The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[BeyondET]

15 minutes ago, FJK said:

I think new cellular structures might be a better term to use than new genetic material.

Just my thoughts, but it seems easier to consider for conversation.

Sounds pretty much the same, a material structure different shape of bones than before added material to structure the wings. Or going from 12 eyes to just 2 with 17,000 tiny lenses new material structures creating a butterfly.

Edited September 17, 2023 by BeyondET

[Starise]

On 9/16/2023 at 9:09 PM, Tristen said:

We commonly observe mutations that change existing genetic information (usually inactivating that information from being processed (transcribed/translated) or making something useless). Both creationist and secular models accept this kind of genetic change.

My understanding of mutations is they are not advantageous, for instance, a primate that finds safety in trees from predators which develops a "mutation" causing it to loose tree climbing ability on the back legs is not condusive to the advancement of that primate. Furthermore, this would not be seen as a gradual occurrance, but a sudden defect.

On 9/16/2023 at 9:09 PM, Tristen said:

However, what has never been observed, but what is required to make Common Ancestry plausible (including the supposed relationship between Apes and humans), is a mechanism that generates genetic material that is:

- Novel: Genes that have never existed before in any assumed ancestor group.

- Additive: Genetic information that exists on top of the information that was already there. Like adding an appendix to a book - without changing the information that was originally in the book. Mammals, for example, have more (not just different) genes than the microbes from which we supposedly evolved.

- Functional: It has to either produce a protein (including the insertion of start and stop codons in the exact right places), or else act as some form of transcription control.

- Beneficial: The function of the gene has to provide a competitive advantage to the organism. If the function is toxic (detrimental to the organism) or inert (a waste of energy to produce), then the organism will have a selective disadvantage.

- Adaptive: Not only should the new gene have a generally positive function, but that function has to be specifically positive in the context of the organism's environment - affording the organism a competitive advantage over those lacking the new gene - and thereby promoting the new gene's survival and propagation.

- Heritable: the new gene has to appear in the germ line cells - so that it will be passed on to offspring.

And there's probably other criteria that I've forgotten. The point is, such a mechanism, fulfilling all these criteria, has never been observed - i.e. to produce the genes that exist in some creatures, that don't exist in others. Furthermore, this mechanism is required to generate every unique gene that has ever existed in every creature that has ever existed. Yet this mechanism hasn't been observed in nature once - despite all our molecular experimentation.

Thanks for this. There are many tumblers in this genetic lock. The door never opens unless we line them all up. All of the conditions you termed are  formidable if we are attempting to prove a jump from ape to man.

The primary function of genes seems to be variability within a type. Never once hinting at running off those tracks. For one thing, genes need to determine where to run to be successful, and what state could possibly cause them to go very far off course? In condensing, your last paragraph sums it up well.

On 9/16/2023 at 9:09 PM, Tristen said:

Different "types" (a.k.a. different categories).

I think you wording here is potentially confusing - since "a given species" also belongs to a particular "kind" (which they may, or may not share with other "species")

OK.

On 9/16/2023 at 9:09 PM, Tristen said:

As a matter of theory, the creationist model accepts that speciation (diverging into separate "species") can (and does) occur within "kinds".

The tricky part is that both models operate on premises that are contrary to each other. We therefore cannot talk about "kinds" within the context of Common Ancestry - because that concept does not exist in that paradigm. For example, in a previous post you spoke in terms of debating the relationship "between kinds". But in recognizing the concept of "kinds" one must be operating in a paradigm in which there can be no relationship "between kinds" - by definition. This leads to a potentially self-defeating, logical inconsistency.

Sometimes it is preferable to use model-independent language. For example, both models recognize that there are closely related groupings of organisms (as demonstrated by morphological, molecular and hybridization data). The debate revolves around the boundaries of each group, and whether or not one internally-related group is externally-related to another internally-related group.

Yes, this is very much about the boundaries between groups, which as you say, is seen differently by different groups.

