Evolution Scientifically Disproved

[SavedByChrist94]

1, Has Macro-Evolution, One Species Evolving into a New/Different Species ever been demonstrated?

No.

2, Common Species, Fossil record, even Transitional Fossils would not prove it,

Say for example we are Extremely similar to apes, does this prove Evolution?

No, as would could easily theorize that YHWH(God) created Similar Species/ Different Levels of Species, theorizing evolution would therefore be unnecessary.

The Fossil record and "Transitional" Fossils, same thing we can theorize YHWH created similar/different levels of Species

3, Micro-Evolution, unless demonstrated that it can cause One Species to evolve into Another in a Test Tube/Test is not proof for One Species evolving into a New Species, we can easily theorize that YHWH created us to adapt to our enviroment, which is Intelligent.

So Fossil Records, Ideas, Micro-evolution and even Common Traits do not prove Evolution,


Now what? Well, in order for Macro-evolution/or if you prefer easy more descriptive terms, One Species Evolving into a New/Different Species, it has to be demonstrated in a lab as all other "proofs" for it can be used as proof for Theism.

However DNA Scientifically makes impossible a mindless cause, which is proof for Theism, Theism has proof, Naturalistic Evolution has none.

 

[freezerman2000]

Any peer reviewed papers to back up your claim?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

1, Has Macro-Evolution, One Species Evolving into a New/Different Species ever been demonstrated?

No.

29+ Evidences of Macroevolution

2, Common Species, Fossil record, even Transitional Fossils would not prove it,

Say for example we are Extremely similar to apes, does this prove Evolution?

Ummmm, yeah.

3, Micro-Evolution, unless demonstrated that it can cause One Species to evolve into Another in a Test Tube/Test is not proof for One Species evolving into a New Species, we can easily theorize that YHWH created us to adapt to our enviroment, which is Intelligent.

I believe you are drifting over into "THEISTIC EVOLUTION".

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Any peer reviewed papers to back up your claim?

1, A Claim? Demonstrate this.

2, So if I proved OJ Simpson is the murderer on Video Tape, but have no peer review, it's not true?

Science doesn't work this way, only proof and evidence, which I have provided by demonstrating that the "proofs" for evolution can be used for Theism and that DNA can only be used for Theism, as it's a form of Intelligence, if I have not done this, you must demonstrate how, not merely say, "Any peer reviewed papers to back up your claim?" as this is none factor, peer reviews are not needed for facts, Demonstration is.

 

[Upisoft]

2, So if I proved OJ Simpson is the murderer on Video Tape, but have no peer review, it's not true?

Apparently you don't understand what science is. You can't use video tape to 'prove' anything. Otherwise I will say that Luke Skywalker and the Force are real.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Apparently you don't understand what science is. You can't use video tape to 'prove' anything. Otherwise I will say that Luke Skywalker and the Force are real.

You can't use a video tape to prove anything? So if I had a video tape of OJ Simpson murdering the supposed victim, and the tape is authentic(not forged), then it's not proof?

 

[BarryDesborough]

29+ Evidences of Macroevolution

^This.

Also see http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257/

 

[Strathos]

Evolution scientifically disproved, you say?

Well I'm sure you have a link to a peer-reviewed publication confirming this momentous discovery, which will surely be awarded the Nobel Prize. Let's just see-

Oh wait, it's just the standard creationist lies and distortions. False alarm.

 

[sinning machine]

Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, asked his audience of evolution experts a most telling question. He later posed the same question to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and again to The Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. All evolution experts. Here was his question:

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, ANY ONE THING. . . that is TRUE?" All he got was silence!

 

[SavedByChrist94]

^This.

Also see http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257-43/#post63443204

In order for One Species evolving into a New/Different Species to be true, it has to be demonstrated in a lab, like how DNA is demonstrated to be a coding, made with intentful properties and designed.

 

[BarryDesborough]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257-43/#post63443204

In order for One Species evolving into a New/Different Species to be true, it has to be demonstrated in a lab, like how DNA is demonstrated to be a coding, made with intentful properties and designed.

No, it does not. Look at the evidence presented.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Evolution scientifically disproved, you say?

Well I'm sure you have a link to a peer-reviewed publication confirming this momentous discovery, which will surely be awarded the Nobel Prize. Let's just see-

Peer reviewed, so I would need a peer review if I clearly demonstrate OJ simpson to be the murderer.

Oh wait, it's just the standard creationist lies and distortions. False alarm.

"lies and distortions" I take that as slander, please demonstrate this, otherwise you lied.

 

[Strathos]

Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, asked his audience of evolution experts a most telling question. He later posed the same question to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and again to The Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. All evolution experts. Here was his question:

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, ANY ONE THING. . . that is TRUE?" All he got was silence!

