How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

That's an assumption because DNA proves otherwise

.

Where is your evidence that this is so!

 

[Brightmoon]

Tas8831 gave you verifiable and confirmable evidence,where is yours? . It was evidence like that which lead biologists to retire the name Pongidae. So where is your evidence that chimps and gorillas should not be in Hominidae

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans have never evolved away from being apes , have never evolved away from being primates, have never evolved away from being mammals, have never evolved away from being vertebrates, have never evolved away from being chordates, have never evolved away from being deuterostomes, have never evolved away from being bilaterians and have never evolved away from being multicellular eucaryotes

. Scientists have long since verified all of this and creationists have no evidence that its incorrect

 

[Ophiolite]

My main point is that there is no way I'm going to study and understand evolution. There's just way too much 'information' and much of it held together by conjecture. I don't have the resources needed for the intense life-long study that would be required of anyone wanting to understand evolution, especially if the conclusion is doubtful from the start.

• If you do not have the time to study and understand evolution, then you do not have the grounds to declare that is held together by conjecture. I have had the time to study and understand evolution. Conjecture is not the glue that holds it together.

• If you do not have the time to study and understand evolution then you cannot appreciate that initial doubts about evolution were removed by evidence from anatomy, ecology, embryology, palaeontology, zoology, botany, genetics, biochemistry, epidemiology, molecular biology, ethology, biogeography, etc.

I would have thought that even someone whose IQ is only 135 would understand the simple logic of the above.

You are fully entitled to your beliefs. You are fully entitled to reject facts that conflict with your worldview. You are not entitled to pretend that such rejection is in anyway supported by logic or science or intellectual honesty.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Did you read my post #1001? It concerns the molecular structure of tissues. I posted it in response to a "cell biologist" who, citing his credentials, said that tissues aren't made of molecules. I understand almost nothing in that article, but I do understand that changes in the molecular structure is needed to affect certain specialized tissues.

Lol, what? That wouldn't even make sense, because a molecule is the smallest fundamental unit of a chemical compound that can take part in a chemical reaction. Flipping water is a molecule and it makes up more than 50% of our tissues.

My main point is that there is no way I'm going to study and understand evolution.

Then don't get involved in debates about it. I'm not big on physics, so I don't debate what I don't know. I'm not going to debate about which car brand is the best when I don't even know the names of the majority of car companies. To even try would be the antithesis of constructive and would make me look like an idiot.

The only times I end up debating subjects I don't know much about is if I overestimate my knowledge on those topics. Then I am made for a fool and inevitably have to recognize my ignorance.

 

[USincognito]

DNA showed that your family is related.

That is true. It's also true when you start going back millions of years to our common ancestors with chimpanzees and other hominids.

It also shows that humans are humans and not chimps.

Yes, and I don't know why you keep repeating this as if it were some profound observation. Humans and chimpanzees are separate species. Humans and Neanderthals are separate species as well and the DNA evidence shows that. I'm at a loss as to why you think this is important enough to keep repeating.

You can go back very far in your lineage and see who your human ancestors are. But no matter how far back you go you will always be able to tell the difference between a chimp and a human using DNA. Pulling DNA from a chimp and from a human and testing them you will always be able to tell which is human and which is chimp. Thus proving that DNA is source material for seeing what something is. You will never see a test where we look at DNA and are confused as to whether it came from a chimp or a human or a cow.

I'm completely befuddled by all this and why you think it's germane. Do you think geneticists and laymen are too stupid to know that different species will have recognizably different DNA? Do you think that geneticists and laymen are stupid enough to think that different species should have the same DNA? I honestly cannot see the point you think you're making here.

What I can see is that these axiomatically correct assertions:
1. Have nothing do with the the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a huge amount of DNA.
2a. Does not demonstrate in any way that humans and chimpanzees are not related via common ancestry.
2b. Does not demonstrate that beings who share huge amounts of DNA are not related via common ancestry.
3. Does not explain things our 203,000 shared endogenous retroviral insertions or the broken GULO gene we share will all other Haplorhine primates.

 

[rjs330]

So you ignored the first couple of citations.

Or didn't understand them.

I can explain them if you'd like.

No I didn't, take a look.

Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

Note the word "infer". That's what evolutionists do. They infer, they assume.

Then there is this.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships.

