Is it time to answer creationist claims that evolution can't be viewed or proven, again..?

Question

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

primoa, does the phrase "in denial" mean anything to you..?

Nodality, quite right, I agree..

Answer 1

You must understand the reason that Creationists will never accept Evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence that supports it, and despite the fact that they are willing to accept other parts of the Bible as allegory. They have so much emotionaly and spiritualy invested in a literal Adam and Eve story, that, in their minds, their entire faith would fall apart if that story were to be proven false. If it wasn't for Adam and Eve eating the apple, human beings wouldn't have had Original Sin, and there wouldn't be any need for Jesus to die on the cross to save them from Hell. And their faith gives them a place where they can go when they die where they will be with their loved ones (as long as their loved ones are also Christian). They don't even consider other religions an option, and they can't for some reason reconcile their beliefs with modern science (even though many other Christians can.) So, when you tell them that the Creation Story in Genesis is a mythical allegory, you're basically telling them that they're going to die. And I think that it is Fear of Death, the most primal human fear, that drives the "Intelujunt Deesign" movement.

Answer 2

I am in absolute accord with what you have said. The problem is that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and none to support their own cause, faith remains the most effective form of blinker available to mankind.

That is the underlying problem with arguing with a creationist or intelligent design supporter. It doesn't matter what evidence you produce they prefer their fairy-tale world of delusions. lies, contradictions and hypocrisy.

That the influence of these utterly deluded individuals means that the organisations (churches) that fleece them of their money claim tax exempt status, and their leaders (even those who demonstrably involve themselves in drug-fuelled homosexual orgies against all the tenets of their own supposed faith - and I have no objection to consenting adults enjoying themselves thusly, but the hypocrisy from a religious leader is untenable when it so flagrantly is against all he preached to the people who made him rich through their donations) successfully lobby governments for more considerations and kickbacks, sends nations to war resulting in the needless deaths of millions and preys on the gullible and the weak of mind is mind boggling. If David Suzuki, David Attenborough, John Ralston Saul, Richard Dawkins or the 97% of NAS scientists who are atheists or at the very least agnostic could wield such influence think of how much better the world would be.

Answer 3

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation- inferred- enough said

Answer 4

Evolution sounds suitable to me, yet to be trustworthy, i presumed there could be extra difficult evidence available, no longer in undemanding terms laboratory tests and the few examples continually quoted (like the finches). it is not like it hasn't been investigated thoroughly. for the period of history, many medical hypothesis have been theory to be ultimate because of the fact each and every try produced evidence that replaced into in accord with the theory. until at some point medical advances proved the theory incorrect. i do no longer think of the theory of evolution is incorrect, I merely think of technological awareness lays declare to understanding how each and every thing works, whilst it in undemanding terms thinks that is nicely-known with of ways each and every thing works.

Answer 5

No one reads these great long copypastas. Especially Theists.

Answer 6

Gee whiz man....you typed all that for nothing.


Creation is the truth....

Evolution is a myth...


Get over it

All the science in the known world could never prove anything against the creation truth.......try as they might.....it will always point back to God the Father

Answer 7

In de nile is where they found Moses floating. I am just wondering if it was talkorigins that you copy and pasted from.