Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[renniks]

You would have to consider the evidence.
90%? Forty years? What are you talking about?

C'mon they thought a platypus was an intermediate species when I was a kid. Almost all of the theories have been modified. That's exactly why I brought up gradualism.

 

[dlamberth]

C'mon they thought a platypus was an intermediate species when I was a kid. Almost all of the theories have been modified. That's exactly why I brought up gradualism.

As science digs deeper into things, the process of evolution, the age of the Earth and it's geological process have become clearer and better understood. Modifying theories is a good thing as it shows that science is working the way it should with increased knowledge.

 

[chad kincham]

Aren't you going to tell me the fatal flaw in evolution? I dontbecpect to hear it, thst would take a genius.
Nothing special in intro biology tho. No genius needed. Average middle school will do.
Look for conjugation in paramecia for early sexual reproduction,
then try something like " evolution of multicellular organisms".

See how you do with those, before trying harder stuff.

The fatal flaw in evolution?

I’ve looked it up. You’re using tenuous speculation as if it’s proven fact, a typical ploy of evolutionist apologists.

The famous evolutionary philosopher Carl Popper once got in trouble for stating that evolution is metaphysics and not science, because it’s not falsifiable - they just jump from one hypothesis to another as they fail.

Evolution fails on many levels, not just one.

Abiogenesis has failed, but that’s being ignored.

Whereas amino acids occur naturally, though in weak concentrations, the chirality problem makes origin of a living cell in nature impossible- L hand and R hand amino acids are always present, but a living cell has to be all the same orientation - such as all left handed - and even one opposite handed amino acid makes for a non functional protein.

Since both R and L hand molecules bond together easily, abiogenesis is impossible.

Evolutionist Albert Yockey used information theory which determined abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, that the primordial soup hypothesis should therefore be discarded - yet biologists cling to it anyway, and NASA is still wanting to “follow the water” on Mars to look for origin of life in the primordial soup scenario.

Before that, Astronomer Hoyle calculated that the odds of abiogenesis creating a living cell, are equivalent to a tornado assembling a functional 737 when going through a junk yard.

 

[VirOptimus]

I’ve looked it up. You’re using tenuous speculation as if it’s proven fact, a typical ploy of evolutionist apologists.

The famous evolutionary philosopher Carl Popper once got in trouble for stating that evolution is metaphysics and not science, because it’s not falsifiable - they just jump from one hypothesis to another as they fail.

Evolution fails on many levels, not just one.

Abiogenesis has failed, but that’s being ignored.

Whereas amino acids occur naturally, though in weak concentrations, the chirality problem makes origin of a living cell in nature impossible- L hand and R hand amino acids are always present, but a living cell has to be all the same orientation - such as all left handed - and even one opposite handed amino acid makes for a non functional protein.

Since both R and L hand molecules bond together easily, abiogenesis is impossible.

Evolutionist Albert Yockey used information theory which determined abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, that the primordial soup hypothesis should therefore be discarded - yet biologists cling to it anyway, and NASA is still wanting to “follow the water” on Mars to look for origin of life in the primordial soup scenario.

Before that, Astronomer Hoyle calculated that the odds of abiogenesis creating a living cell, are equivalent to a tornado assembling a functional 737 when going through a junk yard.

Gravity=observed phenomena, the Theory of gravity explains how it works.

Evolution=observed phenomena, the Theory of evolution explains how it works.

Your post is just ignorant word salad.

 

[Bradskii]

The
Okay, genius, show me the transition form between single cells that split in two to reproduce, and hundred trillion cell life that uses sexual reproduction.

The very first biology class I took when I was about 13 examined the amoeba. A single cell organism which splits in two to reproduce. I guess you were sick the day they covered Biology 101 where you come from.

But really, asking dopey questions about basic biology that 13 year olds could answer without resorting to Google doesn't instill any confidence in me that you have any knowledge of this aspect of science at all.

How can you argue for something when you don't know what you are arguing against?

