Putting the JW Stand on Evolution into Perspective

[JayJayDee]

A science classroom is for science. Places of worship are for religious beliefs.

I agree. It's just a shame that many who call themselves "believers" fail to give their children another point of view for comparison. Too many of them are teetering on the brink of unbelief themselves to even try. The churches are to blame for presenting creation as a ridiculous notion that opposes all science. Creationists have it all wrong too.
There is a middle ground.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What "evidence" are we talking about here? I have seen no conclusive evidence from science that makes my belief in a an intelligent Creator go away.

I’m sorry, but you’re starting to sound like a broken record. Evidence has been presented to you. Evidence has been explained to you. Evolution has evidence coming out it’s wazoo. Biology doesn’t work without it. It’s one of the most well evidenced scientific theories in existence drawing evidence from practically every scientific field in existence. Funny how all the evidence points to the same thing over and over again for over 200 years now while no evidence has been found to contradict it.

When I have examined the so called "evidence", all I see are the findings of men who have done a lot of speculation and educated guessing in order to reach their pre-conceived conclusions.

Yes, because you have religious beliefs that conflict with it, and you want to retain those religious beliefs, apparently. You’ve even flat out said that NOTHING will convince you that evolution is a fact of reality. You are not starting from an intellectually honest position.

Please provide "evidence" where the language does not involve phrases such as "might have"...."could have"...."we believe that"...."the evidence suggests that"...and we might have something to talk about. This is not the language of facts...it is pure supposition based on biased interpretation of their specimens.

More broken record stuff.


Done, done and done in threads all over this forum.


Please go learn about the language of science and how the scientific method works.

I wouldn't mind so much if the evidence was even remotely convincing....but it isn't to those who aren't dazzled by the language. If you have to rely on bias to furnish your proof, then you have no truth....just guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago.

You’ve already said nothing will convince you that evolution is a fact of reality, so quit pretending that if there was only the right evidence, that you would accept the science. There is no point lecturing anybody on bias when you come from such a biased position.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I would take even a half of a "might have"...."could have"...."we believe that" that is following evidence, before I'd take a hundred "I KNOW because it's in my heart, even though I can't show any real evidence."

 

[Skwim]

Funny how they seem to erupt mainly from those poorly educated in the field that they are supporting. The ones resorting to the use of such derogatory terms are the ones who hang off the words of their science gurus but produce nothing much in the way of evidence. These teachers could not possibly be wrong! How dare anyone suggest such a thing!
Pretending that speculation is fact is dishonest. Teaching it to children is even more dishonest.
We teach our own children and allow them to make up their own minds.

Is that what you do at JW summer camp? Yeah sure.

You funny lady.

More derision?...OK, looks like you can't defend your beliefs without it. How do I mischaracterise your objective.

Feigning ignorance isn't going to get you anywhere, just another.

Look at what you posted below......This is mischaracterization......It's all you know how to do apparently.
This is a total misrepresentation of what accepting an intelligent designer means and you know it.

Nope. And you know it. You knew it when you purposely set yourself up for the well-known cartoon by saying.

"Children should not be forced to believe in one or the other....they should be given both options and given a choice to believe whichever conforms to their own individual sensibilities. What awful thing happens if they choose creation? "​

And this is what all your trolling is about: looking for someone to talk to you even if it means playing dumb. And out of boredom I occasionally take your bait to fill up time. But time has been filled, so I'm outta here.

 

[McBell]

This is a total misrepresentation of what accepting an intelligent designer means and you know it.

Seems rather hypocritical of you to point out your own tactics when used by others....

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Seems rather hypocritical of you to point out your own tactics when used by others....

Please. these posts are important!!
I use them with my "non-denominational" friends, to show how disconnected from reality religion makes you.
Posts like these are slowly converting my friends faster than anything else I know will. looking at the actual repercussions of what a "too fanatical to accept reality" mindset can do to someone is a start, chilling example of the absurdity of religion...
These posts sacrifice the poster, for multiple fence sitters, and are more beneficial than almost anything I can think of..
Keep it up, Jay!!!!

 

[gnostic]

I agree. It's just a shame that many who call themselves "believers" fail to give their children another point of view for comparison.

There are places for religion, just not in science classrooms.

