proving evolution as just a "theory"

Kenny'sID said:

The whole thing is hilarious/ridiculous, and it's amazing how multitudes of seemingly, otherwise intelligent people, just accept it.

Click to expand...

I keep asking myself the very thing when it comes to creationism. It's an odd thing, that.

"Kenny'sID said: ↑
The whole thing is hilarious/ridiculous, and it's amazing how multitudes of seemingly, otherwise intelligent people, just accept it."

"The WHOLE world IS deceived". Not a small part of it.

Concerning TRUTH/ SALVATION from the world , the devil, and sin, Jesus says:

25At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.…
Berean Study Bible · Download
Cross References
Job 37:24
"Therefore men fear Him; He does not regard any who are wise of heart."
-------------------------------------------------------

So the worldly view has no ground to stand on (no, not even science or any other).

Speedwell said:

You can't tell whether such a thing is designed unless it shows indications of human manufacture.

Click to expand...

so you can't conclude design in this case since it's made from natural stones and has no indications of human manufacture?:



Beach Words BE CREATIVE Photo 5x7 with Mat- encouraging sentiment, beach stones, beach photography, positive words, beach decor, artist gift[/QUOTE]

Bugeyedcreepy said:

Sure we can. After all, how many cars do you see naturally occurring?

Click to expand...

how many living things do we see naturally occuring?

tas8831 said:

Improves it relative to what?

It necessitates the blind spot (making more work for the brain).

What is the evidence that this was 'designed', seeing as how many other creatures with eyes have their retinas 'wired' differently.
Birds, for example, seem to have a better set up than we do. Maybe God is a bird?

Click to expand...

are you also referring to the octopus eye?

xianghua said:

so you can't conclude design in this case since it's made from natural stones and has no indications of human manufacture?:

Click to expand...

How do you distinguish between the stones pictured above versus something like this:



Would you conclude design in both cases? After all, you're argument has traditionally involved invoking claims of design based on superficial characteristics. In both these cases we have piles of stones. Therefore, are they both evidence for design?

xianghua said:

so you can't conclude design in this case since it's made from natural stones and has no indications of human manufacture?:

Beach Words BE CREATIVE Photo 5x7 with Mat- encouraging sentiment, beach stones, beach photography, positive words, beach decor, artist gift

Click to expand...

How do you know that? Have you examined the stones? Do you know where they came from?

The Times said:

Adaptations within kind of species is not evolution.

Click to expand...

We've observed genus level transitions, so demonstrably wrong. Also, species is a category we ourselves came up with, and it is not defined on "the limits of how much a population can change".

The Times said:

The plenty you claim is not showing any chronology within each transitioning species.

Click to expand...

This site lists them by name and in order from oldest to youngest Transitional Fossils
Just type their names into Google and do image searches.

The Times said:

There is no consistency and no chronology within each unique species.

Click to expand...

Example of a break in chronology? Also, what do you mean by consistency? You mean that evolutionary developments don't happen at a consistent rate? Of course they don't, because natural selection is variable in intensity, as are generation time frames for various organisms. No matter how much pressure our species could be under natural selection, human populations would never have the potential to evolve as fast as bacteria, because bacteria have generations pass in hours while human generations are considered to be 15 years long.

The Times said:

Your assuming because you found a few adaptations, that they are to be interpreted as evolution of species from one form to another.

Click to expand...

Nah, I've actually done evolution experiments myself, and don't actually think about fossils all that much. I'll do an evolution experiment for you, if you want.

sfs said:

I have never said that creationism can't explain the evidence for chromosome fusion.

Click to expand...

fine.

sfs said:

I said creationism didn't predict that evidence would appear for fusion. You said creationism did predict it. You have offered no evidence to support that claim.

Click to expand...

it's base on my conclusion of the genetic similarity between chimp and human. if they both share about 98% then the best conclusion of missing chromosomes it's a fusion event. very simple. on the other hand: can you show me that evolutionists predict it before this finding?

sfs said:

The existence of "motors" in cells is not evidence for design, and the existence of human-designed motors is not evidence that all "motors" were designed. Your claim lacks any logical substance.

Click to expand...

so you basically agree that some motors can evolve naturally?. fine. can you prove it or is just a belief?

Speedwell said:

How do you know that? Have you examined the stones? Do you know where they came from?

Click to expand...

lets say that they are natural stones. you will conclude design or not in this case?

pitabread said:

I keep asking myself the very thing when it comes to creationism. It's an odd thing, that.

Click to expand...

The big difference is between dumb as a rock "nothing" that started it all, and "something" or "God" that started it all. God, a creator over nothing, not only makes more sense, but logically, seems to be the only possible scenario.

Occam's Razor.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

"The WHOLE world IS deceived". Not a small part of it.

Click to expand...

