There is no evidence againts the Theory of Evolution.

[lesliedellow]

Therefore, yes, we do have the right to choose what attributes we attribute to God. If, for example, you model of God looks pretty much that of classical theism, where God is pictured the Ruling Caesar and Unmoved Mover, then yes, I have to right, a duty. to challenge you and say I reject that model because it does not provide a loving, sensitive God at all.

You can manufacture any god for yourself that you like, but that is called idolatry. It does actually matter whether or not you worship exists, and whilst there my be no guarantee that the God of the Bible exists, or that any God exists at all, what is guaranteed is that a god you pull out of your own head exists nowhere, except inside that head.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not how evidence works. You may be referring to the falsification of a theory where a theory can be tested with a repeatable experiment and getting a result that falsifies the idea.

How is that not how evidence works?
Evidence either supports a theory or it does not....

There is a theory that life cannot come from non-living sources.

That's not a theory. Rather, that's a bare assertion which is not supported by evidence. In fact, it is a negative claim that can't be demonstrated.

That's pretty well supported

No, it's not supported at all.

with the exception of one data point against billions of others showing life cannot develop without intelligent help.

There is exactly 0 evidence that life "can not" develop "without" intelligent help.
That's a negative claim again.

On top of it, evolution demonstrates the opposite. Life is pefectly capable of developing / evolving through simple natural processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not a problem unless you keep a religious separation between the two issues.

The only "religious" aspect here, is your creationism.

In science, the development of existing life and the origins of first life, are 2 different questions / subjects.

Just like the study of how gravity works and how gravity originated are 2 different questions.

Gravity exists and it can be studied.
Life exists and it can be studied.

We don't need to know where it came from to study how it works / behaves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm willing to change that claim to
"Only life can produce life."
and find it scientifically supportable.

You'ld still be making an unsupportable claim.

How do you plan on testing the idea that "life cannot come from non-life"?
You can formulate it using different words, but it stays a negative claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For one thing Gould with punctuated equilibrium showed gradualism to be wrong.

Why do you keep repeating this falsehood, after it has been pointed out to you that it is a wrong statement?

Evolution in context of PE is just as gradual. Gradualism means "small changes accumulating over generations".
PE doesn't state any differently. The exact same processes are at play.

PE is about how speciation slows down when the environment stays stable. It is about how natural selection tends to keep the status quo when a local optimum has been reached. It has nothing to do with gradualism.

I wonder how many times it must be repeated before it will sink in and before you will stop making these false statements.

Do you even care that these statements are wrong?

If you do not want to admit it and you want to cling to your security blanket then go right ahead. Enjoy yourself.

Says the guy who keeps on stating falsehoods...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please show actual evidence for abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is not evolution and evolution is not abiogenesis.

or one creature actually becoming another that is not just historical narrative or hypothesis based interpretation?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Examples of observed speciation.

No, we cannot show you a dog giving birth to a cat, because it simply doesn't work that way.

I assure you I have studied this for many decades and was a vehement agnostic for 3 decades and there is none, but I am sure you accept these things, however you fall for the appeal to authority and the argumentum ad populum for support not real demonstrable facts.

Information on biology is widely available. It's pretty much public information.
When you say that you have "studied this for many decades" and haven't found any supportive evidence for evolution.... then I can only doubt your claim of having "studied this for many decades", or assume that the only material you read was written by creationists.

I don't know what else to tell you...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hyper fast evolution suggests that slow and random mutation theory is not correct.
"Switch genes" suggest intelligent design over stupid-design.

What is "hyper fast evolution"?

You mean the evolution that would have needed to take place after the flood of noah, which would require some 16 new species to evolve every day?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That species can adapt, like the finches.

By which process does this "adaption" take place, exactly?

The conjecture that organisms can gain purposeful characteristics (write their own DNA) has been bankrupted since the knowledge of DNA.

No biologist has ever proposed that organisms "write their own dna". So I have no idea what your point is here...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah, "the mountains of evidence" mantra...
There is indeed a mountain of data, gathered by science.
But it doesn't point to evolution at all.

