Something I always felt is weird is when creationists put scriptures above real-world evidence. Presumably God didn’t literally write the words in the bible. Men did, even if God dictated to them, men wrote the words down. The pen, or feather, or stick, or chisel was in human hands.
But supposedly God directly made the world(or the processes that shaped it’s evolution). It didn’t have to pass through men. The strata are there, the fossils are there, the stars, the isotopes. If God made it, then no one could have done any mistakes or failed to understand something, or put their own spin on it, or laid the rocks down with their own agenda. None of it had to pass through mere humans write things down.
And yet creationists almost always try to make the evidence fit the scriptures, instead of the other way around. Yet the world is supposedly more directly a creation of God than the scriptures are, so why put those above the real world? The rocks weren’t laid down, and the galaxies weren’t put in their positions by fallible middle-men with their personal agendas and motivations.
I think your statement is false because evidence is up for interpretation. How about we take this to the next level. Empiricism. You prove abiogenesis got it all started and I prove that God created life instantaneously.
Are you up for it? Of course not. Neither am I. Then cease saying that your argument is the best and that it has the most evidence on its side…!!!
One has to examine evidence before interpretation is the issue. The claim that “both sides are just interpreting the same evidence differently” is objectively false.
Here’s a perfect example:
Fudging the evidence is not a matter of interpretation.
I mentioned Lon Solomon, the pastor of McLean Bible Church where I teach classes on ID/Creation. Actually Lon is now the retired pastor. The new pastor is David Platt, on the left, with someone very special, June 4, 2019:
Where’s the vast majority of evidence of the mechanical feasibility of evolving eukayotes from simpler forms? I ignore the supposed piles of evidence because it doesn’t exist. Even more so for the mechanical/physical/chemical feasibility of abiogenesis.
It’s a non-sequitur to say that the nested hierarchical trees that can be constructed on individual genes/proteins imply their ancestors can evolve from some ultimate ancestral form.
Even your own colleagues on this forum admitted they don’t believe all proteins/genes evolved from a single universal common ancestral sequence. How did they come to be then except by some unexplained, untestable, inaccessible mysterious process. How is that substantially different from believing in a Creator except for the fact a Creator might actually solve the problem vs. chemical and physical principles that would actually prevent evolution.
Standard creationist dodge: omit “biological evolution” which is supported by an immense volume of evidence, and focus only on “abiogenesis,” which is not.
This is one of the enzymes my colleague Joe Deweese has spent over a decade studying. It is rather life critical and if life evolved, it would be early in evolution:
Where are the vast piles of data that explain how it is mechanically feasible for the two topoiomserases to evovle? Like nowhere.
Human-Chimp similarity doesn’t prove the evolution of topoisomerases from a system that lacked them! These are irrelevancies represented as piles of evidence evolution except where it is really needed.
Are you aware that scientists have literally seen the process of endosymbiosis? The intracellular endosymbiont Wolbachia will invade host cells and literally be transmitted through the maternal line just like mitochondria are.
Wolbachica phylogenetically groups with alphaproteobacteria, like mitochondria do. It develops complex metabolic relationships with the host, like mitochondria have.
The processes by with symbiont genes are transmitted to the host is observed. For mitochondria it’s called mitophagy. For various reasons mitochondria will undergo programmed cell-death, release their cytoplasmic contents into the host cytoplasm, which will contain the fragmented genome of the mitochondrion, which can then be transported to the nucleus of the host, where it will be mistaken for damaged host chromosomes which instigates DNA repair pathways that integrates it in the host genome. Researchers can then detect these mitochondrial DNA fragments in sequencing the host genome. They’re so frequent they have their own name. They’re called NUMTs.
Mitochondria even secrete small, single-membrane bounded vesicles, called mitochondrial-derived vesicles (MDVs). These in turn are known to produce 3dimensional structures that look and behave like the endoplasmic reticulum, and for those reasons are thought to be homologous. Parts of the nuclear pore complex is known to be homologous to membrane transport proteins in prokaryote membranes. They phylogenetically group with lokiarchaeal membrane transport proteins.
Alphaproteobacteria (such as Wolbachia) carry group II self-splicing introns, again phylogenetically related to the core splicing molecules of the spliceosome.
The archaeal ancestors of the host probably had many of the structures biologists used to think were unique to eukaryotes. Particular archaeal clades (the ones that just so happen to be phylogenetically most closely related to eukaryotes, imagine that) have been found to carry many of these previously thought to be eukaryote-only molecular structures, such as histones and cytoskeletal-like(simpler versions of actin and tubulin) proteins.
At some point you’d think creationists would stop mindlessly regurgitating the mantra that there’s no evidence for the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes.
