How to choose between creation and evolution.

[r4.h]

Answers to your 6 first points. Cant really answer etc etc



1.As a creationist, I dont deny there is evidence for evolution, im just saying the evidence is not proveable fact, but is based on "if such and such occurs over this amount of time, then that must equal our estimate x (x amount of years).
Trouble is if any part of the equation is mistaken, then you get wildly different outcome. Evolutionist have no way to be sure their findings are accurate. Are you aware of how much science has back tracked and even found many things once thought fact, were wrong?

2. Ummm fossils are evidence of a flood, and there is much more if you are open to listening to scientist that dont beleive in evolution. Are you aware that many of the scientist that discovered early advances for us, were infact Christian creationists and based their theory on bible declarations?.
In Isaiah 40:22 said that the earth was round several hundreds of years before the flat earthers.

3. Cant answer that one as Ive not looked into it, but would depend on the agreed terms of "transitional " i would reckon.

4. As above, one would first need to agree on the said "benefits" of said mutation.

5.It appears you dont really know what actually passes for religion, I mean theres the Flying Spaggetti Monster religion, and some men religiously go to the pub or pursue sports.

Google definition 2. A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. i.e Consumerism is the new religion.
Not really a lie to call evolution a religion when it is forced upon unsuspecting students at most schools.
Its professors arrogantly try to shame anyone who dare disbelieve, I would call that pompous religion.

6.Where do you get that from? There are many "Christians" and Agnostic`s that believe in evolution.

For your last point refer to my reply to point 1. above.

Other than that, carry on in your delusion, you want be so cocky when you come face to face with the creator. Every person that even sees an Angel, falls down as a dead man, having their bodily strength drain out of their body, and anyone who has seen Gods visage has seen their live past before their eyes and all their arguments have gone out the window as they saw their unworthy state.

 

[r4.h]

@r4.h something went wrong with your reply.

Yeah sorry not sure what happened there. Its in the following post,

 

[USincognito]

Yeah sorry not sure what happened there. Its in the following post,

Sounds good. I'm up very late in the U.S. (work nights) and might respond soon or might wait about 20 hours or so.

 

[USincognito]

1.As a creationist, I dont deny there is evidence for evolution, im just saying the evidence is not proveable fact...

This is a fine point that seems to befuddle Creationists, but nothing in science is ever proven and there are not such things as scientific proofs. "Proof" is a concept that is mathematical and applies to logical deductions that are final and unchanging. In science every proposition must be open to new data and potential falsification and thus they can never be "proven". Scientific facts are considered provisional and that includes such things as the earth being an oblate spheroid that revolves around the sun. It is vanishingly unlikely that any future observation will overturn that fact, but that potential must remain for it to be a scientific proposition.

...but is based on "if such and such occurs over this amount of time, then that must equal our estimate x (x amount of years).
Trouble is if any part of the equation is mistaken, then you get wildly different outcome. Evolutionist have no way to be sure their findings are accurate.

Yeah, this vague allusion stuff doesn't actually address the actual evidence for evolution and the whole time equaling equation stuff doesn't seem to have any actual connection to the evidence for evolution. How about you give me something specific from the fossil record, genetics, homology, vestiges or biogeography?

Are you aware of how much science has back tracked and even found many things once thought fact, were wrong?

Yes. Not nearly as much as Creationists have been lead to believe and a not that much over the last 50 years or so. Evolution and deep time are two things that have never been back tracked and are not likely to after this much evidence.

2. Ummm fossils are evidence of a flood,

Yeah, big problem there champ... there's no evidence that "a flood" (by which I guess you mean The Flood) happened causing all of the fossil record. I'm going to leave aside for a moment the long list of problems from geology and genetics falsifying the Flood, and simply note that there are two different types of fossils. Body fossils, many of which we have discovered in eolian environments (wind blown and thus not due to "a flood"), ash beds (from volcanic eruptions, not "a flood"), axnoic environments (not "a flood") and trace fossils that simply cannot have happened during "a flood" like footprints, egg nests, plant root systems, insect burrows, etc.

