disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, Still Alive said:

I agree, except a lot of "lay-evolutionists" I see pontificating basically use it to explain life itself. It's not moot to them. They actually believe that since we came from a single cell, then it follows that the first signs of life simply came about without a creator. And they just assume that eventually we'll figure out how it happened, just like eventually we "figured out" that we evolved from a single cell. 

Which is a foolish idea; science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.   And yes, there are ignorant "evolutionists" who don't know science any more then some ignorant creationists.    Not that all creationists are ignorant; many are not.

 

 

[Still Alive]

1 minute ago, The Barbarian said:

Which is a foolish idea; science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.   And yes, there are ignorant "evolutionists" who don't know science any more then some ignorant creationists.    Not that all creationists are ignorant; many are not.

I find that the more directly involved a real scientist is in biological research and work involving investigating biological evolution, the less likely they are to be on internet sites arguing that there is no God and we all evolved. And vice versa.

I separate science from Christianity because they are as different in their function as a cook book is different from a song book. You can like a certain recipe and also enjoy a certain song. 

Science is about how. Religion is about why.

[The Barbarian]

52 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I find that the more directly involved a real scientist is in biological research and work involving investigating biological evolution, the less likely they are to be on internet sites arguing that there is no God and we all evolved.

Those are two rather different things.   I notice scientists like Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) openly express their faith in God, while showing why evolution is a fact.

 

 

[Still Alive]

3 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Those are two rather different things.   I notice scientists like Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) openly express their faith in God, while showing why evolution is a fact.

 

 

And I agree with him on both. The challenge, I find, is what the "lay evolutionists" mean when they say "evolution". 

I believe the Corvette has evolved. I believe populations evolve. I believe observed evolution has happened. 

[ARGOSY]

On 9/10/2019 at 5:00 PM, Still Alive said:

And I agree with him on both. The challenge, I find, is what the "lay evolutionists" mean when they say "evolution". 

I believe the Corvette has evolved. I believe populations evolve. I believe observed evolution has happened. 

Just because we observe evolutionary processes in  short term adaptation within a clade does not mean that evolution is the best explanation for the existence of all extant species. 

If one removes all preconceived ideas, and observes the fossil appearance of multiple species without fossil precursor in the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian, why prefer evolution? 

Surely the more logical conclusion is what we observe and what creationism predicts, that more and more extant species will be found fully formed in earlier layers. That there has been adaptation within clades. And that rare species in ecological niches will dominate the planet in stages when conditions are suitable. 

[ARGOSY]

On 7/17/2019 at 5:59 PM, Hawkins said:

This is not even an argument. It's a known fact that humans contain genes of Neanderthal. Liger is used just to trigger a thought experiment.

Neanderthals are humans, just another race group with defining features. They would have  never been able to interbreed if they were not the same species, Interbreeding can only occur within a species of matching DNA, and the statistical chance of co-incidental matching and some sort of DNA convergent evolution is impossible. It amazes me how scientists can classify Neanderthals as non human when the DNA match is perfect enough to interbreed. 

[Still Alive]

On 10/4/2019 at 3:12 AM, ARGOSY said:

Just because we observe evolutionary processes in  short term adaptation within a clade does not mean that evolution is the best explanation for the existence of all extant species. 

If one removes all preconceived ideas, and observes the fossil appearance of multiple species without fossil precursor in the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian, why prefer evolution? 

Surely the more logical conclusion is what we observe and what creationism predicts, that more and more extant species will be found fully formed in earlier layers. That there has been adaptation within clades. And that rare species in ecological niches will dominate the planet in stages when conditions are suitable. 

We're in agreement on this. 

If I see an old car rusting away in a field, it doesn't mean it came into existence through rust.

[ARGOSY]

15 hours ago, Still Alive said:

We're in agreement on this. 

If I see an old car rusting away in a field, it doesn't mean it came into existence through rust.

Haha that's an interesting way of putting it. 

Yes we often observe adaptation through devolution within a clade via the slow deteriation of the genome of that species. We should not elevate that observed deteriation to an imagined increased complexity whereby some primitive prokaryote of less than 1000 genes can evolve into a human of 22000 genes. 

[The Barbarian]

16 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yes we often observe adaptation through devolution within a clade via the slow deteriation of the genome of that species. We should not elevate that observed deteriation to an imagined increased complexity whereby some primitive prokaryote of less than 1000 genes can evolve into a human of 22000 genes. 

There is no "devolution."    That was a one-time joke by an 80s pop group.    The key here is that a genome's fitness only counts in terms of the environment.   So we see that organisms are more fit now than then were in the past.    This is directly observed; as Darwin predicted, fitness tends to increase in a population.    Would you like some examples?

And some rather simple organisms have far more genes than we do.   The number of genes has very little, if anything to do with complexity.    Do you see why?

 

 

[nobleseed]

if evolution exists it is only because God created it