Creationists: A Very Simple Question

[Deeje]

I noticed that all of her arguments were assertions used dismissively, and not one point based on any evidence.

What is more ironic, is that if proof were used by science and was provided, they would ignore it, deny it or dismiss it.

Wow! I could say the same about all the evolutionists here....big on denial but short on actual evidence.
The same applies with the fact that none of you can provide any real back-up for what you assert took place all those millions of years ago....but I understand why you need to hang onto it.

I believe that you will be forced to let it go some day.....I am a patient person.

 

[Bear Wild]

Wow! I could say the same about all the evolutionists here....big on denial but short on actual evidence.
The same applies with the fact that none of you can provide any real back-up for what you assert took place all those millions of years ago....but I understand why you need to hang onto it.

I believe that you will be forced to let it go some day.....I am a patient person.

Evolution is rich on evidence. Reaching back in time is of course difficult since it can tested the way we test things in current time and yet the evidence in the geologic record filled with fossil evidence is supported by geologic theory (geologic science) including the science that supports how we date things from the past and it provides unquestionable evidence even if it is not 100% perfect. There is no other explanation available to explain the geologic record and the fossils and of course you must know that even though you chose to ignore that. The genetic comparisons between current organisms representing organisms of the past shows supportive evidence of the process of evolution, and comparative anatomy and embryology only further supports evolution theory. The only theory with actual evidence to explain all. Ecological studies provide another layer of evidence especially when observations over time have collaborated with changes in variation. The mechanism for evolution is well understood and documented and supported so well with genetic mechanisms. So exactly where can you claim evolution is short on actual evidence. Just because you are not aware of the evidence does not mean it is not their.

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is rich on evidence.

It is rich on assumption.....suggestion.....and assertions....but it lacks actual evidence that life began as a simple cell and over time gradually morphed into all life that has ever lived on this planet. You see what I see but you do not have the eyes of faith required to see life creation for the miracles that they are. Life is no accident.

Reaching back in time is of course difficult since it can tested the way we test things in current time and yet the evidence in the geologic record filled with fossil evidence is supported by geologic theory (geologic science) including the science that supports how we date things from the past and it provides unquestionable evidence even if it is not 100% perfect.

Not remotely close to even 50% perfect. No one was there millions of years ago to document a thing except the Creator...but you don't believe him. The one who created what science studies, and you leave him out of his own equation.

There is no other explanation available to explain the geologic record and the fossils and of course you must know that even though you chose to ignore that.

Of course there is another explanation available, but you don't want to know about it because you might have to alter your position on the likelihood of all of this being the product of blind chance and fortunate mutations.

The geologic record confirms what the Bible teaches as long as you aren't a YEC. (which I am not)
The fossil record is a joke because these fossils can't speak without science's hand operating them as puppets. Interpretation is all that separates truth from fiction.

Science has become a 'religion', blindly followed by those who want to appear to be intelligent, but are themselves deluded IMO.

The genetic comparisons between current organisms representing organisms of the past shows supportive evidence of the process of evolution, and comparative anatomy and embryology only further supports evolution theory. The only theory with actual evidence to explain all.

Science can explain it all...it just can't provide any substantive evidence that what they believe is true.
Similarity does not prove relationship. "Looks like" isn't "same as".

Ecological studies provide another layer of evidence especially when observations over time have collaborated with changes in variation. The mechanism for evolution is well understood and documented and supported so well with genetic mechanisms. So exactly where can you claim evolution is short on actual evidence. Just because you are not aware of the evidence does not mean it is not their.

I am well aware of what the evidence "suggests".....I am also well aware that suggestions are not facts.....and never will be until proven otherwise. The mechanism for adaptation may be "understood" but it is not proof that adaptation can go above species level. It is assumed to be able to do so. They cannot prove that it ever has.

If you have the evidence, then let's see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is rich on assumption.....suggestion.....and assertions....but it lacks actual evidence that life began as a simple cell and over time gradually morphed into all life that has ever lived on this planet. You see what I see but you do not have the eyes of faith required to see life creation for the miracles that they are. Life is no accident.



Not remotely close to even 50% perfect. No one was there millions of years ago to document a thing except the Creator...but you don't believe him. The one who created what science studies, and you leave him out of his own equation.



