Creationists, what do you consider to be THE BEST example of evidence which shows evolution has not happened? [Spirituality & Religion]

@SteelHands

[quote]since Darwin's original all from one species model collapsed.[/quote]

That's not true though. Evolution still holds that everything eventually evolved from a common ancestor.

But is your contention that updating [i]how [/i]evolution occurs is counter evidence to the fact that it has?

@Pikachu No. The Cambrian multivector that Darwin was a bit troubled by when he first wrote the dissertation and thought that future digs would turn up the rest to flesh out the eonic era massive deficits of samples hasn't been borne out, with 500% more specie discoveries and all areas, climates, depths, etc.

I may as well also mention the evidence in the 100 thousand or so various evolutionary computations that predict a certain time window of gene replacement diffusions through a dominant specie to it's next taxonomic example becoming dominant. The broad estimates range from a million to several million.

And the latest sonic reads of the sedimentary evidence for a super quake and global flood because of the differing thickness of the continental and oceanic planetary crust. Causative event, unknown, as yet.

You should start reading. You have a ferw decades worth of catch up to do if you are going to begin debating anyone who is informed.

Anyone who trolls this reply will be summarily blocked.

@SteelHands

I don't mean to offend but it seems a bit like you're trying to blind with science.

Let's take it one step at a time.
First let's begin with "The Cambrian multivector" and why you feel it disproves/presents a problem for evolution.

@Pikachu Simple Math. 12 million years they all show up. 15 million years nearly every one disappears. Missing millions of years for one, much less that many evolved taxonomic dominances never mind the fact that it only in the most distanced ways connects to current planetary specie.

Never mind sapien hominid human for cripers!! Not a hominid in the bunch.

Takle that and I'll be happy to pich another cold glass of water on ye, mister sciency shmiency guy. lol

@SteelHands

Are you talking about the Cambrian radiation?
We can talk about that, i just want to make sure we're both talking about the same thing before i write a bunch of stuff lol

@Pikachu Cross examine someone less inclined to allow you to rewrite dictionaries. I will stand my verbal ground.

@SteelHands

It's ok. You came in swinging but i'm not looking for a fight.
Just a discussion and maybe a debate.

So i take it from that, that we are talking about the Cambrian Radiation.
Can you clarify your point for me? Sorry that i'm not grasping it fully.
What do you feel is the issue presented by the Cambrian Radiation? Is it the "sudden" appearance of the many forms represented in the fossil record?

@SteelHands

Ok i think i've got this right. You're holding up the Cambrian Radiation as counter evidence to evolution because the creatures appear suddenly and disappear without leaving behind descendants in later layers of the fossil record.

Is that accurate?
Do please correct me if i'm wrong.

@Pikachu If that is how you interpret all the evidence I can understand now why you are confused. My comment added in several decades of supercomputer modeling on bias free dna vectoring, geological alteration to the planet, and subspecie dipersals without any sign of a non adaptational mutatuion within, not notably vectored away from it's typical variant.

Now you should not have that much problem understanding what I am writing here. You threatened a long and providential reply yet you think you think for me enough to incorrectly reiterate my sentences.

Even someone mildly educated should know better than to pull a shenannigan like that.

@SteelHands

I'm really just trying to make sure we're communicating clearly although i begin to sense that you do not share this intention lol.

I don't know if this is a rhetorical ploy or a genuine inability to communicate without jargon and in more layman terms but either way, let's do our best.

Was what i described above on of your examples of counter evidence to evolution or was it not?
If not, can you describe as you would to someone who you want to understand and not best.
Thanks🙂

I'm not trying to be obtuse, i just am lol

@Pikachu Best? You needn't feel so.

It's not logical to assume any derivisions, parsing, or lay terminological vexations, berations or exculpations matter at the core of our discourse was espoused in anything that I said.

I merely made mention of a few things that any casual reader may encompass in their awareness of these matters. Sir Sinclair certainly had no less a liberal view and rhetoric.

The main question for me isn't how the average person may perceive any of this. Regarding curiosity of what Charlie may have thunk if he were still alive today.