Why would you use anything in the bible or religious to teach or compare them in science classrooms?

I have been in science classrooms, both in high school and university level, and though biology was never subjects that I chose, I think whatever subject you take - whether it be biology, physics or chemistry, or whatever other physical or life science subject.

And whatever science subjects I do, there were really no time to go off topic and talk of unscientific topics like creationism or theology. I see no points in studying creation myths or pseudoscience ID, because they belonged to religion.

If I want to study biology, then I will study just biology, and evolution is one of the fields within biology, then that's what I would study - evolutionary biology.

If I was to study accounting, sales or marketing, would you have them, teachers or lecturers, teach us the gospels or genesis or ID. You wouldn't. Then why should biology teach creationism?

Does creationism give us any understanding of the human body? The brain, heart or liver? Can you learn organs, tissues, bones, cells, genes or DNA? Do the bible know anything about protein? Can the bible teach people about plant life, bacteria, viruses, diseases?

If creationism, bible or the churches cannot teach us anything scientific, what really are their values in science?

Both creationism and id only propagate and promote ignorance and superstitions, not knowledge of the real world, the natural world.

 

[JayJayDee]

Please. these posts are important!!
I use them with my "non-denominational" friends, to show how disconnected from reality religion makes you.
Posts like these are slowly converting my friends faster than anything else I know will. looking at the actual repercussions of what a "too fanatical to accept reality" mindset can do to someone is a start, chilling example of the absurdity of religion...
These posts sacrifice the poster, for multiple fence sitters, and are more beneficial than almost anything I can think of..
Keep it up, Jay!!!!

Happy to oblige. Making decisions is what it's all about. We all have to choose our position because this is what we will be judged on. That is the Bible's message.

Not everyone is swayed by the "evidence" presented by those who have a godless theory to support.
What evolutionary science has is conjecture....not facts. They won't admit it. Whilst the emperor parades around thinking he is beautifully dressed......he is naked. Belief can be powerful, as can be seen on both sides of this issue.

Denigrating those who dare to hold belief in an intelligent designer of all things, is an old trick. No one wants to feel like a fool.....except that Christians don't mind it. We are happy to appear foolish to the learned ones.
Humans know what common sense dictates and what they see with their own eyes. Evolution takes us past all common sense and into a fantasy world. It's the science pot calling the designer kettle, black.

You have no more conclusive "proof" for your theory than I have for the Creator.
Fanaticism is not the exclusive possession of believers. I see it demonstrated by desperate evolution supporters all the time...yet they can't see it. You are convinced by the "evidence" presented to you...and so am I. We just see the evidence differently. How is your stance really any different to mine? We both have belief systems with enough evidence to satisfy what we choose to believe. That has been my position all along. I don't have to resort to calling people "stupid" or "uneducated" to get that point across.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Happy to oblige. Making decisions is what it's all about. We all have to choose our position because this is what we will be judged on. That is the Bible's message.

Do you think we choose what we believe? Could you choose to believe the sky is red?

Not everyone is swayed by the "evidence" presented by those who have a godless theory to support.

The theory of evolution is not a godless one. There are plenty of Christians who accept it and have no problem thinking that their god is intelligent enough to come up with it.

What evolutionary science has is conjecture....not facts. They won't admit it. Whilst the emperor parades around thinking he is beautifully dressed......he is naked. Belief can be powerful, as can be seen on both sides of this issue.

This is just garbage, as explained countless times.

Denigrating those who dare to hold belief in an intelligent designer of all things, is an old trick. No one wants to feel like a fool.....except that Christians don't mind it. We are happy to appear foolish to the learned ones.

Humans know what common sense dictates and what they see with their own eyes. Evolution takes us past all common sense and into a fantasy world. It's the science pot calling the designer kettle, black.

The theory of evolution is demonstrable. Science is demonstrable.


If you could demonstrate the existence of your god, you might have some kind of point.

You have no more conclusive "proof" for your theory than I have for the Creator.

What is your point in saying this? To show that others are just as goofy as you are in accepting something without evidence?

The theory of evolution has more evidence than most every other scientific theory in existence. A point you keep ignoring. Do you also deny germ theory? Gravitational theory?

