Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

I know...right...it's amazing, and yet evolutionary biologists managed to provide the evidence and reason that you can't, Jen.  Perhaps you should try putting in the work, like they did?  I recall, pages ago, you claiming that you believed in evolution..and that you weren't arguing against it.  Were you lying then, or now?

Are we done?

well im not a scientist they are its not my job to conduct testing or come up with scientific proof . im not arguing against evolution im arguing against your claim that evolution has been tested and documented

---

yes but in this case the crime scene is billions of years old and no longer exists but you can make assumption about how the crime scene could have been based on current testing it may or may not be completely 100% accurate at recreating what actually occured but its better than nothing

Except the crime scene isn't billions of years old. It's still happening, and has been happening for  billions of years. Critical difference.

Yes, as parts of it are further back in time, the details are harder to get exact, but we know how the overall process works. It's also why the whole science community has to work on it, rather than just a couple of them, as in a case.

yes the current process can be documented and tested and so we can be 100% sure about current evolution that has been documented

---

i do believe the fact that lifeforms are evolving

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I know...right...it's amazing, and yet evolutionary biologists managed to provide the evidence and reason that you can't, Jen.  Perhaps you should try putting in the work, like they did?  I recall, pages ago, you claiming that you believed in evolution..and that you weren't arguing against it.  Were you lying then, or now?

Are we done?

well im not a scientist they are its not my job to conduct testing or come up with scientific proof . im not arguing against evolution im arguing against your claim that evolution has been tested and documented

---

Except the crime scene isn't billions of years old. It's still happening, and has been happening for  billions of years. Critical difference.

Yes, as parts of it are further back in time, the details are harder to get exact, but we know how the overall process works. It's also why the whole science community has to work on it, rather than just a couple of them, as in a case.

yes the current process can be documented and tested and so we can be 100% sure about current evolution that has been documented

But that's just it; we can look at the puzzle of the DNA code and see into the past, because we know each generation had to inherit the code from the previous ones. We know which sites are not altered by Natural Selection pressure or recombination, so we can look for those sites and keep track of the changes. We call them "markers". By reassembling the slow process of change in the markers, we can "back-build" the tree of interrelationships. It's how we did the National Genographic Project, figuring out the migrations of every person throughout ancient pre-history, based on our mtDNA. Just looking at the "scars" left over from ancient viral infections, which got deleted but preserved in the junk-DNA (spaces between parts that actually do stuff) and passed down to each set of offspring down to the present day, we can tell that we are the cousins of chimpanzees; we share a common ancestor with them. We can use the same method to prove we and they (closely related to one another) are slightly more distantly related to gorillas. And so on.

We can also compare our results from this method to other methods we had used prior to 1985, when scanning DNA sequences really became possible. We have dozens of inter-woven threads of evidence, each of which would destroy our picture of the past if it did not back-up and verify the other threads. NONE OF THESE WOULD AGREE WITH EACH OTHER if any of them were wrong.

We can use those methods to confirm that the processes we observe today are the same ones that have always been going on. We can know this from visual observations (same stuff found in same layers, worldwide), from comparative testing/analysis of what we do find, and from chemical testing (including DNA, proteins, and other fun stuff in our cells). All of these methods must agree, in a field where disproving your fellow scientists not only wins you fame, but is the basic definition of what science is: peer-review means tearing down the other guy's ideas, if you can, explaining why he was wrong, and possibly setting out better methods of testing/analysis.

The short version is, we do know what happened in the past, because we see evidence of it, and we know that it worked then the same way it works now because that's what the fossil record and every other method of testing we have shows. Again, we don't need a time machine to know what happened because things that happen, especially things that happen all across the planet for billions of years, leave evidence that they happened, and we can put those puzzle pieces together.

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to Jenny's logic, autopsies are useless because the coroner wasn't present at the death.

[Edwardo Piet]

So Jenny do you believe that the primary driving force behind evolution is fully non-random natural selection?

yea i dont think its random at all but its natural  what do you think evie?

Same, it's natural.

The randomish element to genetic mutation merely starts the variety off, it's all moulded and driven by natural selection. It's the driving force of evolution, and it's absolutely non-random.

So if you believe both those things... you at least believe in the basics like I do. (And I hope you are aware that us and modern apes are descended from common ancestors that are now extinct of course)

So in your opinion, where does God come into it? Do you believe in a non-interventonist God that started off the evolutionary process? You've told me before you're a deist

[jenny1972]

According to Jenny's logic, autopsies are useless because the coroner wasn't present at the death.

the coroner has the body and can actually study it

[Ravenshire]

So Jenny do you believe that the primary driving force behind evolution is fully non-random natural selection?

yea i dont think its random at all but its natural  what do you think evie?

For fuck's sake, you cant even keep your story straight.

i understand that some people have the opinion that evolution is completely random and not intelligently designed  i just dont have that opinion

[TheRocketSurgeon]

According to Jenny's logic, autopsies are useless because the coroner wasn't present at the death.

the coroner has the body and can actually study it

Okay now I KNOW she's fucking with us. Either not one thing I said above got through, or this is on purpose.

Either way...

Done.

[jenny1972]

According to Jenny's logic, autopsies are useless because the coroner wasn't present at the death.

and didnt you put me on your ignore list ?

[Ravenshire]

---

I know...right...it's amazing, and yet evolutionary biologists managed to provide the evidence and reason that you can't, Jen.  Perhaps you should try putting in the work, like they did?  I recall, pages ago, you claiming that you believed in evolution..and that you weren't arguing against it.  Were you lying then, or now?

Are we done?

well im not a scientist they are its not my job to conduct testing or come up with scientific proof . im not arguing against evolution im arguing against your claim that evolution has been tested and documented

---

Except the crime scene isn't billions of years old. It's still happening, and has been happening for  billions of years. Critical difference.

Yes, as parts of it are further back in time, the details are harder to get exact, but we know how the overall process works. It's also why the whole science community has to work on it, rather than just a couple of them, as in a case.

yes the current process can be documented and tested and so we can be 100% sure about current evolution that has been documented

---

i do believe the fact that lifeforms are evolving

---

She's arguing micro- vs. macro-evolution guys.

[jenny1972]

yea i dont think its random at all but its natural  what do you think evie?

Same, it's natural.

The randomish element to genetic mutation merely starts the variety off, it's all moulded and driven by natural selection. It's the driving force of evolution, and it's absolutely non-random.

So if you believe both those things... you at least believe in the basics like I do. (And I hope you are aware that us and modern apes are descended from common ancestors that are now extinct of course)

So in your opinion, where does God come into it? Do you believe in a non-interventonist God that started off the evolutionary process? You've told me before you're a deist

yes i agree with all that and i think God started off the evolutionary process so that everything would develop exactly as it did