For one thing, I see it being potentially counter productive to say "creationist model" since to the other side it seems we already have a bias. Really it isn't a bias, it's science which shows these things to be so. I say "we" because I am a "creationist" if it means we are looking at the facts and coming up with creation as the answer as I have done and continue to do. That the term is used in some educational/institutional circles in a derogatory way, is more layers we need to get through in order to show them that yes, those who come up with creation as a viable solution are using science, and as you show, many of us take to those genetic, molecular levels of study.

That's why I like your last paragraph in saying model independence makes more sense. There are also "evolutionists" who might call themselves creationists, because even tough they might have some totally unproven approaches to their conclusions, they believe it was created.

I really just want anyone looking into this to say, "Oh look, this is so incredibly complex and unlikely to have happened as it was taught to us ( either collegate level or below), that now there are other possibilities, and even if it's only a launch point, that line of thinking is accurately leading to the correct conclusions.

On 9/16/2023 at 9:09 PM, Tristen said:

There are many mechanisms by which a small number of genes can contribute to a variety of outcomes. Examples include: the many genes whose expressions are dependent on the expression of a specific precursor gene. There are gene crossover events - where the paternal chromosome exchanges genetic information with the maternal chromosome - producing an entirely new version of the gene to pass on to offspring. Gene splicing can produce different expressions of the same gene by rearranging the genetic information before making a protein. etc. etc.

My go-to example for "high genetic diversity" is the history of domestic dog breeds. A couple of centuries ago, there was only a handful of domestic dog breeds. Now there are hundreds. All of the many and varied traits that distinguish modern dog breeds from each other existed in that original population of five-or-so breeds. The way we made pure dog breeds was to inbreed them, thereby breeding out the diversity of genes that existed in the ancestor dog - and leaving only the genes for the desired traits in the descendant breed. Since the ancestors were so highly genetically diverse, no information needed to be added to the dogs to produce such a variety in the descendants in such a short time.

Thank you for further explaining. Yes, we have poodles and wolves all from the same group.Most of this was attention to breeding types.In the plant world we have  grass which corn was eventually bred from.

On 9/16/2023 at 9:09 PM, Tristen said:

Both are valid argument strategies - so long as they are accomplished within the bounds of logic (which is unfortunately, increasingly rare).

True that.

[The Barbarian]

On 9/16/2023 at 8:09 PM, Tristen said:

Even so - a mechanism for novel genetic information remains a sizable hurdle for the paradigm.

Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

BTW, have you decided whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single "kind" or different "kinds" and what genetic or anatomical evidence do you have for this decision?

 

[Retrobyter]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

BTW, have you decided whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single "kind" or different "kinds" and what genetic or anatomical evidence do you have for this decision?

 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Who cares? It should be enough that God created "KINDS" - PLURAL, not some single cell that mutated to all the various forms of taxa!

Furthermore, it's not enough that it's "novel genetic information"; is it VIABLE genetic information that causes a MAJOR shift in that taxon?

[The Barbarian]

Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

BTW, have you decided whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single "kind" or different "kinds" and what genetic or anatomical evidence do you have for this decision?

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Who cares?

Seems to me that if "kinds" are true, it would be simple to do.   Yet, no one wants to step up and do it.   Why is it so hard to say, with evidence, whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single kind, or multiple kinds?   

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

It should be enough that God created "KINDS"

He did.  And does.   The problem is some people don't approve of the way He does it.

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, it's not enough that it's "novel genetic information"; is it VIABLE genetic information

It if wasn't, it wouldn't be added to the population genome.    Non-viable mutations kill the individuals having them.  

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

that causes a MAJOR shift in that taxon?

Few mutations immediately cause a major shift in taxon, although that's not unknown.  It's more common in plants than in animals, because a polyploidy mutation often causes speciation.    Usually, it's a series of mutations over time that produces new taxa.  

 

 

[Starise]

On 9/18/2023 at 5:28 PM, The Barbarian said:

Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?

