Evolution is a fact?!

[Astrophile]

The scientific answers keep changing. So now -- from my examination of the changing episodes of the latest reflections by many scientists insofar as evolution is concerned, x-rays and film were invented rather recently. Before that, and rather recently as reflected by the scientific community insofar as human history is concerned, writing is fairly recent. (about 5,000 years.) So records of changing forms of animals other than skulls or bone fragments just aren't accounted for in writing by human observation. Even though -- writing is a rather new development according to the major scientific establishment of human development.

This is not an answer. There is other evidence for our evolution besides written records of human observations. First, since there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, we must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch (about 5.33 to 23.03 million years ago), and the genetic evidence implies that our last common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas lived during this epoch, or more precisely during the Late Miocene (about 5.33 to 11.61 million years).

Also, since we must have had Miocene ancestors but there are no Miocene fossil humans, it seems more likely that some of the many genera of Miocene fossil apes were our ancestors than that modern humans lived during the Miocene epoch but none of them were fossilised.

Although, as you say, 'the scientific answers keep changing', there is still agreement on the essential facts that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are descended from common ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch, and that bipedal apes such as the australopithecines are closely related to our ancestral lineage. Until you can present convincing evidence for a different explanation of our origins, I shall continue to accept the scientific answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

No - but what you just wrote DOES mean that you utterly ignored the post beyond looking for something you could grab out-of-context and pretend that you had found an 'out.'

This time - this will be what, the 5th time? - I will make the parts that you seem determined to ignore un-ignorable (not that it will matter to you - you have a 'faith' to protect):

I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:​

Please note - these first few citations are about testing the METHODS of molecular phylogenetic analysis for reliability/accuracy/etc. - NOT to test whether to not evolution can explain "all life"...

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.
​

Please note that the above rationale for providing the previous 3 references clearly indicated why they were presented - and also quite clearly show that you did not read this far down (too many science words?), or you did and couldn't understand it (quite likely), or did, understood where this was going, and decided to go into 'desperate creationist mode.'

Application of the tested methodology:
​

Please note that this heading clearly indicates that the methods tested in the previous references - tested on "knowns" and shown to be accurate and reliable - are now going to be applied to 'unknowns'. A quite rational scientific series of events. I can see why you were afraid to read beyond your out of context attempt to ignore the fact that yours is a failing position to hold, but come on - we can see it in your words and antics. There is no hiding it.

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "


No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.
​

Strange that the creationist never presents evidence FOR what they claim to be the truth, they just misrepresent and distort evidence for reality to protect their fantasies.

ADDED IN EDIT:
Funny thing - I had actually provided this SEVEN TIMES in that thread - FOUR times specifically in response to YOU, each time your ignored it or dismissed it. So much for your "scientific literacy".

Sept.25, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Dec.12, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.5, 2021
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.21, 2021
- replied with "You asked a question about dust and I ask you to think about why it wouldn't be a result of creation."
​

Most telling...

IF I did not believe that God is the starter of life, that He created living matter, I might go along with evolution sans a creator. However, and it's a big however, there are those scientists who doubt the theory of evolution yet do not believe in a creator.

This is not an answer. There is other evidence for our evolution besides written records of human observations. First, since there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, we must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch (about 5.33 to 23.03 million years ago), and the genetic evidence implies that our last common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas lived during this epoch, or more precisely during the Late Miocene (about 5.33 to 11.61 million years).

Also, since we must have had Miocene ancestors but there are no Miocene fossil humans, it seems more likely that some of the many genera of Miocene fossil apes were our ancestors than that modern humans lived during the Miocene epoch but none of them were fossilised.

Although, as you say, 'the scientific answers keep changing', there is still agreement on the essential facts that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are descended from common ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch, and that bipedal apes such as the australopithecines are closely related to our ancestral lineage. Until you can present convincing evidence for a different explanation of our origins, I shall continue to accept the scientific answers.

It is simply impossible for me to believe that fish became humans. Again, skulls and bones do not depict evolution. They may depict that some dna is similar but I believe there's more to it.

 

[Valjean]

IF I did not believe that God is the starter of life, that He created living matter, I might go along with evolution sans a creator. However, and it's a big however, there are those scientists who doubt the theory of evolution yet do not believe in a creator.

What mechanisms of change do these scientists propose, if not the usual ones described by the ToE?

It is simply impossible for me to believe that fish became humans. Again, skulls and bones do not depict evolution. They may depict that some dna is similar but I believe there's more to it.

OK. An argument from personal incredulity. Are there specific steps you find incredible? How do you think all this diversity occurred?