Only religious fundamentalists seem to be of that opinion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You seem to be unaware that ID and creation science has nothing to do with theology.

cdesign proponentsists disagree..

 

[DogmaHunter]

Indeed i haven't.
I bet they know their stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence for evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.
There is no mechanism that accidentally writes purposeful DNA.
Sorry...

There is no "writing" of DNA.

DNA is a molecule, subject to the processes of physics and chemistry, not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Please show how the two cannot both describe change in allele frequency over time in different situations in your own words.

No one has any problem with what they call: "micro" evolution. The issue is when they use the evidence for micro evolution and try to claim "macro" evolution and the evidence simply does not support that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There is no "writing" of DNA.

The Bible simply says: "God said". Francis Collins tells us that DNA is the language of God.

אָמַרʼâmar, aw-mar'; a primitive root; to say (used with great latitude):—answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, (at the, give) command(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, × desire, determine, × expressly, × indeed, × intend, name, × plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), × still, × suppose, talk, tell, term, × that is, × think, use (speech), utter, × verily, × yet.

 

[lesliedellow]

No one has any problem with what they call: "micro" evolution. The issue is when they use the evidence for micro evolution and try to claim "macro" evolution and the evidence simply does not support that.

Micro evolution implies macro evolution. If two groups from the same species evolve in different geographical locations, and under different environmental pressures, they will begin to diverge. Eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed, and they will be two distinct species.

That a dog never gives birth to a cat, and the other similar pieces of nonsense which are to be heard from creationists, is completely beside the point. It simply is not true that there is no evidence for speciation.

 

[Larniavc]

No one has any problem with what they call: "micro" evolution. The issue is when they use the evidence for micro evolution and try to claim "macro" evolution and the evidence simply does not support that.

You're changing the subject. Please answer the original question I asked you in the previous post.

"Please show how the two cannot both describe change in allele frequency over time in different situations in your own words."

 

[joshua 1 9]

You're changing the subject. Please answer the original question I asked you in the previous post.

"Please show how the two cannot both describe change in allele frequency over time in different situations in your own words."

I have as many as 16 or 20 questions when I come on here. Some people ask me up to five different questions. If you have a question that did not get answered then ask it again or restate it.

 

[Larniavc]

I have as many as 16 or 20 questions when I come on here. Some people ask me up to five different questions. If you have a question that did not get answered then ask it again or restate it.

I restated in the post you just replied to. It is in the body of the text. Are you blind or just taking the mick?

For the third time.

"Please show how the two cannot both describe change in allele frequency over time in different situations in your own words."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Looks like you do not understand the Science of the Theory of Evolution.

I understand it very well, thanks.

That is unusual because usually they make it pretty easy for everyone to understand.

And yet, you seem to continue having problems with the absolute basics of mutation + selection = change over time.

Of course if you had not accursed me I would not have known. But people are always guilty of what they accuse others of.

So, you have nothing to say about the fact that you keep repeating the same falshood concerning PE?

You will not care that people have pointed out to you that PE works through the exact same gradual processes of accumulated micro-changes that are selected through natural selection?

You will just keep on repeating the same error, even after it has been pointed out to you that it is in error?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one has any problem with what they call: "micro" evolution.

"They", being creationists.

The issue is when they use the evidence for micro evolution and try to claim "macro" evolution and the evidence simply does not support that.

There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, other then the amount of accumulated changes.

Moving one inch at a time, will result in moving several inches after a short while, and moving miles after a long time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Bible simply says: "God said".

The bible makes no mention of DNA.

Francis Collins tells us that DNA is the language of God.

He also tells us that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But I guess you only care about what Collins says, if you feel like you can use it to pretend as if your creationist views are grounded in reality.

Do you care at all that you and Collins, in reality, are on opposite sides of the fence?

אָמַרʼâmar, aw-mar'; a primitive root; to say (used with great latitude):—answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify, challenge, charge, (at the, give) command(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, × desire, determine, × expressly, × indeed, × intend, name, × plainly, promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), × still, × suppose, talk, tell, term, × that is, × think, use (speech), utter, × verily, × yet.

None of this is relevant.

Again: there is no "writing" of DNA. DNA is a molecule, not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper.