Do you agree with these statements?

inquiring mind said:

I've learned enough to know that conclusions drawn from evidence are not always fact.

Click to expand...

Not always, that is true. But if you ever thought that there was enough evidence to put any criminal away then by the same standards you would have to accept the theory of evolution.

Why not try to understand the nature of evidence? The bar for scientific evidence is rather low. If an idea is correct it is easy to scientific find evidence for it. Why can't creationists find any evidence for their ideas?

inquiring mind said:

See what I mean. Clear evidence??? Maybe humans just share common building blocks with apes.

Click to expand...

Thus, the creator created everything with the appearance of evolution. It's always funny to me how creationists ultimately fall back on the appearance of evolution.

Reading some of the entries gives anyone with enough spare time to read, a bellyache mixed with a headache. Here, I'll copy something over from another thread. Try to get into the real world.
A chordate (/ˈkɔːrdeɪt/) is an animal of the phylum Chordata. During some period of their life cycle, chordates possess a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail: these five anatomical features define this phylum. Chordates are also bilaterally symmetric, and have a coelom, metameric segmentation, and circulatory system. ...................
Chordate fossils have been found from as early as the Cambrian explosion, 541 million years ago. Cladistically (phylogenetically), vertebrates – chordates with the notochord replaced by a vertebral column during development – are considered to be a subgroup of the clade Craniata, which consists of chordates with a skull. The Craniata and Tunicata compose the clade Olfactores. WIKIPEDIA.

With some -- repeat, some, of us, our evolution education is seemingly evolving backwards. No, the great grandaddy of sweetie pie the rag doll sweetie cat was not boof head the watch dog. It was cynthia sea squirt from the Cambrian. Learn something, will yus? Revise. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. The stages in an organism's physical development are a re-visitation of the stages in its ancestry. So dogs don't give birth to cats. It's something that looks like a sea vegetable. Get with it.
Incidentally. Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny comes straight out of Genesis. (The bit about sea squirts giving birth to sweetiepie does not.)
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,[all complex life, Day 5] and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created [overriding, momentous action] great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth [no mention of create] the living creature after his kind, [already existing, created Day 5] cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so....... .

So all cats and dogs were created at the Cambrian. They were modified or formed of earth subsequently. Water base, fish-like in the womb -- ontogeny -- water base, fish in the past -- phylogeny. And species only ever reproduce after their kind. So if Darwin the theology student had read a bible, he could have saved himself an evolution of embarrassment. Wouldn't listen to his wife. So we eliminate the impossible. It is impossible for sea squirts to give birth to cats and dogs. What is possible? It is theoretically possible to switch back to asexual reproduction -- man has done it with cloning -- and thus trigger one species into becoming another species in terms of its reproductive capacity and thus engineer a cloning category procedure which gave the observed result. All done through information interacting with organisms. That's the part of the Tree of Life we can no longer access.

Wow! If I did not know better I would say that "speed kills" but I don't think that was the cause for the above post.

Brightmoon said:

Look at your arm , a bat’s wing, a cat’s front leg, a pterosaur’s wing , a whale flipper and a bird’s wing . They all have a common pattern. One bone attached to 2 bones attached to many bones. And that’s duplicated somewhat in the hind limbs. This is under control of the same genes . Even snakes have these limb formation genes but they’ve been shut off.

Here’s a very good video that explains briefly how limbs form in a bilaterian ( everything with a head, anus and a left and right side(roughly everything from worms to humans)
(As an aside bilaterians includes starfish they look like that as juveniles )

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Not always, that is true. But if you ever thought that there was enough evidence to put any criminal away then by the same standards you would have to accept the theory of evolution.

Why not try to understand the nature of evidence? The bar for scientific evidence is rather low. If an idea is correct it is easy to scientific find evidence for it. Why can't creationists find any evidence for their ideas?

Click to expand...

pitabread said:

Thus, the creator created everything with the appearance of evolution. It's always funny to me how creationists ultimately fall back on the appearance of evolution.

Click to expand...

I don’t mean to be too quarrelsome, but you see what you think is clear evidence of macroevolution, and I just don’t see it. Not only do I not see the possibility of macroevolution, but I can’t fathom enough elapsed time to even imagine it happening. Somehow, a connection with bats, snakes and such (other than all being God’s creatures) just doesn’t compute with me. I like to think that my opinion is not from a lack of education, but from a belief in scripture, which doesn’t appear to leave any doubt that man was created separately. Really, to me it's not about arguing against science and its attributes to mankind; I just believe that science must have the concept of macroevolution wrong somewhere (maybe the distance between a couple of dots was just too much of a stretch).

