Presuppositions

Historical science is separate from observable science, person of the homosexual persuasion.

explain genetical similarities

oh wait you can't

Please state your position clearly so we can make fun of how stupid you actually are rather than a strawman.

Common traits mean common designer.

But for some reason, the common designer chose to limit the common design to mammals and use different designs for insects, for example...

>evolution is silly hehe
>everyone is strawmanning creationists
>historical science isn't real
>universality isn't real
>DNA determines phenotypes but different animals are determined by god

At some point you can put your arguments and "theories" out there for us to cross examine or you can keep up the act

>people are responding to the troll seriously

Can you retarded newfags PLEASE fuck off back to wherever you came from?!

This is good bait. Not great, but good.

>evolutionism is false
>scientific community ridicules creationists
>historical science is untestable and therefore an opinion evidence that could point to a million different conclusions
>universality is real, but you chose something else
>when creatures can't interbreed, they are separate groups
How am I supposed to trust a community that promotes atheism, moral relativism, racism, sexism, and nazism simultaneously?
Then there are those treacherous swine who threw their lot in with them, but still claim to be "Christians."

This

all scientific models are like that. truth is the domain of religion and philosophy. evolution could be 100% false, but it doesn't matter because the assumptions the model makes allow us to do useful shit.

gee whiz that was a lot of buzzwords

>So science is true because science is true?

Science is true because empiricism is true. You can deny empiricism of course, but then you end up in all sorts of weird places.

sage also

What the hell is wrong with you? We had this thread so many times already.

Similiar solutions reached through different paths to solve the same problems are evidence against a common designer though. A common designer would use the same optimal solution every time.

The invertebrate eye is very similiar to the vertebrate eye in terms of function and looks quite similiar as well but they are fundamentally different in structure and origin.

Basically this.
We have fossils dating back 3.5 billion years. Fossils are statistically unlikely to form but statistically there should be rough snapshots of species diversity in various time periods that are representative. And since these snapshots change significantly with species appearing and then vanishing from the fossil record that must be explained.

Then we have genetic similarity. Comparing various genes that are homologous between species the distance between them approximated by the molecular clock (The rate of mutation is constant) leads to a conclusion that the distance between species varies.

Add this to a bunch of other phenomena as well like Ring species and hybrids, etc and the modern evolutionary synthesis is the theory that explains these observations the best.

Go home Ken Ham.

Explain octopi eyes

To everyone in this thread:
What is the ultimate cause of the universe?
How did life originate?
Where did the dinosaurs come from?
Where are all the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers?
Since information is nonmaterial and in all observed cases always requires an intelligent sender, how did all the information contained in DNA originate?
How do we know that is true?
Has that ever been observed?
Are there any assumptions in what you are describing?

Creative common designer.

>goalposts moved successfully

kekd at this

if i explain octopi eyes, it wont make you listen user

look at eye development from lower molluscs to higher cephalopods

a better statement would be 'explain mantis shrimp eyes'

>actual question avoided by claiming goalpost-shifting successfully.

answersingenesis.org/kids/sea-animals/the-amazing-eyes-of-the-mantis-shrimp/
Evidence of a superior Designer.

>superior omnibenevolent designer
>only gives the good eyes to a single species

I think he's making a point for evolution here since an octopus eye is clear evidence against a common designer.

The germ layer that the eyes are derived from differs from vertebrate eyes, being entirely ectoderm.
The eye is everse, not inverse.
The photoreceptors are rhabdomeric, not ciliar.
The photoreceptor protein is an r-opsin, not a c-opsin.

And yet it fulfills the same purpose as the vertebrate eye and is very similiar.
There's even a lineage of preserved invertebrate eyes that would show how such a complex assembly could arise from less complex designs.

The Creative Commons havn't been around that long, don't be ridiculous.

ITT

How can creationists lack self-awareness this much?

How can you lack enough sense to know they're selling you snake oil, and calling it science?

Ain't it funny how the brain works?

How there are real grown ass men out there who genuinely believe such nonsense. Adults, wise of experience and age, that stubbornly refuse to understand the concept of scientific reasoning. People who actually take the time and effort to draw, color and publish these cartoons.

Ain't it curious how there are some whose philosophies have become so entrenched in trying to twist things in order to fit their deranged worldviews of fantasies and self-fulfilling narratives. UFOlogists, Flat-Eartherners, Climate Change deniers, Creationists, the list goes on. How they romanticize themselves and their delusions.

Truly these are not men, but children. And I am thankful that we have men brave enough to face the dead coldness of pure, brutish universal truths to pave the way towards a better understanding of the Universe.

Science is a harsh mistress. Those who insist on pursuing her truly are the bravest of minds, for she spits in the eye of fantasy.

>hello, I'm the cartoonist, I state my views calmly and clearly
>BGRLTRTG I'M THE OPPOSITION AND I'M TOTALLY RETARDED XDXDDDDDDDDDD

>HERPADOO I CANT INTO BASIC LOGIC DUHH
With all due respect, I don't think you're being fair to the intelligent designer of the comic.

...

...

...

...

I don't. The entire theory is baseless.

do you oppose the field of medicine with as much vigor? why not?

...

So anything that can't be observed can't be real?

God can't be seen
Therefore God can't be real?

But user, you can see Him everywhere. You just chose to deny it.

>baptists become panentheists when it's convenient
You're gonna burn in hell.

After you, good sir.

Only in Christian delusion land.

...

...

>god invented viruses that only exist to infect people
>god also invented flesh eating bacteria, fungal infections, and various parasites
if god made this world for man, why populate it with some many things that will obviously kill us?
Like, there's virtually no way those things existed in the garden of eden so they would have had to be created afterwards
And if god created new things to end man, why wouldn't he create new things to help us

And when exactly did god stop creating helpful/hurtful things
or is god not done creating things?

why doesn't god talk to us or show up anymore?
why does he let so many different people claim to speak his words in the name of injustice?
did god turn his back on us?

answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/why-did-god-make-viruses/
Unless thou art saved by the Son, the Father shall reject ye, but He beckons you to come to the Son.

> God sends himself to get tortured for a couple days
> this somehow makes up for the trillions tortured by him and people he "works through"

so what predictions does the creationist model make? what does it do? why does no petrochemical company in their right mind use a creationist model when investigating potential drilling or mining sites?

found this here

Unless god personally supervised every instance of genome replication and repair mutations were always going to happen and those can have a variety of effects ranging from good to bad to neutral depending on the mutation and the circumstances of the individual.

>a couple of people do some shit
>somehow all of mankind is at fault
And god knew this from the very beginning.He just created people to watch them suffer. Even if god existed, he would deserve nothing but contempt.

And when was this verified?

--->

>Can we take quantum mechanics seriously when it relies on a very specific worldview in order to function?
>Can we take classical physics seriously when it relies on a very specific worldview in order to function?
>Can we take organic chemistry seriously when it relies on a very specific worldview in order to function?

>relies on a very specific worldview
Reality is very specific.

Empricism and Deductive Analytics are better than fallacies and biases.

Most other "views" make use of fallacies and biases; most of which are proven to be deductively untrue, or are proven untrue through empirical analysis.

So we stick with what we can see and what we can deduce.
Sometimes this is flawed, but science is self-correcting.

We have:
- DNA
- Fossils
- Cousin species

What do you propose is better?
Do you have evidence?