Of course there is another explanation available, but you don't want to know about it because you might have to alter your position on the likelihood of all of this being the product of blind chance and fortunate mutations.

The geologic record confirms what the Bible teaches as long as you aren't a YEC. (which I am not)
The fossil record is a joke because these fossils can't speak without science's hand operating them as puppets. Interpretation is all that separates truth from fiction.

Science has become a 'religion', blindly followed by those who want to appear to be intelligent, but are themselves deluded IMO.



Science can explain it all...it just can't provide any substantive evidence that what they believe is true.
Similarity does not prove relationship. "Looks like" isn't "same as".



I am well aware of what the evidence "suggests".....I am also well aware that suggestions are not facts.....and never will be until proven otherwise. The mechanism for adaptation may be "understood" but it is not proof that adaptation can go above species level. It is assumed to be able to do so. They cannot prove that it ever has.

If you have the evidence, then let's see it.

I wish that someone would tell Deeje that excessive breaking up of a post is not only rude, but when one has to interrupt concepts it indicates an inability to respond in context. If taking things out of context is a valid debating technique then Christians should not believe in God since the Bible itself says "There is no God" at least twelve times. Context is important in an argument. Quoting out of context is done when one cannot handle the argument as a whole.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! I could say the same about all the evolutionists here....big on denial but short on actual evidence.
The same applies with the fact that none of you can provide any real back-up for what you assert took place all those millions of years ago....but I understand why you need to hang onto it.

I believe that you will be forced to let it go some day.....I am a patient person.

Denial, projection, self-deception, the glorification of ignorance over knowledge. You have it all and cling to it tenaciously.

I see no facts from you. Only the same baseless, emotional assertions and ad hom that is the escape route of every creationist.

I doubt you will give up ignorance, but you will be left behind. Unfortunate, but people that want to remain ignorant will do so.

Evolution has more evidence than any other concept in science. It is backed up. Your denial does not change that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wish that someone would tell Deeje that excessive breaking up of a post is not only rude, but when one has to interrupt concepts it indicates an inability to respond in context. If taking things out of context is a valid debating technique then Christians should not believe in God since the Bible itself says "There is no God" at least twelve times. Context is important in an argument. Quoting out of context is done when one cannot handle the argument as a whole.

I assumed that is why he does that. Another escape route from the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assumed that is why he does that. Another escape route from the truth.

She, Deeje is female, otherwise correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Dogs are all the same Kind. There is no evolution in the slightest, macro or micro.

Just understand everything was closer to genetic perfection, because mutations had not yet damaged the genome.

Do you actually believe it was a piece of Adams side that was taken, knowing what we know about genetics????

It was half of his chromosomes that were used to make Eve. Which is why when the two combine - one flesh is made. For this reason a man will leave his parents. To create a new flesh - new life and raise his own family. The two (separate chromosomes - 1 from male - 1 from female) shall become one flesh (one child).

Don't fall for that silly microevolution PR. All possibilities were already present in the genomes of the original pair.....

Dogs were created from breeding, not because the wolf evolved into anything.....​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know, I was wondering why a "Christian" would so strongly defend unprovable science

There is no concept of provable or unprovable science. Small wonder you are so confused and do not understand.

.....but researching the Methodist church,

Yes. Let the personal attacks begin, since you have nothing to defend your science denial.

I discovered why. You guys sold out to science long ago! When choosing between God (as in directed creation) and the musings of science (everything happened by undirected chance) apparently your founder didn't want to appear to be "uneducated" or "unintelligent".....was it about saving "face" rather than saving "faith"?

So, no real objection to science based on evidence or theory then. But do continue attacking my beliefs. Perhaps you can explain how it is really you that is being persecuted here.

The official position as stated on the Methodist website is..."The official statement on Science and Technology says in part, "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."

Actually they are right.....there is no conflict with their "theology"....but there is conflict with the scriptures.

Sure. Since there is no demand, nor evidence that scripture is inerrant and infallible and claiming it is would be deifying it into a false idol, reasonable and rational Christians understand that and do not do it. Methodist recognize the gifts they were given, including their intellect and do not deny them or glorify ignorance in their place. I could not imagine a sect that would sell out God's gift of the mind so easily. Well, I do not have to imagine it apparently.

That said, I understand your rhetoric is as empty as all the other people who stake their lives on assumption and assertion rather than stick to the directions in their Creator's instruction manual. We are given that choice for a reason IMO.

