It is one in the same. The distinction is made in science simply for scale. It is all part of the same theory. For example we can think of gravitational forces in our solar system vs. the gravitational forces of the entire galaxy. Same concept, just larger scales. I do believe we evolved from simple amino acids. As do the vast majority of biologists. You can put in whatever distinctions you like, it does not affect the science.
So your point is that your religion is right and mine is wrong? I mean to a certain degree I suppose we all believe our religion is right. But I do not dictate what other people should or should not believe about the bible. The fact that there are so many different sects is a testament to both how profound our religious text is and to how very interpretable it is.
There is no point in arguing this. It will just go in circles. I think my original point still stands. What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of experts in the field? What you think God meant in Genesis is your interpretation of it. It is not evidence against Evolution which is not a religious subject.
No offense my friend but you have a severe misunderstanding of how science works. I guess consensus is a tricky word. It can be good or bad. However in general consensus is how we progress. For example, prior to the general acceptance of germ theory people thought diseases were transmitted through "bad air", which as you could imagine probably had some evidence to it. However overtime the evidence mounted that it was actually more likely particles that we could not see. Believe it or not washing your hands between surgeries wasn't even a thing until germ theory came into prominence. Now we are taught in class rooms about bacteria. Most of us will never even see bacteria with our own eyes. But we accept it as truth because there is a scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is brought on by evidence. But their was a transition period where not everyone accepted germ theory, simply because the evidence was not compelling enough yet. Consensus may builds slowly and sometimes consensus is wrong. The scientific method and peer review (though it certainly isn't perfect) is the single greatest engine to build consensus in a rigorous manner. We can share ideas and critique each others views. Together we reach the more accurate explanation. It may not explain everything but it gets us moving in the right direction. So if creationists have so much evidence I suggest they get publishing. However the opposite is happening. Evolution has gained so much evidence that it is now the predominant theory "life", taught in every high school along side math, physics and chemistry.
" No offense my friend but you have a severe misunderstanding of how science works"
Hmm.. I sense Criterion's Rule starting to kick in... He must be a Prophet...
You sir, don't know me from Adam yet you feel like you can make baseless accusations about me
merely because I don't believe that I am an accidental Ape that evolved from a Worm like you do..
So, if I don't believe Opinions, Polls, Wishful speculations and Hopeful assumptions that means
that "I have a severe misunderstanding how science works??"
You have it BACKWARDS, I know FULLY WELL how "Science Works" The question I must now as
is... DO YOU??
I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain to you how Science ACTUALLY DOES WORK, but I can see
I was wrong.. In order to evaluate Science (What we KNOW or What is KNOWN) The EMPIRICAL Scientific
Method must be utilized (Otherwise we can hardly say we "KNOW" something now can we!)
Here, it is real Simple..
The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.
Notice the key words Observation and Experiment..
Now, please tell us how you hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to Man can TESTED using OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT Without a TIME MACHINE!!!!!
Now, if you want to change the Meaning of Science OR invent another word to satisfy your Emotional attachment
to the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor
for all, Go ahead, We can even use Latin words if it makes you feel better.. We can say
AESTIMO what we Guess..
COGITARE what we Think
UT SPERO What we Hope
But if you are going to sit there and tell this whole audience and all of the lurkers on here that Science (What is KNOWN) is determined by majority rules
or what most Scientists SAY that they believe or ANY OTHER process that ESCHEWS the Empirical Scientific Method you are barking up the wrong
tree because there are way too many smart people here INCLUDING REAL SCIENTISTS that WONT buy the fallacy that you are selling..
Sorry to have to tell you Mr Tassadar, you have been Brainwashed and Indoctrinated (Indeed the whole society has) into believing that Abiogenesis / Darwinism has anything to do with the truth,,,
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"