Unsimplifiability, proves Darwin was not intent on developing a working theory...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Kenny is not interested in being educated. He is only here to issue fake challenges for people to "prove" evolution to him so he can reject anything he is presented and then feel better about his own beliefs.

He's even been quoted in past posts as stating he'll never accept any evidence for evolution. I have no idea why he continues to pretend.

edited for the quote:



The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread
WOW. A whole thread!
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I have, but never seen it with my own eyes.

You haven't looked very hard then.

Types of mutations

hqdefault.jpg
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, I have, but never seen it with my own eyes.

Ever seen a Pacific Islander with blonde hair? It's an example of a mutation found only in populations of Pacific Islanders: Blonde hair evolved independently in Pacific islands

Bustamante, Sean Myles and colleagues at Stanford discovered this after analysing saliva samples from 43 blondes and 42 dark-haired Solomon Islanders. A genome-wide scan pointed to a single strong difference between the groups at a gene called TYRP1. Further analysis revealed that a single-letter change in the gene accounted for 46 per cent of the population’s hair colour variation, with the blonde allele being recessive to the dark hair allele. The blonde mutation wasn’t found in any of the 900 other individuals sampled from outside the South Pacific (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1217849).
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sorry, dude. Claiming you have evidence is not the same thing as actually having evidence.
Whatever, the biggest problems with hybrids is they are infertile and they want to revert back to the genotype.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,001
69
USA
✟585,304.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Kenny is not interested in being educated. He is only here to issue fake challenges for people to "prove" evolution to him so he can reject anything he is presented and then feel better about his own beliefs.

He's even been quoted in past posts as stating he'll never accept any evidence for evolution. I have no idea why he continues to pretend.

edited for the quote:



The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

OK, that's start, now post that evidence here as I've asked you to do, and you consistently refuse too do because you've seen what happens, and honestly, you don't want to be the one in the hot seat when that does happen, if that does happen, however, in all fairness, I'll still make the offer...maybe you have something better to offer? And since we don't understand science, please explain it to us along the way. Should be even easier than before now that you don't even have to put it into your own words.

That'd be cool, right?
 
Upvote 0

Markstrimaran

Active Member
May 19, 2019
97
19
Midwest
✟17,499.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,302.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
OK, that's start, now post that evidence here as I've asked you to do
While the underlying concepts of evolutionary theory are remarkably simple, the evidence supporting those concepts is massive, complex and interlinked. A post, a thread, a hundred threads on a discussion forum are not the correct place to present that evidence.

If evidence is presented here, piecemeal, it can be discard or ignored piecemeal. If you sincerely wish to consider the evidence then it requires a sincere commitment from you to study that evidence. That is not the work of an hour, or a day, perhaps not even a year.

It took Darwin decades to tease out some aspects of the theory and he, in the words of Newton, was standing on the shoulders of giants. We are in the fortunate position of having a further 150 years of work by dedicated, curious, intelligent scientists in all the key branches of biology, chemistry and Earth science to reduce the effort required of us.

I and others would be delighted to offer you suggestions for the material you should study to build an appreciation of the evidence. Unfortunately, this has been done in the past and you have chosen to ignore it, disparage it, or otherwise avoid engaging with it.

This forces me to ask you a direct question: do you sincerely wish to see the evidence, or are you using the request as a rhetorical device intended to cast a bad light on evolutionists for "failing" to respond? If you are sincere, I'll undertake to propose a schedule of study and act as your guide as you work through.

I look forward to a positive reply.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I understand the basis compleatly,

Your comments about theory and fact and "some old bones" suggests you don't understand as much as you think you do.

but I need real evidence with real science in a simplified term, thanks.

Ugh, everything being presented to you is "real" evidence and "real" science. You seem to be looking for excuses to preemptively hand wave away any evidence that is presented to you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You can not be a Christian and not belive in Gods own words, its impossible.

You cannot be forum member in good standing if you claim that Christians who accept evolution are not Christians. That's a violation of the flaming rule.
 
Upvote 0

Markstrimaran

Active Member
May 19, 2019
97
19
Midwest
✟17,499.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You cannot be forum member in good standing if you claim that Christians who accept evolution are not Christians. That's a violation of the flaming rule.

What is the flaming rule? I am a YEC, atheists, and old earth creationist will support each other to challenge my positions .
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In Basic Terms:

:eek: My straw man sense is tingling.

Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.

