Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Because it's true. Faith has no place in scientific topics.

A sub-forum of the science forum.
Because creationists and other cdesign proponentsists keep insisting that creationism is "science". This forum is meant for them to persent that "science".
Yet all we seem to get is good ol' "faith".

Come on now it's not like evolution, with all its 'anything goes to make your point' speculation and conjecture, is entirely real science. As Creationists we just try to point these things out, and we don't try to restrain your personal 'faith' in evolution from the discussions. I would expect that Creationists should get the same latitude.

I just told you that the evidence is the exact same. More then that, in science, there is no distinction between both in terms of the evolutionary process - or the evidence for that matter.
It's only creationists who pretend that they are different things. And when asked to explain how they are different, no answers are forthcoming. It's one of those many dishonest creationist tactics of misrepresentation.

The problem with 'evidence and proof' being considered the same thing, is that evolutionists want to call it evidence (if it fits their model) whether it stands up to scrutiny or not. That's why it's not necessarily the same thing in law.

If biology is "connecting the dots", then all of science is such.
And in a way it is. Reality provides us with data. Each piece of data can be seen as a "dot", sure. It's upto scientists to then analyse said data and paint the larger picture, by "connecting the dots", if you will, sure.
And then that larger picture is tested to hell and back by collecting more "dots" and seeing if they fit the picture.

Biology is science, or should be, but it has been usurped by evolutionists. This is one more way, in addition to deciding what is evidence and that being proof, evolutionists 'at large' are stacking the deck and making/dispensing their own reality, right down to school age children.

Why would I think that someone that supposedly lived 2000 years ago, would have a better understanding of reality and earth's history as opposed to 21st century science??

No surprise here.

It is. YECs and other species of funamentalists are a minority within christianity. Even within islam.

My guess, most just avoid the issue altogether because of intimidation, a lack of rebuttal knowledge and no desire to look into it beyond scratching the surface.

The Pope and the rest of the Vatican, along with the majority of Catholics, also read those first two chapters of Genesis and they to believe in the bible, yet they don't believe the things that you do.
So, what's that about?

You'll have to ask them.

 

[VirOptimus]

Come on now it's not like evolution, with all its 'anything goes to make your point' speculation and conjecture, is entirely real science. As Creationists we just try to point these things out, and we don't try to restrain your personal 'faith' in evolution from the discussions. I would expect that Creationists should get the same latitude.


The problem with 'evidence and proof' being considered the same thing, is that evolutionists want to call it evidence (if it fits their model) whether it stands up to scrutiny or not. That's why it's not necessarily the same thing in law.


Biology is science, or should be, but it has been usurped by evolutionists. This is one more way, in addition to deciding what is evidence and that being proof, evolutionists 'at large' are stacking the deck and making/dispensing their own reality, right down to school age children.


No surprise here.


My guess, most just avoid the issue altogether because of intimidation, a lack of rebuttal knowledge and no desire to look into it beyond scratching the surface.


You'll have to ask them.

The ToE is incredibly wellsuported and incredibly robust.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are not humans, they are apes.

Yes, we have already established that there aren't any human fossils of 2 myo or older. Which is to be expected, considering humans didn't yet exist at that time.

But, as said already, humans are apes, just like humans are mammals.
You'ld have a point if we didn't find any apes or mammals of that age. But we do.

The hominid line doesn't start until 2 mya when the cranial capacity doubles over night without explanation.

This is just not true

 

[DogmaHunter]

Come on now it's not like evolution, with all its 'anything goes to make your point' speculation and conjecture, is entirely real science.

Misrepresenting evolution theory as if it weren't the result of more then a century of rigourous scientific study, is not going to change the fact that it's as solid science as any other scientific theory.

Yes, biology is a science.

As Creationists we just try to point these things out,

And you are subsequently corrected every time, but creationists don't seem to care about getting it wrong.

and we don't try to restrain your personal 'faith' in evolution from the discussions

You couldn't if you wanted to, because "faith" is not involved here at any point.

I would expect that Creationists should get the same latitude.

Creationists do get the "same latitude". Which is exactly the very source of the conflict. Creationists don't want "the same latitude". Creationists want a short cut. They want their religion straight in scientific textbooks in schools and completely bypass the scientific scrutiny that every other idea is held up against - including evolution.

