An important aspect of science is being open to and even seeking out that which might disprove your theory.

@BibleData

[quote]Evolutionists never seem to get that evidence is subjective. Just because you present me with data doesn't mean I accept it as evidence as you would[/quote]

Actually i agree with you there. And it's not that i expect you to accept the evidence that i present for evolution.
I expect you to be able to better account for that evidence using creationism or, failing that, to be able to argue reasonable grounds upon which the evidence presented for evolution is insufficient to support the case.
I understand that people often feel threatened when challenged to thoughtfully dispute something with which they disagree or support that which they assume to be true.

[quote]There are many different translations, denominations, pagan inspired traditions etc. I have to investigate thoroughly the one I and on one else think is accurate.
[/quote]

So why are you asking me if you trust god or science? You know that scripture as recorded by man is not necessarily the pristine word of god.
lol i'm literally asking you to investigate thoroughly the matter at hand.

[quote]Reality is fluid, it evolves as we create it[/quote]

Jump off a building in full belief that you won't fall and then tell me how fluid reality is.
No one actually believes that when forced to put it in practical terms.
But maybe you can give me an example of what you think is subjective reality.

[quote]What is more difficult for you to realistically comprehend is that you and science may be wrong as well[/quote]

I think you're falling into the same mistake i did earlier.
You are assuming that i cannot comprehend that science and my conclusions based thereon can be wrong when you have given me no reason to doubt them.

[quote] It's far more likely that we are both wrong, [/quote]

No. That's a coward's way out.
Neither of our worldviews must be totally accurate (it would be shocking if they were) for one or the other to [i]better[/i] account for and predict for what will be found in the world around us.
It can be faith based or it can be based in science but one of them will more accurately model the real world.
There's no way around that.

[quote]It's just confirmation bias.
[/quote]

Confirmation bias is accepting that which conforms to your worldview and denying that which disconfirms it.
I'm not asking you to confirm my worldview, i'm challenging you to dispute it.
Am i mistaken or are you consistently backing away from actually making your case in specific, evidential terms?

[quote]What do you think?[/quote]

I think i'd appreciate it if you gave me a straight answer to a straight question.
I'd like to actually make a case for my worldview using evidence.
If you feel you can meet me in that arena then i'd like to begin.
If you feel that is not within our ability or interest then i'd like to know that too.

So one final time:
[b][i]If i present you with evidence for evolution, would you engage with that evidence or would you throw your hands up in admitted ignorance of the science and leave it at "agree to disagree"?[/i][/b]

@Pikachu [quote]I expect you to be able to better account for that evidence using creationism or, failing that, to be able to argue reasonable grounds upon which the evidence presented for evolution is insufficient to support the case.[/quote]

Why? I'm not a scientist.

[quote]So why are you asking me if you trust god or science? [/quote]

Was I? I don't think so. I trust Jehovah. I don't trust science, theology, religion or mankind in general. Including myself.

[quote]You know that scripture as recorded by man is not necessarily the pristine word of god.[/quote]

Correct. The Bible and it's translations are fallible.

[quote]lol i'm literally asking you to investigate thoroughly the matter at hand.[/quote]

And you understand that your beliefs may be as wrong to me as mine are to you? Or do you think science is somehow superior? Keeping mind, apples and oranges.

[quote]Jump off a building in full belief that you won't fall and then tell me how fluid reality is.
No one actually believes that when forced to put it in practical terms.
But maybe you can give me an example of what you think is subjective reality.[/quote]

You make too many assumptions for reality to be completely objective. Your example, for starters. Maybe the building is only one story, in which case I can tell you I've jumped it. Or maybe I have a parachute or one of those cool gliding outfits, or a stunt bag waiting at the bottom, a jet pack or maybe there's a portion of the building out of your sight which is only a few feet down.

Subjective reality is a variation in our realities. Time, geography, culture, development etc.

[quote]You are assuming that i cannot comprehend that science and my conclusions based thereon can be wrong when you have given me no reason to doubt them.[/quote]

You have no reason to doubt them? If that is really so it's merely irrational overconfidence.

[quote]I'm not asking you to confirm my worldview, i'm challenging you to dispute it.[/quote]

And I keep trying to explain to you that I am no more qualified to dispute yours than you are mine.

@BibleData

lol ok. So for whatever reason you really don't want to answer that question head on but i think the answer is fairly obvious anyway.
You're no scientist as you say. Which is fine. Neither am i...but it seems to me that you're using that as a preemptive defense against having to be exposed to and reconcile evidence for evolution which conflicts with your worldview.