Oh, and Hoyle was right. If evolution could be compared to a one off event (like a 747 in a junkyard) then it would be impossible. But he knew that it's not comparable. You however don't.

 

[Bradskii]

C'mon they thought a platypus was an intermediate species when I was a kid. Almost all of the theories have been modified. That's exactly why I brought up gradualism.

Ah, someone else who doesn't understand evolution yet thinks they can argue against it.

Everything is potentially an intermediate species. Unless they go extinct or find a niche and there is no benefit in changing.

 

[disciple Clint]

A detail here- science does not do " closely held
beliefs". That is for religion. Faith, belief despite
all is a highest virtue. In science, that is intellectual
dishonesty, anti science.

To say someone in science will dismiss challenges
to closely held beliefs is to say they are complete phonies,
enemies of science.
No doubt such exist, as do pedophile priests and othrrs
who use the church as cover for their crimes.

To suggest that these aberrant individuals represent
either church or science is itself immoral, being
as it is, a lie.

Those who believe in science investigate claims and prove that they are either true or false, I have asked several times for just exactly that, all I get in return is talking in circles in an attempt to avoid investigating the facts.

 

[disciple Clint]

You posts were not refuted because they were not on topic. If you have anything which addresses the OP, post it.

Just another excuse to avoid facts.

 

[Bradskii]

I’ve looked it up.

Whereas amino acids occur naturally, though in weak concentrations, the chirality problem makes origin of a living cell in nature impossible- L hand and R hand amino acids are always present, but a living cell has to be all the same orientation - such as all left handed - and even one opposite handed amino acid makes for a non functional protein.

Since both R and L hand molecules bond together easily, abiogenesis is impossible.

I can look things up as well. Like the more esoteric aspects of quantum physics. And I can cut 'n' paste with the best of them (my control, c and v are easily the most worn of all the keys). But you won't find me arguing for or against a particular quantum theory. Because I literally don't understand quantum theory.

And having shown that you weren't even aware of how single cell organism reproduce then please don't expect anyone to think that you understand right and left hand chirality and accept what you have cut and pasted as any sort of argument.

You need to learn more and understand more about what you are arguing against. Arguments based on ignorance are worse that useless.

 

[Bradskii]

Those who believe in science investigate claims and prove that they are either true or false, I have asked several times for just exactly that, all I get in return is talking in circles in an attempt to avoid investigating the facts.

Another mistake that shows your lack of understanding of the subject. The discussion is about the theory of evolution. One doesn't prove theories. They are explanations of agreed evidence.

So you don't get to disprove a theory. You only get to offer a better explanation. Which, apart from 'God did it', has been missing in action for some time, I'm afraid.

 

[disciple Clint]

Another mistake that shows your lack of understanding of the subject. The discussion is about the theory of evolution. One doesn't prove theories. They are explanations of agreed evidence.

So you don't get to disprove a theory. You only get to offer a better explanation. Which, apart from 'God did it', has been missing in action for some time, I'm afraid.

I suggest you go back and read the post I was responding to and my post, clearly you are not following the discussion.

 

[Bradskii]

I suggest you go back and read the post I was responding to and my post, clearly you are not following the discussion.

You were the one who brought the term 'prove' to the table. The post to which you responded did not mention it. And as we are talking about a theory I think it relevant to point out to you that the term 'proof' isn't applicable.

 

[Speedwell]

Just another excuse to avoid facts.

Try posting something related to the OP. The articles you posted all seemed to relate to proof of the existence of God. Or if you really want to discuss proof of the existence of God instead of creationism v. evolution, take it to the theism v. atheism board where the subject is more appropriate.

 

[Astrid]

Those who believe in science investigate claims and prove that they are either true or false, I have asked several times for just exactly that, all I get in return is talking in circles in an attempt to avoid investigating the facts.

Your post here is not even about what I said.

Science does not prove anything so I dunno who your
"Those who" might be.

You feel you have offered a fact or two
that would disprove ToE, and that people talk circles to
avoid. I feel it's the opposite.