 

[YoursTrue]

What mechanisms of change do these scientists propose, if not the usual ones described by the ToE?
OK. An argument from personal incredulity. Are there specific steps you find incredible? How do you think all this diversity occurred?

Today we have recording devices. I am guaranteeing you that IF I saw recordings of cells moving from one form to create another and eventually go, let's say, from fish to tetrapod, I'd have little reason not to believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Today we have recording devices. I am guaranteeing you that IF I saw recordings of cells moving from one form to create another and eventually go, let's say, from fish to tetrapod, I'd have little reason not to believe it.

So poorly phased. It makes no sense. Once again you appear to have no idea what you are debating against. That is not how evolution works. Would you like to discuss it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Today Charles Darwin exists as a dead body. But, Darwin does exist. How? As a dead body. Thus, the question arises:

When will Charles Darwin begin his proven path of evolution from non-living to living? "Evolution is a fact", he says.

And today Darwin exists. In the form of a dead body, gases, liquids. Perhaps when you turn on the faucet in the kitchen, you are drinking a molecule from Darwin's body. So, Darwin exists and you can ask your common sense when Darwin will start the path he has proven [through works of his followers] from the inanimate state to the living.

Well, yes, Darwin said that the Lord Jesus has created the first life (if this is how you can interpret his vague phrase: "the first cell is chained to the throne of God"), but his followers developed the spirit of Darwin's teachings to the point that the "progressive" humankind understood:

1. people are still animals (one of the species of apes; however, this is self-contradiction: there was no evolution if humans are still animals), They said earlier that man descended from an ape. Now they say differently: man is still an ape. But then there is no evolution if we are still animals.

2. black lives must be mercilessly oppressed,

3. schizophrenics and beggars must be castrated,

4. unwanted babies must be killed already in the womb; and that the

5. wildlife came without God's miracle from the non-living matter (and therefore life on Mars was in the distant past).

But God does not believe in godless Evolution, God is the Creator (it means, God is the most important Creationist).

I have no idea where this is going, or even where it is coming from, but I like the cartoon.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not an answer. There is other evidence for our evolution besides written records of human observations. First, since there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, we must have had ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch (about 5.33 to 23.03 million years ago), and the genetic evidence implies that our last common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas lived during this epoch, or more precisely during the Late Miocene (about 5.33 to 11.61 million years).

Also, since we must have had Miocene ancestors but there are no Miocene fossil humans, it seems more likely that some of the many genera of Miocene fossil apes were our ancestors than that modern humans lived during the Miocene epoch but none of them were fossilised.

Although, as you say, 'the scientific answers keep changing', there is still agreement on the essential facts that humans, chimpanzees and gorillas are descended from common ancestors that lived during the Miocene epoch, and that bipedal apes such as the australopithecines are closely related to our ancestral lineage. Until you can present convincing evidence for a different explanation of our origins, I shall continue to accept the scientific answers.

Since there are no real scientific factual evidence for spontaneous generation, I'll go along with the idea that God created life in what is known as creation. When we're alive, we know we're alive (for the most part). We know life by a narrow margin because we're alive. We're conscious.
Words do not aptly describe everything, including the definition of life and death. (as in viruses -- existence -- ? -- life -- death --?) So because I can understand the idea that spontaneous generation philosophically does not exist, we must go back to what started the fantastic type of life, including rivers, trees, plants, animal life, on the earth. (Nowhere else does this exist to OUR KNOWLEDGE.) And of course, it's one more step to figuring how life began, also how the universe began. No matter what anyone thinks, it's beyond true comprehension. True science moves along rather quickly, such as harnessing electrical power. Didn't take 75,000 years. 5,000 years or so of human existence makes more sense about progress than thinking about humanoids with smaller brains, therefore surmising they were not as capable as modern-day humans.
So the question you're asking is -- more or less -- how did all these forms of life come about. I can't say except that in the long run, God had to be involved in forming, creating the basic elements and varied forms of life. Since conjecture about the subject has not convinced me about godless evolution, I find it more credible to believe that God is the one allowing life and in fact, creating the heavens (the universe) and the earth.
Some would reason that because chimpanzees don't have much hair on their face that means we as humans evolved from some common ancestor is, to use an expression, reasoning from outer space. In other words, unreasonable. Insofar as I am presently convinced of. Do I think that children born with Zika disease and what are termed as defects are from God? No. But it is the consequence of events until mankind is restored to perfection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there are no real scientific factual evidence for spontaneous generation, I'll go along with the idea that God created life in what is known as creation. When we're alive, we know we're alive (for the most part). We know life by a narrow margin because we're alive. We're conscious.
Words do not aptly describe everything, including the definition of life and death. (as in viruses -- existence -- ? -- life -- death --?) So because I can understand the idea that spontaneous generation philosophically does not exist, we must go back to what started the fantastic type of life, including rivers, trees, plants, animal life, on the earth. (Nowhere else does this exist to OUR KNOWLEDGE.) And of course, it's one more step to figuring how life began, also how the universe began. No matter what anyone thinks, it's beyond true comprehension. True science moves along rather quickly, such as harnessing electrical power. Didn't take 75,000 years. 5,000 years or so of human existence makes more sense about progress than thinking about humanoids with smaller brains, therefore surmising they were not as capable as modern-day humans.
So the question you're asking is -- more or less -- how did all these forms of life come about. I can't say except that in the long run, God had to be involved in forming, creating the basic elements and varied forms of life. Since conjecture about the subject has not convinced me about godless evolution, I find it more credible to believe that God is the one allowing life and in fact, creating the heavens (the universe) and the earth.
Some would reason that because chimpanzees don't have much hair on their face that means we as humans evolved from some common ancestor is, to use an expression, reasoning from outer space. In other words, unreasonable. Insofar as I am presently convinced of. Do I think that children born with Zika disease and what are termed as defects are from God? No. But it is the consequence of events until mankind is restored to perfection.

