only evidence of complexity (and rather subjective, at that).
Complexity is not evidence of any particular origins.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And who defined primates?

We observed the nested hierarchy of life and identified sets / groups of organisms that are linked by a set of shared characteristics. "Nodes" on the tree of life. We required a name for these groups, so that we can communicate about these groups.

The name "primate" is arbitrary. What it represents is not. The group is not. The group is a factual set of animals that are linked through observable characteristics.

And which share ancestry, as demonstrated by their DNA.

We did based upon criteria also defined by us based upon similarities

No, the criteria, the grouping characteristics, aren't arbitrary. They are observed.

It means nothing more than human beings setting definitions for God's creation and coming to an assumptive theory that all things came from one thing.

No. When it's just about arbitrary labels, then you end up grouping them otherwise. Then you end up putting bats together with birds, because "they both fly". You'ld end up calling whales and dolphins "fish", because they live and swim in the sea and have "fins".

But bats aren't birds.
And whales aren't fish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then show me the study that shows us something evolving into something it isn't already.

If I could show you something like that... Then evolution theory would be falsified.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are,correct creation makes no,predictions.

Which is what rules it out as a scientific idea, and puts it on the shelve with all the other unfalsifiable and superstitious creation myths.

The point exactly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is what rules it out as a scientific idea, and puts it on the shelve with all the other unfalsifiable and superstitious creation myths.

Myopic science calling something an "unfalsifiable and superstitious creation myth" is like a nearsighted man saying everything he can't see clearly "isn't there."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Myopic science calling something an "unfalsifiable and superstitious creation myth" is like a nearsighted man saying everything he can't see clearly "isn't there."

No. It's rather simple. Scientific ideas are testable, or they aren't scientific.
No testable predictions = not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Uh ... ya.

It's rather simple.

Okay.

Scientific ideas are testable, or they aren't scientific.

Test the Big Bang then.

No testable predictions = not science.

And not science ≠ myth.

 

[SteveB28]

The complexity that science discovers supports special creation.

Only for those too lazy, or afraid, to look for alternative explanations........

 

[AV1611VET]

Only for those too lazy, or afraid, to look for alternative explanations........

That's rich, in light of these hard-working scientific methodists trying [rolls eyes] so hard [/rolls eyes] to answer this challenge.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Uh ... ya.Okay.Test the Big Bang then.And not science ≠ myth.

Wikipedia gives a description of some of the predictions of the Big Bang hypothesis that have been observed - Big Bang: Observational Evidence. These include:

Hubble's law and the expansion of space
Cosmic microwave background radiation
Abundance of primordial elements
Galactic evolution and distribution
Primordial gas clouds​

and other lines of evidence.

 

[Freodin]

Wikipedia gives a description of some of the predictions of the Big Bang hypothesis that have been observed - Big Bang: Observational Evidence. These include:

Hubble's law and the expansion of space
Cosmic microwave background radiation
Abundance of primordial elements
Galactic evolution and distribution
Primordial gas clouds​

and other lines of evidence.

Of course all of that can be "explained" by "God did it".

An explanation that explains everything explains nothing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course all of that can be "explained" by "God did it".

An explanation that explains everything explains nothing.

Sadly true. But if you can maintain a sufficient degree of willful ignorance, you'll find the alternative no more convincing...

 

[AV1611VET]

Hubble's law and the expansion of space

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Abundance of primordial elements

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Galactic evolution and distribution

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Primordial gas clouds

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.

and other lines of evidence.

Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course all of that can be "explained" by "God did it".

Except for the galactic evolution part.

An explanation that explains everything explains nothing.

Scientists believe that, do they?

Is that why they're in search of that elusive "Theory of Everything"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sadly true.

Hmmm ...

But if you can maintain a sufficient degree of willful ignorance, you'll find the alternative no more convincing...

That's kinda rich, coming from someone who believes in a philosophy that teaches: the more we learn, the less we know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Test the Big Bang then

The big bang model makes, among others, 2 testable predictions:
- the universe expands
- background radiation.

Check and check.

.And not science ≠ myth.

In this case, it is. It's just another superstitious creation story. Not unlike the many other creationist myths known to man kind. Pick a religion, any religion, and there it is...

 

[SteveB28]

Hmmm ...That's kinda rich, coming from someone who believes in a philosophy that teaches: the more we learn, the less we know.

Aah... yet another religious person TELLING others what they think, rather than ASKING.....

How sadly predictable.....

 

[AV1611VET]

The big bang model makes, among others, 2 testable predictions:
- the universe expands
- background radiation.

- The Bible says the universe expands
- The Bible speaks of light ... albeit not radiation, per se, but light just the same