Creation vs. Evolution II

[Jose Fly]

Yes. Does it matter that you think it means derivative of an ape? No.

This is where your emotional/religious bias against human/primate shared ancestry is very apparent. You started off by saying there wasn't a need for you to really think about it unless it mattered. But since I pointed out that the evolutionary relationships between humans and other organisms is the entire basis for figuring out the functions of genetic sequences (comparative genomics), you've been scrambling around, doing everything you can to not have to deal with that information.

Like I said before, if human/primate share ancestry is simply a non-starter for you and is something you cannot accept no matter what, then just be honest and say so.

Bug me? No, just to remind you that your chosen icons and sig aren't as disinterested as you sometimes try to portray. They are both, I assume, carefully chosen to convey your exact sentiments.

Why do you feel the need to constantly remind me about my avatar though? Like I said, you seem to bring it up just about every time we start a conversation. To me, that says it bugs you.

And FYI, I use it because it cracks me up. I love Chick Tracts because they're so hilariously cheesy, and being a scientist I thought I'd use the image Jack Chick and his readers apparently believe best represents the typical scientist.

Read your own sig lately? If you've softened, bravo, change 'em. If not, I'll continue to intelligently assume...

So that's the extent of your evidence for some "political agenda" behind science? "Some guy on an internet forum has a signature line that I don't like"?

Great job there Lon.

 

[Stripe]

This is where your emotional/religious bias against human/primate shared ancestry is very apparent. You started off by saying there wasn't a need for you to really think about it unless it mattered. But since I pointed out that the evolutionary relationships between humans and other organisms is the entire basis for figuring out the functions of genetic sequences (comparative genomics), you've been scrambling around, doing everything you can to not have to deal with that information.

Nope.

This is you demanding the primacy of your idea and ignoring the possibility of a competing idea.

DNA similarities are a result of common design, not common ancestry.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is you demanding the primacy of your idea and ignoring the possibility of a competing idea.

No, that was me demonstrating the supremacy of evolutionary theory as evidenced by its utility in discerning genetic function.

DNA similarities are a result of common design, not common ancestry.

In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I say so!!

 

[Stripe]

No, that was me demonstrating the supremacy of evolutionary theory as evidenced by its utility in discerning genetic function.

Nope. Assuming the truth of your ideas and refusing to consider alternatives is the essence of anti-science dogma.

You make demands and when challenged use the intellectual equivalent of "because I say so."

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. Assuming the truth of your ideas and refusing to consider alternatives is the essence of anti-science dogma.

Which is why I demonstrated the supremacy of evolutionary theory by showing its utility in discerning genetic function. Rather than merely assume common ancestry, geneticists put the idea to a test and came up with extremely useful results that continue to be used today.

Meanwhile, creationism has contributed...............absolutely nothing...........in well over a century.

But I'm sure your next post will be you merely saying (with no supporting evidence) that the opposite is true, black is white, and up is down.

Such is the delusional nature of creationism.

 

[Lon]

This is where your emotional/religious bias against human/primate shared ancestry is very apparent. You started off by saying there wasn't a need for you to really think about it unless it mattered.

Bingo.

But since I pointed out that the evolutionary relationships between humans and other organisms is the entire basis for figuring out the functions of genetic sequences (comparative genomics), you've been scrambling around, doing everything you can to not have to deal with that information.

:nono: It only 'matters' to a scientist like yourself. Further, it doesn't but show relation, not derivative. Again, plants have cells as I do.

Like I said before, if human/primate share ancestry is simply a non-starter for you and is something you cannot accept no matter what, then just be honest and say so.

When I see a chimp-boy I'll be forced as it were, to re-examine but I just don't foresee that ever happening. Further, it doesn't matter.
"Mattering" isn't your call to make.

Why do you feel the need to constantly remind me about my avatar though? Like I said, you seem to bring it up just about every time we start a conversation. To me, that says it bugs you.

Nope. It is just you. That's how I see you.

And FYI, I use it because it cracks me up. I love Chick Tracts because they're so hilariously cheesy, and being a scientist I thought I'd use the image Jack Chick and his readers apparently believe best represents the typical scientist.

Yeah, but then you went and chose them as your avatar! :doh:

So that's the extent of your evidence for some "political agenda" behind science? "Some guy on an internet forum has a signature line that I don't like"?

