Is evolution real?

[Strathos]

THe meanings of words drift as their usage changes. Without digging into the semantic history of the word theory, I suspect that it is the colloquial usage of the word that shifted. Perhaps it was because a specialized term entered into general usage. I don't know.

I should note that in the law they talk about the "theory of the case" which is an explanatory framework that explains the evidence. The two sides of the case will typically have different theories of the case, but in each it (like a scientific theory) explains things. In the law case, a jury or judge will weigh the evidence and may need to evaluate how the two theories work and choose one as the best explanation.

There is also 'theory' in chess, which refers to sequences of well-known and established opening moves that have been played many times and are considered solid and effective.

Maybe chess players are also part of the evil scientific evolution conspiracy?

 

[DebbieJ]

Examine the DNA. It has the same double helix structure and chemical composition (Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Phosphorous) on all living things -- plants, trees, animals, insects, frogs, cats, dogs, humans, etc. In other words, we are all related. The banana you're eating right now is related to you. The only difference is the coding arrangement. It's like programming a software. Every piece of software is made up of 1s and 0s. According to the programming code, this software becomes a browser, and this becomes an operating system and this becomes a word processor. We can create so many types of software with just 1's and 0's. We can say that this word processor is related to a graphics software due to its 1's and 0's. They are just coded differently. It's the same with DNA. If we have the technology to program a DNA, we can create different types of living things.

If someone says to you, you're 98% related to an ape or homo erectus. That's correct. If someone says to you, you're 90% similar to mice, that's also correct. Because it's evident that out from one clay, the Lord created all living things, including humans.

With regards to evolution, there's so many human like skulls scattered around the globe dating hundreds of thousands of years. What if the Lord had used the process of evolution to create humans until it became Adam? What if the creation process took hundreds of thousands of years? Of course, relative to the Lord, it's just minutes to him. Relative to the Lord, it took only 6 days to create everything. But, relative to us, billions of years had transpired.

__

With regards to the flood, I believe it happened. Yes, everything went under water. The volume of water is enough to cover everything. Do the math. That's not even a typo even though I know very well that the volume of water cannot possibly cover even the shortest mountain on earth. It's sounds contradictory, but it's not.

We have around a million volcanoes under the oceans. Imagine if all of it erupted at the same time as what the Bible said - the fountains of the great deep burst forth. We can imagine the tremendous mega earthquakes it had produced with all the plates moving and shifting about. Maybe it's in the magnitude of over 15. So severe that it collapsed the land and submerged it under water. All the waters of the oceans flowed violently towards the submerging masses of land. The earth literally imploded on itself. Imagine a dinner plate submerging into a sink of water. And it doesn't take a lot of water to submerge the whole plate. I believe this is exactly what happened when the whole earth was flooded.

The water did not flood the earth like overflowing a glass with water, rather, the earth sank underwater during Noah's flood. It's like the story of Atlantis sinking underwater.

Can land sink underwater by an earthquake? Yes, it can.

"An ancient, lost island in Turkey is set to be discovered by underwater archaeologists after being submerged by a giant earthquake over 1,000 years ago."

Link

One might argue, "That's not flooding!". It is flooding because it's just a matter of perspective. What if you were a reporter during Noah's flood? You would feel the ground shaking violently as you record the whole event. It is raining very hard. You then saw water rushing throughout the city and it began to flood. You drove your car to the highest hill possible. You saw the whole city quickly being flooded until the water level reaches the tallest building. You ran towards the helicopter at the top of the hill. From the sky, you saw everything flooded until the city became an ocean. You flew to find dry ground, only to see it being covered by water quickly. You then saw the peak of the highest mountain being lowered slowly and only starting to realize that the land was sinking into the sea.

This was how Noah's flood happened.

 

[JIMINZ]

Evolution is a recursive process. That means that by definition, ever single mutation that occurs in a new generation will be building on what came before it.

That's the Theory isn't it?

 

[Speedwell]

That's the Theory isn't it?

Yes, it is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a empirical evidence. It is plausible, parsimonious and makes predictions useful to applied scientists. Like all scientific theories, it is accepted provisionally pending new evidence. So far no disconfirming evidence has been discovered and there is no credible alternative theory. That's why people accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Kylie]

I think adaptation is real like you've described, but not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.

Do you think that the process I described, if allowed to continue for long enough, could not result in evolution the kind of which you described?

(Although you got the details wrong - Humans did not evolve from monkeys, who did not evolve from mice. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor. They're on different branches of the family tree, just like how your cousins aren't in the direct line of your family if you trace your lineage back, but you both came from a common ancestor, in this case, a grandparent.)

