proving evolution as just a "theory"

[PsychoSarah]

You could try sitting down with your friend and watching the movie "God's Not Dead" together, and then maybe have an intelligent discussion about it afterwards.

Pfft, God's Not Dead? If anyone wants an example of an atheist strawman, try the main atheist character in that movie.

Movies like that aren't for converting non-believers. They're for instilling stronger faith in believers, at best. If they were for conversion purposes, why would the atheist character be such a jerk? You don't attract people to your side by portraying them this way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pfft, God's Not Dead? If anyone wants an example of an atheist strawman, try the main atheist character in that movie.

Movies like that aren't for converting non-believers. They're for instilling stronger faith in believers, at best. If they were for conversion purposes, why would the atheist character be such a jerk? You don't attract people to your side by portraying them this way.

I've had a few atheist teachers like that. Not a lot mind you, but a few.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've had a few atheist teachers like that. Not a lot mind, but a few.

XD what turds. Reminds me of my experience having a feminist anthropology instructor. First day of class: "light switches are sexist because I have to raise my arm farther than a man does to flip the switch".

-_- lady, that would happen with anyone taller than you, no matter where the switch was. I even looked up the reason why light switches are the height they are; they used to be up higher, but in the 1970s, were lowered so short women and children could more easily reach them. Their modern height is literally so the maximum number of people can comfortably reach them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

XD what turds. Reminds me of my experience having a feminist anthropology instructor. First day of class: "light switches are sexist because I have to raise my arm farther than a man does to flip the switch".

-_- lady, that would happen with anyone taller than you, no matter where the switch was. I even looked up the reason why light switches are the height they are; they used to be up higher, but in the 1970s, were lowered so short women and children could more easily reach them. Their modern height is literally so the maximum number of people can comfortably reach them.

Yeah, and then there's the Whiplash teachers. Fortunately, I didn't ever have any tea..........I take that back, there was one math teacher in high school l had who was like that. Literally. Well no. He didn't actually slap people in the face; rather he threw books across the room at them or would sneak upon the student (if she was feeling bad and had her head down)....and suddenly SLAM!! a book right next to the person's head on the desk they were sitting at. Sad, but true. I don't blame it on their atheism. They obviously had some other ... problems.

 

[bhsmte]

No, i believe in the Truth, with a capital T.
You believe in made up stories that help you deny the Truth.You sure have a lot of that air to fry....No you're not.
You're just forcing your beliefs on me.I don't believe a thing you say.
The evidence clearly shows a huge watery disaster some millennia ago.
We see what we expect: Various strata with dead animals in it = rapid burial.

Nobody 'knows'
how old the earth is, don't be daft.
But you need billions of years to make your fairytale work, not me.
I don't have to work around the problems a high age poses, you do.
Or maybe you just ignore them, or never heard of any.Then you can quote me where i did. Good luck. It's true. It's not science anymore, it's religion under the GUISE of science.
And you fell for it. But you're not alone. You're possibly the majority, at least in our post modern pseudo rationalistic formerly Christian culture...What do you know about how i pick or choose anything?
You pick and choose only the evidence that fits your beliefs. You would even embrace forged evidence if that helps your faith.
But then again, your preachers, i mean peers do the picking for you. Your needs are catered for.Yes, well i'm very impressed.
I think i'll convert to atheism pretty soon.

But ehm... I think it's perhaps a good idea to agree we disagree.
Since this is a Christian Forum, you are supposed to respect my opinion, if i'm not mistaking.
But it's also a general rule for any member to be respectful about other opinions, so i will do my best too.

Have a nice day, and may God bless you.

Can you demonstrate this truth you speak of?

 

[lesliedellow]

No, i believe in the Truth, with a capital T.
You believe in made up stories that help you deny the Truth.

You believe in having absolutely nothing disturb your comfort zone, no matter how wilfully ignorant you have to remain in order to achieve it. That is what you believe in, and there is no point in trying to dress it up as Christian discipleship, because it is no such thing.

 

[Gene2memE]

You could try sitting down with your friend and watching the movie "God's Not Dead" together, and then maybe have an intelligent discussion about it afterwards.

Watching 'God's Not Dead' renders anyone incapable of intelligent discussion.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, i know many species / kinds have similarities, making things work the same way in a phylum, but why would that point away from creation?
Again, it can be used as evidence to support evolution, but not against creation.

Again, I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about application. Do you understand that there is more to science than simply finding evidence for things. Once scientific theories are developed, scientists look to ways they can apply those theories to solve real world issues.

No genetics do that.
The fact that mutation and selection occurs doesn't make evolution true, they're just premises for evolution to be possible.
But is it realistic to expect miracles from accumulating data corruption?
Of course not.
You're lucky if it survives at all for more than a million years or so.
If it wasn't for the reparation system doing its thing, it would be over much sooner.
By itself, gradual changes imply that you'll be stuck with non functional systems until it miraculously becomes operational.

I'm not sure why you think that "gradual changes imply that you'll be stuck with non functional systems until it miraculously becomes operational".