[quote]You have no reason to doubt them? If that is really so it's merely irrational overconfidence.
[/quote]

Do you feel you have, in our interaction here given me reason to doubt the evidence that evolution has occurred?
I am confident that the evidence shows descent with modification and common ancestry. There's nothing irrational about following evidence. It's just that evolution is so well supported that while new evidence could potentially overturn it the likelihood is similar to discovering that actually the sun orbits the Earth.
This isn't irrational overconfidence...it's just regular confidence lol

[quote]. Or maybe I have a parachute or one of those cool gliding outfits[/quote]

We're both still living in the same reality where you either have a parachute or you do not.
That's not subjective reality. It's just knowing what is true about the world around you. You can be wrong about the world around you but reality remains objective.
So yeah, either evolution has happened or it has not.

Remember what the subject of this thread is? Show me evidence that you feel demonstrates that evolution did not or could not happen.
So if you tell me apples only produce apples and i try to explain populations or get you to explain the mechanism by which you think life stops diversifying or why DNA shows relatedness in one instance but not another.... and you only respond with "I'm not a scientist" then can you really say that you've answered the challenge set out in the original question?

[quote]And I keep trying to explain to you that I am no more qualified to dispute yours than you are mine.
[/quote]

Then, my dude...[i]what in god's name are you doing in this thread?[/i] lol

@BibleData

I don't want to delete my previous response because i don't want to appear dishonest.
But we're getting too much into the weeds and i'd rather you respond to this post than continue the ever lengthening chain which will result from the previous one lol

This is getting too cumbersome. I understand that a large part of your resistance is due to your unfamiliarity with the terminology and what the theory of evolution actually is so just want to drill down on a couple key questions that don't rely on you understanding the body of evidence:

1) Since you accept that life can diversify over successive generations, what justification do you make for the idea that life [i]stops[/i] changing at a certain point?
If diversifying populations are separated, what prevents them from changing so dramatically over time that they are as dissimilar as dogs and cats?

2) If you reject the fossil record as evidence of evolution, how do you account for it under the idea of created "kinds"?
Example: Why do certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds (fused synsacrum, perforated acetabulum, semi-lunate carpel etc) when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?
Is that better explained by common ancestry or created kinds?

3) Do you accept genetic comparison of the sort we use to determine paternity to have a high confidence of reliability or do you consider it to be mostly unreliable?

Here's the thing, my dude. There are a number of specific arguments that preclude created kinds and favour evolution which i have not bothered to articulate for fear of your hatred of "jargon".
But if you have the interest and the honesty to expose yourself to them, i think you'll find it very challenging to propose an explanation from creation that is superior to the one given by descent with modification.

Just say the word and we can get into actual examples. Are you brave enough to test your worldview?

@Pikachu I don't think deleting your post would be dishonest, it would just mean you changed your mind or didn't like the post for some reason.

I don't think I have resistance to evolution. Let me explain. When I'm discussing or debating the Bible my objective is never to get the person to accept the Bible, it's to inform them so they comprehend and can think for themselves. So I never answer by quoting scripture as if by rote or using words that are specific to religion. In fact just seeing someone doing that puts me off. The reason is it requires memorization rather than thought. I never intentionally memorize scripture. Most people want more than anything to fit into a group. When you know specific terminology it may be that you are familiar with the subject as a part of a group but not necessarily the meaning. So, often I try to get evolutionists to teach me evolution and they become impatient when I don't accept the terminology without question. They don't even explain terms. Either because they don't understand them themselves or because they don't want you to be informed they just want you to accept evolution.

I want you to inform me about evolution. Don't worry about whether or not I accept it. I want to know the evidence as you do. Familiarity with the terminology will follow. I'm willing to do that to get to know viewpoints and beliefs different than my own. I'm not interested in doing it on my own because I have very little interest in the subject other than exploring different beliefs. If they want me to just be a part of a group without thinking chances are the religion - in this case evolution - is just and ideology. A worldview. To me it means they just want me to join their group so they can control the world they live in. Step in line, don't ask questions, think like us (not at all). This is most common with religious or educated people. It becomes the most important part of the process.

[quote]1) Since you accept that life can diversify over successive generations, what justification do you make for the idea that life stops changing at a certain point?[/quote]

If by "diversify over successive generations" you mean to change, then my justification is that they wouldn't need to be labeled as something other than what they started out as if it were not for the labeling or categorization itself. In nature, which science is supposed to observe, we don't see that. Whenever anyone has ever told me "look! it's happening right here!" like with germs or the pepper moth or skulls or behavior patterns or similarities in creation etc. it never is something becoming something else outside of it's nature (caterpillar/butterfly), or it is a mutant that doesn't proliferate (fruit fly).