 

[Kylie]

What kind of demonstration? The simple fact that you write to me and that you want to know demonstrates you have a soul.

If you are self-aware, if you think, if you are rational, then you have a soul.

In what way does the fact I can write and desire to know things demonstrate that I have a soul.

All you've said is, "If X, then Y," but you haven't demonstrated that there's actually a link there.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, it's right at the stage where this feathered, weak sighted, two legged, creature, lost it's feathers and grew fur, (Hair) instead, gained better eyesight through a mutation in it's genes, and grew one leg on all four corners of its body to keep it from tipping over in a big wind, as well as developing stripes which it felt would give itself a better chance of confusing the predator, when it was in a herd situation.

Each statement was numbered.

Which numbered statement are you disagreeing with?

 

[JIMINZ]

Each statement was numbered.

Which numbered statement are you disagreeing with?

What I am disagreeing with is Evolution.

My argument against Evolution is Creation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I am disagreeing with is Evolution.

My argument against Evolution is Creation.

Except that you haven't even been arguing for Creation. All you've been arguing about is the semantics of the word theory.

 

[JIMINZ]

Except that you haven't even been arguing for Creation. All you've been arguing about is the semantics of the word theory.

Ya got to start somewhere don't ya.

I believe until you have the parameters of a discussion laid out beforehand then there won't be any misunderstanding in the future, but the word Theory having been hijacked by Scientists and then summarily redefined to mean what they wanted it to mean, poses a very big problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya got to start somewhere don't ya.

I believe until you have the parameters of a discussion laid out beforehand then there won't be any misunderstanding in the future, but the word Theory having been hijacked by Scientists and then summarily redefined to mean what they wanted it to mean, poses a very big problem.

Except that you are arguing a non-issue. As was said before, chess uses the word theory to mean something wholly different to how laymen use it. Musicians use the word theory to mean wholly different to how laymen use it.
All this arguing from you tells me is that you clearly do not understand the basic rules of science and you also seem to have no desire to learn. The fact you even say the word theory has been 'hijacked' by scientists says so much about you.

 

[JIMINZ]

Except that you are arguing a non-issue. As was said before, chess uses the word theory to mean something wholly different to how laymen use it. Musicians use the word theory to mean wholly different to how laymen use it.
All this arguing from you tells me is that you clearly do not understand the basic rules of science and you also seem to have no desire to learn. The fact you even say the word theory has been 'hijacked' by scientists says so much about you.

Thanks for the character assassination, bye.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the character assassination, bye.

You literally called the scientific use of the word theory a 'hijacking', after you have been shown repeatedly that it's not a hijacking in the slightest.
It's not a character assassination when I'm quoting you word for word.

 

[Kylie]

What I am disagreeing with is Evolution.

My argument against Evolution is Creation.

If all you can do is say you disagree with evolution but you can't actually tell me where the flaw lies, then you'll find most people won't consider your argument very convincing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes you can answer the question, but you refuse to. Assuming the flood happened, is it possible that these were all variations of humans just like we see with the great variety of dogs, but we now don't see them anymore because they were wiped out (buried) and the variety we see now is from only a small group that survived. Is it possible?

No. It's not possible. If you feel it is then the onus is on you is to demonstrate that your explanation is a better fit for the evidence than evolutionary theory. To date no Creationist has come close to achieving this: rather the reverse.

 

[Speedwell]

What I am disagreeing with is Evolution.

My argument against Evolution is Creation.

Creation is not an argument against evolution. Evolution is entirely consistent with divine creation. It is, of course, not consistent with biblical literalist creationism. If that's the "creation" which is your argument against evolution, then you will have to bring evidence for it.

 

[Speedwell]

Ya got to start somewhere don't ya.

I believe until you have the parameters of a discussion laid out beforehand then there won't be any misunderstanding in the future, but the word Theory having been hijacked by Scientists and then summarily redefined to mean what they wanted it to mean, poses a very big problem.

Why? As long as you know how they are using it you will understand what they mean, even if they don't mean the same thing as you usually do.

 

[-57]

Ah, Lenny Lego. You really need some new material, 57. But you are right, of course, a creator could use common building blocks. But all that shows is that common building blocks are possibly just as consistent with special creation as with evolution. If you want creationism to succeed as a scientific theory, you are going to have to show how it makes a successful prediction that evolution doesn't make. Unfalsifiable assertions just won't cut it.

Lenny shows you don't have the only tool in the shed.

 

[-57]

Try giving it a second thought by answering the question.

You didn't answer the question...why should it have to?

 

[-57]

If all you can do is say you disagree with evolution but you can't actually tell me where the flaw lies, then you'll find most people won't consider your argument very convincing.

Get back to us when you can explain how mutations add up.