proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

if we will take stalactite growth rate for instance, it may point to a young earth. for instance: an average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 1 meter long. i think its indeed what we find in most stalactites caves:

(image from Stalactite - Wikipedia)

 

[xianghua]

oneday the next generation will find fossils of extinct lions...they will write books proving lions evolved from tigers.

or from a worm:

You Share 70% of Your Genes with This Slimy Marine Worm

 

[pitabread]

Funny story about that. I have geologist friend who I recall telling about the time he sent off core samples taken from the site and according to him geologists who were unaware of where they were taken from thought differently. If you are interested I will text my friend and see if I can find out the specific details.

Nah, hearsay doesn't make for a particularly compelling argument.

If you had published material of such an occurrence, that would be more interesting.

 

[rjs330]

All you did was make allusions to the fact that there was a time when we survived with less knowledge than we have now. Which is true, but unless you're actively advocating for stopping the quest for knowledge to improve our technology, society and general well-being, you really don't have a point.



And yet evolution (inc. phylogenetics which is the study of evolutionary relationships) is an applied science within those very fields, particularly with respect to modern genomics.



You won't find any evidence of a "common design" scientific model in any medical research.

Right because "common design" isn't accepted. Yet it's premise is exactly what is used in medical research. Evilution from a common ancestor is NOT necessary. Only what is necessary is to understand that life had commonalities which we can draw upon to conduct medical research and so on. The theory that we all came from a common ancestor is irrelevant as I pointed out for our survival. If it was we wouldn't have survived up until "evolution from a common ancestor became a belief. We don't need it to grow food or manufacture electronics or build buildings.

 

[rjs330]

You missed the point completely.

Saying things like "fish has always been fish" or "spider has always been spider" is like saying "mammals have always been mammals".

You're implicitly accepting a level of evolutionary change far beyond something like common ancestry between humans and other primates.

You are not reading my posts are you. I have always said I didn't believe creatures can evolve based upon their need to survive on because their environment changes. Such as the change of a finches wing in order for it to fly better for longer flights. But the finch will always be a bird and never anything else. It does not have the same ancestry as we do. We and the finch do not have a common ancestor.

 

[pitabread]

Right because "common design" isn't accepted.

Because there is no scientific model of "common design" to begin with.

Yet it's premise is exactly what is used in medical research.

Nope. Again, you won't find a "common design" as a scientific model applied to anything in medical research.

And where you do find references to shared similarities in the literature, invariably the credit goes to evolution and common ancestry.

The theory that we all came from a common ancestor is irrelevant as I pointed out for our survival. If it was we wouldn't have survived up until "evolution from a common ancestor became a belief. We don't need it to grow food or manufacture electronics or build buildings.

By the same token, we don't need electricity or computers or telecommunications or modern sanitation or mathematics or any of the other advancements in human knowledge from the last few thousand years if all we're talking about is gathering food, building shelter and reproducing.

So unless you're trying to advocate for turning our back on the pursuit of knowledge, you still have no point.

 

[pitabread]

You are not reading my posts are you. I have always said I didn't believe creatures can evolve based upon their need to survive on because their environment changes. Such as the change of a finches wing in order for it to fly better for longer flights. But the finch will always be a bird and never anything else. It does not have the same ancestry as we do. We and the finch do not have a common ancestor.

You're still missing the point.

"Bird" is a entire class of organisms (Aves) comprised of thousands of individual species. Saying that "birds stay birds" is like saying "mammals stay mammals". If you're accepting that the evolution of birds can produce the diversity of bird species we see today, then you're implicitly accepting the diversity of mammal life from the same process. And that includes humans diversifying from earlier mammalian ancestors.

 

[BradB]

if we will take stalactite growth rate for instance, it may point to a young earth. for instance: an average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 1 meter long. i think its indeed what we find in most stalactites caves:

So then by those calculations this George Rogers Clark Memorial in Vincennes, IN must be around 22,860 years old instead of only about a half century.

This is because in the structures built beneath it we find this 228.6 cm structure.

I wanted to provide many more examples like this but unfortunately I don't have the time right now.

 

[DavidFirth]

I SHALL CAST OUT THAT FOWL DEF AND DUMB SPIRIT HALLAHLUYAH! Just kidding.

In all earnest though, when Jesus said "Go into all the world a preach the gospel" I don't think the word carried the same connotation it does today. Today we think of "preaching" as strictly the emotional proclamation of something religious in nature. But at the time it simply meant to publically proclaim or teach a truth requiring a course of action. Jesus was simply telling us to go everywhere and teach His truth which requires the hearers to take action. In Isaiah 1:18 God tells sinners "Come and let us reason together." He wants to discuss our human condition of sin with reason or understanding. In Romans 1:20 we are called to come to an understanding of God's existence through an examination of the physical scientific evidence of creation. In 1 Peter 3:15 God calls Christians to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. Again this call isn't for some sort of hyper emotional pep talk like we see in most churches today, but rather it is a call to reason with people and their understanding. It's a call to proclaim or teach publically the truth of Jesus Christ in a reasonable way that requires those who hear it to take a course of action. God even tells us we cannot truly have faith that pleases Him without first coming to an understanding that He exists, and that He will reward those who earnestly seek Him. Hebrews 11:6

By that definition... yes I am preaching my brother. Those who resort to only "preaching" in a way that just tugs on emotional strings, are copping out so they don't have to actually "study to show themselves approved. They are also condemning their converts to walk away after the pep rally is over and wonder if they really have the truth? This causes the state we classically call back sliding which is false because they never truly believed to begin with. They were just "trying something." I've even seen bumper stickers that say "TRY JESUS," like one would try on a shoe to see if it fits. Yet Jesus commended the one who takes time to really count the cost. To really examine the facts and see if he has what it takes to truly commit.

