-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?
- Thread starter Neogaia777
- Start date
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
Evolution is already living species evolving into new species.
If this were true, then this would still be the only form of vertebrate.
This isn't how things are. Vertebrates have increased in complexity and diversity, the opposite of what you claim.
At one time, the population only had DNA for one color. It was mutations leading to multiple colors and then selection for that color that marks the diversification that evolution produces.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, the video does not "assume" evolution. Creationists should never use the word "assume" because I never see them do so correctly. The fact that life evolved was shown to be the case long ago. There is no more assuming going on in evolution than there is in studying gravity. And what holes are you talking about? Please be honest, you did not even bother to open the video, did you?
Upvote
0
I did. Evolution is not a fact: it is a theory that is assumed to be true, and you interpret whatever evidence you can find to fit the theory. The whole ERV thing for example; just because two of God's creatures have a similar shape and similar DNA DOES NOT MEAN that they share a common ancestor. Is it wrong for God to make two creatures similar to eachother? Why ignore all of the differences between chimp and man? Is it right to assume that humanity evolved simply because they have the same ERVs as Chimps? That correlation can be interpreted in different ways, but since evolution is assumed then it is put forth as an evidence of it.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.
And remember, creationists cannot explain ERV's, or the fossil record, or the numerous other nested hierarchies that can be found in nature.
Oil is not found using creation science, but rather real science, and the theory of evolution plays a big part in oil exploration. If you use petroleum in any way you actually support the theory of evolution.
Upvote
0
You can observe gravity, but you cannot observe the evolution of life; it is a theory, not a fact. If you believed in God and His Word then you would interpret things differently. You don't need evolution to explain the fossil record or ERVs.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Of course we can observe evolution. We can observe it in all sorts of ways. Who told you that it cannot be observed? And what do you mean by "His Word"? Surely you don't mean the Bible? That is a work of man and is filled with flaws.
Upvote
0
No, you can only observe variation within a kind. You can't observe a species changing into something entirely different. Birds will always be birds and people will always be people. Sure, they can change their size, shape, and color, but there is never any new information being added.
Yes, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. That's not what this is about though, because I've already demonstrated that many won't believe that it is.
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Why would god make us with shared embedded viruses with chimps in the same way that we share them with other humans, to whom we are clearly related through common ancestry?
Why, as you say, is inheritance the reason we share those ERVs with family members, but inheritance is not the reason we share them with chimps? What is the difference?
Upvote
0
You can observe that ERVs are inherited, but you can't observe that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Upvote
0
As predicted, you used the word "assume" incorrectly. It isn't assumed. It has been proven beyond any doubt to be true, with evidence and everything.
You haven't been able to show that it can be interpreted in any other way. Still waiting to hear back on the 4 pelvises I showed you.
The show us how it is not consistent with common ancestry.
Would it be wrong for God to plant fingerprints at a crime scene?
The differences are part of the evidence for evolution as well. I already discussed it.
That is a conclusion, not an assumption. Again, you don't understand how to use these words.
Then show us these other interpretations and how they are testable.
Upvote
0
It is no different than using DNA and fingerprint evidence to place a criminal at a crime scene. Are you saying that we can't use this evidence because God plants evidence at crime scenes?
Upvote
0
We can observe ERV's being inherited from a common ancestor.
Nowhere do we observe deities planting ERV's in genomes.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
What are you talking about? Evolution does not say that a species changes into something "completely different". And you should not use nonsensical terms. Creationists cannot even define "kind". Yes, birds will always be birds, but they will also always be dinosaurs. And people will also always be people, but they will also always be apes. Here is a very helpful article on Clades, it should help you with understanding evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
Are you sure? The God of the Old Testament especially is portrayed as a rather evil being in the Bible. And to take Genesis literally you have to believe in a God that lies. Add that to the hundreds of self contradictions, great and small, and the countless failed prophesies and the Bible is just a hot mess.
Upvote
0
Chimps and humans are both part of the primate kind, so not a problem.
We don't believe because you can't produce any evidence to back your claims.
Upvote
0
No, you can't. You can only observe that ERVs are inherited, but not that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. God doesn't need to plant ERVs.
Upvote
0
If we can observe that ERV's are inherited, then why isn't this a valid mechanism for explaining the ERV's shared by humans and chimps?
Do you have another observed mechanism that we can use to explain this?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