Evolution is inherited genetic change in a population of living organisms over time.

There, that was easy.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257-43/#post63443204

In order for One Species evolving into a New/Different Species to be true, it has to be demonstrated in a lab, like how DNA is demonstrated to be a coding, made with intentful properties and designed.

We can't make earthquakes in a laboratory. Does that mean earthquakes don't happen?

 

[Strathos]

Peer reviewed, so I would need a peer review if I clearly demonstrate OJ simpson to be the murderer.

If you're implying that your reasoning and conclusion is so obvious, then it should surely pass peer review easily, so go ahead and submit it.

"lies and distortions" I take that as slander, please demonstrate this, otherwise you lied.

You said there were no observed examples of speciation. That was demonstrated to be false earlier in this thread.

 

[Tomk80]

1, Has Macro-Evolution, One Species Evolving into a New/Different Species ever been demonstrated?

No.

Yes. So you're wrong.
Ring species demonstrate "macro evolution" in nature.
Macro-evolution has been demonstrated in parts of nature where there is an introduction of a new species, such as mice in Madeira.
Furthermore, macro-evolution has been demonstrated in the lab for species with short generation times, such as flies and beetles.

2, Common Species, Fossil record, even Transitional Fossils would not prove it,

Say for example we are Extremely similar to apes, does this prove Evolution?

No, as would could easily theorize that YHWH(God) created Similar Species/ Different Levels of Species, theorizing evolution would therefore be unnecessary.

The Fossil record and "Transitional" Fossils, same thing we can theorize YHWH created similar/different levels of Species

Just being similar, no. But then, all you have demonstrated here is that you don't know what you are talking about.

It is not the similarities that are demonstrate that evolution has happened, but the fact that the similarities and differences between species form a nested hierarchy. "Common design" does not form nested hierarchies.

3, Micro-Evolution, unless demonstrated that it can cause One Species to evolve into Another in a Test Tube/Test is not proof for One Species evolving into a New Species, we can easily theorize that YHWH created us to adapt to our enviroment, which is Intelligent.

Your point 3 here is exactly the same as point 1, which I already demonstrated to be false. Your writing is muddled, you should fix that.

So Fossil Records, Ideas, Micro-evolution and even Common Traits do not prove Evolution,

So, I showed that the only reason you say this is because you are not aware of the evidence or have a severe misunderstanding of the evidence. Now what?

Now what? Well, in order for Macro-evolution/or if you prefer easy more descriptive terms, One Species Evolving into a New/Different Species, it has to be demonstrated in a lab as all other "proofs" for it can be used as proof for Theism.

However DNA Scientifically makes impossible a mindless cause, which is proof for Theism, Theism has proof, Naturalistic Evolution has none.

Here's a tip for you. Before you criticize evolution, learn what it entails.

Here's a second tip for you. Many Christians accept evolution as the way God used to create. You have set up a false dichotomy here, but that fits nicely with the rest of your misunderstandings I guess.

 

[Tomk80]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7748257-43/#post63443204

In order for One Species evolving into a New/Different Species to be true, it has to be demonstrated in a lab,

No, it doesn't. We do not have to observe something in a lab to know whether it is true or not.

Regardless, it has been observed in a lab. But that is not actually necessary.

like how DNA is demonstrated to be a coding, made with intentful properties and designed.

DNA has not been demonstrated to have intentful properties and be designed. If anything, DNA has been demonstrated to be unintentional, prone to random errors.

 

[sinning machine]

Evolution is inherited genetic change in a population of living organisms over time.

There, that was easy

Evolution definition 1. evolving 2. development of species from earlier forms

ALL you have done is give the meaning of the word ???

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolution is inherited genetic change in a population of living organisms over time.

There, that was easy

Evolution definition 1. evolving 2. development of species from earlier forms

ALL you have done is give the meaning of the word ???

It's something that has been repeatedly demonstrated in the wild and in labs. It's true, which is what the OP was requesting.

Even most Creationists accept it as true; they just call it "adaption" or "only micro-evolution".

 

[sinning machine]

It's something that has been repeatedly demonstrated in the wild and in labs. It's true, which is what the OP was requesting.

Even most Creationists accept it as true; they just call it "adaption" or "only micro-evolution".

Yes, I understand and agree, I guess my initial post should have bean framed better . Apologies

Evolution being the origin of life has no proof, but there is proof of
micro--evolution within creation.

I was thinking of breaching the division of species, my brain and eyes are saw from studying and I must have mixed stuff up, I need PC break I am out of here

 

[Strathos]

No one claims evolution is the origin of life.