BTW, have you decided whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single "kind" or different "kinds" and what genetic or anatomical evidence do you have for this decision?

 

I see the modern theories presented as 'stages' to get from a single celled organisms to man. Everything works in that direction accoring to these 'theories'.

The bible doesn't teach 'stages'. The bible teaches types and kinds. That they have sub categories isn't really on the table so far as ape to man transitions as they are implied and taught.

[The Barbarian]

36 minutes ago, Starise said:

see the modern theories presented as 'stages' to get from a single celled organisms to man. Everything works in that direction accoring to these 'theories'.

What stage, from the beginning to us, do you think is impossible?   We can then check the evidence to see.

36 minutes ago, Starise said:

The bible doesn't teach 'stages'.

The Bible doesn't give any details at all.  It merely says that God produced life using existing creation.

36 minutes ago, Starise said:

That they have sub categories isn't really on the table so far as ape to man transitions as they are implied and taught.

That is a matter of evidence.   As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the hominid series of transitional fossils is among the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I see we still have no creationist willing to even tell us if birds are a separate kind from dinosaurs, with evidence to support their opinion. 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Tristen]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:13 PM, The Barbarian said:

So tell us how to distinguish dinosaurs from birds.   What anatomical features are found in birds that are not found in dinosaurs?

Do you believe the Bible's statement that bats are birds?    Do you think that herons comprise a number of kinds as the Bible says?

Well, let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence on fossils:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Notice, Dr. Wise actually presents evidence for his finding.

Dr. Wise documents otherwise, and he actually has a doctorate in paleontology.   He still prefers his reading of scripture to the evidence, but he's honest enough to admit the fact.

What's more impressive than the huge number of transitionals and graduated organic chains of transitionals documented by Dr. Wise, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.    No feathered mammals, no whales with gills.  

And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain.    For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles.  

Archosaurs differ from other reptiles by having scutes, particular scales that can be induced to form feathers.  Scutes are found on dinosaurs, crocodiles, and birds.    It's been known for a while that genetic manipulation can turn bird scutes to primitive feathers, but recently that was also found to be the case for crocodiles:

Scientists turn alligator scales into primitive ‘feathers’

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/aligator-scale-feathers-043242/

Birds are unusual in that they have a respiratory system that relies on pneumatized bones and a one-way ventilation system that makes them much more efficient than other animals in breathing low oxygen levels.   But in the past few years, it has been found that at least some dinosaurs had the same system.   

Can you name even one major trait in birds that is not found in dinosaurs?

 

“So tell us how to distinguish dinosaurs from birds.   What anatomical features are found in birds that are not found in dinosaurs? ”

I’ve already spoken about distinct groups (or “kinds”) within “birds”. There’s no conceptual reason to broaden the discussion to include “dinosaurs”. Doing so would have no relevant consequence nor implication to the discussion.

Likewise, we could ask: 'What “features” are unique to Psittaciformes that are not found in other birds?' Probably none. But that particular set of features is only found in Psittaciformes. That (along with the molecular data) is why they are classified together – distinct from other “birds”.

The fact that some of these “features” are found singularly in other “birds” does not impact the classification – i.e. the recognized distinction between Psittaciformes and other “birds”. Similarly, maybe every “bird” feature can be found singularly in different creatures under the general label of “dinosaur”. So what? That doesn’t mean “dinosaurs” should be classified as “birds”.

Or maybe some “dinosaurs” were “birds” – and therefore obviously had “bird” “features” – who cares? It has no logical relevance to the conversation.

 

“Do you believe the Bible's statement that bats are birds?”

I think I answered this from your previous post – before I saw this post. I’ll wait to see how you respond to that answer rather than repeating myself.

 

“Do you think that herons comprise a number of kinds as the Bible says?”

Sure – why not? I’m not familiar with the data, however, a quick search reveals there are over 70 species of “herons”. Is there a reason they couldn’t be further divided into groups that theoretically match up to the concept of “kinds”?