You say you understand it is empty, but provide not one bit of substance to show this. Ever. Never. Just more emotional false words of denial. Oh yeah and some videos that people have to wade through and hopefully figure out what your objections might be from those.

The Bible is not an instruction manual. It does not say it is anywhere. It does present a prohibition against false idols that would include making the Bible one. It also includes prohibitions on lying as well. You should check that out.

...yes we know. But the fact remains...if you can't prove something, you have no facts...you have 'beliefs'. Your church has simply swapped one belief system for another....according to Jesus, neither will be of benefit at the end of the day however. (Matthew 7:21-23)

The fact remains that all the evidence is on the side of science. It is creationists that continually fail to be able to provide any evidence in support of their claims. All the misquoted scripture in the world will not change that.

This is why so many people accept it.....it is marketed very carefully, making all the science fiction look like science fact. It counts on ignorance and gullibility in some....a desire to be accepted as "intelligent" and "educated" by others.....and also as a way to kill God off for the avowed atheists. Depending on your agenda. it serves all those who question the Creator. I wonder who came up with it?

So, still no real objections. Just more claims that you cannot support. Wild claims that are not even remotely part of science or claimed by science. Still nothing. I am shocked.

Using adaptation to suggest the slow evolutionary process of macro-evolution, is an unprovable assertion, not based on anything that can be established by scientific testing of any kind. Suggestions are rife in all the literature. Suggestions are not facts.

Except that it has been established by testing the evidence. Funny you must have missed those videos. Home schooled huh. The thing is, we have more than two witnesses that these things happened. The evidence just keeps piling up.

Have you never heard of "leading the witness" in a court case? No one leads their witnesses more than science in this issue.

I have heard of it. My sister is a lawyer. Throwing in another unsupported accusation is not evidence against science, but it is evidence that you still have nothing and must rely on a form of character assassination in your attack on science.

Where did the originals come from? For there to be a "family" there needs to be parents who have the same genetics and DNA code. Science guesses about the processes and provides detailed charts containing all the assumptions about the "branching".....but they can't produce the roots of the tree. Nothing grows without roots.....roots cannot grow without a seed germinating.....if science wants to present a tree, it needs to provide the whole picture.

When you read about families in biological classification, you think that means a mommie and daddie and a little baby? Astounding! You may want to consult some experts on this condition and a few taxonomists too.

More claims. Is there going to be any science or evidence in your denial of science and the evidence?

Christ was a creationist. In fact, he was personally involved in creation, so in order for a "Christian" to reject creation is to reject Christ and his direct role in it. The scripture he used contained the Genesis account of creation and he referred to it as fact.

Sure. Deny science with belief. That always works. Never. What you or I believe cannot be shown and has never been useful in refuting what can be shown. That I believe something is evidence only that I believe it. I thought you would believe that false witness included yourself as one of the possible victims. I suppose not, eh.

Science does not tell anyone they cannot have personal beliefs. It does not and cannot refute the existence of God. People are still free to choose to believe. I believe and I know science and the evidence. I know of no commandment that tells me to deny what I can see and tell others to deny it too.

It comes down to choice then doesn't it? Those who choose science as their 'religion' (belief system) rather than to accept the word of God on faith have to answer to the judge of all of us, not me.

So false dichotomies and more false accusations instead of evidence, theory or logic. Nothing new here and nothing that refutes science and demonstrates your views.

Please provide this "evidence" that canines and felines were not always members of their set taxonomies. The only proviso I make is that it must be based on real evidence, which means there can be no assumption, assertions or suggestions included in that evidence....just provable facts. OK?

I do not need to. I agree that with the current classification, you would too if you understood it and the fact that it does not say what you claim it does. You probably have never noticed the hierarchy in classifications or what that means. You should be more than capable of finding the evidence supports their ancestry, if you could get passed your denial. Look at all the off point videos you can so readily call on as an example of your searching abilities. Your claim. Your burden of proof. Take some responsibility.

Let's see how you go with that......?

You are the one asserting that they have been cats and dogs since creation, you provide the explanations for why looking back there is a point where we do not find cats and dogs among the evidence. Not going to do that though. That would require more than just emotional appeals, attacks and other logical fallacies.