All one can do with this is show relationships within a particular group, this one being mice. No one is claiming that mice are not related or part of a group or family. What evolutionists are doing is claim, without actual observable data that mice and humans are all related. They assume we are because of common design. Yet there is no observable or testable evidence that what they claim can even happen.

They assume it did.

 

[rjs330]

That is true. It's also true when you start going back millions of years to our common ancestors with chimpanzees and other hominids.



Yes, and I don't know why you keep repeating this as if it were some profound observation. Humans and chimpanzees are separate species. Humans and Neanderthals are separate species as well and the DNA evidence shows that. I'm at a loss as to why you think this is important enough to keep repeating.



I'm completely befuddled by all this and why you think it's germane. Do you think geneticists and laymen are too stupid to know that different species will have recognizably different DNA? Do you think that geneticists and laymen are stupid enough to think that different species should have the same DNA? I honestly cannot see the point you think you're making here.

What I can see is that these axiomatically correct assertions:
1. Have nothing do with the the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a huge amount of DNA.
2a. Does not demonstrate in any way that humans and chimpanzees are not related via common ancestry.
2b. Does not demonstrate that beings who share huge amounts of DNA are not related via common ancestry.
3. Does not explain things our 203,000 shared endogenous retroviral insertions or the broken GULO gene we share will all other Haplorhine primates.

And points 1-3 do not demonstrate we are related. All it demonstrates is that we have a commonality of design.

 

[Speedwell]

And points 1-3 do not demonstrate we are related. All it demonstrates is that we have a commonality of design.

And so the retrovirus insertions and the broken GULO gene were put in place by design?

 

[USincognito]

And points 1-3 do not demonstrate we are related. All it demonstrates is that we have a commonality of design.

I'm sorry but no. "Common design" is ad hoc (a logical fallacy) and unfalsifiable (making it unscientific). If you want anyone to take the claim seriously you need to explain why the designer put 203,000 chucks and pieces of virus DNA into both humans and chimpanzees in such a way that mimics common ancestry, as well as why the designer put a broken gene for vitamin C production into all Haplorhine primates (including humans).

Unless you can that you're just making stuff up.

 

[pitabread]

And points 1-3 do not demonstrate we are related. All it demonstrates is that we have a commonality of design.

Which was apparently carefully crafted to mimic what we'd expect to see via evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol, what? That wouldn't even make sense, because a molecule is the smallest fundamental unit of a chemical compound that can take part in a chemical reaction. Flipping water is a molecule and it makes up more than 50% of our tissues.

The link on post #1001 is a lengthy article discussing the role of molecules in tissues. I take it you didn't read it. I found a simple diagram for you. You're welcome.

Figure 1: Levels of the body from smallest to largest: Atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems.

Building the Body: From Atoms to Organs - dummies

Then don't get involved in debates about it. I'm not big on physics, so I don't debate what I don't know.

Sorry, what I meant was that I'm not going to understand evolution by studying it as there is no way to verify what I'm studying.

The only times I end up debating subjects I don't know much about is if I overestimate my knowledge on those topics. Then I am made for a fool and inevitably have to recognize my ignorance.

Like now perhaps?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you do not have the time to study and understand evolution, then you do not have the grounds to declare that is held together by conjecture. I have had the time to study and understand evolution. Conjecture is not the glue that holds it together.

I have read many papers on evolution (mainly through discussion on the CF). The theory is basically held together by conjecture. I could post scientific articles that prove this but I have found that no one bothers to read them.

• If you do not have the time to study and understand evolution then you cannot appreciate that initial doubts about evolution were removed by evidence from anatomy, ecology, embryology, palaeontology, zoology, botany, genetics, biochemistry, epidemiology, molecular biology, ethology, biogeography, etc.

I would have thought that even someone whose IQ is only 135 would understand the simple logic of the above.

Most of these are held together by conjecture.

You are fully entitled to your beliefs. You are fully entitled to reject facts that conflict with your worldview. You are not entitled to pretend that such rejection is in anyway supported by logic or science or intellectual honesty.

I accept facts. I don't accept science's conclusion regarding those facts. Many an innocent person has been convicted by the "facts".

 

[Ophiolite]

I have read many papers on evolution (mainly through discussion on the CF). The theory is basically held together by conjecture. I could post scientific articles that prove this but I have found that no one bothers to read them.



Most of these are held together by conjecture.