...and there is much more if you are open to listening to scientist that dont beleive in evolution. Are you aware that many of the scientist that discovered early advances for us, were infact Christian creationists and based their theory on bible declarations?.

Yeah, about that. When it comes to the Flood for example, many of the early geologists were Christians and (in the case of Adam Sedgwick) were theologians looking for evidence of The Flood. The problem is the more they looked, the more they realized that The Flood never happened. It's only gotten worse since then. These days the only "Christian" geologists (which I put in scare quotes because they're all Creationists, not merely Christian) are dishonest charlatans like Steve Austin who used dishonest dating methods to try and made a ridiculous point about Mt. St. Helens.

In Isaiah 40:22 said that the earth was round several hundreds of years before the flat earthers.

Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is round, meaning a flat circle, not a globe.

3. Cant answer that one as Ive not looked into it, but would depend on the agreed terms of "transitional " i would reckon.

Let me help you out.
(A few) transitional fossils
also here:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

4. As above, one would first need to agree on the said "benefits" of said mutation.

- Gene duplication and subsequent mutation in SRGAP2C allele in genus Homo caused us to have more dendrites making our brains more dense and connected.
- Gene duplication and subsequent mutation in ARHGAP11B allele in genus Homo caused us to have a larger and more dense neocortex.
- A mutation in the LCT/MCM6 gene pathway allowed some humans to produce lactase into adulthood allowing us to consume dairy after weaning.
- CCR5delta32 is a mutation in some humans that causes immunity to HIV.

5.It appears you dont really know what actually passes for religion, I mean theres the Flying Spaggetti Monster religion, and some men religiously go to the pub or pursue sports.

I'm going to overlook your attempt to make the "religion" slur more tepid, but clearly I'm not talking about more than merely being a fan of an establishment or a sports team. The accusation leveled by many Creationists is that evolution is a "religion" on par with other organized religions. It simply isn't. No more than germ theory of disease or plate tectonics is a religion. It's an asinine and pathetic attempt at a slur.

Other than that, carry on in your delusion, you want be so cocky... {snip}

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[xianghua]

2011 Scientific American article on the evolution of the human eye:

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi_rNu6xOXZAhWMo5QKHQWqDYQQFggvMAE&url=https://www.hopkins.kyschools.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=1243&dataid=8024&FileName=evolution%20of%20the%20eye%20_trevor%20lamb_.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ltlzH46AkeZcMsiF9ZZRe

Some summarised highlights:

P1:

.... biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago.
​

P3:

THE FOSSIL RECORD shows that during the Cambrian explosion two fundamentally different styles of eye arose. The first seems to have been a compound eye.... Compound eyes are impractical for large animals, however, because the eye size required for high-resolution vision would be overly large. Hence, as body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera variety.
​

P3:

...observed that many of the hallmark features of the vertebrate eye are the same across all living representatives of a major branch of the vertebrate tree: that of the jawed vertebrates. This pattern suggests that jawed vertebrates inherited the traits from a common ancestor and that our eye had already evolved by around 420 million years ago, when the first jawed vertebrates ... patrolled the seas. We reasoned that our camera-style eye and its photoreceptors must therefore have still deeper roots, so we turned our attention to the more primitive jawless vertebrates, with which we share a common ancestor from roughly 500 million years ago.

... an eye essentially identical to our own must have been present in the common ancestor of the jawless and jawed vertebrates 500 million years ago.
​

P4/5:

...the ancestral eye of proto-vertebrates living between 550 million and 500 million years ago first served as a nonvisual organ and only later evolved the neural processing power and optical and motor component needed for spatial vision. Studies of the embryological development of the vertebrate eye support this notion.