Fanaticism is not the exclusive possession of believers. I see it demonstrated by desperate evolution supporters all the time...yet they can't see it. You are convinced by the "evidence" presented to you...and so am I. We just see the evidence differently. How is your stance really any different to mine? We both have belief systems with enough evidence to satisfy what we choose to believe. That has been my position all along. I don't have to resort to calling people "stupid" or "uneducated" to get that point across.

The difference is science is demonstrable while your beliefs about god are not. Hence all that faith stuff Christians like to talk about.

 

[JayJayDee]

There are places for religion, just not in science classrooms.

Why would you use anything in the bible or religious to teach or compare them in science classrooms?

I don't think I ever suggested such a thing. What I suggested was giving children the truth about evolution. Tell them it is a theory, not a fact. Let them know that not "everyone" in the field of science accepts it as proven beyond all shadow of doubt. Is that too much to ask? At least being up front and telling these kids that they could do their own research on the alternative view might be helpful. If you take away the alternative view as if it has been thoroughly disproven, then that is promoting a lie.

I have been in science classrooms, both in high school and university level, and though biology was never subjects that I chose, I think whatever subject you take - whether it be biology, physics or chemistry, or whatever other physical or life science subject.

And whatever science subjects I do, there were really no time to go off topic and talk of unscientific topics like creationism or theology. I see no points in studying creation myths or pseudoscience ID, because they belonged to religion.

That is only true if you have been led to believe that science and the Bible are incompatible to begin with...they are not.
The Bible portrays the Creator as the greatest scientist in existence. He is the originator of all the sciences, which is the just study of the various aspects of his creation when all is said and done.

If I want to study biology, then I will study just biology, and evolution is one of the fields within biology, then that's what I would study - evolutionary biology.

If I was to study accounting, sales or marketing, would you have them, teachers or lecturers, teach us the gospels or genesis or ID. You wouldn't. Then why should biology teach creationism?

Unless you believe that God created accounting, sales and marketing, I wouldn't either.
To me, science relates directly to the Creator. It is the study of his beautifully designed handiwork.

Does creationism give us any understanding of the human body? The brain, heart or liver? Can you learn organs, tissues, bones, cells, genes or DNA? Do the bible know anything about protein? Can the bible teach people about plant life, bacteria, viruses, diseases?

Can I be clear that the Bible does not support "creationism". That is the position of fanatical religionists who deny what true science has revealed. JW's are not a creationists. Nor do we fit the accepted description of those who support ID. We fall somewhere outside of both of those.....whilst upholding what real science reveals and what the Bible says to uphold those things.

What the Bible teaches goes much deeper than the physical body, yet it mentions most of the things you mentioned in a figurative sense.
It can teach us valuable life lessons about health and hygiene. Quarantine practices were in place in the Bible long before men of science discovered bacteria or viruses. The eating of foods that promoted health and a clean water supply were stressed in the law to Israel. If such practices were employed even today in poorer nations, the spread of diseases like Ebola would have been contained.

If creationism, bible or the churches cannot teach us anything scientific, what really are their values in science?

They can teach things that are much more valuable than what exists in the natural world and how they function....the Bible teaches us how to use science to benefit the planet by not polluting the daylights out of it for selfish gain....how to get along with each other so that valuable resources can go to saving lives instead of taking them in senseless, avoidable wars....how to share what we have with those less fortunate, especially when we have an abundance.....how to prevent conflict and animosity among peoples who should be viewed as our neighbours.

What is more valuable? When humans try to leave God out of their efforts, nothing works. Humanitarianism has its limits and they are well and truly stretched. If science cannot be implemented to make life on this planet better for all humanity...then of what use is it? All I see is science contributing to the problem...not being any real part of the solution.

Both creationism and id only propagate and promote ignorance and superstitions, not knowledge of the real world, the natural world.

I agree. When churches try to promote their silly superstitious nonsense in the face of what true science CAN prove, then it is accountable. The earth itself is very ancient. The Bible does not argue with this. The creative "days" we're not 24 hour periods where God "magicked" everything into existence. The Bible makes allowance for the creative periods to be very long periods of time, each with a beginning and an end to the processes put in place for each epoch. The Bible and science are compatible, if only people would see that there is a middle ground where everything makes sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think I ever suggested such a thing. What I suggested was giving children the truth about evolution. Tell them it is a theory, not a fact. Let them know that not "everyone" in the field of science accepts it as proven beyond all shadow of doubt. Is that too much to ask? At least being up front and telling these kids that they could do their own research on the alternative view might be helpful. If you take away the alternative view as if it has been thoroughly disproven, then that is promoting a lie.

