What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Jimmy D]

I have seen in other posts that evolution is said to be just a fairy tale trying to explain what might have happened, and I have not seen any posts giving proof that it is otherwise.

I posted two articles, specifically showing evidence for evolution. You have completely ignored them.

Your behaviour is very poor, what exactly are you making demands for if you can’t be bothered to read the responses?

Only you can remedy your ignorance on the topic, but if you prefer to waste your time posting nonsense it isn’t making anyone else look bad apart from the creationist “side” so keep it up.

 

[Jimmy D]

Here they are in case you missed them Paul...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

An informative article written by a forum member ( and a specialist in the field, and a Christian for that matter) that describes a part of the genetic evidence for common ancestry.

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles

 

[Ophiolite]

Nothing like a good exercise in futility, I guess.

This is a discussion forum. Your refusal to discuss matters on a discussion forum is not futile. It is discourteous and raises unflattering suspicions as to your motives. Great advertisement for how to live a Christian life.

 

[NxNW]

Still waiting for the cave drawings of humans hunting dinosaurs.

 

[Ophiolite]

Still waiting for the cave drawings of humans hunting dinosaurs.

Patience. Do you have any idea how long it takes to fake a convincing photo-shop rendition, corrupt half a dozen Wikipedia pages and set up a false website for a putative Mid-Western University? These aren't Presidential tweets that can be tossed off in a couple of minutes and denied a week later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for the cave drawings of humans hunting dinosaurs.

Did you miss the earlier one? It was a hoot!

 

[Strathos]

Still waiting for the cave drawings of humans hunting dinosaurs.

Forget cave drawings, I have a video!

 

[xianghua]

I have seen in other posts that evolution is said to be just a fairy tale trying to explain what might have happened, and I have not seen any posts giving proof that it is otherwise.

the source.

evolution at the level of family (say a cat to a dog) is indeed just an assumption. on the other hand we have evidence for design in nature. think about this argument: say that we will see a self replicating robot ( lets say even with dna) on a far planet. do we need to conclude design or a natural process in this case? remember that according to evolution if its made from organic components and have a self replicating system we need to conclude a natural process because it has living traits. but we know that even a self replicating robot is evidence for design. therefore a penguin for instance need design too.

 

[NxNW]

Is anyone claiming cats can evolve into dogs?

I'll answer the question: No, they are not.

 

[Speedwell]

evolution at the level of family (say a cat to a dog) is indeed just an assumption.

It's an erroneous assumption you are making. The theory of evolution does not predict any such event. With evolution, the only taxon forming event is speciation. The higher taxa are human constructs designed to classify the results of repeated speciation.

on the other hand we have evidence for design in nature.

Then why have you not produced any?

think about this argument: say that we will see a self replicating robot ( lets say even with dna) on a far planet. do we need to conclude design or a natural process in this case?

Is there any evidence of intentional manufacture? A "self-replicating robot even with DNA" is not, in itself, evidence of design (allowing for your illiterate definition of "robot").

remember that according to evolution if its made from organic components and have a self replicating system we need to conclude a natural process because it has living traits.

No, we do not. You just made that up. But a natural process does not exclude the possibility of design in any case

but we know that even a self replicating robot is evidence for design.

We don't know that, either. We could only conclude design if we found evidence of intentional manufacture.

therefore a penguin for instance need design too.

Do penguins show evidence of intentional manufacture? To they have tool marks or mold lines? To they employ synthetic or refined materials not found in nature? Does it say "made in China" on the bottom of their feet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

evolution at the level of family (say a cat to a dog) is indeed just an assumption. on the other hand we have evidence for design in nature. think about this argument: say that we will see a self replicating robot ( lets say even with dna) on a far planet. do we need to conclude design or a natural process in this case? remember that according to evolution if its made from organic components and have a self replicating system we need to conclude a natural process because it has living traits. but we know that even a self replicating robot is evidence for design. therefore a penguin for instance need design too.

If you get evolution so wrong, as you did in your "cat to a dog" example, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? This is failure at below a middle school level of education.

 

[pitabread]

evolution at the level of family (say a cat to a dog)

Once again, not how evolution works. Your understanding of evolution continues to be completely wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

evolution at the level of family (say a cat to a dog) is indeed just an assumption. on the other hand we have evidence for design in nature. think about this argument: say that we will see a self replicating robot ( lets say even with dna) on a far planet. do we need to conclude design or a natural process in this case? remember that according to evolution if its made from organic components and have a self replicating system we need to conclude a natural process because it has living traits. but we know that even a self replicating robot is evidence for design. therefore a penguin for instance need design too.

Could this

have evolved into this

?
If not, why not?

 

[xianghua]

If you get evolution so wrong, as you did in your "cat to a dog" example, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? This is failure at below a middle school level of education.

note that i didnt said in a single generation.

 

[xianghua]

Once again, not how evolution works. Your understanding of evolution continues to be completely wrong.

i didnt said in a single generation so im not wrong here at all. i can tell you more than that: can you prove that according to evolution why it will be impossible to evolve a dog out of cat in a single step? remember that some scientists believe in a multiverese or maybe even in infinite universe. thus there is no limitation for any type of change from a probability perspective.

 

[Speedwell]

i didnt said in a single generation so im not wrong here at all.

No, you're still wrong. A cat can't evolve into a dog. We've already explained it to you a number of times.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, you're still wrong. A cat can't evolve into a dog. We've already explained it to you a number of times.

Unfortunately it is also likely true that a blind obsessive cannot evolve into a critical thinker. No matter how often it is explained I doubt he will ever understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

note that i didnt said in a single generation.

It does not matter. This still demonstrates a very serious gap in your understanding of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

i didnt said in a single generation so im not wrong here at all.

Generations have nothing to do with it. Cats don't evolve into dogs. Dogs don't evolve into cats.

Any claim otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Generations have nothing to do with it. Cats don't evolve into dogs. Dogs don't evolve into cats.

Any claim otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

so a fish cant evolve into human too? but this what already happened according to evolution.