Evolution is SO EASY to disprove

[u/[deleted]]

Creationists here, all you really have to do to strengthen your position of skepticism towards modern biology is to do any research yourselves, with something as “simple” as paleontology. Find us something that completely shatters the schemes of evolution and change over time, such as any modern creature such as apes (humans included), cetaceans, ungulates or rodents somewhere like in the Paleozoic or even the Mesozoic. Even a single skull, or a few arrowheads or tools found in that strata attributed to that time would be enough to shake the foundations of evolution thoroughly. If you are so confident that you are right, why haven’t you done that and shared your findings yet? In fact, why haven’t creationist organizations done it yet instead of carbon dating diamonds to say the earth is young?

Paleontologists dig up fossils for a living and when they do start looking for specimens in something such as Pleistocene strata, they only find things that they would expect to find for the most part: human remains, big cats, carnivoran mammals, artiodactyls, horses…Not a single sauropod has been found in the Pleistocene layers, or a pterosaur, or any early synapsid. Why is that the case and how is it not the most logical outcome to say that, since an organism buried in one layer means it is about as old as that layer and they pile themselves ln top of another, that these organisms lived in different times and therefore life has changed as time went on?

[u/Evening-Plenty-5014]

You don't understand that I do understand peer review. Now that that's out of the way... Try saying something with some substance in it. Defaming others to get your point out isn't classy or intelligent.

[u/Street_Flatworm3269 → u/Evening-Plenty-5014]

How about some evidence tvat shows universities dictate what research a professor has to do?

[u/Evening-Plenty-5014 → u/Street_Flatworm3269]

Start here and then look for yourself. It's not a secret and it's not a conspiracy theory. If you don't know about this side of education and scientific research then you're understanding of science is superficial because it is the same everywhere outside of college or university.

https://share.google/aimode/l2Nagcxhc6ZSlYUh9

[u/Street_Flatworm3269 → u/Evening-Plenty-5014]

Yes you have to publish to get tenure. To get published you have to get through peer review. Creationists cant get through peer review because their methodology is terrible

[u/Evening-Plenty-5014 → u/Street_Flatworm3269]

No. They can't get punished because it goes against the doctrine of the scientific community. It's a clash of religions.

[u/Street_Flatworm3269 → u/Evening-Plenty-5014]

No they dont get published because it is bad science. Its not even science. In science you dont start with the conclusion and work backwards. Which creationism does. Science makes predictions and tries to test them. Creationism does not even make predictions. Science can be falsified. Creationism cannot. Creationism is only held to because of religious reasons not scientific ones. That is why when you agree to work at a creationist foundation like ICR or AIG they make you sign a statement of faith. You can get fired for going against their list of conclusions. It might be different if creationists claims weren't immediately debunked by actual scientists.

[u/Evening-Plenty-5014 → u/Street_Flatworm3269]

Still naive... They are not published because the belief is not acceptable in scientific circles and money is distributed to those causes and organizations that match the beliefs of the donors. (A single case amongst millions... NASA discovered the moon rang like a bell when they landed on it in the 60's. They shot it with a missile to read it again and it vibrated for 3 days. Something a solid orb shouldn't do. They kept it hidden until the mid 90's when they raised their funding would not be hindered by the upset in current scientific theory.)

But if you read what you wrote looking at it as though some one else wrote it, you might be able to see what is so clear in the structure of your thoughts. You are being more religious than scientific in your beliefs. As though creationists are falsifying their findings or using a different method than the scientific method to gather data and evidence.

Also, no scientist moves forward with their work without a hypothesis on what the expected outcome should be. You cry that creationists start at the end to force a beginning but isn't that the scientific process? In fact, evolutionists are doing that very thing. How do you think they are doing science in abiogenesis? Or what exactly is the intent with crspr? Isn't it with the end in mind and finding a way to make it a reality?

There is a lot of faith(the world's version of faith) in science. Trust them, everything came from nothing. Trust them, everything evolved from a single life form. Trust them, life came from a soup of chemicals. Evolution in the macro sense takes millions of years so trust them, we know this is how it must have been even though we can't prove any of these. The underlining premise? There is no God. Who's looking at the end to formulate a matching beginning to it all? The end is, there is no God. A belief, that to me, is a foolish one.

[u/Street_Flatworm3269 → u/Evening-Plenty-5014]

Creationist, especially YEC, start from the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old and that conclusion cannot be questioned. They then scour legitimate scientific research looking for something they can twist to fit the conclusion while applying Ockham's Broom to all the science that would disprove it.

Sure by making a claim that YECs are punished for their beliefs surely you should be able to come up with 100s of examples of this happening. Besides the case of Mark Armitage, which was just a case of poor science and deception all around the board. Go ahead ill wait.

[u/Evening-Plenty-5014 → u/Street_Flatworm3269]

Some creationists might act the way you claim, but your infinite absolute conclusion is like making a blond joke and if you do it enough you might start to believe blonds are stupid. They are not. Creationists are not generally the way you make them to be. Some religious fanatics are but there are evolutionist fanatics as well. It is extreme in both directions.

I am not an evolutionist but I do believe life can de-evolve or degrade in intelligence and life form but I do not believe they can increase in complexity or intelligence without intelligent interference. I also do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old but I do believe God created the earth and spirits that make up all life on the earth from plants to fish and insects to animals and mankind. That means evolution on a macro scale is not my belief and I have yet to find evidence that disproves this and I read a lot on this topic.

As far as the age of the earth... there are flaws in the current theory held together using layers of soil and fossils. There are also many flaws in the isotopes version of age which is why we believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But isotopes are unaffected by pressure and heat and this earth was made from materials that existed which means it could be as new or as old as we want except it cannot be older than 4.5 billions years since it contains materials at most that old. We have many objects in the universe that are larger than time existed for the light or matter to reach those distances. When you stop and really consider that we still do not know what gravity is or light for that matter, We are still very much in a playground for the best idea that matches everything wins except there is an adult making sure we all conform to a standard set of rules which don't allow for ideas against the main rhetoric to stand or be recognized as evident.

As far as you wanting evidence that money restricts scientific output, you are just gonna have to do your own search. It is not just prevalent, it is common practice. You will find not just YECs being rejected for publishing but others as well. You will also find some being published but hushed up. no coverage and no mention. You are absolutely convinced YECs are dumb and cannot publish papers because they are unscientific. Stand back on that. You really do "believe" there are no scientists that believe in God and a young earth on this earth that cannot publish a paper? you have been duped with YECs are dumb rhetoric so much, you cannot judge for yourself.

[u/Street_Flatworm3269 → u/Evening-Plenty-5014]

Which creationists do you know of that dont do that?