In all honesty I would love to, be very excited to hear anything
that appeared to contradict ToE or deep time.

"Did so- did not" gets nobody anywhere.

Try a fresh start? What do you have? One "impossible "
out of srauence fossil, say? Like a turtle in the Carboniferous,
some pollen in the Devonian, human footprints in the triassic.
An incontrovertible "leap" or bit of ID.

(You might btw adda sentence on your creationist beliefs,
like yec onc, for clarity if you don't mind)

 

[AV1611VET]

Try a fresh start? What do you have?

The same thing you do: polystrate fossils.

 

[Astrid]

I’ve looked it up. You’re using tenuous speculation as if it’s proven fact, a typical ploy of evolutionist apologists.

The famous evolutionary philosopher Carl Popper once got in trouble for stating that evolution is metaphysics and not science, because it’s not falsifiable - they just jump from one hypothesis to another as they fail.

Evolution fails on many levels, not just one.

Abiogenesis has failed, but that’s being ignored.

Whereas amino acids occur naturally, though in weak concentrations, the chirality problem makes origin of a living cell in nature impossible- L hand and R hand amino acids are always present, but a living cell has to be all the same orientation - such as all left handed - and even one opposite handed amino acid makes for a non functional protein.

Since both R and L hand molecules bond together easily, abiogenesis is impossible.

Evolutionist Albert Yockey used information theory which determined abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, that the primordial soup hypothesis should therefore be discarded - yet biologists cling to it anyway, and NASA is still wanting to “follow the water” on Mars to look for origin of life in the primordial soup scenario.

Before that, Astronomer Hoyle calculated that the odds of abiogenesis creating a living cell, are equivalent to a tornado assembling a functional 737 when going through a junk yard.

Talk of " ploy" and various other false and / or nvidious
remarks don't indicate you've an interest in honest talk,
no more than does your mini- gish, all of which you
lifted from some creationist site, none of which you've
the background to understand.
Hard core creationist beliefs such as those expressed are
never held by educated people, no more than they think
astrology is valid.
I have a friend from a poor farm family in SE Asia
who grew up not even knowing the earth is round, like
an orange, and just believing what the catholic church
taught.
She got a lucky break though and found herself in the
USA. Smart and ambitious, speaks three languages,
engineering degree, drives a Lexus.
Soaks up education like a sponge, loves it.

I knew her in college. I was so struck by something
she said, that I told her doesn't make sense, after a bit
she said, 'I see, that's just a superstition, I don't believe it now".

Very different from creationist mentality.

But never mind, I expect it's way too late for you
to unlearn the garbage you've soaked in.
I wish you well.

 

[Frank Robert]

Lol, magic time!

I don't have anything against religious beliefs in and of themselves, but it does make me both laugh and also raise a sadness of what creationists are teaching their children with such cartoonist analogies. When you call evolution "magic" you are degrading not only evolution but all of science which is not a good lesson for children.

 

[Larniavc]

And there are no transitional forms between single cell and multiple trillion celled life - there are no two cell, fou cell, hundred cell, etc life forms.

That's exactly what happens with Sponges and colonial organisms. Did you not know that?

 

[Astrid]

It's not hard to spot guesswork.

And I've been observing nature first hand for 40 plus years. Not in a laboratory. I have more field time than most biology students.

No amount of time roaming outdoors will qualify you
to know how to pick up a fossil astragalus and determine ar
a glance if itit'from an artiodactyl or perrisodactyl, still
less to hold forth with authority on the fossil lineage of
carnivores.

Just your "complete skeleton" thing gives you away.
A veterinarian let alone a paleontologist can pick up bone
in the pasture and tell you like that if it's pig, cow, horse, deer,
dog, human.
It's pretty unrealistic to think you know more science
than any scientist and without a glance pronounce
authoritatively on the fossil sequence on any organism..

Don't you think?

 

[Astrid]

Y

That's exactly what happens with Sponges and colonial organisms. Did you not know that?

Intro to biology, 101