I suspect that you are viewing biology in the way someone might view manufacturing a car. However, biology is far more fluid than that, as it is possible for proteins and biological systems to carry on functioning when being subjected to evolutionary changes, and even undergo functional shifts.

Do you realize how many high level studies here are into our reality and living nature in particular?
Do you think a factory is a complex thing? Or a digital network?
Need i say more?

Yes, you do need to say more. First of all, complexity is a vague term. You need to specifically qualify it with a definition to distinguish things that are complex from those that aren't.

Second, complexity in and of itself is not evidence for intelligent design. In fact, it's possible to get complex outputs from simple, recursive systems.

 

[pitabread]

There's little need for anything other than to point at the level of technology which makes life live.
It reduces every human attempt to create something to childs play.
Why should i ascribe it to dead unconscious forces rather than to a capable intelligent entity with a will to create.
Yes, God. God also answers the question: "Why does anything exist at all?"
It's just the better answer. It's more probable, more plausible, has more explanatory power.
Not just about the mechanics of living nature, but to existentional questions in general.

When it comes to exstitential questions, sure, I'll grant that theology can be used to explore that. And that's fine.

But when it comes to the natural world, creationism doesn't have anything to offer. You claim it has "more explanatory power", but in my experience it has none. I think you might be confusing having an answer for something with having an explanation. An explanation gets into the how's, the where's, the what's.

For example, if life was miracled into existence, how was that accomplished? What mechanisms were used? What energies? Was creation a one time deal or is it ongoing? Is life being miracled into existence today? Can we observe these mechanisms in action? Measure them? Define them?

"Goddidit" is unfortunately not an explanation. It's barely even an answer.

I don't think that's relevant.
Actually, many people become creationists or doubt the ToE from a position of assuming the ToE is true.

I haven't seen this to be the case at all. Most creationists seem to have little to no understanding of the ToE in my experience. And in all cases, it seems that cultural influence of dominant theological views is the overriding factor in adhering to creationist beliefs. This is particularly evident when you examine geographic distributions of religious beliefs.

On the other hand, historically creation is the default position if you had to chose between creation and 'chance'.

That's a false dichotomy though. And historically speaking, people tended to adopt supernatural explanations for things when they otherwise lacked knowledge of those things.

Or do you believe that the weather patterns are caused for supernatural forces? Do you believe lightning is Zeus chucking bolts from the heavens?

But then again, when we want to adhere a purpose to our existence and existence in general, it's a logical step to suspect there is a God of some sorts.

I fail to see any logic in that. My experience discussing this with theists is the factors involved tend to be more emotional and not logical.

This does not change the plain logic that the natural most likely has a super natural origin, for things do not create themselves (that would be a logical fallacy).

Again, there's no "plain logic" in surmising that the natural world had supernatural origins. It's pure speculation.

Also, the subject of whether or not things can 'create' themselves has nothing to do with logical fallacies. That's physics, not logic.

 

[Allandavid]

Nice try, but you were referring to our solar system.

And my response nevertheless applies. In our southern sky, I frequently observe both Venus and Alpha Centauri, one of the 'pointers' to our Southern Cross.

Now, whether we are talking about the 2 or 3 minutes from Venus, or the 4 years from Alpha Centauri, I am nevertheless viewing the past in both cases...

That's not even true.
They have their foundation in medicine and biology, often through trial and error, usually through discovery of how organisms work.

I'm sorry, but it's very true...! Perhaps if you lifted that head out of the sand, you could perform some very quick research on the implementation of evolutionary theory into the diagnosis and treatment of, in particular, many forms of cancer and genetic diseases. You will find a wealth of material.

So I repeat the question....would you permit a dying loved one to undergo those treatments, knowing that they are underpinned by a 'hoax'...?

 

[rjs330]

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.

Well please let me know when you can test and reproduce evolution from a common ancestor will you? I will swallow my pride and say well I guess they were right all along. So far all they have is supposition based on assumption. We have yet to show a plant can become an animal.

 

[rjs330]

It is clear from your post that you do not even understand the nature of evidence. Would you like to learn? It is not that difficult of a topic, yet creationists seem to be scared to death of the topic.

Oh I've been educated by the best of them. But somehow they still can't point to any real verifiable testable reproduced evidence of a common ancestor. It's still all an assumption.

 

[rjs330]

Carry on lying to yourself, why don't you?

Hmm... Please give me the experiments that actually have reproduced life from a common ancestor or even proven that by chance and time we actually evolved from something we have never seen or found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh I've been educated by the best of them. But somehow they still can't point to any real verifiable testable reproduced evidence of a common ancestor. It's still all an assumption.

You are simply wrong. And I seriously doubt your claim.

We can test the theory of evolution in many ways, you simply do not understand the scientific method. Scientists are not allowed to make assumptions, that is what creationists do.

I think that we need to go over the scientific method first. And then evidence, and then I can explain how the theory is tested. Are you game?

 

[rjs330]

You are simply wrong. And I seriously doubt your claim.

We can test the theory of evolution in many ways, you simply do not understand the scientific method. Scientists are not allowed to make assumptions, that is what creationists do.