Let's say a human is born without arms or with a 13 inch long tail. Are they still human and at what point would they no longer be human? Even if they were, for whatever reason, more adapted to their environment over time they would still be human. They may be called something else or classified, categorized or labeled something else but they wouldn't be. If their arms were no longer necessary in a specific environment and millions of years from now they find the useless skeletal remnants they are still human. When would they give birth to a human without arms? When they mated with another without arms? Why would that insure their offspring not having arms? Interesting questions but irrelevant to their non-human status.

When someone tells me that evolution trumps the Bible my first inclination is to ask why?

[quote]If diversifying populations are separated, what prevents them from changing so dramatically over time that they are as dissimilar as dogs and cats?[/quote]

You can't fairly ask me that question because it isn't within the realm of my study. It would be like me asking you "If all angels aren't the same then what is the difference between cherubs, seraphs and angels?" You don't care, right? You don't know, right? That doesn't make my Bible beliefs right. You could google it and get all sorts of scholarly answers which are based upon tradition and not scripturally supported and that isn't going to help you. I could tear that to pieces blindfolded.

Well, I should be able to explain why science sees it the way they do? No. I don't have to explain your science to you any more than you have to explain my spirituality to me. Now, in debate that would differ to some extent. I trust you don't think this a debate. I don't know evolution enough to debate it. I also don't know Buddhism, Hinduism or even the apostate Christian trinity enough to debate them well. We don't have to justify that. To explain it I would say those things are too complicated to engage in such vulgar displays (debate) and it isn't necessary when the reasoning for not accepting them is probably very simple.

However, just because I don't accept something, like Buddhism, the Trinity or Evolution, doesn't mean I perceive it as competition, a threat, something to be dismissed or done away with. I don't think prayer or creationism should be in public schools. I don't care that evolution is taught there. If it is desired to do away with religion by means of education in science I would say that is exactly what God has purposed and there's nothing I would do to stand in the way.

To speculatively answer your question from my own anecdotal perspective I would ask if it mutates is it something other than what it started out as and can it proliferate? What would it proliferate with? It always boils down to is it or is it not something other than what it was? The answer has never been yes. So, what examples could you show me and could you distinguish what it's Biblical kind is? I couldn't. I have no idea.

[quote]2) If you reject the fossil record as evidence of evolution, how do you account for it under the idea of created "kinds"?
Example: Why do certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds (fused synsacrum, perforated acetabulum, semi-lunate carpel etc) when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?
Is that better explained by common ancestry or created kinds?[/quote]

I have no idea. You are asking me to teach you the Bible with science? Because I've never been interested in science. But I would ask you what makes you think just because there are similarities that they are a different kind? What makes you think that your idea of a kind is in line with the Biblical? Just that we see them as such? Because we call them feline and canine? If the Biblical answer is can they produce according to their own kind or can they not then it seems to me that that is the question.

[quote]3) Do you accept genetic comparison of the sort we use to determine paternity to have a high confidence of reliability or do you consider it to be mostly unreliable?[/quote]

Everything I've ever been told, about everything, is pretty much unreliable. That goes for everything I've ever thought or believed as well. Knowledge is an evolutionary process. But when my thinking changes it's still thinking.

[quote]But if you have the interest and the honesty to expose yourself to them, i think you'll find it very challenging to propose an explanation from creation that is superior to the one given by descent with modification.[/quote]

Again, you want me to explain science to you using creationism? That's silly. Can you explain miracles using science?

[quote]Just say the word and we can get into actual examples. Are you brave enough to test your worldview?[/quote]

The question is do you have the patience to educate me on your worldview without thinking you have to destroy mine.

@BibleData

[quote]The question is do you have the patience to educate me on your worldview without thinking you have to destroy mine.[/quote]

Yes. Above all yes.
I'm here to explain my position until you at least understand it whether or not you can mount a good rebuttal or whether or not you come to agree with me.

[quote]or didn't like the post for some reason.[/quote]

lol yes. The reason being we we're straying very far from concrete evidence and into areas that would require you to understand a lot more background information.

[quote]o I never answer by quoting scripture as if by rote or using words that are specific to religion[/quote]

Yeah i appreciate that actually. It's begging the question and it's something the faithful tend to do instinctively without apparent understanding how meaningless it is to those who don't share their faith.

[quote]you want me to explain science to you using creationism?[/quote]

Yes.
If you think creationism accurately represents the world then you should be able to explain observed natural processes using creationism as a foundation. That's not something creation is very useful for which is telling.

[quote]They may be called something else or classified, categorized or labeled something else but they wouldn't be[/quote]

You're actually hitting on an important aspect of phylogeny there. You don't every escape your genetic heritage.
You'll never stop being a eukaryote or a vertebrate or a mammal.
So let me turn that question back on you. If a human has all the characteristics of a mammal, at which point do they stop being a mammal just because they have additional characteristics?
If a human has all the characteristics of an ape, at which point do they stop being an ape just because they have additional characteristics specific to them?
Another example: If birds have all the characteristics of dinosaurs, at which point do they stop being dinosaurs just because they have additional characteristics that are unique to birds?