I’d also note that not all translations insinuate multiple “kinds” of “herons”. The NKJV rather says, “the heron after its kind” (Leviticus 11:19).

 

“On 9/16/2023 at 9:15 AM, Tristen said:

The "transitional forms" issue is not a problem - because they don't exist in the sense that "Darwin" envisioned them - i.e. "a finely graduated organic chain".

Well, let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence on fossils”

No thanks. I’m happy that Darwin’s wording is clear enough. I know what “finely graduated” means. And I know what a “chain” is supposed to look like.

 

“Notice, Dr. Wise actually presents evidence for his finding.”

The few that I am familiar with could not genuinely be described as "finely graduated" nor " chains". Even the papers reporting them describe them as being disparate in time and form.

 

“Dr. Wise documents otherwise, and he actually has a doctorate in paleontology”

Wow!!! You mean a real-life, honest-to-goodness, bona-fides "doctorate in paleontology" - and he is a creationist - AND he agrees with you!

That as-good-as settles the matter. 😉

 

“What's more impressive than the huge number of transitionals and graduated organic chains of transitionals documented by Dr. Wise, is the fact that there are no transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.”

Except that when you look at the phylogenies and cladograms, they are, self-evidently, not, in any sense, “finely graduated”. Nor are they similar enough to be linked together (in the sense that one might think of, say, a “chain”). Maybe “chain” links held together by long lengths of string where the other expected “chain” links should be (but are not).

 

“And modern biochemical and genetic analyses make this even more certain.    For example T. rex heme turns out to be more like the heme of birds than the heme of modern reptiles”

I mean – just wow!!! One whole molecule that is similar. It’s like they’re twins.

And, I guess – lucky we were able to find some intact, 65 million years old dinosaur “heme”.

 

“Can you name even one major trait in birds that is not found in dinosaurs?”

No, I can’t. And I wouldn’t even bother looking it up – because that would be a meaningless, irrelevant factoid.

 

NEXT POST

“   By creationist belief, all felids are descended from one (sometimes two or three) pairs of "cat kind" on the Ark.   Taking the extreme case, there would be at most, twelve alleles for each gene locus in those cats.    Yet there are hundreds of alleles for those gene loci now.    All of the rest had to have evolved by mutation and natural selection.”

Your understanding of gene diversity is too simplistic. Genes are made up of tens-to-thousands of bases (nucleotide pairs). Chromosomal crossovers (exchanges of genetic material/bases between chromatids) during meiosis can recombine a gene to produce theoretically countless versions of that one gene. No “mutation” required.

 

“If you're familiar with the mathematics of information, you know that every new mutation in a population increases information in that population.   If you haven't looked at that, we an discuss a simple case to see how the numbers work.”

That would be a meaningless, semantic conversation. I’m talking about the generation of completely novel, functional genes. When I’m using the word “information”, I’m talking about the ability of DNA to be transcribed, read and interpreted by ribosomes (or polymerases for TFs) to make a protein that performs a function in the organism carrying the said DNA. Therefore, “information” (as it pertains to this conversation) refers specifically to DNA that functions as communication between molecular entities.

And therefore, in the context of this discussion, random additions of, or substitutions of ‘letters’ only qualifies as “information” if it communicates a functional element.

Other concepts of “information” are not relevant to what is being discussed – and only serve to muddy and confuse the conversation.

 

NEXT POST

“On 9/16/2023 at 1:27 PM, Tristen said:

I actually made this very point in the next sentence to the one you quoted. The modern creationist perspective has always suggested that the "Homo" Genus is comprised of descendants of Adam - and therefore fully human (with the noted exception of Homo habilis which is likely comprised of fragments from both ape and human fossils).

Sounds unlikely, since the H. erectus fossils are almost exactly like H. sapiens in post cranial skeleton,and their skulls look far more like those of modern humans than they look like the skulls of other apes.”

I can’t figure out where we are disagreeing on this.