Okay, you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Would you care to learn?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since there are no real scientific factual evidence for spontaneous generation, I'll go along with the idea that God created life in what is known as creation. When we're alive, we know we're alive (for the most part). We know life by a narrow margin because we're alive. We're conscious.
Words do not aptly describe everything, including the definition of life and death. (as in viruses -- existence -- ? -- life -- death --?) So because I can understand the idea that spontaneous generation philosophically does not exist, we must go back to what started the fantastic type of life, including rivers, trees, plants, animal life, on the earth. (Nowhere else does this exist to OUR KNOWLEDGE.) And of course, it's one more step to figuring how life began, also how the universe began. No matter what anyone thinks, it's beyond true comprehension. True science moves along rather quickly, such as harnessing electrical power. Didn't take 75,000 years. 5,000 years or so of human existence makes more sense about progress than thinking about humanoids with smaller brains, therefore surmising they were not as capable as modern-day humans.
So the question you're asking is -- more or less -- how did all these forms of life come about. I can't say except that in the long run, God had to be involved in forming, creating the basic elements and varied forms of life. Since conjecture about the subject has not convinced me about godless evolution, I find it more credible to believe that God is the one allowing life and in fact, creating the heavens (the universe) and the earth.
Some would reason that because chimpanzees don't have much hair on their face that means we as humans evolved from some common ancestor is, to use an expression, reasoning from outer space. In other words, unreasonable. Insofar as I am presently convinced of. Do I think that children born with Zika disease and what are termed as defects are from God? No. But it is the consequence of events until mankind is restored to perfection.

Do bacteria know they are alive? What about lizards? Fish? Frogs? Roses?

What evidence prompts you to claim that life knows it is alive, since it takes so many forms? Many of which show no evidence of awareness.

I am having trouble understanding you. Are you classifying rivers as living things?

If the answers are beyond comprehension, then what basis are you using to reject what we have learned through science?

It sounds like you are suggesting that because you cannot personally comprehend, than the solution is to substitute knowledge, questions and answers with your favorite flavor of belief. How am I to know that your flavor is a good one?

You are purposefully trivializing the evidence that demonstrates a link between humans and chimpanzees. It is more than a similarity in facial hair and your having been a participant in these discussions for some time, I find it difficult to believe you are unaware of that.

 

[YoursTrue]

What mechanisms of change do these scientists propose, if not the usual ones described by the ToE?
OK. An argument from personal incredulity. Are there specific steps you find incredible? How do you think all this diversity occurred?

As far as mechanisms of change, I can't say what they believe insofar as change goes. If I can speak with a renowned scientist in this area, I'll be bent on asking. But there are so many loopholes and doubts with the Theory that it leaves many holes open.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as mechanisms of change, I can't say what they believe insofar as change goes. If I can speak with a renowned scientist in this area, I'll be bent on asking. But there are so many loopholes and doubts with the Theory that it leaves many holes open.

That is interesting. What loopholes and doubts with the theory are there? Can you show me?

 

[Bear Wild]

Does this question make any sense at all to anyone?

None of his arguments make any sense. It is the inability to see beyond what is here and now. My favorite was the lack of written evidence of change recorded in human history which has been present for 5000 years as if the first words that humans ever recorded were detailed observation of animal and plant morphology not to mention the fact that 5000 years for an animal that reproduces as slowly as a human is insufficient to see significant change.