Great job there Lon.

Um, again, that is an agenda and you chose it to represent you as well.

 

[Stripe]

Which is why I demonstrated the supremacy of evolutionary theory by showing its utility in discerning genetic function.

Nope. You assumed the truth of your Darwinism and refused to consider an alternative. You're an anti-science bigot.

Rather than merely assume common ancestry, geneticists put the idea to a test and came up with extremely useful results that continue to be used today.

And they could have discovered the exact same results approaching the problem with another theory.

Finding useful techniques is not evidence that your theory trumps another, especially when you will not even admit that another possibility even exists.

Evolutionism has contributed absolutely nothing ever. Looks like YECs win. :up:

But I'm sure your next post will be you merely saying (with no supporting evidence) that the opposite is true, black is white, and up is down.

Such is the delusional nature of Darwinists.

 

[Jose Fly]

It only 'matters' to a scientist like yourself.

Then why do you keep discussing it?

Further, it doesn't but show relation, not derivative. Again, plants have cells as I do.

See? If it doesn't matter to you, why do you feel the need to keep posting lame excuses for waving away the data?

Looks to me like you're not being honest with me, or with yourself. You want to discuss human/primate evolution, but only from your denialist perspective. As soon as it turns to an actual discussion of the actual science, suddenly "it doesn't matter".

So, does it matter to you or not? If it doesn't, then why keep talking about it? If it does, then deal with the data. Stop trying to have it both ways.

When I see a chimp-boy I'll be forced as it were, to re-examine but I just don't foresee that ever happening. Further, it doesn't matter.
"Mattering" isn't your call to make.

See? That's nothing more than "If the data was there, I'd notice. But if it ever does show up, it won't matter to me".

Nope. It is just you. That's how I see you.

Then you can stop bringing it up.

Yeah, but then you went and chose them as your avatar!

Sheesh, pay attention. I chose it because it's funny to me.

Um, again, that is an agenda and you chose it to represent you as well.

Your empty, baseless assertion is noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

And they could have discovered the exact same results approaching the problem with another theory.

Then why aren't creationists doing exactly that?

Finding useful techniques is not evidence that your theory trumps another, especially when you will not even admit that another possibility even exists.

Evolutionism has contributed absolutely nothing ever. Looks like YECs win.

Just as I said...

Every single accredited university that has a science program teaches evolution and that the universe is billions of years old. Every single biotech firm operates under the paradigm of evolutionary theory. Every single scientific organization that has voiced their opinion on the issue has unequivocally stated that evolution is reality. Every single biological journal publishes multiple papers per year expanding our understanding of how evolution works, how it proceeded in the past, and uses that information to add to our scientific knowledge. And when you get into "billions of years" it's just as clear. IOW, in the earth and life sciences, evolution and "billions of years" are an essential part of the entire framework and have been for a very long time.

At the same time, not one accredited university, scientific organization, biotech firm, scientific journal, or other productive scientific endeavor incorporates or utilizes creationism or the idea that everything is less than 10,000 years old in any way, shape or form. Creationism hasn't accomplished or even contributed to anything science in well over a century. From a scientific standpoint, creationism is 100% irrelevant and has been for a very long time.

So the state of the issue from a scientific perspective couldn't be any more clear, right? There is no debate, there is no controversy, there really isn't even anything to discuss.

Yet if you come into forums like the one I showed you, you encounter all sorts of Christians who will tell you...apparently with a straight face and in all seriousness (if you could see them)...that the exact opposite is true. Evolution is failed and/or disproven, and has not only failed to contribute anything to science in any way at all, it has actually "hindered science". Creationism is the superior explanation, has produced all sorts of wonderful contributions to modern science, and is without any doubt perfectly in line with all the evidence.​

 

[Lon]

Then why do you keep discussing it?

You engaged me.

See? If it doesn't matter to you, why do you feel the need to keep posting lame excuses for waving away the data?

You engaged me.

Looks to me like you're not being honest with me, or with yourself. You want to discuss human/primate evolution, but only from your denialist perspective. As soon as it turns to an actual discussion of the actual science, suddenly "it doesn't matter".

You engaged me.

So, does it matter to you or not? If it doesn't, then why keep talking about it? If it does, then deal with the data. Stop trying to have it both ways.