The problem with 'evidence and proof' being considered the same thing,

I'm not talking about "proof". I'm saying that the evidence for "micro evolution" is the exact same evidence as the evidence for "macro evolution". For the simple reason that both micro and macro evolution refer to the exact same process.

is that evolutionists want to call it evidence (if it fits their model) whether it stands up to scrutiny or not

What evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

Biology is science, or should be, but it has been usurped by evolutionists.

Because evolution is the back bone theory that holds all of biology together.
It's the "unified field theory" of biology, if you will.

There's a reason why all working biologists accept evolution theory.

No surprise here.

It's a genuine question. If you wish to actually learn something about the phenomena of reality (earth's history, physics, chemistry, geology, what have you....) what would you do? Read a bronze age religious book, or an actual 21st century science textbook?

My guess, most just avoid the issue altogether because of intimidation, a lack of rebuttal knowledge and no desire to look into it beyond scratching the surface.

Haaa.... the variation on "you all secretly believe in god and don't want to admit it" argument, with some conspiracy sauce on top of it.


Right, right.... I guess the Pope and the rest of the Vatican feels "intimidated". Uhu.

You'll have to ask them.

Don't you find it curious, that 2 christians read the same text and reach such vastly different conclusions?

After all, YOU were the one that said that "all we have to do, is read the text", right? And you even said that to atheists. Yet, christians themselves can read that text and totally disagree with you.

That's what I'm asking about when I say "what's that about?"
It seems like what you said ("just read the text"), isn't sufficient at all.[/quote]

 

[pitabread]

i dont think so.

I'm talking specifically about conceptualizing an extreme length of time. It's not something easily conceptualized since we don't live anywhere close to that long.

It's similar to trying to conceptualizing extremely large spaces, like the distance from the Earth to the moon or the size of the Sun. We can't readily do that because we don't normally operate at those scales.

This has nothing to do with dogs or cars or whatever.

 

[tas8831]

Its staggering how much you guys don't learn about the life sciences while pontificating about them.

Thanks - I guess earning that cell bio degree was a waste of time...

Molecular mecanisms, actually single stranded rna, do any number of things as the cell is being built.

ssRNA is not a"molecular mechanism." Did you go to the same college as justatruthseeker?

From the 7th to the 17th week of the gestation period of the human fetus there is a regulatory gene known as HAR 1f, a crucial 118 nucleotide regulatory gene. It has allowed only 2 substitions in 400 million years then 2 million years ago it allows 18, only in humans. We will start with that since I don't jump though hoops for darwinians, but thanks for the convoluted rhetoric just the same.

I see that once again you, probably purposefully, totally ignore what I wrote, probably purposefully misinterpret/misrepresent what I had actually written, and probably purposefully misinterpret/misrepresent the questions that I re-asked you.

Thanks for showing that even the supposed level-headed creationists, when confronted with something above the educational level, all act the same way.

 

[tas8831]

In awe of what, it's impossible. Its something called functional constraint due to deleterious effects. This is in addition to 60 de novo brain related genes appearing out of nowhere with no viable cause.why bring it up? It's called the burden of proof, and that's on Darwinians who do nothing but beg the question of proof on their hands and knees

Pity that you are reduced, so quickly, to merely regurgitating your tired mantas and slogans.

It is very telling that you were 100% incapable of even trying to explain to us what you think should have happened if evolution were true. Believe it or not, being cranky and surly and repeating your years-old and oft refuted claims does NOT actually mean that you are correct.

I will give you one more chance -



Curious as to what you expect in terms of a molecular mechanism in terms of the human brain expansion.

That is, what do you think would have been required and why do you draw that conclusion.

...

I want to know, as do, I think, all of the evolution understanders here, what, exactly, you think would have had to happen if the "naturalistic view" were accurate.

There are many known mutations/duplications and such associated with brain size. According to you, how many must there have been and how do you, especially in light of the fact that there are cases of single mutations causing pronounced changes in morphology (another example is the mutation causing familial dwarfism - and please do not complain that dwarfism and muscular cows are not evolution - that is not my point, my point is the effects of mutation on phenotype are not as 1-to-1 as so many layfolk seem to think), know?

 

[tas8831]

He is the sort of creationist that responds with dopey "jokes" when he has nothing of value to write.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe its because there is nothing there (except the brick wall of course).