I accept facts. I don't accept science's conclusion regarding those facts. Many an innocent person has been convicted by the "facts".

Nonsense. You yourself have declared you lack the time or the interest to conduct the study that would let you understand evolution. This disqualifies you absolutely from making ignorant assertions such as those above. All you are doing is embarassing yourself and raising serious questions about your belief structure.

I repeat, you are entitled to your beliefs, but spouting foolish, uninformed, uneducated nonsense is not acceptable. Have the good grace to desist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nonsense. You yourself have declared you lack the time or the interest to conduct the study that would let you understand evolution. This disqualifies you absolutely from making ignorant assertions such as those above. All you are doing is embarassing yourself and raising serious questions about your belief structure.

I repeat, you are entitled to your beliefs, but spouting foolish, uninformed, uneducated nonsense is not acceptable. Have the good grace to desist.

Sorry, it's my thread, but you may be excused.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry, it's my thread, but you may be excused.

I suppose everyone on the forum is entitled to post nonsense, but when they do, they may expect to be called out on it, even when it is in their own thread.

I do recognise the source of your mix of passive-aggressive behaviour with occassional implicit insults, so I should feel a measure of pity. Since I don't (and feel I probably should) I'll reflect silently on your pain for a while. I'll pray (yes, some agnostics do pray) that time will diminish your fear and give you the courage to face your doubts. In the meantime, look to your youth. Your answer is there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I suppose everyone on the forum is entitled to post nonsense, but when they do, they may expect to be called out on it, even when it is in their own thread.

I do recognise the source of your mix of passive-aggressive behaviour with occassional implicit insults, so I should feel a measure of pity. Since I don't (and feel I probably should) I'll reflect silently on your pain for a while. I'll pray (yes, some agnostics do pray) that time will diminish your fear and give you the courage to face your doubts. In the meantime, look to your youth. Your answer is there.

I appreciate your sympathy, however misplaced. I have studied the subject of evolution sufficiently to conclude that it is impossible. Why would you impugn a conclusion that has been so arrived at? I have often stated in regard to evolutionary change that you can't get here from there. But it gets worse for evolution regarding tracing our development from here back to our simple beginnings, that being that you can get there from here either. It is a theory that has no logical, or scientific, foundation.


Regarding my youth, that is long gone.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have studied the subject of evolution sufficiently to conclude that it is impossible.

Your conclusions demonstrate that your study is insufficient. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands have studied the subject more than you and would disagreee. A significant number of them are Christians.

Why would you impugn a conclusion that has been so arrived at?

Because like the cartoon character said "I can't come right now, I've found something wrong on the internet that has to be corrected."

I have often state in regard to evolutionary change that you can't get here from there.

Yes. I've often read such statements from you. That is the evidence your study is insufficient.

But it gets worse for evolution regarding tracing our development from here back to our simple beginnings, that being that you can get there from here either.

And yet the evidence of thousands more dedicated and intelligent than either of us, many of them Christians, demonstrates otherwise.

Regarding my youth, that is long gone.

I am well aware of that. It is precisely why you need to look to your youth to understand how you reached your false conclusion. The answer is there. You just need to dig deep, in places you prefer not to go.

I'm done here. I have nothing to add.

 

[Brightmoon]

you are entitled to your beliefs, but spouting foolish, uninformed, uneducated nonsense is not acceptable. Have the good grace to desist.

.

I agree

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your conclusions demonstrate that your study is insufficient. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands have studied the subject more than you and would disagreee. A significant number of them are Christians.

I'll see your hundreds of thousands and raise you tens of millions who merely "go with the flow" regarding evolution. They know less than I do about it.

Yes. I've often read such statements from you. That is the evidence your study is insufficient.

I understand that what I read about evolution is conjecture. The difference I see it and adherents don't.

And yet the evidence of thousands more dedicated and intelligent than either of us, many of them Christians, demonstrates otherwise.

Self-deception isn't limited to average people. Uninformed people believe (accept) evolution because it relieves them of the 'complications' of believing in a creator. It's like the "pill", that relieved the whole western world of (some of) the consequences of 'inappropriate' sexual behavior.

I am well aware of that. It is precisely why you need to look to your youth to understand how you reached your false conclusion. The answer is there. You just need to dig deep, in places you prefer not to go.

Back to my youthful ignorance? Not a chance.