How God can create through evolution:

[Audie]

Ah, my mistake. There is a bewildering variety of creationists. Some Old Earth Creationists believe that "kinds" of animals were created separately, and that evolution carried on, within each kind, from those starting points. Others twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile the rather peculiar order in which the various species are mentioned in the bible (fruit trees before fish, birds before land reptiles, and so on) with the current scientific paradigm. Others restrict the spontaneous creation of living things to the original primordial blob from which everything else evolved. I think that the term 'Creationist' does usually imply a belief in more creation ex nihilo than just the big bang, but if not, then I think many cosmologists are Old Earth Creationists too. If you would care to explain further, I would be interested to hear your own ideas in this respect.

My ( sadly) ex- father in law is Catholic, and a PhD geologist. He, like other
geologists finds creationists as defined by webster, to be an often- militantly
ignorant and tiresome bunch.

Audie,

What is the definition of creationist, as defined by Webster's? I couldn't find it online.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

That's a pretty generic definition of creationism. It's really not so simple and narrow.

Very true. It is in fact a wildly incoherent way of thought.

[abelcainsbrother]

To those who accept the theory of evolution I would like to know what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

Now I don't deny variation in reproduction this was known by plant and animal breeders thousands of years before Charles Darwin like dogs and roses or adaptation that life can adapt to survive hostile conditions. These things everybody can observe and see and you don't have to go into a science lab to know these things are reality,but as far as life evolving? This is where you have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves anywhere in all of that peer-reviewed evidence,you just assume life evolves because there is variation in reproduction and life can adapt and this is all the evidence in evolution science demonstrates and shows, this means after 150 years we are right back to where Darwin was assuming life evolves based on the variation we see in a litter of kittens and everything else is assumed to happen without evidence.

[Audie]

To those who accept the theory of evolution I would like to know what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

Now I don't deny variation in reproduction this was known by plant and animal breeders thousands of years before Charles Darwin like dogs and roses or adaptation that life can adapt to survive hostile conditions. These things everybody can observe and see and you don't have to go into a science lab to know these things are reality,but as far as life evolving? This is where you have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves anywhere in all of that peer-reviewed evidence,you just assume life evolves because there is variation in reproduction and life can adapt and this is all the evidence in evolution science demonstrates and shows, this means after 150 years we are right back to where Darwin was assuming life evolves based on the variation we see in a litter of kittens and everything else is assumed to happen without evidence.

A good, essential really, start is to realize how little you actually know,
and dobsome study.

You might google "what drives evolution?" or the like. Simple basic info or more sophisticated stuff is out there in great abundance. The reality about the basics of ToE is quite
different from what you think.

You will want to avoid any creationist / woo-woo sites of course.

Im sort of curious what you think happened in recent earth histoty.

Is it like millions of years of trilobites and phytosaurs, wooly mammoth and
pterodactyls, then a flood that wiped them all out, then a new world with
new animals was created?

[abelcainsbrother]

To those who accept the theory of evolution I would like to know what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

Now I don't deny variation in reproduction this was known by plant and animal breeders thousands of years before Charles Darwin like dogs and roses or adaptation that life can adapt to survive hostile conditions. These things everybody can observe and see and you don't have to go into a science lab to know these things are reality,but as far as life evolving? This is where you have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves anywhere in all of that peer-reviewed evidence,you just assume life evolves because there is variation in reproduction and life can adapt and this is all the evidence in evolution science demonstrates and shows, this means after 150 years we are right back to where Darwin was assuming life evolves based on the variation we see in a litter of kittens and everything else is assumed to happen without evidence.

A good, essential really, start is to realize how little you actually know,
and dobsome study.

You might google "what drives evolution?" or the like. Simple basic info or more sophisticated stuff is out there in great abundance. The reality about the basics of ToE is quite
different from what you think.

You will want to avoid any creationist / woo-woo sites of course.

Im sort of curious what you think happened in recent earth histoty.

Is it like millions of years of trilobites and phytosaurs, wooly mammoth and
pterodactyls, then a flood that wiped them all out, then a new world with
new animals was created?