 

“This is the source of the confusion as to the meaning of "kind" in the Bible.   It is used for living things in different ways, just as it is in English.”

I think you are making things more confusing than they need to be.

Firstly, as I read it, the use of “kind” in Leviticus 11:13-19 is consistent with the creationist conception of “kind”. You might have to show me specifically what you mean here.

Secondly, for the sake of argument, let’s say you are right – that creationists have been presumptuous in borrowing the term “kinds” from the Bible. Are you really struggling to understand the concept – that God created different groups of living creatures independently of each other – which subsequently descended (sometimes speciated) into their modern forms?

Crying “confusion” feels a bit like playing-dumb to stall the discussion.

 

“The same evidence that shows common descent if individual "barmin" shows common descent of all known living things on Earth.”

This conclusion is dependent on the starting assumptions of the interpreter.

The phylogenetic studies show patterns of clumped, highly similar groups, separated by appreciable gaps in the data.

- You are assuming that all similarity necessarily represents inheritance, and thereby relatedness. Therefore, any similarity between the groups is interpreted as “common descent”.

- The creationist model only assumes relatedness, if the similarity is uncanny. But also considers disparities between groups to hold significance – meaning that the gaps in the data between groups could indicate delineations between created “kinds”.

 

“I suppose it's always possible for scientists to all be lying about this.  However...

yunis_prakash_image_0.jpg.dae197e36b0bbfd9090e8b63144c2824.jpg

So they aren't lying.”

Who said they are “lying”?

I certainly did not state, neither did I suggest, any such thing.

 

“On 9/16/2023 at 1:27 PM, Tristen said:

The second thing I find interesting is that, your best evidence is from an old, imprecise method.

And yet, even there, the evidence is quite clear.”

It is not “clear” or conclusive in any objective sense – because the method simply does not allow for such clarity. Any perceived clarity from this method is therefore filtered through the bias of your imagination.

 

“As to why the telomere and old centromere sites are degenerated (but still recognizable as such) is that mutation is a common thing”

The authors of the paper I provided expressed unequivocal surprise to find that the putative fusion site could be so thoroughly degraded. Therefore, the supposed rate of “mutation”, rendering the site so unrecognizable, was not considered to be “a common thing”. It was considered by the authors to be unusually excessive – even given their assumed, secular time frame.

 

“PNAS October 15, 1991 88 (20) 9051-9055 Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.”

I’ll put in the link so those who are interested don’t have to go looking for it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/pdf/pnas01070-0197.pdf

This paper was more incredulous than I remembered.

Given today’s sequencing methods, the sequencing method used here is absurdly unreliable. They started with over 1.4 million vector clones. They then probed those clones to find what they were looking for (thereby introducing immediate bias to the results). Of the 60 that past the first test, they then probed to further filter the pool to contain something else they were looking for (introducing yet more bias) – until they were left with two cosmid sequences that were still not 100% identical.

Remember – we now have freely available, very robust sequences of everything we are talking about. So why do your chosen evidences use old, unreliable data?

Anyways – when I looked at the sequence data, it took three or four times for me to realize what I was looking at – because I was looking for telomeric arrays – and the presented data does not look like telomeres. A telomere fusion site would consist of the DNA motif ‘TTAGGG’ occurring thousands of times, uninterrupted, in a row, followed by thousands of compliment sequences. In the provided data, there was a handful of these motifs, spread out amidst many, many more unrelated sequences - which were isolated, and presented, with no regards to reading frame, so that they also looked like they might once have been telomere motif. And the data spanned only roughly a hundred bases, straddled by non-telomeric sequences – when the telomeres themselves should have spanned at least 10,000 bases in a fusion site.

The idea that this is “clear” evidence of a telomere fusion is confirmation bias on steroids (though I’d give you the benefit of assuming you didn’t look much past the abstract).

To date, and to my knowledge, only the creationist paper uses data derived from modern, robust (next gen) sequencing techniques.

Regardless, all the sequencing data (including the abovementioned paper) demonstrate that the telomere fusion site does not look like a telomere fusion site.