Are you seriously still going to pretend that a scientific theory is not comprised of facts that have been obtained through repeatable, demonstrable, replicable, independent lines of research drawn from multiple fields of science by multiple independent groups of researchers over a period of 150+ years? That is a lie. Then you want to go on about the supposed lies and dishonesty of people who understand and promote science? It’s absurd.

In science classrooms, we teach the current science that best supports the available evidence. That is why the theory of evolution is taught in schools. There is no alternative view to the theory of evolution in science. Come up with a comprehensible explanation that fits the evidence better than the theory of evolution, have it withstand the test of time, testing and peer review, and then you can teach it in schools if you want. That’s how it works. Sorry but the alternative to the theory of evolution is not that “this one particular version of the Christian god did it.” Hey, maybe the alternative is “Thor did it.”

 

[JayJayDee]

Are you seriously still going to pretend that a scientific theory is not comprised of facts that have been obtained through repeatable, demonstrable, replicable, independent lines of research drawn from multiple fields of science by multiple independent groups of researchers over a period of 150+ years? That is a lie.

What is "repeatable, demonstrable, replicable, independent lines of research drawn from multiple fields of science by multiple independent groups of researchers over a period of 150+ years" is not organic evolution (macro-evolution) No one was there to repeat or replicate what took place millions of years ago. So all you have left is best educated guesses about what took place all those millions of years ago.
How can that be presented as proven fact? Just tell the truth. It's a best estimate, not fact.

Then you want to go on about the supposed lies and dishonesty of people who understand and promote science? It’s absurd.

It isn't absurd to us. You see, we don't believe that these scientists are being dishonest or misrepresenting the evidence on purpose exactly. (Though fraud is not unheard of) There is a conspiracy afoot in this world that permeates every facet of human existence. The Bible indicates that this force for evil is penetrating deeper and deeper into human consciousness, altering perceptions of truth ever so gradually over a long period of time so that it turns falsehoods into what looks like truth. The Bible says its like calling what is good, bad and vice versa. If you were raised to believe that good was bad and bad was good...would you question it? Would you argue about it? What if almost everyone around you believed as you did? Would it ever make what is bad, a good thing? Or is it more a matter of a learned perception? (Isa 5:20, 21) It is also described as "exchanging the truth for the lie" when people would "render service to the creation rather than the one who created". Isn't this what we see? (Rom 1:25)

In science classrooms, we teach the current science that best supports the available evidence. That is why the theory of evolution is taught in schools. There is no alternative view to the theory of evolution in science. Come up with a comprehensible explanation that fits the evidence better than the theory of evolution, have it withstand the test of time, testing and peer review, and then you can teach it in schools if you want. That’s how it works. Sorry but the alternative to the theory of evolution is not that “this one particular version of the Christian god did it.” Hey, maybe the alternative is “Thor did it.”

What you fail to appreciate is that all of this "evidence" is presented to evolution believers by evolution believers, who all expect to hear the same outcome. Peer review is for fraud, not for the validity of the theory Itself. What should be taught in schools is the truth.....that evolution is a theory....not proven fact.

The test for creation is right under our noses. We see design in nature at every turn. Tell me when we see design in anything that benefits humans in their workplace that was not designed for specific tasks. What machinery exists that was not the creation of someone with intelligence? The human brain is superior to any computer devised by man and yet it required no designer? That just goes against plain old common sense. I have even heard of evolutionists telling people to dismiss common sense in order to accept their teachings.

Evolution is the new kid on the block relatively speaking. It's like everything "new" that replaces the "old". "Orthodox" changes places with "unorthodox" and the old is discarded as if it never was beneficial. Sometimes it was.
Why do you think people are going back to traditional medicine in droves? Could it be that all the clever science in medicine is killing people more than it is curing?