The scientific definition of macroevolution is speciation. Once something has split into 2 or more species then that’s macroevolution. Creationists never seem to understand that.

Sorry. It was written on the assumption that there are people out there who are familiar with the geologic record, familiar with the way palaeontologists have attempted to come to terms with it (thus, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc.),and who also accept that immutable laws and facts exist and govern scientific progress. The assumption of the existence of humble free thinkers. They are out there. You do, personally, believe that your great grandaddy was a sea squirt? No? Then how did you get here. Describe the process. Was it ultimately a sea squirt? No? Not even a wobbygong? Ahh. It was the mythical mists. Voluminous repetitive mantras to the nth power and out of this jargonmist we have -- the famous Gallapaggies where Darwin saw so many fiches he lost count. Processes in physics only happen via mathematically definable pathways. Not by jargon. In science there is Math/Physics -- everything else is stamp collecting.

Philip Bruce Heywood said:

Sorry. It was written on the assumption that there are people out there who are familiar with the geologic record, familiar with the way palaeontologists have attempted to come to terms with it (thus, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc.),and who also accept that immutable laws and facts exist and govern scientific progress. The assumption of the existence of humble free thinkers. They are out there. You do, personally, believe that your great grandaddy was a sea squirt? No? Then how did you get here. Describe the process. Was it ultimately a sea squirt? No? Not even a wobbygong? Ahh. It was the mythical mists. Voluminous repetitive mantras to the nth power and out of this jargonmist we have -- the famous Gallapaggies where Darwin saw so many fiches he lost count. Processes in physics only happen via mathematically definable pathways. Not by jargon. In science there is Math/Physics -- everything else is stamp collecting.

Click to expand...

Can you back up your snide confidence with specifics?

Where in the ongoing process of speciation is something impossible?

Where is the barrier to genetic change building to the point of modern diversity?

inquiring mind said:

I don’t mean to be too quarrelsome, but you see what you think is clear evidence of macroevolution, and I just don’t see it. Not only do I not see the possibility of macroevolution, but I can’t fathom enough elapsed time to even imagine it happening. Somehow, a connection with bats, snakes and such (other than all being God’s creatures) just doesn’t compute with me. I like to think that my opinion is not from a lack of education, but from a belief in scripture, which doesn’t appear to leave any doubt that man was created separately. Really, to me it's not about arguing against science and its attributes to mankind; I just believe that science must have the concept of macroevolution wrong somewhere (maybe the distance between a couple of dots was just too much of a stretch).

Click to expand...

No, it truly is from a lack of education. Why do you resist learning what is and is not evidence? This has nothing to do with a "belief in scripture" because there are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution. You may be interpreting scripture literally that was never meant to be read that way.

Also macroevolution has been directly observed, both in the lab and in nature. So I do not think that science got it wrong. Creationists got it wrong.

Philip Bruce Heywood said:

Sorry. It was written on the assumption that there are people out there who are familiar with the geologic record, familiar with the way palaeontologists have attempted to come to terms with it (thus, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc.),and who also accept that immutable laws and facts exist and govern scientific progress. The assumption of the existence of humble free thinkers. They are out there. You do, personally, believe that your great grandaddy was a sea squirt? No? Then how did you get here. Describe the process. Was it ultimately a sea squirt? No? Not even a wobbygong? Ahh. It was the mythical mists. Voluminous repetitive mantras to the nth power and out of this jargonmist we have -- the famous Gallapaggies where Darwin saw so many fiches he lost count. Processes in physics only happen via mathematically definable pathways. Not by jargon. In science there is Math/Physics -- everything else is stamp collecting.

Click to expand...

An honest approach puts certain demands on people. Using strawman arguments is not allowed. Also one needs more than silly sayings. Let's start on the basics and work from there. does

When one does not even understand the scientific method one cannot refute a scientific concept.

So, tell us what technically happens at speciation. DNA, RNA, immune system, sex cells. As anyone who has opened their eyes can tell you, we are dealing with something which involves machines whilst making any man made machine nothing by comparison. These machines have an ignition system no-one has come anywhere near in terms of understanding. Life. The materials making the physical bodies involved are inert chemicals organized in such a way they become part of communications systems ranging right up into quantum category. For the last several decades the world's best I.T. experts have been determinedly working on a quantum computer but have been unable to simulate even the simplest quantum processes in living things. For example, if we could do photosynthesis, the energy supply of the world would be assured. We can not even copy the basic energy capturing method of pondscum. We are yet to discern the exact nature of the species lock, which gives us distinct species. (Sex cells and immune systems, however, are being investigated for good reasons). To reprogram DNA and RNA so as to have a sure-fire new species is as far from modern science as the aforementioned quantum computer.
All this blarney about speciation is approximately as rational and scientific as children who have watched cars going up the road down the road and around and around the mulberry tree -- correction-- roundabout -- and they know as a sure fire certainty what cars are all about. You have no pathway in physics, you have nothing better than the sort of stuff that preceded even Aristotle. And he didn't get it overly straight, at that, did he.
In the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell, in connection with dismissing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] parliament (altered by myself): "In the bowels of Jesus Christ, Brethren: Did it ever cross your minds, you could be mistaken?"
Look up my site WWW. Creationtheory dot com and begin from where it is necessary to begin in science -- with the engine of the motor car.