 

[Bear Wild]

That is interesting. What loopholes and doubts with the theory are there? Can you show me?

The only loopholes and doubts are in his understanding of science and evolution then projecting this on to the scientist who study this. The techniques employed are to pick the right words such as theory or probability or one of the most important features of science - disagreement between scientist on a specific fact ignoring all the profound information they agree on. Finally my favorite is they were wrong in the past and had to change some of the ideas in the theory so they could be wrong now thus throw the theory out.

Unfortunately these techniques have been all to effective in the argument of climate change.

 

[Bear Wild]

Since there are no real scientific factual evidence for spontaneous generation, I'll go along with the idea that God created life in what is known as creation. When we're alive, we know we're alive (for the most part). We know life by a narrow margin because we're alive. We're conscious.
Words do not aptly describe everything, including the definition of life and death. (as in viruses -- existence -- ? -- life -- death --?) So because I can understand the idea that spontaneous generation philosophically does not exist, we must go back to what started the fantastic type of life, including rivers, trees, plants, animal life, on the earth. (Nowhere else does this exist to OUR KNOWLEDGE.) And of course, it's one more step to figuring how life began, also how the universe began. No matter what anyone thinks, it's beyond true comprehension. True science moves along rather quickly, such as harnessing electrical power. Didn't take 75,000 years. 5,000 years or so of human existence makes more sense about progress than thinking about humanoids with smaller brains, therefore surmising they were not as capable as modern-day humans.
So the question you're asking is -- more or less -- how did all these forms of life come about. I can't say except that in the long run, God had to be involved in forming, creating the basic elements and varied forms of life. Since conjecture about the subject has not convinced me about godless evolution, I find it more credible to believe that God is the one allowing life and in fact, creating the heavens (the universe) and the earth.
Some would reason that because chimpanzees don't have much hair on their face that means we as humans evolved from some common ancestor is, to use an expression, reasoning from outer space. In other words, unreasonable. Insofar as I am presently convinced of. Do I think that children born with Zika disease and what are termed as defects are from God? No. But it is the consequence of events until mankind is restored to perfection.

Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same thing. Abiogenesis which is a separate but connected field to evolution is a study of how increasing complexity of combination of atoms could occur without the existence of life. They look at how increasingly complex organic compounds develop giving the critical elements for life to begin. Spontaneous generation is an old outdated theory starting with Aristotle in reference to the more instantaneous appearance of life based on insufficient understanding of biology. Do not confuse the two.

 

[rational experiences]

If we don't share Miocene-epoch common ancestors with bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas, what Miocene animals are we descended from? If you can give an answer to this question that is supported by evidence, I shall accept it; if not, I shall continue to accept the scientific answers

Because humans descended from humans only.

To be taught.

A human as a healthy human making all theories.

Discusses items that own form in their own form. Owned as formed. If not present you own no discussion or topic to argue.

Ignored by a theist. Their self.

If you call any other thing an item maybe you will stop pretending you created invented everything else as just a human thinking.

All humans today as a scientist came from human sperm. Human ovary.

The self.

The self living then dying constantly for multi years are just a human.

All those other human egotists deceased.

Your theory is about two long time deceased first human beings. In human sciences.

Rationally using words first your science claim IS two parent human beings. You actually say first humans came from.....

Then you say an ape birthed a near like ape human baby.

What you say as a human being as a human.

That theory is just a thought.

Evolution theory human. From that ape type human baby your claim it healed and evolved by evolution time period change into a real human.

Cooling is evolution. With all created gases water present.

The use human explanation about human evolution.

You don't own any other evolution theory.

As you are not an ape.

An ape was never a dinosaur.

An ape never swam in the sea as a sea creature.

When you use a topic sea creature. It is a sea creature.

If you state a sea creature came out onto land. It is a human making the claim. The animal is not transforming right in front of you as you experiment on a bacterial body or microbe.

Experiment what you claim advises science.

Yet you are attacking the cell that was not being attacked until a human attacked it.

Mental state of egotists just human.

We don't need to be told you think you know everything. You express your human reasoning for self human status. Human as a human stating you are superior in thinking.

Yet it is just humans making the claim.

Egotism actually a human spiritual topic for humans about humans.

 

[Valjean]

Today we have recording devices. I am guaranteeing you that IF I saw recordings of cells moving from one form to create another and eventually go, let's say, from fish to tetrapod, I'd have little reason not to believe it.

See, this is why "evolutionists" are constantly accusing creationists of not knowing what they're talking about. No biologist would expect to see anything like this, either. It would be inexplicable by the ToE.

As far as mechanisms of change, I can't say what they believe insofar as change goes. If I can speak with a renowned scientist in this area, I'll be bent on asking. But there are so many loopholes and doubts with the Theory that it leaves many holes open.

