I'll use a simple analogy: We have a blue-eyed boy and a blue-eyed cat. Does that mean the cat and boy are related? Or if we see a black-eyed man and a blue-eyed boy, can we be sure that the man is not the boy's father?

Following that logic, not mine, but that of the Darwinists: If a man looks like a monkey, then they are related?

If you have been indoctrinated into calling these conjectures evidence, I have not.

Are you a Creationist?

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Are you a Creationist?

Yes, I am.

5 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

Yes, I am.

Never the twain can meet. Evolution and Creationism are diametrically opposed in the method that each way of thinking arrives at their respective conclusions. Such a discussion can only have an unhappy ending.

Just now, StringJunky said:

Never the twain can meet. Evolution and Creationism are diametrically opposed in the method that each way of thinking arrives at their respective conclusions. Such a discussion can only have an unhappy ending.

That's right, the theory of evolution doesn't match my beliefs. Trying to reconcile my beliefs with the theory of evolution would be either dishonest or a denial of my beliefs.

In fact, I even think science has a very marked atheistic tendency. There's no need for a religious explanation, because science tries to explain things without one, and it conjectures what isn't obvious.

Still, as you see, we can address the issue even if it makes you unhappy.

In the end, science is wrong about the origin of species, and conjectures are not evidence in themselves.

2 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

That's right, the theory of evolution doesn't match my beliefs. Trying to reconcile my beliefs with the theory of evolution would be either dishonest or a denial of my beliefs.

In fact, I even think science has a very marked atheistic tendency. There's no need for a religious explanation, because science tries to explain things without one, and it conjectures what isn't obvious.

Still, as you see, we can address the issue even if it makes you unhappy.

In the end, science is wrong about the origin of species, and conjectures are not evidence in themselves.

Ultimately, science works towards finding empirical evidence but uses hypotheses to postulate possible paths for research. The scientific method always leaves the gate open on any conclusions. It is the case that science knowingly never reaches its destination, but gets closer to realizing how nature behaves with each new discovery.

4 hours ago, Wigberto said:

Yes, I am.

Explain to me how the earth is 6000 years old

5 hours ago, Wigberto said:

Following that logic, not mine, but that of the Darwinists: If a man looks like a monkey, then they are related?

If you have been indoctrinated into calling these conjectures evidence, I have not.

Imagine a long line of ancestors, going back millions of years, each one adapting and responding to the challenges of its time. These ancestors were not apes in the way we think of modern gorillas or chimpanzees, and they were certainly not human as we are today. But they were part of the larger family of primates, and they share with us a deep biological legacy that can be studied through fossils, anatomy, and genetics.

We call this group the hominins. This term refers to the lineage that includes modern humans and all of our extinct relatives after the point at which we diverged from the lineage that led to chimpanzees. What is interesting is that this divergence did not happen suddenly or arbitrarily. Instead, the scientific evidence indicates a gradual shift over time. In fact, there is no one moment you could point to and say, this is where a human appeared from nowhere. It is more like a slow transformation, much like the way a child grows into an adult. No single day makes the child become an adult, but over time, the difference becomes obvious.

Let us begin in Africa around seven million years ago. One of the earliest known members of our lineage is a species called Sahelanthropus tchadensis, discovered in Chad. This species had a small brain, more like that of an ape, but what surprised scientists was the placement of the opening where the spinal cord enters the skull. It was more forward-facing, suggesting that this being may have walked upright at least some of the time. Upright walking, or bipedalism, is one of the defining traits of hominins.

A few million years later, we see another important group, called Australopithecus. This genus includes several species, the most famous of which is Australopithecus afarensis. You might have heard of "Lucy," one of the most complete fossils from this group. Lucy lived around three and a half million years ago. Her bones show a fascinating blend of traits. She had a small brain and long arms, but her pelvis and leg bones clearly show that she walked upright like us. Lucy and her kind were still very comfortable climbing trees, but they were becoming more and more adapted to life on the ground.

The next major step in this story is the emergence of the genus Homo, which includes us, Homo sapiens. The earliest known species in this group is Homo habilis, often referred to as the "handy man" because of the association with stone tools. This species lived around two and a half million years ago and had a larger brain than the australopiths. These early humans likely scavenged meat and used tools to crack bones or scrape hides. Their hands were more dexterous, and their teeth suggest a varied diet.

Following Homo habilis, we find Homo erectus, a remarkable species that appeared nearly two million years ago. This species had a brain size approaching modern levels and was fully committed to walking on two legs. Fossils of this species have been found far beyond Africa, in regions such as Indonesia, China, and Georgia. This tells us something powerful about their behavior. They were not only surviving, they were exploring. They mastered fire, built shelters, and likely had the ability to communicate in complex ways.