You engaged me.

See? That's nothing more than "If the data was there, I'd notice. But if it ever does show up, it won't matter to me".

You engaged me.

Then you can stop bringing it up.

You engaged me.

Sheesh, pay attention. I chose it because it's funny to me.

AND adopted it as your persona. It isn't for you to look at every time you come to TOL. It is rather how you wanted to be thought of, no?

Your empty, baseless assertion is noted.

You engaged me.

 

[Stripe]

Then why aren't creationists doing exactly that?

They are.

It's game over for your implication that Darwinism is the only player. Time to learn how to be a real scientist. :up: Pretending that popularity and being part of the establishment makes you a scientist just gets you mocked.

 

[Jose Fly]

You engaged me.

Then we can be done. Thanks for your time.

 

[Jose Fly]

They are.

Then please show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

 

[Stripe]

Then please show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

Now that you've tacitly admitted your failing, how about you withdraw the assertion that only evolution can explain genetic features. :up:

 

[6days]

Nope. You (JoseFly)assumed the truth of your Darwinism and refused to consider an alternative. You're an anti-science bigot.

Sadly, he is unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his 'religion',

 

[MichaelCadry]

:think: Dear Jose Fly,

I will butt in here just a bit and let you all get back to things. I really don't like talking with you, but will grin and bear it for now. We just strongly disagree with each other. Just because some in the scientific community think that evolution is true doesn't make them right. You are just following the popular, not the true. When God said 7,000 or so years, that's what He meant. Not billions, just because it sounds better to you. God could have been adding to the Universe for the past 7,000 years, and that is plenty of time for Him to create very much indeed. Billions of years are not necessary, though it sounds nice to talk about something you can't prove regardless of theories or incompetent methods of dating whatever you wish to date, using so-called 'fail-proof' methods.

You go ahead and figure that God started the Earth a few billion years ago. Like who was doing the counting? Evolutionists most likely, right? Not Creationists. Just because everyone has jumped on the evolution bandwagon doesn't make it so. Billions of years is just a guess, a hyperbole, an estimate, a joke, a misnomer. I could go on. If you want to believe whatever, go for it. Doesn't make it the truth. Who's going to measure or prove that it has been billions of years? How about one billion? Who's going to measure that also. That's a joke too, but whatever.

'There were giants on the Earth in those days, and also after that...' See Gen. 6:4KJV. So we are taught there were super tall men and quite likely, beasts, in those days. It is a matter of speculation to decipher those words, but we don't just say billions of years, as you'd like. Well, I am done talking about it. Evolution is a theory only and I doubt it's validity extremely. Why would God 'lie' to us? Would you rather believe in God or Darwin? Yes, I know what you'd like. That doesn't make it true. If He meant something else, then we will find out soon enough, for it is written that 'in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets." See Rev. 10:7KJV. So lets just give things a goodly amount of time before making a declaration, I would think. We can see things happening in the Earth that Jesus spoke of in the Scriptures when He was down on Earth last; words preemptive of a big change in the Earth and His Returning. Don't write it off just yet!! Whether I think that I know when it is or not, does not make it any less true.

Have A Good Day,

Michael

 

[Jonahdog]

Sadly, he is unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his 'religion',

Rats, you broke my irony meter again.

 

[DavisBJ]

Sadly, he is unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his 'religion',

Says the fellow whose religion says it is fine to live inside of a fish, and to talk with snakes and donkeys, and who has no issues with rivers filled with H2O turning into rivers of hemoglobin, and doesn’t flinch at seeing a staff become a serpent.

 

[6days]

Says the fellow whose religion says it is fine to live inside of a fish, and to talk with snakes and donkeys, and who has no issues with rivers filled with H2O turning into rivers of hemoglobin, and doesn’t flinch at seeing a staff become a serpent.

My 'religion' also tells how my creator humbled Himself and became a man. That Creator loves me.... He loves you too Davis.

 

[DavisBJ]

Sadness after sadness

Sadness after sadness

My 'religion' also tells how my creator humbled Himself and became a man. That Creator loves me.... He loves you too Davis.

You were saying that sadly, Jose Fly was unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his “religion”. Sadly, you are equally unwilling to follow the evidence I mentioned away from your “religion”.