proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

No it wasn't. You see what you want to see. It all interpretation of the evidence. There is evidence that creatures can evolve to sustain existence. Such as the bird mentioned previously. I see that as evidence that God created life to do that. You see evidence that we all came from a common ancestor.

Do believe that life has been continually supernaturally created throughout the last ~4 billion years on Earth?

 

[Astrophile]

Columbus didn't discover that the earth was round, everyone with a basic education at the time already knew that; we've known this in the West since at least the time of Eratosthenes who demonstrated the spherical shape of the earth 2300 years ago.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) showed that the Earth is a sphere in the 4th century BC; he may also have tried to estimate its size. Pythagoras may have guessed that the Earth is a sphere in the 6th century BC.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

false. as you can see in my figure above- it's possible to get a fusion under the creation model too. so we dont need to involve evolution.

Except of course this fusion would be a requirement under the Theory of Evolution - if it were any other way, then it would suit Creationism more than Evolution...

Under Evolution, this would have to be the case.

Under Creation, not a required observation at all.... in fact, that it is obvious is a problem for Creation, since this shows how it is possible to have so many organisms with so many different numbers of Chromosomes pairs if there is in fact universal common ancestry.. another chalk up to Evolution and the ongoing support of all of the evidence while being contadicted by none of it...

 

[rjs330]

Well you didn't work very hard, you didn't address any of it. As to what you did write, that's nice, I'm not trying to tell you how life began or dissuade you of you faith in God, why not comment on the evidence I presented instead, maybe ponder what I've written below?



No.1 - "The horse thing"

Everything I posted was based on observation, there were no assumptions. Literally thousands of fossils have been found that, when lined up chronologically, show a clear transition from eohippus to the modern horse. These have been and can be observed in the fossil record. I wouldn't be surprised if you reject the dating of such fossils (with no scientific justification, just proclaiming it's based on assumptions no doubt) but Eohippus is found in the oldest strata and the fossils can be seen progressing gradually in sequence towards the modern horse as we observe them in more recent strata. This is clear as day, there are no mysterious gaps, no huge leaps in difference that can't be accounted for, which is why I chose the "horse thing".

Now, If we look at this sequence and wonder why these fossils are deposited as they are what logical conclusion can we draw? That the populations gradually adapted over time in response to selective pressures? Given that we can observe, in real time, the mechanisms by which such changes occur (remember the Blackcaps which have been observed to adapt and change in response to environmental pressures?) such a conclusion is inescapable.



But no, you say, despite all these observations confirming the theory formulated by Darwin from his observations of nature all those years ago, they are all just "assumptions"!

So I will ask again (you ignored the question last time) how do you explain these observations?

Again we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically with all those changes adding up to significant differences over longer periods of time - As far as I understand it the creation "model" would suggest that over long stretches of time a slightly different species was created out of dust of the ground, only to go extinct and be replaced by another and another and another, is that what you think? I can't figure it out?

Just who observed this? We are guessing.

 

[rjs330]

Well you didn't work very hard, you didn't address any of it. As to what you did write, that's nice, I'm not trying to tell you how life began or dissuade you of you faith in God, why not comment on the evidence I presented instead, maybe ponder what I've written below?



No.1 - "The horse thing"

Everything I posted was based on observation, there were no assumptions. Literally thousands of fossils have been found that, when lined up chronologically, show a clear transition from eohippus to the modern horse. These have been and can be observed in the fossil record. I wouldn't be surprised if you reject the dating of such fossils (with no scientific justification, just proclaiming it's based on assumptions no doubt) but Eohippus is found in the oldest strata and the fossils can be seen progressing gradually in sequence towards the modern horse as we observe them in more recent strata. This is clear as day, there are no mysterious gaps, no huge leaps in difference that can't be accounted for, which is why I chose the "horse thing".

Now, If we look at this sequence and wonder why these fossils are deposited as they are what logical conclusion can we draw? That the populations gradually adapted over time in response to selective pressures? Given that we can observe, in real time, the mechanisms by which such changes occur (remember the Blackcaps which have been observed to adapt and change in response to environmental pressures?) such a conclusion is inescapable.



But no, you say, despite all these observations confirming the theory formulated by Darwin from his observations of nature all those years ago, they are all just "assumptions"!

So I will ask again (you ignored the question last time) how do you explain these observations?

Again we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically with all those changes adding up to significant differences over longer periods of time - As far as I understand it the creation "model" would suggest that over long stretches of time a slightly different species was created out of dust of the ground, only to go extinct and be replaced by another and another and another, is that what you think? I can't figure it out?

Again we didn't observe anything. In fact there is evidence what is claimed cannot be true. Here's one bit.

The evolution of the horse - CMI Mobile

 

[Wakalix]

Not only is the argument wrong the logic and reason is the product of a reprobate mind.

"It's not just wrong, it's evil! Make sure you guard your minds against the evil doubters; don't let them poison your minds with their reasoning."

 

[Kylie]

actually we know about many examples where even sceintists cant tell if some traits are the result of convergent evolution or a common descent. this fact alone falsified this claim.

And maybe one day you'll provide actual sources to back up this claim. Can you provide sources?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Christianity is it ... anything else is just fiction.

I have a mate of mine who tells me Islam is definitely the last true religion and that Christianity is just confused, and the Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon him) will be back to tell you all so too...

Hey bugsy

This one answered in reply to subby.

Not really sure which one you're referring me to, so I'll assume you meant this one?:

Your reasoning here is incredible

I disagree with you re earned trust if we are talking a child before puberty lets say 11-12. I can see an older child being rebellious to 'just' parents.

If you are a 3 yr old child and your mother says do not go on the road. Do you seriously think that mother needed to earn that childs respect to listen?

Ok then lets set up the goalposts.

We have an abused child. We have a mother. The child is 6 years old and all round average. The mother tells him not to touch the stove or he will get burnt.

If the mother abused him regularly wouldnt it be strange to the child that all of a sudden she cared for his safety?

So the abused child will touch the stove regardless because the mother has not earned enough respect?

I have young kids, so I'm prime for this scenario you propose... a 3 year old doesn't know any better let alone realise the correlation between not touching the stove because a parent said so, and an unburnt hand being a reward for not doing so. This is an unrealised result for the child. All it's doing is exploring the world, so as parents, we necessarily have to set ourselves up as their undeniable authorities. In time, learning about their world involves testing our authority over them too, and they learn what they can and can't get away with - my children's mother is an example - she used to have problems with them all the time not listening to her because when they went shopping, or out and the child saw something he/she wanted, they'd chuck tantrums and because their mum was a strict non-confrontationalists, she'd give them whatever it was they were chucking a tantrum about - which of course led them to learn that chucking tantrums would get them their desires (just like rewarding a puppy for doing something right, it reinforces the behaviour). This challenging their authority (us in this case) is a dangerous place to be because when either of us told them to do something (i.e. Don't go out onto the road!) they wouldn't listen and in one instance, I had to do a sharp sprint to collect a wayward child running roadward, getting ready to throw a fit at being told what to do, so yes, a parent does indeed have to earn a child's respect to listen. They're great now(not that I ever really had the same issues with them their mum did), but I know they treat us differently in isolation and their mum still has problems with them even though they're both closing in on double digit ages. These days, they trust me and my guidance based on experience even though it still in part comes down to respect as their authority figure... so again, experience and reason.

On trust and faith definitions and conflating the two:

Answers in reply to sub z

Again, not sure which one you intend me to look at, so I'll assume this is it?:

Well there is a easy way to prove if i made up the definition of faith friend. Type faith and meaning into google!

The word faith means complete trust in something or someone. Complete trust in God is christian 101!?!

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Faith here ie is a complete trust in a God - who is not a thing in the natural universe. It is an intangible feeling and experience that can be personal. Hebrews 11:1 is a declaration.

It shows that we should have confidence to hope - believe in the God's promise. Faith in God leads to a relationship and the assurance that what seemed invisible is now too real. Faith leads to the evidence but first you must follow the formula.

So did as instructed - I see you included the first definition from Google, which was the non-religious definition of Faith, but you for some odd reason, didn't include the definition of Faith as it relates to religion - that is "2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." - ...."rather than proof"!! so, still back to evidence free belief

....so Faith in your version of the bible is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" - nothing about evidence or reason? If Faith is "Total Trust" then ought we not be really, really sure about it before putting so much stock in something? I for one, would want absolute verification before investing so much of myself for so long in such a thing.

Atheists just dont get it. Atheists need to see the evidence first, then they will have faith.

You need faith (complete trust) first then you get the evidence.

Or do you only agree when the word theory proceeds it?

Atheists get it just fine, this is why we don't just believe without evidence first. Put 'Theory' in front of it all you like, but the evidence still won't be there to support it. Again, every religion out there has this kind of unevidenced "Faith"

So, on my experiences with chairs point:

So therefore this is an assumption. Because someone else did it and it worked for them. Naturally it should work for you. This is like monkey see monkey do.

This is trust in someone elses experience and an assumption. Man do not go near a construction site!

I go into construction sites all the time. Back to this point though because this is hilarious, if I see a chair work, see other people use a chair, have the operation and purpose of a chair explained to me, how is my use of that chair as prescribed then some kind of Assuption?? Are you trying to tell me that everyone's reality is only real for them? Do we not share this same reality with everyone else??

On my trust in my coworkers:

No you have trust in their abilties and they have a good reputation. They can still fail - this shows hope they wont

...and of course, Trust (you literally just said "No you have trust in their abilities"!!).... There is no such thing as 100% Trust, we deal in degrees of certainty. I wouldn't trust someone straight off the bat if I didn't have evidence of their abilities/capabilities...

Exactly. Its not like cars and airplanes to crash!

Because I have experience of such, and is therefore not Faith. Unless of course you still insist that Faith & Trust are the same thing?

Have you tried?

When I was younger, yes. Not that I really had any direction, so nothing ever popped into my head as being something I should take notice of... this point alone should be cause for concern - if there is an all-omnipotent, omnipresent being who wanted to have a relationship with me, I would've been all in, hook, line and sinker! but nuthn....

Do fairies answer prayers, give Visions and perform the miraculous?

Don't know about Visions (perhaps you should see someone about that??) but Fairies answer prayers and perform the miraculous at exactly the same rate as intercessory prayer does.

Now that would be cool

Thor. Awesome!

How about this. I have faith if i jump off the empire state i wont die!

Yes, Of course you can take that on faith - and here is the crux - people all over the place, and increasingly in positions of power are taking all kinds of things on Faith and making decisions on that for other people who don't have that same faith. You may think it fine in your position if you agree with their religious position but how different might you feel if the people in power were Islamic? Given extreme forms of Islam (read: ISIS and Taliban among many) consider Christianity to be Polytheism, and punishable by Death.

I guess American History isn't so innocent though, how long was it legal to kill Mormons on site because it was considered a Cult? That was a decision made on the faith based belief that Mormonism was Blasphemy of the highest order.

but it doesn't even have to go that far - I see all too often parents who let their children die because their religion had them believing prayer would cure them of their easily treatable and normally trivial medical issue had they just popped along to their local Doctor. These kids often die in writhing pain even though I'm sure their parents loved them every bit as much as they could, it's their Faith based belief in their religion that killed them. Evidenced medicine be damned, they had FAITH!

Ok go ask, find for yourself.and then get back to me. I think you will find not all religions teach the same thing. Please excuse me, if you knew that you would not have just made that last comment

Cheers hey

I already have. I have friends in a number of other religions and they tell me Exactly the same thing you're telling me - literally, "You just gotta have Faith..."! So I guess you were wrong to assume I hadn't looked into this.

Are they wrong? Should I ask them if You're wrong? What do you think they'll tell me?

This is exactly why I'd never assume a religious position without evidence since Faith in a religious context is the worst way to come about the truth of something, what if I wind up following the wrong religion and upsetting the true creator(s) of the universe? If there is an Omnipotent and Omnipresent Divine Creator of the universe that wants a relationship with me and needs my tythe, then surely that being would know how to get through to me, right?

 

[Allandavid]

That's why it's called faith. But for me it's also experience. I have a relationship.wih the Almighty. I wish you did too.

Yes, it's faith....but it isn't evidence...

 

[Jimmy D]

Again we didn't observe anything. In fact there is evidence what is claimed cannot be true. Here's one bit.

