The division of micro evolution and macro evolution is dumb. It's like saying yes you can stack bricks but you can't build with them. And if you want to believe God made us you must answer some hard questions, such as why do we share retroviral DNA in our own sequences with over mammals, and the most with chimpanzees? Why do we have nearly the full seqeunce to produce vitamin c in our DNA when we can't? Why do we share this trait with all great apes? Why do we have an such a clear fossil line that you can literally line up the skulls from oldest to most recent and you get a very neat transition to modern humans? Why is it that when this was showed to creationists they could agree where ape stopped and man started. One creationist that was tested twice picked a different spot where the ape skulls stopped twice. How do you explain that?

The above, and vestigial organs.

I have just read the objections Answers in Genesis has to using the vestigial organs as evidence for evolution and GOD DAMN was that some fine missing the big picture. Their detail oriented 'refutation' is entirely self defeating, and they don't even realize it. Priceless.

(August 13, 2015 at 5:24 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: I understand that but microevolution is variations within a species (which in the lab shows there are limits) and evolutionists state that given enough time these variations lead to entirely new species that continue to evolve and lead to more and than present pictures as proof.

The key phrase is "in the lab." When a prosecutor is trying to show someone's guilt, they don't reproduce it in court. They look at the evidence. The DNA, the eye witness testimony, etc. Also, the spoon thing is not a good example, because there are no branches, all of them still exist today, and all of them hold their own purpose. In evolution there are branches, our ancestors no longer exist, and the end result fits their environment better than their predecessors.

The problem with believing God created us as we are is that it's saying God is a terrible designer. We have loads of things that are wired inefficiently presenting unecessary problems, we have an organ that doesn't even do anything anymore and can only cause complications... and what kind of God (outside of Anusius) decides they want their creation to have to poop out big smelly lumps of unused food? (Asking me "how else could God..." is to imply God turned up one day with a bunch of rules already set.) I mean, if I was a god and someone was trying to blame me for humans, I'd be very insulted. Humans are needlessly complex, contrived and vulnerable. If all that is intentional, he's a sick son of a bitch.

And if it's all our fault because of something that happened before we were born, he's even more petty and sadistic.

However, our bodies with all their weirdness, junk DNA, faulty wiring and windows-esque patches are exactly what you'd expect from an unintelligent natural selection process.

Evolution is a difficult subject to fully understand, yes. But science isn't meant to provide one line answers to very difficult problems, it takes hard work and study. Writing it all off as magic instead is not a valid answer.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, The theory of evolution is rock solid and there are no substantiated objections. Please correct me if I'm wrong there. Of course some people, even scientists, will disagree. But if they had valid objections, the theory would have to be rethought. That is how science works. I have a decent layman's understand of evolution, but I'm nowhere near qualified to tell you what is and isn't a substantial objection.

One last thing... evolution versus intelligent design is a false dichotomy. These are not the two only options. And to jump to magic as the next most likely thing is to abandon all rational thought and enquiry. I don't have to know anything about evolution to realise that.

(August 11, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Shuffle Wrote: This is the sixth thread in which I ask theists very simple questions that deserve very simple answers. This question is only asked of creationists.

The question I propose to you is:

1. What is the probability that the same thing that happened with Galileo and the church (geocentric vs. heliocentric) will happen again with evolutionists and the church (evolution vs. creation)? By this, I mean that evolution, in just a few decades, will be as accepted as the geocentric theory is today.
   

I only decided to put one question this time, so it should be pretty easy to answer. Also, if you are a climate change denier, this applies to you too.

Thanks!

I'm not a creationist but wanted to chime in here and say that the Church has 0 issue with evolution. The past several popes have talked about it as a perfectly acceptable scientific explanation for how we got the world we live in today. I learned about evolution in my Catholic school. The man who first introduced the idea of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest, and the pope of the time was super excited about it. Yep, no problem here!

(August 14, 2015 at 2:14 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not a creationist but wanted to chime in here and say that the Church has 0 issue with evolution. The past several popes have talked about it as a perfectly acceptable scientific explanation for how we got the world we live in today. I learned about evolution in my Catholic school. The man who first introduced the idea of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest, and the pope of the time was super excited about it. Yep, no problem here!

I wish every other theist reached the same conclusion, but that is not the case. The Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. That is called the cosmic evolution.

By the way....If it's the lack of documentation that makes you question macroevolution, where is the large body of evidence for the creation 'theory' that I assume you would then require to accept it?

Good point.

By the way, there is colossal amounts of evidence for evolution from multiple fields. More than you could probably evaluate in a lifetime. It's out there, you only need to seek. Whoops that sounded a bit like A/S/K! Instead, I assume you are actively seeking objections to evolution. This is religion stifling education.

I agree this is a total double standard of scepticism. Accepting that Jesus rose from the grave and God (specifically Yahweh, not some deist God) created the whole universe based on a handful of textual accounts should mean you'd accept evolution based on a similar amount of evidence, or less, as it's a mundane claim in comparison. You're accepting the "alternative" explanation which has, in comparison, no evidence or explanatory power. And like I said, it's a false dichotomy to even consider magic as "the alternative explanation".

I love ya Kingpin, you're a great guy. I'm only critiquing your scepticism

"Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it in Summer school." - Buffy Summers (irrelevant, except to the title )

I think he's using "god of the gaps" arguments without realising it.

There is plenty evidence in favor of macroevolution, including the fossil record, though it is to be expected that there will be gaps-the necessary for a fossil to form are very specific and need to be held for thousands if not millions of years. And differentiating it from microevolution is pointless, because it's the exact same process.

The creationist objections to macroevolution are intriguing to me. This selective and sometimes downright nitpicky skepticism is fascinating. It's the same with religious people who can perfectly point out every logical flaw of a deity, provided that it isn't their own.

I understand why people hold these beliefs, but it is rather uncanny how much they can ignore in favor of them. But I guess in the end, emotions are stronger than rational thought.