[quote]When someone tells me that evolution trumps the Bible my first inclination is to ask why?
[/quote]
Because evolution can be used to [i]predict[/i]. Evolution allows us to predict what should exist in the world before we discover that it indeed does.
The Bible has no predictive power.

[quote]You can't fairly ask me that question because it isn't within the realm of my study.[/quote]

I can and should ask you than question and if you can't answer it then you should endeavor to do so.
You keep asking the question and i keep trying to get you to understand that you don't have an answer but you keep backing away and refusing to think about why you don't have an answer. Or so it seems to me.

You've repeatedly dismissed the idea that life can evolve beyond the Biblical "kinds".
Well...why not? What's stopping life from changing indefinitely over successive generations under different selective pressures?

[quote]It would be like me asking you "If all angels aren't the same then what is the difference between cherubs, seraphs and angels?[/quote]

Nope. Because all classes of angles are created and there is no identified and observed mechanism by which they change over time. This cannot be said for nature.

[quote] if it mutates is it something other than what it started out as and can it proliferate? What would it proliferate with[/quote]

This is where you must understand that evolution does not occur on the individual level but at the population level.
The mutated offspring will be almost entirely the same as the parent and as such will be able to breed with the general population. But if the mutation has an adaptive advantage then it will have more reproductive success than its cohort. It will have more children than its competitors and its offspring will be more likely to carry that advantage and therefore more likely to reproduce more often as well. That is how an adaptation becomes fixed in a population.
Now imagine that one population of animals is separated by a flood which sequesters one group on an island.
Both of those populations will continue producing mutated offspring and under the different environmental conditions, different mutations will confer an advantage for different reasons in different ways.
Over time, those divergent trajectories of adaptation will produce differences which becomes more and more fundamental until these two estranged populations can no longer successfully reproduce which each other even if they are re-introduced.
That is a natural progression of the way we observe life in the real world. What reason do you have reject that process and at which point do you reason it would stop?

[quote]I have no idea. You are asking me to teach you the Bible with science? Because I've never been interested in science[/quote]

And isn't that sort of telling? When you're only using the the Bible to understand these natural observations, you're left with "no idea".
But don't just throw your hands up and give up.
Using your knowledge of the Bible, give me your best guess at why certain branches of dinosauria have the same features that are unique among all animals only to themselves and birds when birds are ostensibly a different "Kind" that lives in a very different way?

[quote]Everything I've ever been told, about everything, is pretty much unreliable[/quote]

Actually, i'd like to see you answer this question more specifically because we are discussing a specific concept.
I'll make it simple: Do you think paternity tests are generally reliable or generally unreliable?

@hartfire yes, for a very long time people believed that there was no preservation of aquired traits but recently people are coming back to this concept, partially because of epigenetics but also some addaptations seem to apear much faster that what would be required with regular natural selection. natural selection implies a difference in the ratio of offsprings that survive and have offsprings. for example around chernobyl you find animals and plants who are resistant to radiation and this happened much faster than would be expected. its doubtful that all animals died except the ones who were resistant and all the ones we see now would be offsprings of those, which would be how traditions natural selection would aproach the question.

@Pikachu yeah and then they come up with the idea that god created humans in his image.😂 the reality is its easier to imagine a god which is like us: violent, intolerent, sometimes loving and sometimes hateful, with a giant ego (needs to be worshiped and respected OR ELSE ☠️ )😂

@reflectingmonkey Agreed. That survival of some of animals near Chernobyl is classic evolution by natural selection of the fittest.
The theory is more developed and complex now. For instance, competition is not the only driver. The principle of cooperation can also improve chances of survival - hence the development of immune responses, social species, familial bonding, altruism, symbiotic species and so on.
It's not "chance"; it's cause and effect.

@BritishFailedAesthetic

True enough.

@Pikachu Another key point- they also need to do charity. Like the church me and my wife go to do alot of community work, do a food bank and have lunches for parents of neurodivergent children to socialise with others.

And no there is no forced gospel presentation first- God's love is unconditional.

@BritishFailedAesthetic

Seems to me that god's love is the very definition of conditional but i don't want to get into that here because that is not the subject of this thread lol.

@Dolimyte

Humans ftw! Woo woo woo!🤘

@SW-User

I'm an arborist

@Pikachu How lovely! Something wonderful about working with trees.

And dangerous!
Man - the accidents that can happen when the tree's internal growth is twisted, or some hidden weakness is suddenly exposed by a chainsaw... :/

@hartfire

It is for sure a dangerous job. Had a close call or two. But i love working with trees and it keeps you on your toes lol