Evolutionists, Please provide a positive proof for Evolution ....

[Keachian]

You are right of course, evolution is only possible if it is guided by God. Doesn't make it probable though

Well considering you are arguing against Theistic evolutionists on the topic of evolution I think the majority, if not all of us believe that God did guide the process, after all he is both the creator(Gen 1-2) and sustainer(John 5:17, Heb 1:3) of the Universe

 

[tyronem]

Well considering you are arguing against Theistic evolutionists on the topic of evolution I think the majority, if not all of us believe that God did guide the process, after all he is both the creator(Gen 1-2) and sustainer(John 5:17, Heb 1:3) of the Universe

If you did not, you would have to reclassify yourself as a humanist evolutionist

 

[Freedom63]

Hi there Evolutionists

I'm curious if you can provide a positive proof for evolution that does not require any assumptions (Especially unprovable, unobservable ones), does not violate laws of logic and can be tested, observed and repeated in test conditions....

Cheers

T

To attempt to provide evidence to one who'se mind is closed seems like a pointless endeavor. God's evidence that He used evolution to create is all around us and well studied and accepted. What little snippet of fodder for your closed minded attack do you hope to gain from your question?

 

[Big Z]

An arbitrary comment is not proof.



Actually many weak things survive too. Darwin's quote was survival of the fittest through natural selection, not survival of the strongest, there's a difference. Which by the way he plagiarized natural selection from a creationist who was accurately using it to correctly describe how things survive in the wild.

Natural selection adds nothing by the way, it just selects.

It actually makes no sense, Men derived from a rat-like ancestor, please thats a fairy tale.

God created Ex Nihilo actually makes perfect sense.



You are committing the logical fallacy of substitution whereby you are arbitrarily substituting evolution for science while meaning evolution yet attributing it to all science. As such your argument is invalid.

Maybe no-one thought it worthwhile to reply...

You in no way answered the challenge by the way... The same as no-one else has been able to do so successfully.

Tyroneym,

Natural selection is actually survival of the fittest.. Perhaps I used the wrong words to describe it. Even still, it makes an enormous amount of sense. Suppose a short necked giraffe and a long necked one lived in the wild together.. tree's grew and so did the long neck.. the short one never quite got tall enough to reach the trees leaves... but that long neck... who survives then? The fittest. The long neck. Hence the reason giraffes have long necks. So in actuality this is no fairytale...it is reality.

Even if it were, I don't believe your beliefs would have any room to speak... Men were made by some guy we've never seen and have only read about in a book that was written by a king because he wanted it to be that way? Sounds like a bit more of a fairy tale than natural selection... does it not? To further strengthen my point, I'll adress natural selection in the modern day. A brown bear and a polar bear end up in the same climate region... Say in anarctica. Only the polar bear lives.. And why? Because the polar bear is the fittest.. Brown beara cannot survive in the Antarctic... While polar bears can. Likewise, a polar bear could not live in a brown bears habitat either, as it would be the least fit. All coming back to survival of the fittest.

As far as your statement towards darwin's plagiarism goes, I really don't know anything of that, but I wouldn't be surprised If he were accused of such acts. Regardless though, the theory of natural selection remains one of sciences most prized attributes in describing why we live in the world we do, and why certain species live together, and why some can't. All in all, your senseless rambling of big words smashed together to sound intelligent was pointless. Evolution is in fact an element of science... How do you suppose I substitute physics with evolution? That makes no sense.

 

[tyronem]

To attempt to provide evidence to one who'se mind is closed seems like a pointless endeavor. God's evidence that He used evolution to create is all around us and well studied and accepted. What little snippet of fodder for your closed minded attack do you hope to gain from your question?

Care to answer the question rather than just more rhetoric?

 

[tyronem]

Tyroneym,

Natural selection is actually survival of the fittest.. Perhaps I used the wrong words to describe it. Even still, it makes an enormous amount of sense. Suppose a short necked giraffe and a long necked one lived in the wild together.. tree's grew and so did the long neck.. the short one never quite got tall enough to reach the trees leaves... but that long neck... who survives then? The fittest. The long neck. Hence the reason giraffes have long necks. So in actuality this is no fairytale...it is reality.

Yes natural selection selects, it doesnt create anything new. The short legged sheep will get caught by the wolf and therefore the faster long legged ones will survive etc.

Even if it were, I don't believe your beliefs would have any room to speak... Men were made by some guy we've never seen and have only read about in a book that was written by a king because he wanted it to be that way? Sounds like a bit more of a fairy tale than natural selection... does it not? To further strengthen my point.