Thanks. I did what you suggested.I googled What drives evolution? and I discovered that scientists do not really know what drives evolution.Like I said ealier they already assume it happens regardless of evidence. Here is a link I found.
http://m.livescience.com/1736-greatest- ... ution.html

As far as your question about a former world with millions of years of trilobites,phytosaurs,wooly mammoth and pterodactyls that perished in a flood? Yes I believe it happened but as you are probably aware of it was much,much more kinds of life than even the ones you mentioned and plant life too,the plant life in the former world was also totally different from the plant life in this world,it is coal now though except this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood because both the heavens and earth were flooded in this flood wiping out all life that still existed at that time so much so the earth was in this water.This is based on what the bible tells us whether you accept it or not right now.Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void;and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

This is what the evidence in and on the earth tells us,plus other evidence in our universe tells us.It does not tell us life evolves would be my argument.

[bippy123]

To those who accept the theory of evolution I would like to know what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

Now I don't deny variation in reproduction this was known by plant and animal breeders thousands of years before Charles Darwin like dogs and roses or adaptation that life can adapt to survive hostile conditions. These things everybody can observe and see and you don't have to go into a science lab to know these things are reality,but as far as life evolving? This is where you have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves anywhere in all of that peer-reviewed evidence,you just assume life evolves because there is variation in reproduction and life can adapt and this is all the evidence in evolution science demonstrates and shows, this means after 150 years we are right back to where Darwin was assuming life evolves based on the variation we see in a litter of kittens and everything else is assumed to happen without evidence.

Another problem Abel as I've said before is macro evolution itself , and most biologists will dismiss with this away by simply saying ""oh macro equals a bunch of micros , didn't you know this ?""
And the answer is no it isn't . As dr David berlinski shows here for a whale to go from a land dwelling creature to the open ocean there needs to be a multitude of morphological changes that need to happen at the same time if the creators is going to survive in the open ocean . Thousands of morph changes and we have just a handful of supposed related creatures ??

These are just some problems that evolutionists refuse to address

https://youtu.be/IZdlQK0cOlI

[abelcainsbrother]

To those who accept the theory of evolution I would like to know what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

Now I don't deny variation in reproduction this was known by plant and animal breeders thousands of years before Charles Darwin like dogs and roses or adaptation that life can adapt to survive hostile conditions. These things everybody can observe and see and you don't have to go into a science lab to know these things are reality,but as far as life evolving? This is where you have no evidence that demonstrates life evolves anywhere in all of that peer-reviewed evidence,you just assume life evolves because there is variation in reproduction and life can adapt and this is all the evidence in evolution science demonstrates and shows, this means after 150 years we are right back to where Darwin was assuming life evolves based on the variation we see in a litter of kittens and everything else is assumed to happen without evidence.

Another problem Abel as I've said before is macro evolution itself , and most biologists will dismiss with this away by simply saying ""oh macro equals a bunch of micros , didn't you know this ?""
And the answer is no it isn't . As dr David berlinski shows here for a whale to go from a land dwelling creature to the open ocean there needs to be a multitude of morphological changes that need to happen at the same time if the creators is going to survive in the open ocean . Thousands of morph changes and we have just a handful of supposed related creatures ??

These are just some problems that evolutionists refuse to address

https://youtu.be/IZdlQK0cOlI

Thanks bippy but I've realized it is not just macro-evolution that science has problems addressing it is also micro-evolution also.They use the term micro-evolution to make you assume it is the beginning of life evolving but all it really is is normal variation in reproduction.It is just called micro-evolution.

When you bring up whales? It makes me think of cladistics which is a joke for how they came up with common ancestors.It is all make believe based on the belief life evolves because depending on which physical characteristics you focus on we get different common ancestors. I might get into this alittle more but first I'm interested in how those who accept the theory of evolution answer and deal with the problems in evolution science.

[abelcainsbrother]

For those who are not familiar with the Gap Theory interpretation.I found a link you can read to better understand it.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 0415139604

[hughfarey]

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but can anybody who thinks evolution is wrong produce a shred of evidence to support any alternative hypothesis?

Abelcainsbrother believes that every living thing on the earth was destroyed by a global flood 12000 years ago, and replaced by all the living things on the earth today in acts of spontaneous creation. And why not? However, the single piece of evidence brought forward to support this belief, apart from the bible, mentioned in the link above, is that there are the remains of extinct civilisations on Mars. This evidence is wholly unsubstantiated.