What we see in this pattern is a story of adaptation and survival. These hominins were not random creatures popping into existence, but individuals shaped by their environments over generations. Their bones, tools, and artifacts are not myths or legends. They are real and they can be touched, measured, and dated using many independent scientific techniques.

And then, somewhere between three hundred thousand and two hundred thousand years ago, we see the appearance of our own species, Homo sapiens. These early modern humans had sophisticated tools, made art, buried their dead, and probably had spoken language. They lived alongside other human relatives, such as the Neanderthals in Europe and the Denisovans in Asia. Genetic evidence shows that our ancestors even interbred with these other groups. You might carry traces of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA yourself.

The genetic closeness between humans and other primates is not just a coincidence. Our DNA is more than ninety eight percent identical to that of chimpanzees. We share specific genes, bone structures, and developmental pathways. The human chromosome number is twenty three pairs, while chimps have twenty four, and yet we can see that two ancestral chromosomes fused in our lineage. This is not guesswork. It is visible under a microscope.

Some may ask, but where are the transitions? In truth, the fossil record is full of them. It is not perfect, as preservation is rare, but we have an astonishing variety of hominin fossils that show clear changes in skull shape, posture, teeth, hands, and brain size over time. We do not find fossils of humans next to dinosaurs because they lived millions of years apart. And we do not find modern humans in the deepest layers of rock because those layers were formed long before we existed.

This does not mean that science has all the answers. But science does follow evidence. It makes predictions and tests them. And the evidence from geology, genetics, paleontology, and anthropology all converge on the same picture: that humans evolved from earlier primates over millions of years.

Now, if you hold to a religious worldview, that does not mean you have to abandon it. Many people who believe in God also accept that evolution is the method by which life has changed and diversified. For them, it is not a threat but a deeper way to appreciate the beauty and complexity of life. The unfolding of hominin history, with all its struggle and triumph, is a part of that grandeur.

5 hours ago, Wigberto said:

If you have been indoctrinated into calling these conjectures evidence, I have not.

100% more plausible option than the earth being 6000 years old

4 hours ago, Wigberto said:

In the end, science is wrong about the origin of species, and conjectures are not evidence in themselves.

Evidence where? Give me a suitable counterclaim

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Such a discussion can only have an unhappy ending.

I will help =)

4 hours ago, Wigberto said:

That's right, the theory of evolution doesn't match my beliefs. Trying to reconcile my beliefs with the theory of evolution would be either dishonest or a denial of my beliefs.

In fact, I even think science has a very marked atheistic tendency. There's no need for a religious explanation, because science tries to explain things without one, and it conjectures what isn't obvious.

Still, as you see, we can address the issue even if it makes you unhappy.

In the end, science is wrong about the origin of species, and conjectures are not evidence in themselves.

I consider myself a Christian, why? I wholeheartedly endorse and support the morals of Jesus Christ and use it as my own moral compass. I take the Bible as for its moral value, it cannot be used against science at any point though.

It’s not a question of being happy or unhappy, you are blatantly wrong and confusing numerous subject matter in the process.

5 hours ago, Wigberto said:

I'll use a simple analogy: We have a blue-eyed boy and a blue-eyed cat. Does that mean the cat and boy are related?

..they (cat and boy) are related, but the color of their eyes acutely does not matter here..

4 hours ago, Wigberto said:

In fact, I even think science has a very marked atheistic tendency.

..because of people like you, people are becoming atheists..

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..they (cat and boy) are related, but the color of their eyes acutely does not matter here.

They are confusing a lot of information, I feel that is likely why there is such a disconnect

2 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

They are confusing a lot of information, I feel that is likely why there is such a disconnect

If you have a poor school (which allows you to choose compulsory and non-compulsory lessons), then later you have gigantic gaps in basic knowledge, so how to talk to such a person at all? I bet he doesn't even know why hydrogen plasma has the color it has..

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

If you have a poor school (which allows you to choose compulsory and non-compulsory lessons), then later you have gigantic gaps in basic knowledge, so how to talk to such a person at all? I bet he doesn't even know why hydrogen plasma has the color it has..

You seem like an intelligent person, let’s at the bare minimum attempt to reason with them a little more, if they refuse to accept information and think critically it’s their loss not ours.

5 hours ago, Wigberto said:

That's right, the theory of evolution doesn't match my beliefs. Trying to reconcile my beliefs with the theory of evolution would be either dishonest or a denial of my beliefs.

In fact, I even think science has a very marked atheistic tendency. There's no need for a religious explanation, because science tries to explain things without one, and it conjectures what isn't obvious.

Still, as you see, we can address the issue even if it makes you unhappy.