Considering the increases in technology and unearthed information. I never thought of him in his time as a hack. Were he to not alter his view now, however. Perhaps.

@SteelHands

lol you're trying a bit too hard there, bud. A little cringe.

So the Cambrian radiation is a problem for evolution because....?

@Pikachu Are you trolling me now?

@SteelHands You’re trying waaaay too hard to sound smart dude

@SteelHands

No, just trying to get you to stop playing games😉

So the Cambrian radiation is a problem for evolution because....?

@Pikachu You are pulling a semantic trick either pretending you know too little or hoping that my comment is mere bluster.

Either way you look like what you are. A science fact denier.

@SteelHands

I swear i'm just as ignorant as i sound lol.
But yes, i do admit that your resistance to actually engage meaningfully does make me suspicious that your strength lays more in a thesaurus than an understanding of the topic.

Just explain your argument as you would to a child. I won't take offense🙂

@SteelHands "the differing thickness of the continental and oceanic planetary crust. Causative event, unknown, as yet”

Actually it’s well understood, and you might gain some clarity of thought by reading up on Divergent (constructive) plate boundaries.
Spreading plate boundary rifts allow hot mantle to rise. The new crust is dense so is low lying and becomes flooded by water.
This is opposite to what happens with convergent plate boundaries. The denser oceanic crust is subducted beneath the less dense continental crust and dragged down to the mantle. This triggers earthquakes and volcanoes (like the Pacific Rim), and results in a chain of mountains like the Rockies or the Himalayas

1. I'm not here to study stagnant rudimentary conventional awareness.

2. You should not have cherry picked my statement and omitted the relevant prefix to the statement.

3. I said I wasn't going to sit for trolling, and I don't yet think you are however you are quoting old information.

So we understand each other I will thank you for your input, though it adds nothing to the latest studies I have been reading about.

I'll caution you not to try interrogating me and bringing up the tiny scrap of accredited journals holding 50% of research papers in it's fist. Politicized federally contracted science gets us no where and often takes us in completely false directions.

Thank's again @bystander

@SteelHands If you’re referring to "the latest sonic reads of the sedimentary evidence” (whatever you mean by that), sedimentation is unrelated to plate tectonics, and accordingly is not germane to statements about continental and oceanic crusts.

@bystander It is. Slow moving plate techtonics is incomplete and fails to include the formation of various elements along the edges of the continental plates.

Sedimentation deposits are highly relevant according to the best and newest geophsical models.

Science didn't end in the 20th century.

The real sciences go on. Just like they did when the pope tried keeping people in the dark.

@SteelHands

The real science sure does keep landing on evolution though.🤷‍♀️

@Pikachu Science doesn't consist of real vs non real.

Completely settled science is just another phrase for anti-science.

Professional self preservation by those that suppress new evidence. Prevent publication for years of valid findings.

Political opportunists has been research parrots, a handful of dubiously monopolized peer reviewers, a monolith of progress deniers, human and God hating fear mongerers.

@SteelHands

[quote]Completely settled science is just another phrase for anti-science.
[/quote]

Not really.
The fact that microorganisms cause much of human disease is settled science.
I don't think you'd disagree with that since you've no religious motivation to do so.
Similarly, it's completely settled that evolution happened. Exactly how it happens continues to be an area of study and debate.

At this point you have to invoke a global conspiracy if you want to pretend that the scientific findings from a myriad of fields have NOT converged on evolution.

@Pikachu I needn't prove the informational obfuscation conspiracy.

The conspiracy itself announces it. Science consensus equals science peer pressure. At no place time or way is this actual science. So spare me the confident insults.

Regarding diseases. Treating symptoms isn't always addressing the underlying illness, though it does often work.

Causes? Myriad are the forms.

Microorganisms are disease contributors, as are toxins, injuries and electromagnetic radiation, poor diet, lack of exercise, even atmospheric deprevations.

Other problems can be lack of sufficient rest, psychosomatic reactions, mental stressors, insect and vermin infestation. Overindulgences of many other life connected things.

Yall have a good weekend. L8tr g8tr.