There are no creationists sitting around doing that either. Are you suggesting that those who believe in an Intelligent Creator are of necessity, "stupid"? Or does it just suit the evolutionist's air of superiority to imply that this is the case?

Some surely are, but mostly just ignorant and in denial. Being informed is a superior position. Do you deny that? Being in denial is a weaker position. Do you deny that? Not being able to provide a cogent argument with theory, evidence and reason is a weaker position. Do you deny that? In the manufactured denial of science who has the argument that is without theory, evidence, reason or any ability to demonstrate their position? Who has to rely on emotional appeals, logical fallacies and personal attack, without which, they have nothing? Which group makes assertions of all sorts, and often wild and off point assertions at that, without anything to support those assertions? Those would be the people in the inferior position. You know the answer. You are just in denial.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science cannot provide any evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone produce real evidence to back up their guesswork. Can you produce proof that whales were once four legged furry land animals? Again, there can be no guesswork....just real proof. If you cannot provide real proof, it means you have no facts.

So you say, but continually fail to support your emotional belief with anything remotely close to evidence. All you can do is write page after page of your baseless denial. Can you produce anything that really supports your claims? Something besides hours long videos. Can you handle your burden of proof? So far, it does not look good for you. On that basis, you have done nothing.

I believe that the great con artist has woven his magic, getting perfectly intelligent people to accept a fairy story. It apparently works on believers and non-believers alike......
Do you accept the existence of this personage that Jesus identified as "the ruler of this world"?...or did he evolve too? (1 John 5:19)

Your belief is noted. It means nothing in support of your claims, but it is noted. So no real objections then. Also noted.

Not that you could be suffering from this very affliction yourself...?

No. I am not. Thank you for caring though. I appreciate it. I am not denying the evidence. I am not denying what I can see with my own eyes. The same things that you can see with your own eyes, but keep saying is not there.

If you are a Christian, you can't have your cake and eat it too in this issue. A sell out is a sell out.
There is no room for evolution in the Bible.....what there is room for is the fact that the creative "days" were NOT 24 hour periods. YEC is a reason why so many discard creation as ridiculous. The literal 6,000 year, 24 hour day scenario does not fit creation at all. But if the creative days were each millions of earth years in length, then slow and deliberate, separate acts of creation are accommodated. It also allows for an old earth because there is no timeframe between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

I am a Christian. I would be one even without the Bible. I do not deify the Bible and make a false idol of it as some do. The Bible does not tell me to lie to myself. It does not tell me to get others to lie to themselves. The creation story in Genesis does not have to be true in order for the message to exist and have meaning. It does not fit what people can see with their own eyes, yet so many live in denial of what they can see. It is sad really, to take the intellectual gift of God and squander it, but so many do.

I accept your claim that you are a Christian and am not attacking your personal belief. I do not have to resort to such low tactics. I have evidence on my side. I have directed my address to the nature and basis of your claims. Those, so far, have been wanting.

The preparation of the earth for habitation may also have taken millions of years. The Creator is not constrained by earth time. Creation fits with what science knows......it just doesn't fit what science assumes.

It took not only millions, but billions of years. Creation as described in the Bible, does not fit with the evidence and science recognizes that. Anyone saying different must be doing so for a reason, and since they refuse to see the evidence or even acknowledge that evidence, one can only come to the conclusion that they are lying to themselves and then following that up by lying to others.

Here we go ....typical evolutionists response....a wave of the hand and claims that the issue of how creatures may have changed over time and origin of life are unrelated......what nonsense!! If you find out who the originator of life is.....every other question about natural science is answered. If the creative days were not 24 hours then creation fits what science can prove.

So your entire presence here of hand waving in support of claims never happened? It is not a wave of the hand. If you claim that origins and the theory of evolution are dependent, then demonstrate it. Show us all where the theory of evolution states that a specific origin of life is required. Show us. You cannot. All you can do is make false accusations. If life were determined to be from a supernatural cause, the questions of life would still remain, but it is nice that you give such interesting credit to science when you normally are denying it.

....where did life come from is the most important question we could ask, in case you hadn't noticed. Science cannot answer it....and they don't look like they ever will.....to them, life is just a fluke, and undirected chance made it into everything we see on earth and even in the universe.....who can believe that?

Why would you say that. You believe you know where it came from and have no questions. Your statement makes no sense and does not fit what you claim.