Whilst those who blindly support science as the "be all and end all" of human achievement....some of us are standing at a distance and seeing the bigger picture. Humans have used science for all the wrong reasons. For every good use they find...many more are doing permanent damage to us and the planet. Unless the Creator steps in soon, as he has promised, humanity and this planet have no hope of survival. Mother Earth is already groaning under the sheer weight of man's abuse of his scientific knowledge. So how clever is he really? Why is he not putting his genius to better use? The only thing that seems to drive science these days is ego and money. But then, I guess that is what drives everything in a world ruled by greedy, puffed up humans. (1John 5:19)

When people idolise something, they are usually blind to its more destructive elements and tend to gloss them over.

(Scriptures are provided for those who might like to look them up out of curiosity)

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is "repeatable, demonstrable, replicable, independent lines of research drawn from multiple fields of science by multiple independent groups of researchers over a period of 150+ years" is not organic evolution (macro-evolution) No one was there to repeat or replicate what took place millions of years ago. So all you have left is best educated guesses about what took place all those millions of years ago.

It is evolution. You can quibble semantics and make up all the definitions you want, but it doesn’t matter. It is evolution. That evolution occurs is not disputable.


Now as to the theory of evolution which says that all organisms share a common ancestor, we have genetic and fossil evidence that all indicates that is the case. If you have evidence that contradicts this, go ahead and write a paper and submit it to a scientific journal for peer review. You’d become world famous.

How can that be presented as proven fact? Just tell the truth. It's a best estimate, not fact.

It is what I already said: The best explanation for the diversity of life on earth that fits the evidence.

It isn't absurd to us.

It should be, because you’re outright lying while simultaneously accusing others of lying with no proof of such. You keep pretending over and over that you have no idea what a scientific theory is and present it as just some random guess off the top of someone’s head when you’ve been corrected on that several times now. That’s called dishonesty.

You see, we don't believe that these scientists are being dishonest or misrepresenting the evidence on purpose exactly. (Though fraud is not unheard of) There is a conspiracy afoot in this world that permeates every facet of human existence. The Bible indicates that this force for evil is penetrating deeper and deeper into human consciousness, altering perceptions of truth ever so gradually over a long period of time so that it turns falsehoods into what looks like truth. The Bible says its like calling what is good, bad and vice versa. If you were raised to believe that good was bad and bad was good...would you question it? Would you argue about it? What if almost everyone around you believed as you did? Would it ever make what is bad, a good thing? Or is it more a matter of a learned perception? (Isa 5:20, 21) It is also described as "exchanging the truth for the lie" when people would "render service to the creation rather than the one who created". Isn't this what we see? (Rom 1:25)

You’re going to have to demonstrate this assertion, rather than just quoting Bible verses. They mean nothing to me.


No wonder you don’t understand the nature of evidence if you just believe what’s written in an old book.

What you fail to appreciate is that all of this "evidence" is presented to evolution believers by evolution believers, who all expect to hear the same outcome. Peer review is for fraud, not for the validity of the theory Itself. What should be taught in schools is the truth.....that evolution is a theory....not proven fact.

What you fail to appreciate is what I just explained to you, which you basically just completely ignored.


And you’re still going on about evolution being “just a theory” which I’m sorry to tell you is just making you appear foolish and ignorant at this point. Should we also teach that germ theory is “just a theory” and present the “alternative view” that germs are actually tiny demons trying to eat your soul, because that’s what somebody somewhere believes? Should we teach that gravity is “just a theory” and present the “alternative view” that a giant named Atlas actually holds the earth up on his shoulders? In science classrooms, the current science is taught – that is, the science that best fits the available evidence.

The test for creation is right under our noses. We see design in nature at every turn. Tell me when we see design in anything that benefits humans in their workplace that was not designed for specific tasks. What machinery exists that was not the creation of someone with intelligence? The human brain is superior to any computer devised by man and yet it required no designer? That just goes against plain old common sense. I have even heard of evolutionists telling people to dismiss common sense in order to accept their teachings.

Common sense is overrated and everybody’s version seems to be different.


We know machinery was designed because we already know humans design it. Can your brain compute huge numbers in mere seconds like a computer can?

Evolution is the new kid on the block relatively speaking. It's like everything old that replaces the "new". "Orthodox" changes places with "unorthodox" and the old is discarded as if it never was beneficial. Sometimes it was.

What was beneficial before? Creationism? How so? Are you saying that when we learn new information we shouldn’t incorporate it into our understanding of the world?

