Hugh Ross

Yeah, but so do you.

I dunno about that. That shirt you're wearing looks like a blend. And I didn't see you at last night's "Biblical Literalists Against Two Crops in One Field" meeting - in fact, nobody showed at all, even though the flyers promised a good old-fashioned lesbian witch stoning. And I'm pretty sure I smell the characteristic fishyness of a shrimp cocktail on your breath.So I'm pretty sure you're picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to follow, too. Hey, don't get me wrong. It's a mystery to me, too, how someone can dismiss the entire Bible as a flawed document authored by flawed men, then claim to follow the teachings of Jesus. Sure, but how do you know Jesus taught those things, if the record of the Bible is not to be trusted? (And it's not.) What are you following if not potentially someone's fictional character "Jesus Christ"?Why call yourself a "Christian" and not a "Jedi"? Didn't Yoda have some good teachings, too?

Maybe you could start with: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descentand then, after you've read that, explain why you don't find it sufficient. If you need more we can Google Scholar it for you.

No, it's a link to "29+ evidences for evolution." You're supposed to follow the outline.I'm sorry that you didn't understand that you were being given a fairly substantial reading assignment, but you asked for the evidence for evolution that creationists were ignoring, and that's it - creationists, like you, are ignoring all that evidence. And more. At the link. Follow the outline. And?

And that's the evidence that creationists ignore. Which is what you asked for.Can you be more specific about the problem you're having, here? Because right now it seems like you're intent on ignoring evidence. Can you be more specific about what questions you've asked that have not been answered by the material I linked to? You understand you're supposed to read all those links, right? (It's ok if you want to start with the ones most germane to your interests, you don't have to read them in order.)

In this particular case, on these two particular articles, what is Wikipedia in error about? Be specific.

Common descent by evolution (meaning "natural selection and random mutation"), yes.I'm sorry but I still don't understand your objection yet. Do you think you could try to be clearer? The evidence for common ancestry of all life on Earth is what creationists ignore, though, and you asked for the evidence that creationists ignore.This is some of it. And, surprise, you're a creationist and you're ignoring it. Can we put this point away, now, since you've been refuted by your own actions? I'm a senior undergraduate biochemistry major, several of the contributors to this website are professional biologists, and I think we understand the theory of evolution just fine. You're the one who's been misrepresenting the theory all over the place.The difference, I guess, is that we read books and you complain about reading books. As has been repeatedly articulated to you, we believe in it because of the ample, overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of it, some of which I'm trying to get you to read. Could you explain why you haven't, yet?

As you wish. I'm prepared to refute your argument using nothing but the writings of Francis Collins, if that's your desire.Never mind that your equivalence is invalid; creationism is religion. Evolution isn't atheism.

Common descent is our "version" of evolution; the scientific theory of evolution explains the history and diversity of life on Earth as one of common descent, from one original living thing, via the processes of natural selection and random mutation acting in concert.What on Earth do you think we've been talking about this whole time?