proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

Wrong, but then you won't even bother to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Ah, the ever so useful, "wrong" and just because you say so. lol. It's wonder I even bother with answers like that.
I need to try that more often, it makes things so easy. How bout this, anyone who buys evolution is wrong, period and just because I say so. Catch my drift yet?

I've tried to teach you before but if anyone insists on believing fairy tales that are more dicey than fairy tales themselves, no amount of common sense is going to get through.

Let me know when you can prove evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Not to you, or to anyone who is either incapable or unwilling to use simple common sense reasoning.

So I am incapable or unwilling to use simple common sense and reasoning.

Interesting.

Is it common sense, or reasoning, that drives people to believe, without question, the tale of the World Wide Flood that not only left no evidence that one would associate with a true world-wide event. Contrast that with, say, the K-T asteroid impact which left a detectable layer of iridium all over the earth.

The Noachian deluge did not seem to disturb the Egyptians or the Chinese. Odd.

I can at least say, all thing that are here by other than natural means, are created

Which things are those, and more importantly HOW DO YOU KNOW?

You made a mere assertion. Where is your 'reason' and 'common sense' - does common sense dictate that a mere assertion is unassailable proof?

, so that is proof enough for me the rest was created as well. If that doesn't work for you and you'd rather go with "it just appeared"...have at it.

To the contrary - isn't the very foundation of your belief system that it all 'just appeared'? Dust of the ground made into an adult, fully formed human male? How does that work, exactly? Please use your common sense and reason to EXPLAIN how that can happen.

My reason and common sense informs me that mere assertions do not count as evidence.

 

[sfs]

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.

Huh. So all of these branches could just happen to fall into a tree, and there's no way of knowing whether they're really related or not?

 

[tas8831]

How about common manufacturer?
Couldn't you have come up with that yourself?

Who manufactured the common manufacturer?

And why did this common manufacturer use the same 'blueprints' to make a land-dwelling, air-breathing tetrapod when it made a dolphin?

 

[tas8831]

That's because it's a bunch of mumbo jumbo that evolutionists like to throw around as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

You could have just written "I reject evolution because I cannot understand the science and I take the bible purely on Faith". That would have been more honest.

When the fact is there is no real testable verifiable or reproduced evidence for that. It's all assumptive.

Evidence does exist that creatures adapt to their environment in order to survive. That is evolution and it can be observed in action. What had never been observed or tested is evolution from a common ancestor.

Have you ever seen or tested a deity creating something from nothing? A human from dust? A world-wide flood that did not cover the entire world?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Until you learn what is and what is not evidence you will not let yourself understand.

Are you ready to learn? What would you like to cover first, the nature of evidence or the scientific method?

As I have told you already, consistently accusing anyone of not knowing what something as simple as "evidence" means as your defense, is clearly not the truth and not a defense at all. Anyone here can see it's a ridiculous claim for something so elementary.

Point being, when you start dealing with untruths/trying to run others down, in order to get the upper hand, people capable of seeing through that will tend to stop taking you seriously, and wonder just how solid your argument can be.

 

[tas8831]

• 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).

The saddest part is, you just KNOW that there are any number of creationists that DO ask these and similarly silly "questions" every day....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, the ever so useful, "wrong" and just because you say so. lol. It's wonder I even bother with answers like that.
I need to try that more often, it makes things so easy. How bout this, anyone who buys evolution is wrong, period and just because I say so. Catch my drift yet?

I've tried to teach you before but if anyone insists on believing fairy tales that are more dicey than fairy tales themselves, no amount of common sense is going to get through.

Let me know when you can prove evolution.

Kenny, why do you always ignore the explanation that comes after the word "wrong"?

The fact that you are wrong almost all of the time and never bother to learn is why you see the word so often.

And evolution has been proven. You simply won't let yourself understand. I am willing to go over the basics of science and reason with you so that you do not keep making the same errors. Why are you afraid to learn?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You made a claim that "findings were falling apart". Which findings? If you can't back up your assertions when challenged you shouldn't make them.

I'm not interested in "proving" evolution to you, I don't care what you believe. I was responding to your bizarre claims that's all. Do you retract them now?

Let me ask you, and I do have a point. Are Christians wrong about Creation, as in God did it?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Let me ask you, and I do have a point. Are Christians wrong about Creation, as in God did it?

For me the question is not about who, but how.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you will excuse the rest of us if we do not waste time on your uneducated nonsense.

"Uneducated" as opposed to the so-called educated nonsense?

Sure, I will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have told you already, consistently accusing anyone of not knowing what something as simple as "evidence" means as your defense, is clearly not the truth and not a defense at all. Anyone here can see it's a ridiculous claim for something so elementary.

It is not a "defense", it is an observation. And once again you ignore the fact that I am willing to help the uneducated in learning what is and what is not evidence. Yet to date all creationists here have been afraid to discuss the idea. Their fear seems to indicate that they know that they are wrong.

Point being, when you start dealing with untruths/trying to run others down, in order to get the upper hand, people capable of seeing through that will tend to stop taking you seriously, and wonder just how solid your argument can be.

Now you are merely projecting your flaws upon others again. That is not what I do. I offer to help others to learn, I do not "run others down". You seem to do that quite often and you have no way to support your claims.

Once again since you have demonstrated countless times that you do not understand the very basis of science would you care to go over them? If you don't you will simply keep repeating the same errors that you have been making over the years.

 

[tas8831]

Eh, I'm not surprised. There has been nothing new in the ID camp for the past decade or so, and most of the arguments are re-hashes of stuff which is decades old.

ID/Creationism is stuck in a rut in that regard.

And how...

Remember when the DI came out with its own 'scientific journal', "Bio-Complexity"? And how they were going to churn out some top-notch ID creation science?

And how their first couple of issues were all just re-packaged essays that marks and Dembski and Denton and few others had written, then their output trickled to, literally, a couple of letters to the editor...

Such amazing science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it's proof

OK now we're getting somewhere.

Now explain how that is proof of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Uneducated" as opposed to the so-called educated nonsense?

Sure, I will.

Since you are uneducated in the sciences and refuse to learn you have no basis for calling it nonsense. And since you rely on those sciences every day of your life that makes you rather hypocritical as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK now we're getting somewhere.

Now explain how that is proof of evolution.

Quoting out of context is almost always dishonest, especially when the answer to your question was in the post that you edited in your quote.

 

[Kenny'sID]

To be fair Kenny your request is nonsensical, this simplistic example or what ever you're looking for to "prove" evolution doesn't exist.

SFS said The test -- the "proof", if you like -- of any model is how well it explains and predicts data. Evolution does that with the data from biology.

Do you understand what this means?

I understand the claim.

Here's what I'm not understanding, in another post you said you were not trying to prove evolution to me...then what exactly are you doing?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So I am incapable or unwilling to use simple common sense and reasoning.

Did you mean to follow that with a period?

 

[tas8831]

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

I find that hard to believe, frankly.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny, why do you always ignore the explanation that comes after the word "wrong"?

Because all too often, in the past there is none, and no, I don't have records to all that any more than anyone here would and I'm not going to go back and prove it. Geez. Also, for good reason, I guess Ive stopped taking you seriously to the point I tend to skim your post now days.