... During embryological development the mammalian eye, too, exhibits telltale clues to its evolutionary origin.
​

P5/6:

...reported evidence that our eye still retains the descendants of rhabdomeric photoreceptors, which have been greatly modified to form the output neurons that send information from the retina to the brain. This discovery
means that our retina contains the descendants of both classes of photoreceptors: the ciliary class, which has always comprised photoreceptors, and the rhabdomeric class, transformed into output neurons. Pressing an existing structure into use for a new purpose is exactly how evolution works, and so the discovery that the
ciliary and rhabdomeric photoreceptors play different roles in our eye than in the eye of invertebrates adds still more weight to the evidence that the vertebrate eye was constructed by natural processes.
​

More on the evolution of the eye:
The evolution of eyes and visually guided behaviour
The evolution of irradiance detection: melanopsin and the non-visual opsins
Evolution of phototaxis
Evolution of vertebrate retinal photoreception

​

actually the first eyespot or light detector cant evolve stepwise. this is because even a minimal light detector need about several parts to its minimal function.

 

[xianghua]

Belief has nothing to do with science.

Your post is nonsense.

you dont believe that a dog and a banana share a common descent?

 

[VirOptimus]

you dont believe that a dog and a banana share a common descent?

I dont belive in science, I accept it.

So do all rational persons.

 

[xianghua]

1.As a creationist, I dont deny there is evidence for evolution

such as?

 

[xianghua]

I dont belive in science, I accept it.

So do all rational persons.

you do believe that a dog and a banana share a common descent. its a belief, not a fact. if you think its a fact then prove it.

 

[VirOptimus]

you do believe that a dog and a banana share a common descent. its a belief, not a fact. if you think its a fact then prove it.

I'm not responsible for your education.

You tryning to use semantics doesnt impress.

Science is not for belief, its a description of physical reality. Its accepted. Arguing against science is arguing against physical realiy, a very stupid place to be.

 

[Brightmoon]

you do believe that a dog and a banana share a common descent. its a belief, not a fact. if you think its a fact then prove it.

All eucaryotes are relatively close cousins and that includes dogs and bananas. Genetics will supply your evidence

 

[xianghua]

All eucaryotes are relatively close cousins and that includes dogs and bananas. Genetics will supply your evidence

so the evidence is genetic similarity?

 

[Speedwell]

actually the first eyespot or light detector cant evolve stepwise. this is because even a minimal light detector need about several parts to its minimal function.

Another false claim: "It need several parts so it can't evolve."
If you are going to keep asserting this nonsense you should at leat attempt to back it up. In fact, multiple parts evolving is not a problem for evolution. The parallel evolution of related systems is well understood.

 

[Brightmoon]

so the evidence is genetic similarity?

Yes I’ve never understood why creationists have a problem with this . You share a similar genetic legacy with every other human on the planet . They’re slightly different . Chimps are a little more different. Other primates have slightly more differences . Other mammals ,then other reptilomorphs, then other vertebrates, then other bilaterians, then other animals, then other eucarya, then the two bacterial lineages. The further away you get from humans the more different genetically you are .
Creationists seem to think that adding imaginary magic juju makes these organisms not be relatives

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Belief has nothing to do with science.

Your post is nonsense.

Belief has everything to do with science. How often do we hear statements like this:

"We (scientists) believe that we can eventually find a cure for cancer."

Lots of science begins with belief. And when people hear this, they believe it too.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But, you don't know how to ask the question.

If you mean specifically the human eye, then it evolved alongside the first humans circa 10 million years ago. However, the eyes of apes are not that different from ours, so not much evolution is involved in that.

If you want to know the true origin of our eye, then you need to go way back through evolution to the first eyes of very primitive organisms hundreds of millions of years ago. In that case, we go all the way back to the first photosensitive proteins derived from earlier proteins that weren't photosensitive, then eye spots in unicellular creatures, then light sensitive clumps of cells in multicellular cells, then eye pits which are recessed in a cup shape. Then a pinhole eye with no lens. Then a covered pinhole eye. Then the development of a lens from a covered pinhole eye. All of these stages of eye development are not just known from fossils, but also from current living creatures. And you can find this information easily by googling fairly obvious search terms such as 'how did sight evolve'.