I think that we need to go over the scientific method first. And then evidence, and then I can explain how the theory is tested. Are you game?

No just point me to the experiment that shows that all things came from a common ancestor and how we reproduced the results to show it's validity. Of course you would need to work backward to find the common ancestor, bit I don't think we can do that.

I said evolution is observable and testable. Just not evolution where all living things that came from the same common ancestor. It just assumed so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No just point me to the experiment that shows that all things came from a common ancestor and how we reproduced the results to show it's validity. Of course you would need to work backward to find the common ancestor, bit I don't think we can do that.

I said evolution is observable and testable. Just not evolution where all living things that came from the same common ancestor. It just assumed so.

That would be pointless. You already demonstrated that you do not understand the basics of science.

 

[Allandavid]

No just point me to the experiment that shows that all things came from a common ancestor and how we reproduced the results to show it's validity. Of course you would need to work backward to find the common ancestor, bit I don't think we can do that.

I said evolution is observable and testable. Just not evolution where all living things that came from the same common ancestor. It just assumed so.

That is not true. We can trace the genomes of various species to find the evidence, not only of their commonalities, but also of the branching that has occurred to produce new species.

And that's all common ancestry is. It's a branching tree and the common ancestors are the forks in that branching.

Oh...and your 'experiment gotcha' fails. Not all scientific progress has been achieved as a result of repeatable experiments. We have a good understanding of the formation of our earth and our solar system, but as far as I know, no one has replicated an experiment that recreates planets...

 

[Jimmy D]

We're just dismissing your naturalistic models.

We? Who's that?

We believe in God, who by definition is Creator of everything.

So do many people who accept the findings of mainstream biology. People better qualified than you and I might I add.

It is you naturalists who NEED your naturalistic models to support your (un)beliefs.
You need billions and billions of years to give chance a chance (so to speak).

Why do you think anyone NEEDS naturalistic models? Billions of years is based on observation and repeatable experiments, what specifically are you taking issue with? Are you still pretending that anyone who accepts the methodologies and findings of mainstream science are atheists?

Your use of the word naturalistic is redundant anyway.... science is systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It really has little bearing on theological issues apart from the misguided interpretation of the bible certain fundamentalist groups insist on.

And you need lots of money, endorsements and public platform to sell it.
Who provides this?
Not the scientists in the field, they just do science for who pays them to do science.
But if you want to make a name in science, you'll have to be 'liked' by the facilitators.
So you've all been had big time by the opinion makers who are no Christians, but who do have axes to grind.
Christians are not (supposed to be) the puppets of the elite, worldly people unfortunately are.

Hilarious, who exactly is behind this conspiracy? I believe that the Catholics have got a few euros, maybe they could fund a bit of research into this weird "theo-science" you seem to want. Oh no, wait a minute, they accept the findings of modern science don't they, in fact, they have a scientific academy, are they naturalists? What about Lemaitre? Mendel?

A few more examples just to demonstrate the inanity of your assertions.....

Robert J Asher: palaeontologist and lecturer at the University of Cambridge Department of Zoology and a curator at the University Museum of Zoology. His book 'Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist' was published by Cambridge University Press in 2012.

Robert T. Bakker (born 1945): paleontologist who was a figure in the "dinosaur Renaissance" and known for the theory some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. He is also a Pentecostal preacher who advocates theistic evolution and has written on religion.

Francis Collins (born 1950): director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute. He has also written on religious matters in articles and the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Keith R Fox: British Professor of Biochemistry at Southampton University. Has a PhD in Pharmacology from Cambridge. His research concerns the sequence-specific recognition of DNA by small molecules, oligonucleotides and proteins, and the formation of unusual DNA structures. Formerly a chair of "Christians in Science".

I could go on, there are thousands of examples that easily refute your nonsense.

Science is an awesome collection of disciplines.
But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science.
How human....

LOL, now you presume to tell scientists what science should be. I would stop now if I were you, it's embarrassing, how right St Augustine was all those centuries ago.

 

[lesliedellow]

...... how right St Augustine was all those centuries ago.

Some of the most prescient words ever spoken.

 

[rjs330]

That is not true. We can trace the genomes of various species to find the evidence, not only of their commonalities, but also of the branching that has occurred to produce new species.

And that's all common ancestry is. It's a branching tree and the common ancestors are the forks in that branching.

Oh...and your 'experiment gotcha' fails. Not all scientific progress has been achieved as a result of repeatable experiments. We have a good understanding of the formation of our earth and our solar system, but as far as I know, no one has replicated an experiment that recreates planets...

All your branching tree stuff is assumption. You cannot branch tree backwards to a common ancestor because there never has been any observation of anything becoming something it was not originally. You assume a bird evolved from a lizard or whatever with out any observation or testable theory that can show it's possible. The branches are all assumed to branch the way evolution says. All you can really say is that somethings have some genes or genomes in common. You assume that means common ancestor. The truth is it doesn't mean any such thing. What it means is that some things have some genes in common. That's all.

And your formation idea further illustrates my point. We didn't see our solar system form. We can't verify what we think happened. So once again it's unverified assumptive theory.