How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

Not sure I understood that . You want to remain ignorant?

There’s an old Arabic saying that if everyone calls you a mule then reach up to see if you have long ears

You don’t have any understanding of actual evolution. I do understand that you’ve bumped into creationist disinformation versions of evolution. Mainstream biology doesn’t accept that as anything but deliberate lying.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not sure I understood that . You want to remain ignorant?

There’s an old Arabic saying that if everyone calls you a mule then reach up to see if you have long ears

You are conflating ignorance and disbelief. Not an honest position. If believers in evolution were asked if they understand it how many could say, and prove, that they do (when many can't find their own state on a map)?

 

[Speedwell]

You are conflating ignorance and disbelief. Not an honest position. If believers in evolution were asked if they understand it how many could say, and prove, that they do (when many can't find their own state on a map)?

So what if most people don't understand evolution? They are not here trying to argue against it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

I agree

As long as you are being so agreeable would you agree to this?
Post any technical article or paper describing some aspect of evolution, or related science in support thereof, in full. I'll then highlight the terms that indicate conjecture, speculation, assumption, controversy, uncertainty, difference of opinion, etc., that bind that and most such articles together. Fair?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So what if most people don't understand evolution? They are not here trying to argue against it.

Their numbers are implicit in supporting the belief. To the OP; I challenged those on the fence to take two approaches. From there the usual arguments began (to distract those who might study anatomy, apart from evolution?).

 

[Speedwell]

Their numbers are implicit in supporting the belief.

So you want to verify the truth of a scientific theory by popular vote? LOL!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you want to verify the truth of a scientific theory by popular vote? LOL!

No, that's what supporters of evolution do. We unbelievers are the minority 'crying in the wilderness' (not weeping, but crying out for the truth).

 

[Speedwell]

No, that's what supporters of evolution do.

LOL! What a fantasy land you have to live in--all to support a reading of Scripture unnecessary to faith in Christ.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL! What a fantasy land you have to live in--all to support a reading of Scripture unnecessary to faith in Christ.

To the OP, do you see scripture mentioned? Evolution stands or falls on the science of it. Actually post #2 says it all.

 

[pitabread]

Their numbers are implicit in supporting the belief. To the OP; I challenged those on the fence to take two approaches. From there the usual arguments began (to distract those who might study anatomy, apart from evolution?).

You're still not acknowledging that those in biology-related industries have a vested interest in the most accurate explanations of biology possible.

Suggesting this is merely a popularity contest is completely ignoring the whole point of studying biology in the first place.

 

[Brightmoon]

A “Biology- related industry” like medicine. Most 20th century medical breakthroughs were based on the understanding that we were related to other organisms ( for example heart disease and diabetes treatments) and having a thorough understanding of natural selection (vaccines)

 

[Brightmoon]

Tas### already posted some parts of scientific papers with references. Why don’t you go read them instead of glossing over them . 19th century scientists did emphatically state that they had the complete truth about what they proposed. Since some of them were ridiculously wrong, modern scientists understand that we don’t know everything and that all current info is subject to correction at a later date. However, no one has refuted the basic premise of evolution- that currently living and extinct organisms are kin. Nor has any other of the main parts of the theory been refuted( Like natural selection) . The only people who do complain about evolution are the 3M crowd. Mistaken, misunderstanding,and misinformed

 

[Brightmoon]

I could add a 4th M . Malicious because a lot of the religious based evolution deniers are con artists and they’re are the ones who are trying to overwrite the real theories of evolution and trying to replace them with pseudoscience

 

[Brightmoon]

the last time I heard of that “ scientific popular vote” being wrong was with Wegener’s theory of continents moving around . He was right but he didn’t have enough evidence to support it. It was one of several theories at the time . Expanding Earth , Oceanic Land Bridges, and Continental Drift. I remember this because I heard about the land bridges in middle school ( of course when I went they still called it junior high) . It puzzled me at the time because it didn’t seem plausible ( at the time I was a teenybopper) but I didn’t know enough to question my teacher about the details . It still stuck in my mind though so when I found out that the continents moved around it lead to an aha! moment

 

[rjs330]

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

The GULO Gene argument is not a valid one for common ancestry. The reason for that is it shows less than a 90% commonality between human and apes. In fact if you were to take the evolutionary argument you would find we are more likely to be related to the gorilla rather than the chimpanzee. Also in trying build this genome experiment the evolutionists are using the human genome to fix the ape one. There are other parts to this regarding TE which also show an even lower commonality between monkeys and humans. Guinnea Pigs also have the broken Gene as well as other animals. We even see some fish who have it and some some who don't that do not fit the evolutionary trees. This whole thing is nothing but assumptive reasoning because we don't know what the original Gene looked like in all the animals. We assume much.
The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy

 

[xianghua]

No! Those are just random vehicles you’ve lined up in size order. The nested hierarchy is based on each small group also belonging to a larger group . Humans also belong to the larger group-mammals . Mammals belong to the larger group synapsids which means that humans are also synapsids. Humans also belong to deuterostomes along with echinoderms and bilaterians along with fish, “worms”, arthropods, mollusks, and annelids.

the same with those vehicles: the truck belong to the group of heavy vehicles, which also belong to the group of land vehicles, which also belong to the group of vehicles in general. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

the same with those vehicles: the truck belong to the group of heavy vehicles, which also belong to the group of land vehicles, which also belong to the group of vehicles in general. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

You are quite correct. Confidence in evolutionary theory is based upon more relevant issues than automotive engineering and transport systems.

 

[Gene2memE]

As long as you are being so agreeable would you agree to this?
Post any technical article or paper describing some aspect of evolution, or related science in support thereof, in full. I'll then highlight the terms that indicate conjecture, speculation, assumption, controversy, uncertainty, difference of opinion, etc., that bind that and most such articles together. Fair?

Analysis of bacterial genomes from an evolution experiment with horizontal gene transfer shows that recombination can sometimes overwhelm selection

 

[xianghua]

Creation is the belief that life was created by a deity . Evolution is the fact of descent with modification in living organisms and we can also see where this happened in the past . Religious beliefs or atheism don’t have anything to do with science. I happen to be a Christian. I also accept evolution

actually the opposite is true. creation is a fact base on scientific evidence (which i already showed)and common descent (for banana and cat for instance) base on a belief.

 

[xianghua]

To falsify evolution all you’d need are bunny fossils in the preCambrian. Which means that evolution is falsifiable . That type of evidence would prove that it’s wrong .

i dont think so. in this case they will just claim for convergent evolution (bunny evolved twice) or will just call it "anomaly" like in this case:

“Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta)”

Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)