Bippy denies that one group of interbreeding organisms can evolve into two groups of interbreeding organisms that cannot breed with each other. He does not say what he does believe, nor put forward any evidence for it.

Abelcainsbrother goes on to describe cladistics as a joke which explains common ancestry. Cladistics is a method of classifying living things according to the similarity of their DNA. Evolution is an explanation for the patterns found in cladistics, not the other way round. If there is a better explanation, no one has presented it, nor any evidence for it.

Both Bippy and Abelcainsbrother do not accept that whales evolved from land creatures. They do not say how they believe whales arrived on the earth, nor present any evidence for their beliefs.

Please, guys, this entire website is entitled God and Science, this specific forum is called God and Science, and this Thread is entitled "How can God create through Evolution?" If God did not create through evolution, then the 'Science' part of this site surely requests you to suggest evidence for alternative hypotheses, even if the 'God' part makes you convinced that there are some.

[Nicki]

A reseracer seldom speaks of "facts" in the sense people usually do.
"It is a fact that this is my data" is about all one could get from any of them.

A great quantity of data may sometimes provide enough information to bring forth
a theory that explains it all in a coherent way, and allows for predictions based on
the data so presented. Theories are terrifically useful.

Of course, if an exception is found, the theory may be expanded and improved, or it may have to
be discarded altogether. Disproved. Like in court; they can show all the "facts" they
like, but if you can prove you were having tea with the Queen in England while
the murder was taking place in Capetown, well, the prosecution theory is disproved.

Earlier I pointed out that nobody has ever discovered any exception to ToE.
Nothing anywhere to show it false.

Let that sink in a bit. Do you see any significance to it?

Sorry to rewind but - the trouble is that evolution is often presented as established fact - a lot of people would get the impression that scientists know that a particular species appeared however many million years ago, for example, having evolved from something else.

Speaking of appear, that's a funny word to use - how can a species just appear? If evolution was true there should be many, many transitional creatures between the distinct species. Any species could be just a dot along the evolutionary line, although some would stick around longer than others, I suppose. I went looking online for transitional forms - there were two ancestors of modern whales illustrated, one with nostrils at the end of its nose and the other with them halfway up, then the whale with its nostrils at the top. Did the nostrils jump suddenly from one position to another (perhaps a mutation with one creature luckily meeting and mating with another with the same mutation) or should there be many transitional forms with the nostrils at various positions in between?

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but can anybody who thinks evolution is wrong produce a shred of evidence to support any alternative hypothesis?

Abelcainsbrother believes that every living thing on the earth was destroyed by a global flood 12000 years ago, and replaced by all the living things on the earth today in acts of spontaneous creation. And why not? However, the single piece of evidence brought forward to support this belief, apart from the bible, mentioned in the link above, is that there are the remains of extinct civilisations on Mars. This evidence is wholly unsubstantiated.

Bippy denies that one group of interbreeding organisms can evolve into two groups of interbreeding organisms that cannot breed with each other. He does not say what he does believe, nor put forward any evidence for it.

Abelcainsbrother goes on to describe cladistics as a joke which explains common ancestry. Cladistics is a method of classifying living things according to the similarity of their DNA. Evolution is an explanation for the patterns found in cladistics, not the other way round. If there is a better explanation, no one has presented it, nor any evidence for it.

Both Bippy and Abelcainsbrother do not accept that whales evolved from land creatures. They do not say how they believe whales arrived on the earth, nor present any evidence for their beliefs.

Please, guys, this entire website is entitled God and Science, this specific forum is called God and Science, and this Thread is entitled "How can God create through Evolution?" If God did not create through evolution, then the 'Science' part of this site surely requests you to suggest evidence for alternative hypotheses, even if the 'God' part makes you convinced that there are some.

It is not my intention right now to try to persuade you to change your mind from Theistic Evolution to Gap Creationism.I gave a link just so those who are not familiar with it can understand it better but I don't think I can change your mind yet. My intention is to try to show you why I reject evolution first and give reasons why and to convince you that you should reject it too. If I can't do that, or if you just already have your mind made up? Then there is nothing I can do to change your mind.I want to try to convince you it is bad science.