Multitudes covers a lot of people.

pitabread said:

How do you distinguish between the stones pictured above versus something like this:

Would you conclude design in both cases? After all, you're argument has traditionally involved invoking claims of design based on superficial characteristics. In both these cases we have piles of stones. Therefore, are they both evidence for design?

Click to expand...

no. since in my image there is a specific order that only a designer can make. so the first image is a clear example of design when in the second image we can't know.

xianghua said:

when in the second image we can't know.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I know, think, believe, that we can know.

The Times said:

Species are NOT organisms. Species have both form and intelligence.

Click to expand...

This is for you Classifying Animals

I am unable to find the patience to politely explain what a species is for you, and I hope this activity helps. I am very sorry.

The Times said:

The plant machinery is an organism and this on its own does not prove new evolutionary life resulting from manipulating the organisms inputs to produce a resultant form with intelligence.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming that plants have any relevance to the evolution of human intelligence whatsoever.

The Times said:

A Ford plant factory, just like an organism on its own, with all its machinery is not the actual Ford vehicle itself. The different species/beast or Ford models to come out of its assembly line is the result of the arrangement of inputs within its machinery plant, in order to engineer and to develop a NEW vehicle/beast.

Click to expand...

-_- how cells and multicellular organisms reproduce is not the same as how a factory makes cars, but I'll utilize the factory as a way of explaining mutation.

So, let's say we have a fully automated assembly line, and we leave it to work all on its own. It even does its own maintenance. One day, there is a malfunction in the maintenance robots that makes them less effective at repairing and detecting other malfunctions and damage in the factory. Now, from time to time, cars end up being produced which don't quite fit the design mold. They have extra or missing airbags, the tire sizes vary, etc. Certainly, some of the cars this factory produces would not be safe to drive, but most of them are still capable of that function. Heck, the ones that are missing airbags inevitably cost less material to make, so if there weren't laws in place (acting as natural selection in this example) which made them illegal, it would benefit the company to keep producing these cars over the original design. Over time, the flaws in the cars the factory produces get worse and worse, until the Ford company has no choice but to shut it down (cell death). Of course, the analogy isn't entirely good, and a more accurate one would be a factory that built other factories, but you get the gist. Not every error results in something useless or even less useful than the original. If the factory made an error car that was better than the original design, wouldn't Ford want to use that new design instead?

The Times said:

What has that to do with the different species resulting from the different configurations of the plant machinery (organisms) inputs.

Click to expand...

No organism can actively prevent mutation in its cells, hence why one of the huge driving forces of evolution (mutation) remains.

The Times said:

Living things are not by any means species. You can observe the poo of an animal that is full of living organisms that came straight out of a cow's behind, then by rights, should we call the poo or the living goo a species, is that right?

Click to expand...

No, just the bacteria and whatnot living in the poo. People live in houses, but that doesn't make the houses alive.

By the way, who told you that species is a classification that only applies to intelligent organisms? This is the first time I have ever heard someone think this is the case. I mean, even Answers in Genesis doesn't get the definition of species this wrong Speciation, Yes; Evolution, No

It's surreal, like someone claiming that the definition of "dog" is "a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface on which objects may be placed, and that can be used for such purposes as eating, writing, working, or playing games." If your definition of species was any more off, I'd be worried that you had a stroke or something.

The Times said:

Absolutely wrong! And I say organisms, unless they take form and intelligence cannot be classified as either a species of mammals, birds, fish, snails, insects or whatever. In fact evolution theory claims that from the poo goo different species sprang out and this is so laughable that it begs belief to be considered as a science.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are thinking of abiogenesis more, which is a theory on the origin of life, not how life changes over time. A common mistake, and your description is a straw man version of that theory.

The Times said:

Very good! So by rights, this evolutionary process took many millions of millions of years of trials and misses, that should qualatitively and quantatively show evidence of morphing processes from say a sea based to a land based and vice versa.

Click to expand...

An odd way of putting it, but I am not sure why you think the fossil record doesn't depict this. Did you think evolution was dinosaurs occasionally giving birth to half-birds and quarter-birds that died until randomly one gave birth to a complete bird?

The Times said:

We should see a horror book of neomorphs leading to xenomorphs fossil remains and have infinite amounts of evidential fossil dot points, in order to accurately approximate the line of life, that stretches millions of millions of years, for any particular species that won out, right?

Click to expand...

XD while you post a funny picture of a person's head on a literal xenomorph's body later, I hope you don't actually think that the sci-fi monsters from the Alien series have a legitimate, plausible biology.

Unfortunately for fossils, like I have told you before, they are rare. The conditions needed to form them are rare, many geological events can destroy them, and even people improperly excavating them can result in destruction. Entire layers of rock can actually be destroyed, along with all the fossils within, causing a gap in a regional fossil that can easily span millions of years. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect that any more than a small fraction of the organisms that ever lived ended up fossilized.