The evolution of the horse - CMI Mobile

Your "article" in no way answers my question, it's merely one long argument from incredulity and misrepresentation.

For example, this little gem....

“Transitional” forms between horses with teeth designed for browsing (Parahippus) and those with teeth for grazing (Merychippus) are rare

Which is simply a lie. The evolution of horse teeth has been thoroughly researched and is understood.....

Fossil records verify a long-standing theory that horses evolved through natural selection, according to groundbreaking research by two anatomy professors at New York College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYCOM) of New York Institute of Technology.


Working with colleagues from Massachusetts and Spain, Matthew Mihlbachler, Ph.D., and Nikos Solounias, Ph.D. arrived at the conclusion after examining the teeth of 6,500 fossil horses representing 222 different populations of more than 70 extinct horse species. The records, spanning the past 55 million years, indicate a "critical" lag time between the evolution of horse teeth and dietary changes resulting from climate change.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303141542.htm

..........................................................

I don't know if you bothered looking at any of the papers or books that are cited as sources but the majaority of them very much support and evidence the current understanding of horse evolution.

Anyway, I've already spent too long looking at that rubbish, if you're interested this blog points out many more of it's errors.

Besides, I'm not asking you to quibble with what I posted, the fossils I mentioned have all been catalogued and examined which you can verify for yourself , I'm asking for your explanation of how we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically?

 

[Jimmy D]

Just who observed this? We are guessing.

Who observed what? The fossils or the Blackcaps? What is who guessing?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have a mate of mine who tells me Islam is definitely the last true religion and that Christianity is just confused, and the Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon him) will be back to tell you all so too...

His opinion does not line up with the teaching of his book.

 

[xianghua]

I don't know what your second sentence means, but this is a start. Now, how long has it taken for these mutations to accumulate?

about 5-10 my and even more. now tell me why this data cant fit with a creation model.

You and many creationists have said things like this, but as I noted before, I don't believe you. I don't believe you because no creationist ever shows how the predictions fit well with creation.

see above. we will check it.

 

[xianghua]

Except that the so-called 'creation model' doesn't appear to exist and consequently doesn't make any predictions within a scientific framework.

we will see about that.

 

[xianghua]

There are circles in nature. Human-designed things have circles. Thus, natural circles must also have been designed. If you can see the flaw in this argument, you can see the flaw in yours.

so a spinning motor can evolve naturally too? prove it and you will falsified my claim. the burden of proof isn't in my side here.

 

[TBDude65]

Christians when they die go to their reward so whatever consequences we have we suffer in this life.

In Luke we read the story of the Rich man and Lazarus: Luke 16:22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment," Here we see that those who are unsaved and not redeemed are punished for their sin and transgression.

We see that Lazarus said: "I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

We have the Bible and everyone will be held accountable.

Just because you believe it, doesn’t mean it’s true. One can look at what happens here, in reality, and observe that fair isn’t a universal consequence


And in addition to this, people can do some pretty evil and immoral things and still make it to heaven according to many denominations. So it would again appear false to assert that everyone gets what they “deserve.”

 

[xianghua]

Primitive humans, quite different from modern humans.

and still humans. so this fusion isn't evidence for a common descent after all, as i said.

 

[xianghua]

Except of course this fusion would be a requirement under the Theory of Evolution - if it were any other way, then it would suit Creationism more than Evolution

not realy. actually even the creation model predict this, since we already know that chimp and human are about 98% similar, the only possibility is a fusion event.

Under Creation, not a required observation at all.... in fact, that it is obvious is a problem for Creation, since this shows how it is possible to have so many organisms with so many different numbers of Chromosomes pairs

no. basically all the genes are still there. we aren't talking about missing chromosomes.

 

[Allandavid]

and still humans. so this fusion isn't evidence for a common descent after all, as i said.

It is evidence that supports the theory. Had there been no evidence of this fusion event, the theory would have great difficulty in explaining why two closely related species would have a different chromosome count. Because of this evidence, the theory remains intact.

 

[xianghua]

And maybe one day you'll provide actual sources to back up this claim. Can you provide sources?

why not? see this figure:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...of-laryngeal-echolocation-A-Phylogenetic-tree