Why do you think people are going back to traditional medicine in droves?

Because people are ill-informed, because anybody can say anything on the internet and there will always be people around who believe it.


What is “traditional medicine” anyway?

Could it be that all the clever science in medicine is killing people more than it is curing?

Nope.

Whilst those who blindly support science as the "be all and end all" of human achievement....some of us are standing at a distance and seeing the bigger picture.

I don’t know that anybody blindly supports science as the “be all and end all” of human achievement. It’s been a great tool in improving our understanding of how the world works though. It’s the best tool we’ve discovered so far.

Humans have used science for all the wrong reasons. For every good use they find...many more are doing permanent damage to us and the planet. Unless the Creator steps in soon, as he has promised, humanity and this planet have no hope of survival. Mother Earth is already groaning under the sheer weight of man's abuse of his scientific knowledge. So how clever is he really? Why is he not putting his genius to better use? The only thing that seems to drive science these days is ego and money. But then, I guess that is what drives everything in a world ruled by greedy, puffed up humans. (1John 5:19)

That creator sure is taking “his” time. People have been waiting for millennia for “him” to save the world. And still … nothing. Maybe we should work on improving things ourselves instead.

When people idolise something, they are usually blind to its more destructive elements and tend to gloss them over.

Yeah, like people who worship the god of the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

I don't think I ever suggested such a thing. What I suggested was giving children the truth about evolution. Tell them it is a theory, not a fact.

I am all for telling the truth, but what you repeated deceive yourself is that we have already told numerous times that in science, is that "scientific theory" is an accepted and verifiable explanation to fact.

The importance to theory is that you and I (anyone with the know-how) can test, repeatedly, to verify if it is "true" or not. Or you can discover EVIDENCE, to verify if it is "true" or not.

The more tests you (and others) performed that are successful, or the more evidences that you find, to support the prediction in a theory, the more likelihood it is true.

It is when the theory or hypothesis fail the tests repeated, or you find evidences that don't support your predication, or there are absence of any evidence, that's when the hypothesis or theory have failed.

But the theory of evolution, and I am not just talking about Darwin's original theory (natural selection, because natural selection have been revised and expanded to take into account for new methodology of testing, like DNA), are ALL testable, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of evidences that support Evolution is true.

 

[Bunyip]

Sadly the JW stance on evolution only serves to establish the corruption of that organisation. Teaching your children what they know to be lies is reprensible

 

[psychoslice]

Some people are just ignorant I suppose.

 

[gnostic]

At least being up front and telling these kids that they could do their own research on the alternative view might be helpful. If you take away the alternative view as if it has been thoroughly disproven, then that is promoting a lie.

Scientific theory is not a lie.

It is not intention of the theory to be deception. For you to suggest it is a lie, clearly demonstrates you have no idea what a scientific theory.

What is a lie, is that you still continue belabour on confusing everyday use of the word of "theory", with that of scientific theory, even after scientific theory have been explained to you, time and time again. We have explained the differences between the scientific theory and colloquial meaning to theory are not the same things, so many times.

It is no longer about you being ignorant to what "theory" really mean in science, you are deliberately ignoring the real definition of "scientific theory". You are stubbornly refusing to learn from your mistake, which mean you are not only lying to others, but that you are lying to yourself.

How many times do we have to explain the differences? Who many times do we have to explain what scientific theory mean?

I don't think I ever suggested such a thing. What I suggested was giving children the truth about evolution. Tell them it is a theory, not a fact. Let them know that not "everyone" in the field of science accepts it as proven beyond all shadow of doubt.

The truth is that evolution is about how and why life change, because of an external environment changes (hence, Natural Selection, but also through Mutation) or through introduction of new population mixing with existing population (thus through Gene Flow, along with possibly Mutation).

Evolution is more about changes, occurring through genetics, that's all.

Evolution require life already existing to produce offspring, therefore it required parents and offspring, ancestors and descendants, so evolution can be traced, and even be directly observed, such as the case for viruses and bacteria.

The studies of diseases, especially viral diseases and vaccines, demonstrated a very practical and predictable studies of viruses. Without knowledge of evolution, we would have hard time, why viruses can become resistant or even immune to vaccines, because viruses can change. New strains of viruses occurred because it is trying to survive, and that basically what evolution is.