What book written by a king? Psalms? Are you aware of how the Bible has been put together?

I'll adress natural selection in the modern day. A brown bear and a polar bear end up in the same climate region... Say in anarctica. Only the polar bear lives.. And why? Because the polar bear is the fittest.. Brown beara cannot survive in the Antarctic... While polar bears can. Likewise, a polar bear could not live in a brown bears habitat either, as it would be the least fit. All coming back to survival of the fittest.

I actually disagree with you on your point about bears because you are denying the ability for adaptation in animals that is evident everywhere. They would not be the most fit for the environment initially but that does not preclude extinction as they can adapt.

As far as your statement towards darwin's plagiarism goes, I really don't know anything of that, but I wouldn't be surprised If he were accused of such acts. Regardless though, the theory of natural selection remains one of sciences most prized attributes in describing why we live in the world we do, and why certain species live together, and why some can't. All in all, your senseless rambling of big words smashed together to sound intelligent was pointless.

But Natural Selection does NOT create anything new....

Evolution is in fact an element of science... How do you suppose I substitute physics with evolution? That makes no sense.

It makes no sense because your statement is nonsensical.

 

[iambeeman]

Tyroneym,


A brown bear and a polar bear end up in the same climate region... Say in anarctica. Only the polar bear lives.. And why? Because the polar bear is the fittest.. Brown beara cannot survive in the Antarctic... While polar bears can. Likewise, a polar bear could not live in a brown bears habitat either, as it would be the least fit.

Actually they would likely breed and both would survive through their progeny. Recently saw an report about it happening in northern Manitoba Canada, sorry don't have a link. Which is a prediction of creation theory.

 

[tyronem]

Actually they would likely breed and both would survive through their progeny. Recently saw an report about it happening in northern Manitoba Canada, sorry don't have a link. Which is a prediction of creation theory.

Hah! awesome

 

[theFijian]

Actually they would likely breed and both would survive through their progeny. Recently saw an report about it happening in northern Manitoba Canada, sorry don't have a link. Which is a prediction of creation theory.

What specifically was the prediction?

 

[iambeeman]

That animals of a common kind can interbreed and/or hybridize.

 

[KerrMetric]

There is no such thing as "kind".

 

[gluadys]

But Natural Selection does NOT create anything new....

Actually, it does. It creates new species.

 

[iambeeman]

There is no such thing as "kind".

So it kind of like "species" then, as there isn't a standardized definition.

 

[tyronem]

Actually, it does. It creates new species.

haha, Natural selection does not add anything to an animal, it just selects. Mutations create the ability for speciation not natural selection.

 

[gluadys]

haha, Natural selection does not add anything to an animal, it just selects. Mutations create the ability for speciation not natural selection.

No, you have it backwards about. Mutations create variability within the species; on their own they don't create new species. For that, selection is needed.

 

[CDROIx]

I'm not an Evolutionist by any means, but I would like to state that if this theory did happen, this is what Genesis 1:26 would say.


26 Then God said, “Let us make single-celled organisms in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the other single-celled organisms in the sea and the flying single-celled organisms in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild single-celled organisms, and over all the single-celled organisms that move along the ground.”

 

[gluadys]

I'm not an Evolutionist by any means, but I would like to state that if this theory did happen, this is what Genesis 1:26 would say.


26 Then God said, “Let us make single-celled organisms in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the other single-celled organisms in the sea and the flying single-celled organisms in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild single-celled organisms, and over all the single-celled organisms that move along the ground.”

Why would it say that?

 

[theFijian]

Why would it say that?

Becasue for whatever reason some of us feel the need to read things back into the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

What evolution cannot explain among many other things is an ultimate cause. The Ultimate Cause is that thing which wasn't caused by anything and caused everything else to happen. There must be something that could not have been created or evolved but was just there. Science cannot explain where the first black hole or the first burst of energy came from and what caused it. So the ultimate cause is nothing or unknown. If a big blast could come from nowhere to start the creation of the world, how confident can you be that a big blast could not also come from nowhere and destroy us all?

If your ultimate cause is God, at least you can have some confidence about the future.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

No, you have it backwards about. Mutations create variability within the species; on their own they don't create new species. For that, selection is needed.

Selection cannot create new species but random mutations and interbreeding can do that. As was said many times, natural selection chooses the fittest variation to survive, not create a new variation.