Blessings to you friend.

Thank you, and blessings to you also. And don't stop preaching, please! You're good at it.

 

[USincognito]

No they don't. Well, they do look like ash and mud layers (because that's what they are), but in no way do they resemble limestone, shale, sandstone, marble, granite, etc.

I must be missing something here. I wrote that there were ash and mud layers but they don't resemble limestone, shale, sandstone, marble, granite, etc. layers and you posted a video of a known dishonest Creationist confirming my point that the layers at Mount Saint Helens are all mud and ash layers.

 

[rjs330]

Because there is no scientific model of "common design" to begin with.



Nope. Again, you won't find a "common design" as a scientific model applied to anything in medical research.

And where you do find references to shared similarities in the literature, invariably the credit goes to evolution and common ancestry.



By the same token, we don't need electricity or computers or telecommunications or modern sanitation or mathematics or any of the other advancements in human knowledge from the last few thousand years if all we're talking about is gathering food, building shelter and reproducing.

So unless you're trying to advocate for turning our back on the pursuit of knowledge, you still have no point.

Because there is no scientific model of "common design" to begin with.



Nope. Again, you won't find a "common design" as a scientific model applied to anything in medical research.

And where you do find references to shared similarities in the literature, invariably the credit goes to evolution and common ancestry.



By the same token, we don't need electricity or computers or telecommunications or modern sanitation or mathematics or any of the other advancements in human knowledge from the last few thousand years if all we're talking about is gathering food, building shelter and reproducing.

So unless you're trying to advocate for turning our back on the pursuit of knowledge, you still have no point.

Of course I have a point you just refuse to acknowledge it. Don't be silly, no one is advocating going back to the stone age.

Of course there is no scientific model of common design because by the very definition that science uses it won't fit because once you admit there is design you MUST address who or what the designer is. That cannot be allowed in science today.

Evolution is the ONLY answer for science today because there is no need to address a designer. It's a closed loop.

You can continue to pursue knowledge and admit there is a common design. You don't need evolution from a common ancestor to do that. All you have to admit is there is a common design. Evolution from a common ancestor is irrelevant.

 

[rjs330]

You're still missing the point.

"Bird" is a entire class of organisms (Aves) comprised of thousands of individual species. Saying that "birds stay birds" is like saying "mammals stay mammals". If you're accepting that the evolution of birds can produce the diversity of bird species we see today, then you're implicitly accepting the diversity of mammal life from the same process. And that includes humans diversifying from earlier mammalian ancestors.

Humans from humans. Birds from birds. Monkeys from monkeys, beetles from beetles are the only way things change. Birds were never anything else but birds. Spiders were never anything else from spiders. Birds and spiders never evolved from the same ancestor. You have no evidence of that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Humans from humans. Birds from birds. Monkeys from monkeys, beetles from beetles are the only way things change. Birds were never anything else but birds. Spiders were never anything else from spiders.

And fools were never other than fools.

Birds and spiders never evolved from the same ancestor. You have no evidence of that.

Foolishness evolved from blindness. Those with open eyes are inspired by the slpendour of the evidence. Time for you to open your eyes.

 

[Speedwell]

You can continue to pursue knowledge and admit there is a common design. You don't need evolution from a common ancestor to do that. All you have to admit is there is a common design. Evolution from a common ancestor is irrelevant.

What makes "common design" a falsifiable proposition?

 

[rjs330]

And fools were never other than fools.

Foolishness evolved from blindness. Those with open eyes are inspired by the slpendour of the evidence. Time for you to open your eyes.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, - Romans 1:18-22 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 1:18-22 - King James Version

 

[rjs330]

What makes "common design" a falsifiable proposition?

Show that all life didn't come from a common design.

 

[Speedwell]

Show that all life didn't come from a common design.

Exactly. It can't be done; that's what makes it an unfalsifiable proposition. No matter what science discovers, all we have to do is say "God designed it that way."

 

[rjs330]

Exactly. It can't be done; that's what makes it an unfalsifiable proposition. No matter what science discovers, all we have to do is say "God designed it that way."

Evolution from a common ancestor cannot be falsified either since we cannot see or know or test or show a common ancestor.

 

[pitabread]

Humans from humans. Birds from birds. Monkeys from monkeys, beetles from beetles are the only way things change. Birds were never anything else but birds. Spiders were never anything else from spiders. Birds and spiders never evolved from the same ancestor. You have no evidence of that.

Let's try this a different way, since you still don't seem to be understanding...

Do you think all of these shared a common ancestor?

 

[pitabread]

Of course I have a point you just refuse to acknowledge it. Don't be silly, no one is advocating going back to the stone age.

Then what is your point?

Evolution is an applied science in modern biology. You keep saying we don't need to use it... because?

If you're not advocating turning our back on scientific inquiry and knowledge, then what exactly are you advocating?

Of course there is no scientific model of common design because by the very definition that science uses it won't fit because once you admit there is design you MUST address who or what the designer is.

Not necessarily. Certainly it would raise the question of who or what, but it need not explicitly be addressed.

Evolution is the ONLY answer for science today because there is no need to address a designer.

Evolution is the only answer today because it's the only valid scientific theory that actually explains the biodiversity of life on this planet.

Evolution from a common ancestor is irrelevant.

Except that it's clearly not given that its one of the cornerstones of modern biological sciences and an applied science to boot.

You can claim to the contrary all you want, but that's just pure denialism.