You can believe anything you choose to just like anybody else can. I already asked a question for those who accept evolution and you did not answer it. What is the difference between variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

Because the only thing evolution science has demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction and adaptation and they use this for evidence life evolves but there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves so that in order for you or anybody to believe life evolves they must assume life evolves because scientists demonstrated there is variation in reproduction and adaptation and gave this for evidence life evolves so that you must assume everything else is true,you must assume life evolves based on this. You gotta have faith and believe it.

This is why I asked what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving. What convinces you life evolves that I overlooked maybe based on the evidence scientists have given?

As far as interbreeding scientists already know that there are already many kinds of life that can and cannot breed but when it comes to evolution? They suddenly get to decide when it has evolved based on not being able to breed. They try to convince us life evolved because it can no longer breed,however no evolution happened at all and if they could not interbreed they would just die out unless man intervened and controlled the breeding like in animal breeding. If I asked you to describe evaporation I'm sure you could and if I asked you for a demonstration I'm sure you could demonstrate it too,but this is not the case with evolution,instead we must assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided.

As far as cladistics and whale evolution. Pakecetus is a land mammal creature which existed 50 million years ago and based on cladistics it is an early ancestor to grey whales based on hearing and ear structures.So since evolution is true,no matter what people say similarities in ear structures actually prove common ancestry,rather than a common designer.

Pakecetus
http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/ ... pakicetus/

In cladistics if metabolism is used? Birds and mammals are close cousins and crocodiles unrelated. If skull and heart structure is used? Birds and crocodiles are close cousins,and mammals unrelated to each.So that it depends on which physical characteristics they focus on like I explained above.

[hughfarey]

Hi Nikki; the paucity of transitional fossils was a problem for evolution from the moment of Darwin's publication, and he recognised it as such. Then, as now, the answer was thought to lie in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Although fossil collections often appear extensive and comprehensive, the entirely of all the collections provides a vanishingly small proportion of all the species which ever lived. What's more, as the story of the evolution of whales demonstrates, the development of a new species from another looking nothing like it can be remarkably fast in geological terms, and thousands of generations can be completely lost. Nevertheless, continued exploration has continued to unearth transitional forms, and will no doubt continue to do so.

You are correct that "some would stick around longer than others." Pressure to evolve comes from changes in the environment, which can be geologically generated or by internal stresses such as over-population or competition. As long as the environment remains fairly stable, and a community of species fits it, there is little pressure to change, but when survival becomes a struggle, then species must adapt quite quickly.

When you say that you "went looking online for transitional forms", I wonder what you actually did? If you Google "transitional forms" "whale", you will find some 20,000 sites, and the second image, from http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm, shows a representative selection of nine transitional forms, and those are from a book published in 1999. Since then not only have more whale fossils been excavated, but those already known have been considerably better understood. There are at least 30 transitional stages currently being studied.

It cannot be emphasised too much that understanding the details of evolution is very much an ongoing process, and books published 15 ears ago cannot be quoted as the last word on the evolutionist position. With this in mind I recommend a lecture posted less than a year ago, called 'Cetacean Evolution - a Whale of a Tale', by Jon Peters. It can be found at "https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... ion-whales.

I hope that helps.

Abelcainsbrother, I do understand that a typical creationist modus operandi is to attempt to discredit evolution, and after that fill the vacant 'explanation space' with an alternative, but that's not how science works. The evidence for competing hypotheses are compared at the same time, and the one with the best evidence accepted as the best explanation so far. In the absence of any evidence for any alternative, then the evidence for evolution, however deficient, is better than nothing, and therefore evolution is the best explanation for the development of life.

I'm sorry I did not directly answer your question: "What is the difference between variation in reproduction, adaptation and life evolving?" I don't find this very clear, but I will interpret it as best I can, and hope I can answer.

A species is a group of organisms which can interbreed. It is characterised by a 'gene pool' of a number of genes, of which each individual of the species has a selection. The selection can be quite varied, but as long as the individual can breed with similar organisms, we term it a member of the species. As long as the species can intercommunicate well, these genes can be shuffled about during the process of sexual reproduction, producing offspring that can still interbreed with other members of the species. This is what I think you mean by "variation in reproduction".

