Is it a hoax?

[Skreeper]

I've always had the suspicion that science thinks that organisms are waaaay too complex for God to have created. That's best left to a secular magic force.

I have never heard that before and I don't see the relevance to my post.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Nothing in history can be proven. The best you can do is recreate the original
event matching all possible factors and hope that your result is the same
as the original event. Evolution is not an event that can be recreated easily.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you know what we find in those rocks? Single celled life and nothing else.

That's amazing. I wouldn't expect such a long life.

Is it possible that there are other rocks that do
show other forms of life, besides your sample?

 

[SkyWriting]

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

If you take all populations and subject them to all
possible environmental stresses and subject them to
all possible periods of time, and they only adapt
to a limited extent, then you will have evidence
of immutable kinds. You'll need a good budget.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you know?

Because you keep claiming that he is sloppy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you take all populations and subject them to all
possible environmental stresses and subject them to
all possible periods of time, and they only adapt
to a limited extent, then you will have evidence
of immutable kinds. You'll need a good budget.

You do not seem to understand that when you make a claim, such as "evidence of immutable kinds" the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[SkyWriting]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species.

There is no evidence that a single cell is any less complex than man.
The levels of complexity run deep.

 

[SkyWriting]

At any rate, the sum total of the evidence (fossil, genetic, biogeographic, etc) points to shared ancestry of life on Earth. There's really no debate about it.

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.

 

[Subduction Zone]

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.

Yes, quite a few Americans are ignorant about basic scientific facts. It is rather embarrassing to say the least. But there is good news in the latest post. Americans are not as hopelessly lost as they used to be.:

In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

 

[sfs]

Only on paper.

And in DNA.

 

[sfs]

How do you tell the difference between common descent and common design? Wouldn't they look the same?

No, they wouldn't look the same. Common design does not explain the patterns of differences we see between species.

 

[sfs]

Just to be perfectly clear, you are willing to answer every question that I may ask with plausible, verifiable answers, just as I agree to do, is that correct?

No, I'm offering to have a serious, honest, adult discussion with you about why evolution explains the diversity of life. I am not agreeing to poorly defined stipulations about what constitutes plausible, verifiable answers, nor agreeing to answer all questions in perpetuity. Not all questions have verifiable answers, what counts as plausible is subjective, and lots of questions are irrelevant to the subject at hand. I will tell you if a question is irrelevant to the subject at hand, and I will tell you when I don't know the answer, and I will answer with verifiable facts when they are available and relevant.

I am allowed to have my opinion, am I not? BTW, opinions are accepted, if, they are not presented as fact.

I don't recall suggesting that you were not allowed to have an opinion. I told you that expressing the opinion that the people you're writing to are liars perpetuating a hoax is inconsistent with then claiming to want a serious discussion with those people about the same subject. If what you want is confrontation, I'll ignore you. If you want to discuss evolution seriously, I'm happy to do that.

 

[USincognito]

So you say that you know rock evolved ( or even nothing exploded first to make this rock ) into human in billions of years but you can't tell me what was first DNA or Protein?

And So's Law just keeps being supported.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The opposite is true.

It is not.

Hundreds of people could claim to have witnessed X.
If the actual objective and verifiable evidence, points to Y instead, then Y is assumed.

100 people could claim that person X was stabbed to death.
If the autopsy then shows NO stab wounds and instead reveals a heart attack as the cause of death, then nobody will be convicted for stabbing anyone. The conclusion will be that the 100 people were wrong (or lying) and that no stabbing took place at all.

Valid testimonies usually dismiss potential evidence.

lol, no they don't.

For example, if a witness places the suspect not on the scene, any evidence
that they were there is dismissed. Even DNA evidence.

LOL!!!

Maybe you should scroll around this site a bit:
The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

The vast majority of these cases are people convicted with very bad evidence, mostly based on mere "testimony".

However, even years after the fact, DNA evidence sets them free. No matter what "witnesses" have claimed back then and no matter how much the jury believed them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I just did.
When a suspect has an alibi, it means that the suspect was somewhere else, doing something else, or was with someone else at the time the alleged crime was committed.

If that "alibi" consists merely of people saying it (=testimony) and no additional evidence, then objective evidence saying otherwise will instantly put shadows on those testimonies.

100 people could claim that I was with them in Barcelona from monday to friday, in a case were a rape and murder took place in that specific week on thursday, 2000km north of barcelona.

If my sperm is found in the victim and if my fingerprints are all over the murder weapon, then the "testimony" from those 100 people will be instantly discarded and I will get convicted.

Additionally, there might actually be an investigation on those 100 people, who have just been caught lying under oath.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nothing in history can be proven.

False.

Historical claim: there was an ancient Roman settlement in the area where I live in Belgium.

Proof: last year, during digging works for a new building in that very region, the ruins of an ancient Roman villa were uncovered. Roman coins, Roman art, Roman pottery, Roman mozaics,.... All right there in the ground. When dated, it matches the period of the settlement.

The best you can do is recreate the original event matching all possible factors and hope that your result is the same as the original event. Evolution is not an event that can be recreated easily.

Events of the past can leave evidence behind wich perfectly can be studied in the present.

For example, someone walked here:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, they wouldn't look the same. Common design does not explain the patterns of differences we see between species.

How about a common designer. I design lots of things that have no similarity to one another, except of course some of the materials I use to make them. In fact if I laid out all the things I have designed one would think many people designed the stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

For example, someone walked here:

Someone arose here:

 

[Skreeper]

Someone arose here:

Someone left a piece of cloth behind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Someone left a piece of cloth behind.

Good observation. Jesus put the face napkin "in it's place", but likely wore the linen wrap as he would have needed to cover himself with something when he appeared to Mary.

He then returned the linen graveclothes to the sepulcher before he ascended. He would have left them neatly as he did with the napkin, not askew on the floor of the sepulcher as illustrated.

Of course the fact of a separate cloth for covering the face of the dead blows the Shroud of Turin theory out of the water, which has a facial image on the shroud itself.

John 20:6-7
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.