The changes don't need to change at genus or species level. Look at human body for instance. Our own body can become resistant to medicine, if we take them to frequently that it won't work. Your gene will change that the medicine won't be effective the more times you take them. That's not evolution. The "evolution" part come in, if you for instance become resistant to that medicine, and you have a child, he or she will inherit your genes, and become immune to medicine that you had originally taken, and so will any future descendants (eg grandchildren) in your line. That's evolution at work, and that doesn't require studying fossils; all it required is detail medical records of you, your children, grandchildren, etc.

What medicine might work for you now, might not work for your children or grandchildren.

This is why researchers keep making new medicine or vaccines, because the viruses and even human bodies eventually developed immunity from current medicine.

Evolution doesn't just out of nothing(like god creating plants and animals, fishes and birds from nothing, but god's magic words, in Genesis 1), or from non-life matters into life (like abiogenesis, or like in Genesis 2, when creating Adam from dust), and Evolution is not about first life (like abiogenesis or Genesis 1 & 2).

Why is that creationists so readily believe in superstitious magic from creation myths, but find the simple concept of natural phenomena of changes occurring, and finding factors that might govern changes (through Natural Selection or through Gene Flow; there are mechanisms in evolution, like Mutation, Genetic Drift and Genetic Hitchhiking)?

Evolution is not a lie, especially if you are studying medicine and diseases.

So calling evolution is lie, is not understanding evolution at all, or science in general. And right now you are being ignorant and you are lying to yourself when keep rejecting new knowledge and learning from your mistakes, or learning from knowledge that you don't have. And that's the tragedy of your ignorance.

 

[Parsimony]

The test for creation is right under our noses. We see design in nature at every turn. Tell me when we see design in anything that benefits humans in their workplace that was not designed for specific tasks. What machinery exists that was not the creation of someone with intelligence? The human brain is superior to any computer devised by man and yet it required no designer? That just goes against plain old common sense. I have even heard of evolutionists telling people to dismiss common sense in order to accept their teachings.

Is your argument then that "If it goes against common sense, it's wrong"?

 

[JayJayDee]

Is your argument then that "If it goes against common sense, it's wrong"?

Not necessarily. I take nothing totally at face value, but everything I believe about creation is based on knowledge along with common sense. They are not mutually exclusive.

The more I learn about creation, the more it reveals the wisdom and design genius of the Creator. But I realise that not all WANT to believe in his existence (for their own reasons) and some will look for ways to eliminate him from the conversation altogether. On the other hand, some will be so intimidated by the sheer volume of so called evidence supporting evolution that they feel forced to compromise and will look for ways to incorporate it into their belief system.

My stand on this issue is firm. There is no room for compromise if one has faith in what God says about how his creation came into existence. Nothing science has furnished thus far has demonstrated anything solid by way of actual evidence. When said evidence is open to interpretation, then it all boils down to faith in the interpreter.

I am not swayed by the "supposition" of the scientists because everything they say is open to question. It could all fall on its face with tomorrow's discovery...so how can it be called fact?

I have not been convinced to swap one "belief system" for another from what I have read so far. I am not easily convinced about anything, but when I am....I stand my ground.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not necessarily. I take nothing totally at face value, but everything I believe about creation is based on knowledge along with common sense. They are not mutually exclusive.

The more I learn about creation, the more it reveals the wisdom and design genius of the Creator. But I realise that not all WANT to believe in his existence (for their own reasons) and some will look for ways to eliminate him from the conversation altogether. On the other hand, some will be so intimidated by the sheer volume of so called evidence supporting evolution that they feel forced to compromise and will look for ways to incorporate it into their belief system.

My stand on this issue is firm. There is no room for compromise if one has faith in what God says about how his creation came into existence. Nothing science has furnished thus far has demonstrated anything solid by way of actual evidence. When said evidence is open to interpretation, then it all boils down to faith in the interpreter.

I am not swayed by the "supposition" of the scientists because everything they say is open to question. It could all fall on its face with tomorrow's discovery...so how can it be called fact?

I have not been convinced to swap one "belief system" for another from what I have read so far. I am not easily convinced about anything, but when I am....I stand my ground.

Where do you get this knowledge about creation from? I mean, since you can't be swayed by evidence.