proving evolution as just a "theory"

[_-iconoclast-_]

Mr Lamarck...? That you.....?

No allendavid. Its me iconoclast - a friend!

 

[Jimmy D]

Hey! Me and my cousin have been having this discussion lately actually.

I believe in both evolution and creation. Some parts of each make sense, and some parts don't.

I have both pro and anti evolution data that I would like to post here, but I wrote it down on a piece of paper, and it's at home (I'm not home at the moment). Once I go home, I will tell you my views.

thank you

Hello BNM, look forward to it.

 

[Jimmy D]

No allendavid. Its me iconoclast - a friend!

Hi Iconoclast, any follow up to your giraffe question? I assume there was a reason you brought it up.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hi Iconoclast, any follow up to your giraffe question? I assume there was a reason you brought it up.

Hey hey

Hello Iconclast, I'm afraid I'm rather ignorant about Giraffe evolution.

Im no expert as well.

What you say could be possible, maybe there are other reasons though, mating rituals, evading threats etc. I really wouldn't like to say.

Fair enough.

When you say you 'wouldnt like to say', does that mean there is uncertainty?

Would not adaptive evolution be the explaination here? What process would sexual rituals and sparring come under?

Cheers

 

[driewerf]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

• Ask him, if we descent from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
• Ask him if he was there when evolution happened.
• Ask him if he ever saw a monkey giving birth to a human.
• Ask him, if it all started with the Big Bang, how explosions create something ordered as DNA.
• Tell him he just accepts evolution because he hates God and wants to sin.
• Tell him evolution is impossible because of the Second law of Thermodynamic.
• Tell him scientists were wrong in the past and are therefor wrong now again.
• Ask him, if he can prove that the fossils we consider our ancestors really had offspring (Kent Hovind).

 

[Jimmy D]

Fair enough.

When you say you 'wouldnt like to say', does that mean there is uncertainty?

It means that I don't know, if I was aware of any uncertainty I would say so.

Would not adaptive evolution be the explaination here? What process would sexual rituals and sparring come under?

Sexual selection - either competition between males for a mate or the selection preference of the female. How much this applies to giraffes I wouldn't know.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

It means that I don't know, if I was aware of any uncertainty I would say so.

I
I wouldn't know.

Cheers hey.

You are certain evolution is correct are you not?

 

[lesliedellow]

• Ask him, if we descent from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
• Ask him if he was there when evolution happened.
• Ask him if he ever saw a monkey giving birth to a human.
• Ask him, if it all started with the Big Bang, how explosions create something ordered as DNA.
• Tell him he just accepts evolution because he hates God and wants to sin.
• Tell him evolution is impossible because of the Second law of Thermodynamic.
• Tell him scientists were wrong in the past and are therefor wrong now again.
• Ask him, if he can prove that the fossils we consider our ancestors really had offspring (Kent Hovind).

Until I noticed that this list was posted by an atheist, I thought it was being serious.

Poe's Law in action.

 

[Jimmy D]

Cheers hey.

You are certain evolution is correct are you not?

I am certain that common descent is a fact. The theory of evolution explains it, although the explanation may not be entirely complete, there is always more to learn.

Why only quote part of my post and ignore the part where I answered your question?

 

[Hieronymus]

The same people that have been brainwashed into believing that the earth is spheroidal and orbits the sun...right?

So you think you can compare something that is observable today with something that allegedly happened a long long LOONG time ago?
And exactly what is being relentlessly suggested and sold as scientific fact? Flat earth or evolution?
You know the answer.

 

[Hieronymus]

No...the 'god explanation' is borne out of laziness, rather than efficiency.....

Apart from that being nonsense, it's not even relevant.
It's a matter of both plausibility / explanatory power and the belief system that is basically mandatory in popular science.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm sure that to your average creationist, real science appears to be a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

Ultimately, it's irrelevant what they think.

That's just your irrelevant opinion, based on hear say of slanderous theophobes.

 

[Allandavid]

So you think you can compare something that is observable today with something that allegedly happened a long long LOONG time ago?

Definitely. Because the same processes of evidence-gathering and analysis are involved in both.

 

[Allandavid]

Apart from that being nonsense, it's not even relevant.
It's a matter of both plausibility / explanatory power and the belief system that is basically mandatory in popular science.

Not nonsense. You claimed the god explanation to be a far better one. But it's only better for those too lazy, or afraid, to roll up their sleeves and do some real investigation.

We have a great supply of god explanations, both around the world and throughout history. They vary greatly in their claims. The only thing they have in common is freedom from evidence...

 

[lesliedellow]

So you think you can compare something that is observable today with something that allegedly happened a long long LOONG time ago?
And exactly what is being relentlessly suggested and sold as scientific fact? Flat earth or evolution?
You know the answer.

Creationists will try anything, won't they?

It was a long time ago, so evolution didn't happen.
There are (faked) human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints, so evolution didn't happen.
It would violate the second law of thermodynamics, so evolution didn't happen.

All absolute tosh of course.

 

[Hieronymus]

Definitely. Because the same processes of evidence-gathering and analysis are involved in both.

No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's just your irrelevant opinion, based on hear say of slanderous theophobes.

No, just scientists who know what they are taking about, atheists or not.

That all evolutionary biologists are atheists is just another example of creationists' head in the sand, "say it enough times and that will make it true," nonsense.

 

[Allandavid]

No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.

Oh, but the evidence is very much in the 'present' and grows, day by day. Each new fossil discovery, each new breakthrough in DNA research, each new application of evolutionary theory in medicine, all contribute to a sounder understanding of evolution and the theory that explains it.

The last point reminds me of a question I've seen asked...

Given that many treatments for debilitating and fatal diseases have as their foundation an application of evolutionary theory, can I assume that you would let a loved one die, rather than subjecting them to this scientific 'hoax'...?

 

[Allandavid]

No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.

And you're technically wrong...when we examine the cosmos, we are not looking at the 'present'...we are seeing it from various eras of the past...

 

[Hieronymus]

Not nonsense. You claimed the god explanation to be a far better one. But it's only better for those too lazy, or afraid, to roll up their sleeves and do some real investigation.

Thatś nonsense.
And still irrelevant.

We have a great supply of god explanations, both around the world and throughout history. They vary greatly in their claims. The only thing they have in common is freedom from evidence...

Who taught you this drivel?
It's not even relevant.
You're probably referring to your idea that there are numerous creation stories.
You oppose this to your assumption that there is only one scientific explanation.

In fact there is only a few creation stories, and the major one is Genesis.
But that doesn't even matter, because none of those is a scientific account of creation, it's mainly a statement, a claim laid by God, in case of Genesis a claim by YHWH Elohim, the God of Abraham.

We all have the same evidence to work with when we want to assess if the more plausible / probably explanation is creation or 'chance'.

The natural sciences and scientists aren't unanimous in their views on the matter either.
But, they got themselves stuck in a position that follows the idea of random mutations (that didn't get corrected) and natural selection as the means by which it must have happened.
Now nobody with a little knowledge about this disputes that mutation and selection has an influence, but expecting miracles from it is another story.