 

“Genome Research July 2023, 33 (7) Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes”

Ummm – this is actually the 2002 paper that I linked in my previous post – where they were surprised by how little the telomere fusion site resembled a telomere fusion site.

 

“Would you be able to answer that question about any character in birds that does not exist in dinosaurs?    I used to know of one, but recently, it was found in dinosaurs.   What do you have?”

I would not "be able to answer that question" because it is logically irrelevant (as discussed above). Perhaps you could wait till I have a chance to answer the first time you ask something – before you start posturing.

 

“Actually, every new mutation in a population adds novel genetic information.    Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?”

This claim relies on a definition of "information" that has no logical bearing on what is being discussed in this conversation. Maybe in the future, I could be given the opportunity to answer the first instance of a question before you start posturing.

 

“BTW, have you decided whether birds and other dinosaurs are a single "kind" or different "kinds" and what genetic or anatomical evidence do you have for this decision?”

Yet again, it would be nice if had the opportunity to answer the question, before you initiate the posturing phase of your argument.

 

[Tristen]

On 9/18/2023 at 4:50 AM, BeyondET said:

Legs and wings and a body that the caterpillar didn't have before the total rebuild with an exoskeleton.

 

I think we are talking about different things.

I'm talking about a mechanism that makes new genes that have never existed before - and adds them to a genome.

The mechanism you are describing does not change the DNA information contained in the genome of the "caterpillar" - it simply utilizes existing genes, but at different stages of "caterpillar" development.

 

[Tristen]

On 9/19/2023 at 12:45 AM, Starise said:

My understanding of mutations is they are not advantageous

I would disagree with his assessment. Mutations can be “advantageous”.

Overwhelmingly, they are not – but in some rare cases, they are. So that is not the winning argument.

A better argument is that, regardless of advantage, non-neutral mutations always “break” genes (i.e. destroys the information being communicated by the gene to the molecular machinery that reads the genes). Observed mutations do not make and add new genes to the genome, but rather corrupt old genes (and thereby remove their function). Any advantage is incidental – meaning, it just-so happens that, in certain specific contexts, having a functional gene is less "advantageous" than a non-functioning gene. Therefore, when a gene is broken (no longer functioning due to a mutation), the organism with the broken version of the gene may derive some advantage.

Again, the real argument is about the information status of the gene. A mutation alone cannot generate novel, additive, functional, beneficial, adaptive, heritable genes. Rather, the gene (and therefore gene function) has been inactivated; the information telling our cells how to build a beneficial, functional protein has been lost.

 

On 9/19/2023 at 12:45 AM, Starise said:

Thanks for this. There are many tumblers in this genetic lock. The door never opens unless we line them all up. All of the conditions you termed are  formidable if we are attempting to prove a jump from ape to man.

It certainly provides enough reasonable doubt to justify questioning the credulity of such a significant “jump” between creatures.

 

On 9/19/2023 at 12:45 AM, Starise said:

For one thing, I see it being potentially counter productive to say "creationist model" since to the other side it seems we already have a bias.

Perhaps.

The reality is that both sides operate under “bias”. It is, logically speaking, not possible to interpret a fact about the unobsreved past without applying pre-existing assumptions regarding the nature of reality.

The usual difference is that, while creationists tend to acknowledge and understand the role of faith presupposition in influencing creationist conclusions, secularists like to pretend that they are objectively following the facts to their natural conclusions.

 

On 9/19/2023 at 12:45 AM, Starise said:

I really just want anyone looking into this to say, "Oh look, this is so incredibly complex and unlikely to have happened as it was taught to us ( either collegate level or below), that now there are other possibilities, and even if it's only a launch point, that line of thinking is accurately leading to the correct conclusions.

It would be nice if we could start the conversation from that point. Unfortunately, the indoctrination has been layered on so thick, that we first have to wade through the weeds to get them to a point where they are even able to consider the possibility that creationists might have a valid argument.