Would you care if a Christian didn’t accept the existence of baryons? Or doubted the Bohr Model (yes I know but I’m just giving examples). Why is it evolution is some kind of yardstick ?
Silly comparison. Is there some dogma that refers to baryons? No. Evolution is A yardstick, but not the only one. And you are asking the wrong person, anyway. You should be asking the religious nutball why he accepts all of science, save for evolution.
I'm not speaking to you because you have sh*t for brains. I'm pointing it out to others who have the intelligence to understand like DOTR..
Baryons are observational science. Evolution isn't a yardstick, it's a theory. The only thing it measures is against itself. Today, evolutionary science is based on not accepting God, the supernatural and the Bible because it's considered religion. The only supernatural we believe in is Genesis or origins. We do not believe in ghosts or mediums and the like. If you really were able to discuss evolution, then we'd have a better discussion.
I've said it many times because evolution is 1) more a religion than science and is based on "faith" that assumptions of radiometric dating is correct and that evolutionary change happens over long time, based on a family tree and common ancestor, and mutations and natural selection. The creation scientists are actually using science except their theories are based on what the Bible tells them. I've also said that we have the same evidence. Those are facts. The difference is we filter it differently.
What do I accept about evolution? I accept natural selection or microevolution. What doesn't happen is macroevolution. You believe it because of historical science and belief in common ancestry or descent with modification.
Those for theory of evolution believe in this:
Key points:
- Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:
- Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
- Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
- Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
- Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
- Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
Instead, creation scientists find that God reused some of the same molecular parts such as DNA in his creation. Similar location refers to distribution from a specific area in the Middle East and through actual human ancestors. That's why one gets the similarities. What we don't believe is the fossil evidence. That's historical science based on erroneous methods. We also know how something like DNA cannot form by itself. It's one of the examples of how complex molecules are formed into a design with intelligence behind it. No amount of randomness will produce something like it. In other words, it doesn't just happen in nature from amino acids. That said, we know that it's at the molecular level. Thus, we would be able to create synthetic DNA and this is what has happened. We know we can create synthetic diamonds at the molecular level. What we will never be able to create is gold, an atomic element. Coinicidentally, a divine element. We won't be able the create G, T, C and A bases.
Evolutionists think they have "created" some new species, but they haven't. The still won't be able to create at the atomic level of DNA bases. God has prevented humans from creating at the atomic level. How many times have I said that we appreciate the beauty of the design behind it by God? All of these things were meant for us to discover and marvel at his handiwork. Instead, we give credit to ourselves. It's like we stole the technology behind it and hand out the awards to those who use it first. All of these things, creation scientists can do, but they've been eliminated from the scientific community. How fair is that when they know more about real science than their counterparts? Thus, today we are building our own research centers and scientific brand. Eventually, I see two competing scientific groups and two foundations of scientific learning and thought. The creation scientists are behind, but they will catch up quickly because we have the Bible and private donors.
Science just gives us reason to appreciate the work of God more. It doesn't create God or faith for us. That's already in place due to our own doing and it will lead us to greater accomplishments than those of atheist scientists.