Science has not answered it. That is not evidence that it cannot. At one time, every question that science has answered was unanswered. By your logic, we should not have computers. Not very good logic.

I often hear about this "magical proofing" used by evolutionists to deride those who believe in the Creator......but it appears that evolutionists have their own version of "magical proofing".....but they just can't admit it.

I have not derided belief. I have addressed your claims. Is your argument going to include any real substance? I guess not considering we are near the end, but I hold out hope.

The snow job is pretty complete if you ask me.....

No. My hope at some switch to substance over baseless assertions and smear campaigns is dashed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

She, Deeje is female, otherwise correct.

It is hard to tell and I often forget to look to see if people have included a gender reference.

Ignorance is not a gender specific issue though is it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! I could say the same about all the evolutionists here....big on denial but short on actual evidence.
The same applies with the fact that none of you can provide any real back-up for what you assert took place all those millions of years ago....but I understand why you need to hang onto it.

I believe that you will be forced to let it go some day.....I am a patient person.

You do say that about people that accept and understand science. The difference is that you have never backed up your claims. You see how that works?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here are 2 videos that give answers to your OP questions, comparing micro evo to macro evo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Frank Turek?? Are you kidding me? And a possibly real biologist that makes claims that he cannot support. You don't know how to use videos properly. Videos can be used to instruct a well known fact. When you are trying to refute well accepted sciencescience, you need articles from a well respected peer reviewed professional journal to do that. And if you had vetted Douglas Axe you would have seen that he works for the well known, and proven to be dishonest, Discovery Institute. That makes anything he says highly suspect and not a reliable source on his word alone.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We keep hearing about "speciation" as if it is the production of a new creature in the evolutionary process. "Speciation" is the creation of a new variety of creature within one taxonomic family. Variety is seen within all creatures because they are all designed with adaptive abilities programmed into their DNA....but these many varieties are "species" of one creature. They will never be anything else.

The whale evolution scenario is therefore a load of rubbish. Those four legged furry creatures were not whales. The mere thought is ridiculous, especially when you examine the evidence for their conclusions. There is nothing linking any of those creatures to one another except a dodgy ear bone. And they can't even get that right.

So what are we looking at really?

"Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution. Evolutionary change tends to be concentrated within speciation events. The direction of transpecific evolution is determined by the process of species selection, which is analogous to natural selection but acts upon species within higher taxa rather than upon individuals within populations. Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species. Rates of speciation can be estimated for living taxa by means of the equation for exponential increase, and are clearly higher for mammals than for bivalve mollusks."

A theory of evolution above the species level. - PubMed - NCBI

If estimations based on equations are a substitute for real evidence, then you are welcome to them.



But the processes are not the same. Micro-evolution only produces variety within a specific family of creatures.
As I have pointed out countless numbers of times, Darwin did not observe "evolution"...he probably observed "speciation" which just gave him more varieties of finches. Whether species can interbreed is irrelevant. That just keeps the varieties specific. It prevents a mish-mash of non-specific "half whatever" creatures that could not be classified. Whenever we see a bird or an animal, we know what it is because they are programmed to breed only with their own "kind".



Rubbish. Whales were not once walking furry land animals. They were specifically created for aquatic life, just as the furry land dweller was created for terrestrial life.
Their aquatic features are not accidental mutations, but beautifully designed for the life they were created to live...including their abundant food sources. The largest creature on earth feasts on the smallest....and weighs several tons. The habitats of all creatures were created in expectation of their arrival. As were their food sources and even the air they breathed, and the water they drank. Without precipitation dumping fresh water on the earth, no land animals could live.....without salt in the oceans, marine creatures couldn't either.

Science seems to allow for a lot of fortunate accidents in its evolution story. None of it adds up though. How many flukes does it take before you statistically run out of numbers?



Ditto. You stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine. Those who are interested enough to really check out the evidence for themselves will make their own decisions.

I see a lot of (repeated) assertions, but still no evidence for your beliefs.

Making up your own definitions isn't helping you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Standard response of evolutionists when they have nothing scientific to present.... claim proof without actually presenting any.....

You've already demonstrated the "microevolution of dogs" in your post #20.

Did you not realize that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not any more a transitional than the wolf which came before the Pug is a transitional to the Pug....


I asked you why should I assume it is transitional given the incredible range of skull sizes and shapes we see just among dogs of the same species?

