Evolution? How?

Any evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution, can also be interpreted as supporting creation. There is no evidence that 'only evolution explains.'

real life, on Sunday, continued his oft repeated spiel that states

Quote:

Any evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution, can also be interpreted as supporting creation. There is no evidence that 'only evolution explains.'

Can you point to any such evidence that supports creation. youve said this a number of times to try to coopt scientific evidence but, as usual, Im dubious that you know what your saying.

Howa bout even one ferinstance?

Or looked at another way, any evidence can be interpreted anyway anyone wants, but the presenting of an interpretation in and of itself in no way suggests any level of plausibility or rationality or congruence with the facts.

Why?

Because in order for an interpretation to have plausibility or rationality, it naturally must fit the facts and it naturally must be plausible and rational. Christianity is neither plausible nor rational nor fits the facts of evolution.

Christianity is not even as plausible, rational and fitting of the facts as:
I blinked the entire universe into existence, in its totality, in one timeless moment.

farmerman wrote:

real life, on Sunday, continued his oft repeated spiel that states

Quote:

Any evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution, can also be interpreted as supporting creation. There is no evidence that 'only evolution explains.'

Can you point to any such evidence that supports creation. youve said this a number of times to try to coopt scientific evidence but, as usual, Im dubious that you know what your saying.

Howa bout even one ferinstance?

Let's look at the recently discussed Tiktaalik.

Is there any evidence which precludes the possibility that Tiktaalik was created just as it was? None whatever. There is nothing that demands only an evolutionary interpretation and no other.

In fact, some of the species that are supposed to form the line of ancestry prior to, and the line of descendants after Tiktaalik are found at great distances from the site of the Tiktaalik find. We're talking 'halfway around the world' far away.

Inferring a daisy chain of events that circles the globe may make a great story, but most species are found in somewhat localized environments. That is, not global.

Very few species are so widespread as to be found all around the world.

Therefore, the geographic challenges of the commonly held evolutionary ancestry story are yet another factor that make it unlikely.

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

real life, on Sunday, continued his oft repeated spiel that states

Quote:

Any evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution, can also be interpreted as supporting creation. There is no evidence that 'only evolution explains.'

Can you point to any such evidence that supports creation. youve said this a number of times to try to coopt scientific evidence but, as usual, Im dubious that you know what your saying.

Howa bout even one ferinstance?

Let's look at the recently discussed Tiktaalik.

Is there any evidence which precludes the possibility that Tiktaalik was created just as it was? None whatever. There is nothing that demands only an evolutionary interpretation and no other.

In fact, some of the species that are supposed to form the line of ancestry prior to, and the line of descendants after Tiktaalik are found at great distances from the site of the Tiktaalik find. We're talking 'halfway around the world' far away.

Inferring a daisy chain of events that circles the globe may make a great story, but most species are found in somewhat localized environments. That is, not global.

Very few species are so widespread as to be found all around the world.

Therefore, the geographic challenges of the commonly held evolutionary ancestry story are yet another factor that make it unlikely.

What did the world look like back when Tiktaalik was playing in the shallows? Halfway around the world now may have been a hop and a skip back then. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/nam.html

It's possible. But you can't play that card time after time.

You can't invoke tectonics again and again to explain why the daisy chain of 'evolutionary evidence' skips all over the world.

So use your 'wild card' wisely.

Is there anything about Tiktaalik which demands only an evolutionary interpretation and no other?

Any thing at all which precludes the possibility that Tiktaalik was created just as it was?

real life wrote:

It's possible. But you can't play that card time after time.

You can't invoke tectonics again and again to explain why the daisy chain of 'evolutionary evidence' skips all over the world.

So use your 'wild card' wisely.

Is there anything about Tiktaalik which demands only an evolutionary interpretation and no other?

Any thing at all which precludes the possibility that Tiktaalik was created just as it was?

As I told you before, once you chant your mantra of "god did it", we are no longer discussing science, just your religious beliefs. And another good try at misdirection, because I have never invoked "tectonics again and again". If you don't like the evidence, well then, that's your problem.
P

What evidence, Pauligirl? All you've given me is 'maybe the world looked like this'.

And I concurred 'maybe'

But this is not evidence. It's speculation.

The most hilarious thing about Real Life's "logic" is that even if evolution was completely wrong, that in no way gives any credence whatsoever to Creationism being in any way right.

Is there any evidence which precludes the possibility that Tiktaalik was created just as it was? None whatever. There is nothing that demands only an evolutionary interpretation and no other.