Forever amazed at the un-Christian hubris displayed by so many creationists - you have already proudly explained that you don't know much about science, then you prattle on and on for weeks about how wrong science is.

You people are something else. Trump supporter?

 

[tas8831]

Because creationists and other cdesign proponentsists keep insisting that creationism is "science". This forum is meant for them to persent that "science".
Yet all we seem to get is good ol' "faith".

Every poster, every time. Some hold out a bit longer than others, but quickly hide behind Scripture when their archived zingers run out...

 

[tas8831]

How about the fact that it doesn't happen in such highly conserved genes, one would be fatal.

And yet, there those 18 are.

So clearly there is a problem in your story.

The thing is, lethal or very detrimental mutations, by their nature, are not found in living populations. Had you considered that?

That's why only two substitutions are allowed over 300 million years. You have the justification, the deleterious effects on brain related genes, now your just arguing in circles.

You have dug yourself quite a hole and don't seem to see it, and that fact makes me laugh at your unwarranted certainty and implied 'expertise'.

If no more than 2 are allowed, how do you explain the 18?

 

[inquiring mind]

He is the sort of creationist that responds with dopey "jokes" when he has nothing of value to write.

It might have been misplaced here, but a dopey response has always seemed to be an appropriate response for you.

 

[inquiring mind]

Forever amazed at the un-Christian hubris displayed by so many creationists - you have already proudly explained that you don't know much about science, then you prattle on and on for weeks about how wrong science is.
You people are something else. Trump supporter?

Yes, and for all I’ve learned from your posts... I might as well have been debating someone in Ms. Zoolinkers eighth grade science club.

 

[tas8831]

That's not natural selection, it's a naturalistic assumption. The deleterious effects on brain related genes comes with things like cancer and tumors, a mutation in this regulator would kill the fetus in the womb.

And yet there are those 18 you say cannot be.

So clearly you are wrong.

 

[tas8831]

It might have been misplaced here, but a dopey response has always seemed to be an appropriate response for you.

Especially when you have nothing or merit or substance to write.

I do wonder though - why are so many creationists hypocritical, like you?

You nearly boast about not knowing much about science, yet then go on to in effect pontificate on scientific issues.

Is it hubris? Childishness? Malice? Does being a religious extremist make you folks that way?

 

[tas8831]

Yes, and for all I’ve learned from your posts... I might as well have been debating someone in Ms. Zoolinkers eighth grade science club.

Is that where you learned all you know about fossils? That would explain some things.

Pity you never learned about humility in your church. Or do you go to one of those money-grubbing churches?

 

[inquiring mind]

You nearly boast about not knowing much about science, yet then go on to in effect pontificate on scientific issues.

I’ve certainly seen no display of scientific knowledge from you that is worthy of too high an educational credential, but when I do I’ll know to acknowledge it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Is that where you learned all you know about fossils? That would explain some things.
Pity you never learned about humility in your church. Or do you go to one of those money-grubbing churches?

Let me guess... you’re practicing stand-up comedy while not doing cell bio research.

 

[sfs]

Come on now it's not like evolution, with all its 'anything goes to make your point' speculation and conjecture, is entirely real science.

Okay, let's be serious. You've never read a single scientific paper on evolution, have you? Much less written one, of course. You've never reconstructed a phylogeny, you've never sequenced a genome, you've never done a morphological analysis of a fossil. In fact, you couldn't do any of those things if your life depended on it, nor could you understand a scientific description of any of them. You have not got the faintest idea in the world what the actual science of evolutionary biology consists of . . . and yet you somehow think, based on your complete and total lack of knowledge about the subject, that you're in a position to tell working scientists that what they do isn't really science. How does that not strike you as just a teeny bit arrogant and, you know, dumb?

As Creationists we just try to point these things out

Yeah, you try, but you guys are really, really bad at it.

The problem with 'evidence and proof' being considered the same thing, is that evolutionists want to call it evidence (if it fits their model) whether it stands up to scrutiny or not.

Exactly what is this evidence that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? How have you scrutinized it?

Biology is science, or should be, but it has been usurped by evolutionists.

Please provide a list of your publications in biology.

 

[Belk]

I’ve certainly seen no display of scientific knowledge from you that is worthy of too high an educational credential, but when I do I’ll know to acknowledge it.

Is this what we should expect from CF Ambassadors? Insults and condescension?