You haven't answered that.

You know what a wolf and a Pug skull look like too, yet you do understand that despite complete differences in appearance they are the same species, do you not?

No, dog skulls don't look the same because of the variety already existing inside the genome. They were brought about by breeding and backcrossing, not by evolution.... They remain the exact same species they started as. It is you that assumes a skull looking different than a modern human means it is of a different species... Even when the pug skull looks different than the wolfs and is of the same species.....

You are tricking yourself and don't even realize it because you keep ignoring that great variety right in front of your eyes.


Can you even see it????
View attachment 27878
Can you even see the incredible variety within the *SAME* species???

I don't think you can. I think you look at the picture and it just goes right through without even processing because that variety in the *SAME* species is invisible to you...

Convince me the cr0-magnon is a separate species because it looks a little different than modern humans? The fact you dug it up doesn't make it a separate species. Neither does time. The Pug can not be found in the record until well after the wolf..... 100,000 to 300,00 years in fact even with man interfering and accelerating the process in the last 10,000 that without man would have taken many hundreds of thousands to millions of years.....

the only magic I see is your hand waving away the great variety that can exist in a species and insisting instead an even smaller change means different species....

Which would not work, if evolution were not a fact.

Case closed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who cares? The bone structure of the wolf is denser than the Terrier, doesn’t make the wolf an evolutionary transitional to anything.

If Cro-Magnon is not a separate species then it is merely a variety within the species and isn’t transitional to anything. Anymore than the wolf is transitional to the Terrier...... merely just a different breed or race of human.

It’s your distorted thinking and ignoring that variety within the species that leads you to other views.

Unlike the wolf the Cro-Magnon just happened to go extinct, so is unable to defend itself against your false accusations against it.



You got ignoring science is what you got. You call birds mating right in front of your face separate species. Genetics that told you they were the same species, but that was ignored.

You got a bait and switch where you talk about DNA relationship testing (tests proven in a court of law) then switch it with a test that randomly matches parts of one to random parts of another, after you cut out 13% of one and 23% of the other. Not even similar to the test proven to show relationship.

Don’t try that bait and switch with me..... it just makes you look foolish not even understanding it isn’t even similar to the test proven to show relationship. But hey, without those algorithms finding random matches you wouldn’t be able to say they were similar. So I understand, I really do.....


Like this was relevant to our discussion????

As I said, closing in on the last line of defense. Personal insults. Should be coming anytime now....Oh look, a tentative attempt already. Lol, you evolutionists just crack me up....

Umm, referring to your argument as "bullpoop" is not a personal attack. Unless you yourself are an argument.
Criticizing arguments is what debate is all about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is rich on assumption.....suggestion.....and assertions....but it lacks actual evidence that life began as a simple cell and over time gradually morphed into all life that has ever lived on this planet.

False.

You see what I see but you do not have the eyes of faith required to see life creation for the miracles that they are. Life is no accident.

Conjecture.

Not remotely close to even 50% perfect. No one was there millions of years ago to document a thing except the Creator...but you don't believe him. The one who created what science studies, and you leave him out of his own equation.

Conjecture.

Of course there is another explanation available, but you don't want to know about it because you might have to alter your position on the likelihood of all of this being the product of blind chance and fortunate mutations.

Conjecture and straw man argumentation.

The geologic record confirms what the Bible teaches as long as you aren't a YEC. (which I am not)

False.

The fossil record is a joke because these fossils can't speak without science's hand operating them as puppets. Interpretation is all that separates truth from fiction.

False.

Science has become a 'religion', blindly followed by those who want to appear to be intelligent, but are themselves deluded IMO.

False.

Science can explain it all...it just can't provide any substantive evidence that what they believe is true.
Similarity does not prove relationship. "Looks like" isn't "same as".

False. Mountains of evidence demonstrate otherwise.

I am well aware of what the evidence "suggests".....I am also well aware that suggestions are not facts.....and never will be until proven otherwise. The mechanism for adaptation may be "understood" but it is not proof that adaptation can go above species level. It is assumed to be able to do so. They cannot prove that it ever has.

If you have the evidence, then let's see it.

Conjecture.

 

[ecco]

The snow job is pretty complete if you ask me.....

Like the snow job about the End of Times that JW leaders preached and so many JWs believed? That kind of snow job?