The Times said:

Yet on the contrary, all we get from Evolutionists is a gaping hole in context of evidence and a big presumption based on a mere allusion to a few incoherent and unrelated to that particular species, out of the millions species, organisms which are only plant machinery.

Click to expand...

Nah, I'll do an evolution experiment for you if you just ask. I say watching it is better, so why not take advantage of the species that have very short generations? Just note that the longer the generation, the longer the experiment will take. Oooo, I've always wanted to work with Triops (a genus of small crustaceans with a generation time of less than a month).

The Times said:

Logic seems not to be on the side of the Evolutionist.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand evolution quite a lot if you think the theory demands that every possible form of life that could develop has an equal chance of developing and all should be represented if given enough time. For that to be the case, natural selection would have to not be a factor at all, nor could the organisms that already exist have any influence.

The Times said:

Various sizing and adaptable traits are just that, thay are by rights adaptations of the same species and not a different evolutionary one that won out as you are implying. Seems silyness to you is logic in thought and context in evidence and reality of how we humans are so diverse from one another and adaptable, not only across the previous generations, but in our current time, so doesn't that mean to Evolutionists, that a single organism called the human evolved into the different human species that we have now, who have different sized noses, heads, coloured eyes and blood types and allergies and so forth?

Click to expand...

-_- no one is claiming that a single adaptation or mutation alone would result in a new species.

The Times said:

The illogical conclusions drawn solely from organisms by Evolutionists to the alleged evolution of life, that is the millions of species, is so out there, that it begs belief. It is science fiction not science fact.

If it were so as the Evolutionists claim, then an infinite amount of evidentiary data of fossils should exist showing the neomorphing to xenomorphing of the two different species until one over millions of millions of years won out, through many dead carcuses and short lived events.

Since you defined orangisms as species, then we should have something like this in the battle that ensues......

View attachment 209445

Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha XD, do you think the rest of an organisms body could evolve and the head remain unchanged? Do you think mutation makes an effort to be as useful as possible? Do you seriously think that fictional monster has a plausible physiology? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The Times said:

You are just collapsing the context of the tree of life and trying to cook your own idea of evolution narrative into the many adaptations of life. But in your endeavour have failed to highlight the infinite intermediate processes in a consistent and a coherent evolutionary process, across any given species that we have today. How you manage to do this, is through making 3 dot points of unrelated species and then trying to give an impression to your audience of them being one process for any given species and this my friend is rather deceptive, with no disrespect intended.

Click to expand...

Nah, I'm just well aware that the majority of species that have ever existed never left behind a single fossil. Especially not the soft bodied one, do you know how rare jellyfish fossils are? Basically, the most common fossils are also organisms that existed in great numbers for long periods of time within environments well suited for fossilization, which had hard parts in their bodies that fossilized well. Hence why trilobite fossils are so common compared to dinosaur fossils, even though the fossils of the former have had more time and opportunity to be destroyed.

The Times said:

It proves nothing and there is no evidence of any chronological evolutionary link, that would present an infinite array of dot point fossil remains for any one given resultant species, for the millions of millions of neomorph to xenomorph intermediary processes. Where are the infinite trailed and missed intermediary processes across millions of millions of years for any given species that exists today?

Click to expand...

Let's say there is a planet other than this one, where evolution undeniably has occurred (we have a time machine and could watch millions of years of it happen), yet, fossils can't form on that planet. Would intelligent organisms on that planet be unable to find any evidence of shared ancestry between organisms whatsoever? I would like you to think critically about this question.

The Times said:

Evolutionists attempts at filling the crossword of life, is an attempt to fill two or there unrelated case studies of adaptations to allude that they have worked out the entire word that consists of millions of millions of words, for any given species that exists today. This is so far out, as far as a rationale and logical mind can be, that it is either a Delusion or a Lie on the Evolutionists part. It could also be both.

Click to expand...

I will gladly teach you about evolution, because I think the reason why you find it so ridiculous is because someone who didn't know what they were talking about taught you all they "know" about evolution. But, you have to be willing to at least consider the possibility that my explanation of evolution is accurate and honest.

The Times said:

No I did not say that a weird slug cannot take many adaptable forms and thrive in its own environment, in the deep deep sea where seeing things don't really matter. So there could be sea slugs with no eyes, no nose, only a brain and secretary chemical glands as sensors. But that is not saying that I am identifying the one that you are showing.

Click to expand...

You think it was a nudibranch? I was under the impression that it was some sort of sea cucumber, given that the picture comes from a person that does a lot of fishing and posts pictures of the stranger organisms that get caught in the nets.