Let’s start with the most common biological definition of species- the ability to mate and produce healthy fertile offspring. If you can’t do that then you’re another species . That’s macroevolution.

If you can mate and produce healthy fertile offspring then you’re the same species and any genetic changes in your offspring are Microevolution

creations misuse these definitions continually and then blame science for not understanding.

What’s does machinery have to do with a biological system? It’s not a good analogy

pitabread said:

Thus, the creator created everything with the appearance of evolution. It's always funny to me how creationists ultimately fall back on the appearance of evolution.

Click to expand...

It's the 'Hammer of God' problem (to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

The problem is that if your 'explanation' can be used to explain literally anything and everything, it explains nothing. When it is ill-defined, is untestable, provides no insight into what it explains, gives no predictions, doesn't cohere with existing knowledge, has no mechanism, raises more unanswerable questions than it purports to answer, etc., then it's knowledge & information-free, it's just a modesty cover for an embarrassing lack of explanation.

Brightmoon said:

The scientific definition of macroevolution is speciation. Once something has split into 2 or more species then that’s macroevolution. Creationists never seem to understand that.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

No, it truly is from a lack of education. Why do you resist learning what is and is not evidence? This has nothing to do with a "belief in scripture" because there are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution. You may be interpreting scripture literally that was never meant to be read that way.

Also macroevolution has been directly observed, both in the lab and in nature. So I do not think that science got it wrong. Creationists got it wrong.

Click to expand...

What’s your thought on the line of thinking that speciation is just a ‘word’ that was put in place to propagate the concept of macroevolutionary change and help evolutionists defend the idea of a different beginning from that of creation. ‘Kind and variations within Kinds’ didn’t do that for evolutionists. So, they had to come up with a categorization that did, never mind that the ‘species’ definition is fuzzy itself, just begin labeling variations as different species, connect dots, and everyone falls right in line proclaiming, “Oh, I can see that… things do change.”

inquiring mind said:

What’s your thought on the line of thinking that speciation is just a ‘word’ that was put in place to propagate the concept of macroevolutionary change and help evolutionists defend the idea of a different beginning from that of creation. ‘Kind and variations within Kinds’ didn’t do that for evolutionists. So, they had to come up with a categorization that did, never mind that the ‘species’ definition is fuzzy itself, just begin labeling variations as different species, connect dots, and everyone falls right in line proclaiming, “Oh, I can see that… things do change.”

Click to expand...

I think it's mistaken; either ignorant or dishonest.

inquiring mind said:

What’s your thought on the line of thinking that speciation is just a ‘word’ that was put in place to propagate the concept of macroevolutionary change and help evolutionists defend the idea of a different beginning from that of creation. ‘Kind and variations within Kinds’ didn’t do that for evolutionists. So, they had to come up with a categorization that did, never mind that the ‘species’ definition is fuzzy itself, just begin labeling variations as different species, connect dots, and everyone falls right in line proclaiming, “Oh, I can see that… things do change.”

Click to expand...

Yes, things do change. And, gradually, a part of a population of creatures can change sufficiently such that is no longer interfertile with the rest of the population. That's a real change, not just the result of a name. The only reason it's "fuzzy" is that it takes many generations for the sub-population to evolve enough to be completely isolated reproductively, as partial interfertility may persist for some tme.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I think it's mistaken; either ignorant or dishonest.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised.

Speedwell said:

Yes, things do change. And, gradually, a part of a population of creatures can change sufficiently such that is no longer interfertile with the rest of the population. That's a real change, not just the result of a name. The only reason it's "fuzzy" is that it takes many generations for the sub-population to evolve enough to be completely isolated reproductively, as partial interfertility may persist for some tme.

Click to expand...

I suppose you're referring to the 'connect the dots' part.

inquiring mind said:

I suppose you're referring to the 'connect the dots' part.

Click to expand...

What part is that? Speciation has been observed; the process is well understood.

But think you're barking up the wrong tree. You can think of speciation as "adaption" if you want to. Your real problem is to find a biological limit to the amount of evolutionary change which can accrue, whatever you want to call it.