And here's the problem. How on earth can you sensibly discuss evolution if you don't know how inheritance works? You have to have at least a basic understanding of biology to be able to discuss it.

So, you don't know either.

 

[xianghua]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That metal can somehow evolve? That robots are somehow equivalent to living things? We're not talking about metal, or robots, or cars, or whatever other analogies you are attempting to draw. We are talking about organic life. Complexity arises from simplicity all the time, in an extraordinary and also incredibly common phenomenon known as emergence, or emergent properties. To say that simple molecules could not express emergent properties is simply false, since it happens all the time. The watch maker argument is a logical fallacy called the faulty analogy. You cannot say that a watch and the universe both have a creator just because they are both complex.

what if we are talking about a robot that made from organic components like a living thing? in this case you will conclude design or a natural process if you will find such one?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Genetics. We discuss it a lot around here. I'm surprised you've never noticed.

I was asking for details.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mark I also think you are mistaking phenotypic plasticity for evolution. Phenotypic plasticity is part of the genetic variation in individuals that is inherited . It’s already part of the individuals genome. It basically says that if the environment does A then the offspring turn on processes that work with A. If the local environment does B the the offspring turns on those processes. . For example , a local drought lasting for years followed by normal rainfall and having offspring that can genetically cope with both. Evolution happens in populations not individuals

 

[OldWiseGuy]

2011 Scientific American article on the evolution of the human eye:

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi_rNu6xOXZAhWMo5QKHQWqDYQQFggvMAE&url=https://www.hopkins.kyschools.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=1243&dataid=8024&FileName=evolution%20of%20the%20eye%20_trevor%20lamb_.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ltlzH46AkeZcMsiF9ZZRe

Some summarised highlights:

P1:

.... biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago.
​

P3:

THE FOSSIL RECORD shows that during the Cambrian explosion two fundamentally different styles of eye arose. The first seems to have been a compound eye.... Compound eyes are impractical for large animals, however, because the eye size required for high-resolution vision would be overly large. Hence, as body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera variety.
​

P3:

...observed that many of the hallmark features of the vertebrate eye are the same across all living representatives of a major branch of the vertebrate tree: that of the jawed vertebrates. This pattern suggests that jawed vertebrates inherited the traits from a common ancestor and that our eye had already evolved by around 420 million years ago, when the first jawed vertebrates ... patrolled the seas. We reasoned that our camera-style eye and its photoreceptors must therefore have still deeper roots, so we turned our attention to the more primitive jawless vertebrates, with which we share a common ancestor from roughly 500 million years ago.

... an eye essentially identical to our own must have been present in the common ancestor of the jawless and jawed vertebrates 500 million years ago.
​

P4/5:

...the ancestral eye of proto-vertebrates living between 550 million and 500 million years ago first served as a nonvisual organ and only later evolved the neural processing power and optical and motor component needed for spatial vision. Studies of the embryological development of the vertebrate eye support this notion.

... During embryological development the mammalian eye, too, exhibits telltale clues to its evolutionary origin.
​

P5/6:

...reported evidence that our eye still retains the descendants of rhabdomeric photoreceptors, which have been greatly modified to form the output neurons that send information from the retina to the brain. This discovery
means that our retina contains the descendants of both classes of photoreceptors: the ciliary class, which has always comprised photoreceptors, and the rhabdomeric class, transformed into output neurons. Pressing an existing structure into use for a new purpose is exactly how evolution works, and so the discovery that the
ciliary and rhabdomeric photoreceptors play different roles in our eye than in the eye of invertebrates adds still more weight to the evidence that the vertebrate eye was constructed by natural processes.
​

More on the evolution of the eye:
The evolution of eyes and visually guided behaviour
The evolution of irradiance detection: melanopsin and the non-visual opsins
Evolution of phototaxis
Evolution of vertebrate retinal photoreception

Shot through with the usual suppositions and giant biological leaps. Nothing new here. Science says that nothing can be proven absolutely, but we are to believe the ToE as absolute fact. Or we are to believe the latest iteration...until a better one is devised. Curious.