And here you admit outright that you don't understand biology or the theory underlying it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Today we have recording devices. I am guaranteeing you that IF I saw recordings of cells moving from one form to create another and eventually go, let's say, from fish to tetrapod, I'd have little reason not to believe it.

1. evolution doesn't work that way

2. tiktaalik.


You may put your head back in the sand now. Don't forget to stuff your ears and scream "lalalalala can't hear you lalalala"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As far as mechanisms of change, I can't say what they believe insofar as change goes. If I can speak with a renowned scientist in this area, I'll be bent on asking. But there are so many loopholes and doubts with the Theory that it leaves many holes open.

With every post you make it clear that you have no clue what evolution theory is all about.

So how could you possibly know that there are "doubts and loopholes"?

 

[Astrophile]

Since there are no real scientific factual evidence for spontaneous generation, I'll go along with the idea that God created life in what is known as creation. When we're alive, we know we're alive (for the most part). We know life by a narrow margin because we're alive. We're conscious.
Words do not aptly describe everything, including the definition of life and death. (as in viruses -- existence -- ? -- life -- death --?) So because I can understand the idea that spontaneous generation philosophically does not exist, we must go back to what started the fantastic type of life, including rivers, trees, plants, animal life, on the earth. (Nowhere else does this exist to OUR KNOWLEDGE.) And of course, it's one more step to figuring how life began, also how the universe began. No matter what anyone thinks, it's beyond true comprehension. True science moves along rather quickly, such as harnessing electrical power. Didn't take 75,000 years. 5,000 years or so of human existence makes more sense about progress than thinking about humanoids with smaller brains, therefore surmising they were not as capable as modern-day humans.
So the question you're asking is -- more or less -- how did all these forms of life come about. I can't say except that in the long run, God had to be involved in forming, creating the basic elements and varied forms of life. Since conjecture about the subject has not convinced me about godless evolution, I find it more credible to believe that God is the one allowing life and in fact, creating the heavens (the universe) and the earth.

You are begging the question. We all know that living things come from their parents, but nobody has ever seen a god create any living thing. We also know that living things are not identical to their parents, and that over many generations small changes accumulate. The fruit and vegetables that we eat, the dogs, cats and pigeons that we keep as pets, the horses that we ride on, etc., are all very different from their ancestors of only a few thousand years ago, because of this accumulation of small changes. Geological and fossil evidence shows that the Earth is very old, more precisely about 4540±20 million years old, that life has existed on Earth for most of that time, and that the living things that exist now are different from those that existed in the past.

Thus, there is direct observational evidence that the diversity of life can be explained by the natural process of descent with modification continued over many generations, whereas there is no observational evidence of a god who has created anything. What have creationists got except an argument from ignorance ('we don't know how this happens, therefore God') and a belief in the literal truth of a Bible whose historical record has been shown to be inaccurate, whose moral teaching and laws are the work of barbarians, and whose prophecies have been repeatedly falsified by events?

 

[YoursTrue]

You are begging the question. We all know that living things come from their parents, but nobody has ever seen a god create any living thing. We also know that living things are not identical to their parents, and that over many generations small changes accumulate. The fruit and vegetables that we eat, the dogs, cats and pigeons that we keep as pets, the horses that we ride on, etc., are all very different from their ancestors of only a few thousand years ago, because of this accumulation of small changes. Geological and fossil evidence shows that the Earth is very old, more precisely about 4540±20 million years old, that life has existed on Earth for most of that time, and that the living things that exist now are different from those that existed in the past.

Thus, there is direct observational evidence that the diversity of life can be explained by the natural process of descent with modification continued over many generations, whereas there is no observational evidence of a god who has created anything. What have creationists got except an argument from ignorance ('we don't know how this happens, therefore God') and a belief in the literal truth of a Bible whose historical record has been shown to be inaccurate, whose moral teaching and laws are the work of barbarians, and whose prophecies have been repeatedly falsified by events?

What is interesting is, however, that you didn't see your creation, or any type of supposed evolution before you. And neither did anyone else see any type of evolution as basically defined by Darwin. Conjecture is possible and the philosophical endeavors by many highly educated persons certainly prove to be a matter of great interest for many, but there is no proof of the actual kind. And while there is no real-time proof, it is clear that the theory of evolution is appealing to many. Going beyond the evidence of DNA moves into the realm of theory, not circumstantial reality. So it's been a very interesting discussion for me, however, I see nothing beyond conjecture based on dna and possible timing. I have learned much about the scientific endeavors to try to fit evidence into the theory. For this I am thankful.