Environmental pressures may result in the species gradually occupying two environmentally different habitats. These can be geographical, such as the opposite banks of a river, or behavioural, such as feeding from the sides or the bottom of a lake. As long as there is good communication between the individuals, the genes will continue to shuffle, the offspring will all still be able to interbreed, and the single species is maintained. However, if behaviour or geography tends to separate individuals into two groups which do not interbreed (even if they could), then gradually the particular gene pools of each group may result in individuals which can no longer breed with individuals of the other group. This is speciation. Along the way, the two groups may undergo intermediate stages in which individuals of the two different groups can mate, but produce increasingly less fertile offspring. The result is two separate species, each adapted better to its particular environment. This is half of what I think you mean by 'adaptation.'

The other half consists of the emergence of completely new genes. While all this interbreeding is going on, the DNA of each individual must be copied billions of times, and for various reasons it may not be copied precisely. There may be simple copying errors, or the DNA can be damaged by exposure to various forms of radiation. This occurs all the time, and most of the new material is fatal to the organism which depends on it. However, given the billions of versions of DNA being generated, occasionally a new gene is not fatal, and, if the individual with it reproduces, it becomes part of the gene pool of the species. As such, it may be useful if the time comes for adaptation to a new environment, and contribute to the difference between two species. That completes my explanation of what I think you mean by 'adaptation'.

This combination of processes, reproductive gene shuffling, adapting to new environments, and the emergence of new forms of DNA, results in species, by a continuous process of dividing into two other species, increasing in number and variety to fit the global environment as well as possible at any one time. That explains what I think you mean by 'evolution.'

I hope that helps.

You go on to say this: "They try to convince us life evolved because it can no longer breed, however no evolution happened at all and if they could not interbreed they would just die out unless man intervened and controlled the breeding like in animal breeding." I would like to reply, but sadly I cannot understand it at all. Would you care to rephrase it?

This, however, I understand: "If I asked you to describe evaporation I'm sure you could and if I asked you for a demonstration I'm sure you could demonstrate it too, but this is not the case with evolution, instead we must assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided." You are correct that it is very difficult to demonstrate evolution in a laboratory. It is difficult to demonstrate the formation and development of galaxies too, and the reproduction of blue whales. Laboratories are not suited to the very large, the very rare or the very slow, and we have to make the best of what evidence we have. However, we must certainly not "assume life evolves based on the evidence they have provided." We must judge that evidence for ourselves, and balance it against other evidence, and make up our minds based on which seems to explain the development of life best. That is why I have been asking for evidence for an alternative to evolution, so that I can balance the two and judge for myself which to go for. In the absence of any other evidence, evolution has to win - for the present.

[RickD]

Hugh,

Not sure if you've read More Than a Theory.

I've mentioned it a couple of times when others here have asserted that there is no other model besides evolution. But one person refuses to read it, and the other won't discuss it.

[Audie]

A reseracer seldom speaks of "facts" in the sense people usually do.
"It is a fact that this is my data" is about all one could get from any of them.

A great quantity of data may sometimes provide enough information to bring forth
a theory that explains it all in a coherent way, and allows for predictions based on
the data so presented. Theories are terrifically useful.

Of course, if an exception is found, the theory may be expanded and improved, or it may have to
be discarded altogether. Disproved. Like in court; they can show all the "facts" they
like, but if you can prove you were having tea with the Queen in England while
the murder was taking place in Capetown, well, the prosecution theory is disproved.

Earlier I pointed out that nobody has ever discovered any exception to ToE.
Nothing anywhere to show it false.

Let that sink in a bit. Do you see any significance to it?

Sorry to rewind but - the trouble is that evolution is often presented as established fact - a lot of people would get the impression that scientists know that a particular species appeared however many million years ago, for example, having evolved from something else.

Evolution is an established fact. Even creationists realize that, tho they timidly will only
allow for "micro" evolution.

If you mean the THEORY of evolution, presting a theory as a fact is bonkers. Who does that?

Such impressions as people get, from a shallow and disinterested viewpoint has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the science.

Speaking of appear, that's a funny word to use - how can a species just appear?

I'd not suggest getting too hung up on equivocation. The bible speaks of "kinds', and endless nonsense results.

Organisms dont just "appear". That is of course a creationist belief, but ..well, never mind that.