The problem with your assertion is a matter of mutation. Individual mutations significantly vary in how much they impact physiology, with mutations in 1 base pair having a range of effects between nothing and resulting in an organism that doesn't even look like the parent organism. Also, populations of freely breeding organisms can have more genetic variation than two separate populations that can't interbreed at all. So where does the "absolutely possible adaptation" end and the "absolutely impossible evolution" begin?

TITLE: "proving evolution as just a "theory"Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Camila Smith, Sep 20, 2017."

Theory:

PsychoSarah said:

This is for you Classifying Animals

I am unable to find the patience to politely explain what a species is for you, and I hope this activity helps. I am very sorry.

Click to expand...

Since no one has nor can prove that the species were not CREATED by YHWH, through YESHUA,
the THEORY of evolution remains a theory.

So the burden of proof remains as always to try to prove that the theory (or one of the many theories) of evolution is true. So far, none have.

xianghua said:

it's base on my conclusion of the genetic similarity between chimp and human. if they both share about 98% then the best conclusion of missing chromosomes it's a fusion event.

Click to expand...

Why? Why should a creator create equal numbers of chromosomes in different species? All primates share a lot of their DNA. Are you predicting that they all originally had the same number of chromosomes? How about all mammals? They share a lot of their DNA, too.

xianghua said:

on the other hand: can you show me that evolutionists predict it before this finding?

Click to expand...

I'm tired of showing you things, just to have you ignore them.

xianghua said:

so you basically agree that some motors can evolve naturally?
fine. can you prove it or is just a belief?

Click to expand...

It's not my argument. You're the one arguing that they couldn't evolve naturally, and you're the one who's supposed to be supplying evidence. So far, your entire argument consists of a photo of a fan.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

TITLE: "proving evolution as just a "theory"Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Camila Smith, Sep 20, 2017."

Theory:
Since no one has nor can prove that the species were not CREATED by YHWH, through YESHUA,
the THEORY of evolution remains a theory.

Click to expand...

Math: proof
Science: evidence
Logic: argument

These are the three most relevant aspects to these debates. Math can prove, such as how 2+2=4 is indisputable. There are no other possible numbers that could be the solution.

Science can provide evidence, but it can NEVER prove. For example, a house was robbed, and security camera footage shows a Mr. Stan Stash breaking into the house, and 30 minutes later, carrying out a TV and driving away. His DNA is found at the scene, he has no alibi, and he's sitting in his living room, watching the news on the stolen TV. I'd say the evidence is pretty conclusive that he committed the crime, but it's not nor can it ever be 100% certain. After all, he could have been framed by an identical twin he didn't know he had, and a variety of other outlandish yet technically possible events. However, as the evidence strongly favors the conclusion that he did commit the crime, he is convicted. But hey, THAT'S JUST A THEORY.

Funnily enough, of the three, logic is the weakest, which is why philosophy, which runs entirely on logic, never actually makes conclusions. Sure, one could logically argue that it is immoral for a person that doesn't work as hard as another to earn more money... but neither side of that debate can claim to be "right". Just one having a stronger argument.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

So the burden of proof remains as always to try to prove that the theory (or one of the many theories) of evolution is true. So far, none have.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you quoted me from a post where I was having a discussion with someone that doesn't even understand what the word "species" means. But already, you don't understand what proof is. Evidence, sir, evidence is what science provides, and theories only become such when they have a huge amount of evidence supporting them and withstand rigorous challenges to them.

Funny thing is, in a creationism vs evolution debate, both sides have "the burden of proof" because both sides are making positive claims. You sir are not the position of the null hypothesis, which is that evolution is wrong and nothing more. You have the positive claim of an alternative explanation.

Also, there is a ton of evidence for evolution, such as how every species on this planet is more genetically similar to each other than what would happen if they were all unrelated.

PsychoSarah said:

Also, there is a ton of evidence for evolution, such as how every species on this planet is more genetically similar to each other than what would happen if they were all unrelated.

Click to expand...

Good example, thanks.

If Walker, a famous painter, painted 3112 paintings - landscapes, houses, portraits, fruit, fish, skies, clouds, etc etc etc ...
they would all be similar to each other
(and usually, apparently, easy from the evidence(the paintings) to show the same source)
in spite of the widely different subjects,
and
guess what -
they all were created by the same person.

When YHWH created all the species, plants, trees, fish and animals,
they NATURALLY have MANY SIMILARITIES, because they ARE RELATED. - they all came from the SAME AUTHOR/ CREATOR.

He could have created them without similarities, if HE wanted to - HE does whatever HE wants to do.

xianghua said:

no. since in my image there is a specific order that only a designer can make. so the first image is a clear example of design when in the second image we can't know.

Click to expand...

Why is the first image "a clear example of design" though? What is your specific criteria for deducing that?