In the end, science is wrong about the origin of species, and conjectures are not evidence in themselves.

Questioning the theory of evolution is so stupid that it doesn't even have words to say it nicely.. Every year you have new varieties of viruses e.g. influenza. Why can't you win against them? Because they are constantly mutating, i.e. evolving, i.e. adapting to the hostile environment in which they have come to live (i.e. your body, in which antibodies and/or a vaccine against them have appeared).

There is no such thing as “theory of evolution” there is just “evolution”. Incomprehensible why someone out there once called it a “theory”.

Theory is what you have in school, and practice is what you have in real life - every year you get infected with bacteria and viruses.

If your body does not learn to fight the infection, you die (e.g., too weak or too aggressive a response from the immune system). And if your body learns to fight a disease, you gain “lifelong” immunity. Then why are you still sick several times a year?

Because some bacteria and viruses evolve into further varieties for which your body is not prepared (i.e. there are no ready-made antibodies).

You yourself are the creator of the evolution of these microorganisms.

5 hours ago, Wigberto said:

Trying to reconcile my beliefs with the theory of evolution would be either dishonest or a denial of my beliefs.

Every time you take any medicine created by modern medicine, every time you use a computer, car, or cell phone, fly on an airplane, or use hi-tech, you contradict your belief in creationism.

You look at the world around you and understand nothing of it. You don't have the faintest idea why all these things around you work at all, and how they work. Doesn't it hurt you to have such an overwhelming sense of stupidity and powerlessness you have?

8 hours ago, Wigberto said:

I'll use a simple analogy: We have a blue-eyed boy and a blue-eyed cat. Does that mean the cat and boy are related? Or if we see a black-eyed man and a blue-eyed boy, can we be sure that the man is not the boy's father?

Following that logic, not mine, but that of the Darwinists: If a man looks like a monkey, then they are related?

If you have been indoctrinated into calling these conjectures evidence, I have not.

This, again, is an extraordinarily stupid argument. Utter waste of time even to engage with it.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Never the twain can meet. Evolution and Creationism are diametrically opposed in the method that each way of thinking arrives at their respective conclusions. Such a discussion can only have an unhappy ending.

I am sure you know that there are versions of creationism in which the creator creates and then sets his creation 'running' but does not interfere further or only minimally.

At least some of these notions are not incompatible with evolution.

Also to folks more generally, I can't see the reason for the overtly hostile responses.

In particular Wigberto is entitled to his opinion/belief (although I don't share it) and has frankly stated his position.

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

Yes, I am.

So I have added a +1 to this.

Just now, Sensei said:

uestioning the theory of evolution is so stupid that it doesn't even have words to say it nicely.. Every year you have new varieties of viruses e.g. influenza. Why can't you win against them? Because they are constantly mutating, i.e. evolving, i.e. adapting to the hostile environment in which they have come to live (i.e. your body, in which antibodies and/or a vaccine against them have appeared).

There is no such thing as “theory of evolution” there is just “evolution”. Incomprehensible why someone out there once called it a “theory”.

Theory is what you have in school, and practice is what you have in real life - every year you get infected with bacteria and viruses.

If your body does not learn to fight the infection, you die (e.g., too weak or too aggressive a response from the immune system). And if your body learns to fight a disease, you gain “lifelong” immunity. Then why are you still sick several times a year?

Because some bacteria and viruses evolve into further varieties for which your body is not prepared (i.e. there are no ready-made antibodies).

You yourself are the creator of the evolution of these microorganisms.

Yes indeed that is a very good point of view +1

My own POV is that the alleged origins debate receives too much (hot) air time.

Quite frankly I just don't care, which seems to be a minority view, but I am happy to explain further to any interested party.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I am sure you know that there are versions of creationism in which the creator creates and then sets his creation 'running' but does not interfere further or only minimally.

At least some of these notions are not incompatible with evolution.

Yes, if one wanted to be compatible with evolution and have a religious belief on it, that would be the way to go.

14 hours ago, Wigberto said:

Yes, I am.

And bad at following the rules.

You can go be an ignorant creationist troll (sorry, that’s redundant) elsewhere.

14 hours ago, Wigberto said:

Yes, I am.

Moderator Note

We have a rule against creationist arguments since they continually use misunderstood or misrepresented information, logical fallacies like strawman, and obfuscation based on sheer ignorance and a need for your extremist beliefs to be correct. You've done all that here in just a few posts. You keep parroting the same tired, ignorant arguments I saw 20 years ago here. You folks purposely misrepresent knowledge you don't have, and it's very, very sad to those who've studied this.

I'm restricting your content instead of banning you, since I know creationists notch their belts with forum bans. You should learn with an open mind and let go of the hate in your heart.