Certainly a paleontologist would never state nor imply that any organism simply appeared, poof.

There is in the USA a certain odd antelope, Syndyocerous, known from a single specimen found on a hillside in western Nebraska. Should one then feel it is the only one that ever existed? Many a dinosaur or other creature is known from a single bone. Should we then conclude that only that one bone ever existed, and simply appeared there? The Romans actually held to such a view.

You might like to sally forth, and look for a male and female Syndyocerous, some juveniles of every age. Nobody has ever found a juvenile. Should we infer there were none?

I will hazard a guess that you could could spend the rest of your life walking about looking at the ground, and never find a Syndyocerous, not a bone or a piece of one.

Paleontology is not richly funded. There are not swarms of people out there scouring the earth. For every fossil recovered, innumerable others weather out of the ground, disintegrate and are lost forever. Vastly more are simply buried. Do you know where to look?

You might think of it something like finding here and there single images from a movie film.

If evolution was true there should be many, many transitional creatures between the distinct species.

It would be helpful if you said what you mean by "distinct species'. For example, the coyote and the wolf are distinct species, are they? Did one evolve from the other, should there be intermediate forms?

There are in fact a great many fossils of plants and animals that show steps transitional between, say, purely aquatic fish, ones that are capable of breathing air and moving out of the water, and creatures that are very clunky by today's standards, but were the big tough predators on land, of their day.

Do you want every single frame of the movie in order to see a pattern?

Any species could be just a dot along the evolutionary line, although some would stick around longer than others, I suppose.

Not sure what you mean, but some sorts of plants or animals have remained largely unchanged for many many millions of years. Yes, I used the word 'sorts".

I went looking online for transitional forms - there were two ancestors of modern whales illustrated, one with nostrils at the end of its nose and the other with them halfway up, then the whale with its nostrils at the top

.

Ok three data points. How many is enough?

"Online" is a blessing and a curse. Many people evidently feel that is all there is.
Vertebrate anatomy is a deep and difficult field, my one semester foray into
it, a 400 level pre med course sure taught me that. You wont get much of it by surfing.


Whales by their nature are seldom fossilized, and a good history of their development is improbable.

Still, one has a couple of data points on them. What do you suppose these creatures
adapted to an aquatic if not fully pelagic lifestyle actually were? No chance at all that, despite the present lack of fossils, data points to work with, they could have been whale ancestors? They just appeared, disappeared, and meant nothing?

Did the nostrils jump suddenly from one position to another (perhaps a mutation with one creature luckily meeting and mating with another with the same mutation) or should there be many transitional forms with the nostrils at various positions in between

No, there is no "jumping'. I dont know why creationists are so determined to use that word.

You are asking too much of the currently underfunded and effort, and the few data points that it has been possible to go out and collect.

(funding-wise, a single dinosaur bone from field to museum can easily cost a thousand dollars, sometimes far far more)


You have two or three data points with nostrils found in different situations.
(Actually, not so different; the same bones are involved, the change is in the relative size and shape of the bones.)

A far better creature to look at is the horse. There is an abundance of fossil material, and
the succession of changes in the teeth, feet etc is very well documented. Sure, there are still gaps; fewer and fewer as years go by but a complete history will never exist.

You could reject the Theory of WW2 on the same basis, of course. No complete history; gaps and mysteries abound.

What you will not find in ToE, unlike the history of WW2, is contradictions.
You also will not find any proof that either of them is false.

You spoke of "if evolution were true" and then imposed conditions of your own design.

Lets turn it around. If evolution is false, then surely it is massively false, completely wrong.

Any theory that is massively wrong should not be so immune to disproof.

Why has nobody ever found datum pint one that is contrary to ToE?

[Audie]

To those who accept the theory of evolution I would like to know what is the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?

IF you actually would like to know, why have you not made the modest effort to find out?

Possibly, because if you did, you'd find you'd torpedoed your own facile arguments?

[Audie]

Because the only thing evolution science has demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction and adaptation .

No matter how many times you say it, it is still an "argument from ignorance" and
no more true if you say it ten thousand times.


Here is the binary, clearly implied by your statement:

Either you know more and understand better than the entire world scientific community

or

you dont.

Which is more believable?