Science doesn't prove anything and there's no such thing as scientific proof. And all science is based on observations.

Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man

1. You don't seem to know what a scientific observation is. They aren't limited to watching things happen before our eyes in real time. Unearthing a fossil is an observation. Sequencing a genome is an observation. Gathering spectral information from a star is an observation.
2. You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is. It's not a hunch or a guess and it's not something as specific as the evolution of genus Homo. A scientific theory is an overarching explanation for a body of related phenomena. In the case of evolution it explains the diversity of life we observe now and in the fossil record.
3. Macroevolution is evolution above the level of species so while it does apply to evolution within genus Homo, it applies to all life.

and is Pure Trash.

An ignorance based editorial comment with no relation to reality.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm referring to the idea of one species turning into another species over millions / billions of years.

That's not how it works. Descendants never stop being what their ancestors were. So while the population that gave rise to all Eutherian mammals would have been a species, subsequent species would never stop being Eutherians. The same way goes down through time to today. Capybaras never stopped being:
- Rodents
- Glires
- Glireforms
- Euarchontoglires
- Boreoeutherians
- Eutherians
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ultimately both of Our World views are at the heart of the matter here.

"Worldview" has nothing to do with the fact that macroevolution is the exact same process as microevolution over longer periods of time. "Worldview" has nothing to do with the fact that there is no mechanism that would prevent only a certain amount of physiological change to genotype or phenotype thus making macroevolution impossible.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What is the flaming rule? I am a YEC, atheists, and old earth creationist will support each other to challenge my positions .

You can find all of the forum rules here.
Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

The rule I'm referring to specifically is that you cannot claim any Trinitarian member who abides by the Nicene Creed is not a Christian. Doing so is a violation of the flaming rules.

Flaming and Goading
  • Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
  • Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
  • NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad. Quoting and then editing another members post to change the original meaning, commonly referred to as "fixed it for you" (FIFY), is considered goading.
  • "Calling out" a member is an unsolicited comment about another member in reference to something they may have said, their personal beliefs, their signature, or their avatar (challenging the member in a negative manner). This applies to any thread, whether the called out member is participating in that thread or not. Do not quote, or make comments about another member, in your signature or user title.
  • Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.
  • Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
  • If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Markstrimaran
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
In Basic Terms:

Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.

Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man and is Pure Trash.
I don't know if you noticed but no one responding is interested in addressing either term. What they much prefer, and always resort to, are biting personal remarks known as ad hominems. It's rare to get back to a substantive discussion after they have sold out to fallaxious rhetoric, but naturally your free to try.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is no real science, just theory.

You really need to learn what a scientific theory is.
What’s the difference between a scientific law and theory? (in TED-Ed GIFs)

So there are magicians who preform many acts to look like they truly do magic, but I know its just a trick.

The devil will show great tricks, but nothing will take away my faith.

Humans will also do the same, but they use words like science with no tests. Just theory, nothing 100 percent.

All it is written mumbo jumbo, But my God is 100 percent real in my life in every way.

He preforms real true events in my life proving him self to me all the time.

So tell me, what science have I missed that makes sense that 100 proves there is no God?

There is none.

What in world are you talking about? Are you trying to conflate an understanding of evolution with militant atheists trying to "deconvert" you? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I read just about every article there is to read, non of them make sense and do not give proof, just theory, lol. how funny you are. {snip}

I'll try and make this simple.
1. Science doesn't prove things and there is no such thing as scientific proof.
2. This confuses a lot of people because we toss the word "proof" around as a synonym for evidence.
3. All scientific propositions, even ones like the earth being round, must be subject to potential future flasification if new data shows otherwise.
4. Proofs are final and not subject to future change.
5. Thus, because all science is provisional and subject to potential future falsification, none of it can be said to be proven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?

Copy and pasting in full without attribution is plagiarism.
How Evolution Flunked the Science Test - Articles, Stories, and Items of Interest - Bible Explorations - Spreading the good news that we are the last generation and that Christ is coming very soon!

As far a spontaneous generation goes, abiogenesis is not the same. Spontaneous generation was complex macrobiological being emerging fully formed from living or previously living material in most cases (geese from barnacles, maggots from meat, rodents from grain, etc.).

As far of the origin of life on earth goes, it literally has no effect on evolution. It could have been abiogenesis, it could have been panspermia, it could have been creation by God. None of those would change the fact that evolution is what happens to life on earth that reproduces and passes on genetic material to it's offspring.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.