Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[USincognito]

Oh, you’re gonna work me… don’t expect a dissertation though. Two basic parts to TOE, I guess I could put it like that. Microevolution which can be observable (variation and adaptations for survival), and macroevolution which covers unobservable lengths of time and suggested changes that I don’t agree with and don't think is backed-up with evidence. In other words, species don’t gradually appear by lengthy transformation.

1. Micro and macro are the same process.
2. Scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes.
3. There is a ton of evidence for common ancestry.

 

[inquiring mind]

1. Micro and macro are the same process.

I can't agree with this.

2. Scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes.

You know, I can see your point here, but then it becomes what we think the evidence is saying, and different interpretations are, well, different interpretations. You can argue that you're more qualified to make the correct interpretation, and that may be true, but that alone still doesn't make your interpretation correct.

3. There is a ton of evidence for common ancestry.

At this point in time, True, but like I said, that doesn't make it so. I just don't think that way, and in addition to my faith, I occasionally hear a 'scientist/theologist studied expert' say something to the contrary that reinforces my believe in creationism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I can't agree with this.

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean he's not correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Micro and macro are the same process.
2. Scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes.
3. There is a ton of evidence for common ancestry.

1. With different results though.
2. Thus myopic.
3. Only on paper.

 

[VirOptimus]

1. With different results though.
2. Thus myopic.
3. Only on paper.

1-3, no. See that was easy.

 

[AV1611VET]

1-3, no. See that was easy.

Then why don't I get equally easy answers to my questions?

You know? the ones that require either a YES or a NO, but I get six paragraphs instead ... and my question still isn't answered?

Can you explain that?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why don't I get equally easy answers to my questions?

You know? the ones that require either a YES or a NO, but I get six paragraphs instead ... and my question still isn't answered?

Can you explain that?

Your questions generally get the answers they deserve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your questions generally get the answers they deserve.

Real mature answer there ... real mature.

 

[VirOptimus]

Real mature answer there ... real mature.

See previous post.

 

[AV1611VET]

See previous post.

I'll pass.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'll pass.

You should do that more often!

 

[USincognito]

I can't agree with this.

I don't expect you to, but I am correct whether you agree with me or not. The process of changes in allele representation in populations over time is the same be it bird beaks over a few generations or terrestrial species returning to the oceans over 10s of thousands of generations.

You know, I can see your point here, but then it becomes what we think the evidence is saying, and different interpretations are, well, different interpretations. You can argue that you're more qualified to make the correct interpretation, and that may be true, but that alone still doesn't make your interpretation correct.

Creationists think "interpretation" is a magic word that makes evidence go away. It doesn't. Claiming that the presence of shared pseudogenes as evidence for common ancestry is an "interpretation" is quite silly for example. There is no other explanation other than a trickster Designer putting them in genomes in such a way as mimics common ancestry just to fool us. Claiming that a mountain being millions of years old and the result of known geologic processes or it being 4,000 years old and the result of the Flood are equally viable "interpretations" is simply madness.

At this point in time, True, but like I said, that doesn't make it so.

Huh? You think that the massive amount of evidence we have for evolution will suddenly disappear somehow? And yes, the fact that there is a massive amount of evidence for evolution doesn't make it so.

I just don't think that way, and in addition to my faith, I occasionally hear a 'scientist/theologist studied expert' say something to the contrary that reinforces my believe in creationism.

There's a lot of garbage out there that sounds compelling to those who don't know any better. I had a VHS tape of Kent Hovind back in the 90s and he made a very compelling case. I didn't realize, at the time, just how much of a liar he was and how dishonest nearly all of his supposed citations were.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think that the massive amount of evidence we have for evolution will suddenly disappear somehow?

Yes.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't expect you to, but I am correct whether you agree with me or not. The process of changes in allele representation in populations over time is the same be it bird beaks over a few generations or terrestrial species returning to the oceans over 10s of thousands of generations.

I should save my breath then, but yes as AV said, they may be similar processes, but the difference is in the outcomes. One results in observed adaptation and variations, while the other proposes much more, ‘a complete unobserved change,’ from one kind to another. You can beat that drum all you want, there is no hard evidence that anything like that ever happened.

Creationists think "interpretation" is a magic word that makes evidence go away. It doesn't.

No, like lawyers, they know that the truth isn't always what it appears to be.

Huh? You think that the massive amount of evidence we have for evolution will suddenly disappear somehow? And yes, the fact that there is a massive amount of evidence for evolution doesn't make it so.

Again, in the interest of saving my breath (since it's not gonna make any difference to you), I'll just go with what AV said (post #73). It's a much better answer than I could give anyway.

There's a lot of garbage out there that sounds compelling to those who don't know any better.

Here too! Amen.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

One results in observed adaptation and variations, while the other proposes much more, ‘a complete unobserved change,’ from one kind to another. You can beat that drum all you want, there is no hard evidence that anything like that ever happened.

And why is your claim more believable than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have helped show that evolution is a fact?

 

[pitabread]

while the other proposes much more, ‘a complete unobserved change,’ from one kind to another.

Not to beat on the fact that "kind" is still not a biologically defined term, but the fact is changes in the recorded history of life are observed. We have a record of fossil organisms that existed at different stages of time. We can observe there was a time when organisms existed that no longer exist today. And vise-versa we can observe that there are organisms alive today, that didn't exist at previous points in time (in the same form).

The fossil record shows observed changes in biological organisms on this planet over time.

 

[inquiring mind]

And why is your claim more believable than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have helped show that evolution is a fact?

Two words, proposes and unobserved.

 

[pitabread]

Two words, proposes and unobserved.

What are the specific mechanisms/processes by which organisms are created supernaturally from scratch?

We have observed mechanisms by which populations change over time. I'm not aware of any observed mechanisms by which organisms are created out of thin air.

 

[inquiring mind]

"kind" is still not a biologically defined term

So what?

the fact is changes in the recorded history of life are observed

At the micro level, adaptations and variations only.

We have a record of fossil organisms that existed at different stages throughout the history of life.

And you do a wonderful job finding proposed connections.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Two words, proposes and unobserved.

Two words: observable evidence.
The scientists have it. Your lot certainly do not.