Prove it or remove it challenge

FutureAndAHope · Feb 18, 2016

Out of all those millions of fossils the best examples were on that page .... I am far from convinced ... You give me three skulls only vaguely related and expect me to bow to you will. When I have prayed for the sick and seen them healed, had God in very clear ways communicate to me, seen many signs. You want me to become a sinner. So can burn in hell. Forget it you are but man not my god. I am trying to save this world from hell and all you give me is three unrelated skulls.

FutureAndAHope · Feb 18, 2016

I never said I know nothing about biology I said the average person does not. Sure I don't spend hours studying it. But I know the basics that creationists and evolutionists fight over.

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
I just had a read of the dolphin evolution again you said it was a land animal then went back to the sea. Are you for real... Can you imagine a fully developed land animal able to hunt and live on land

Yes. Quite easily actually.

There are plenty of animals today that are semi-aquatic. I have no problem hypothesizing that given another few million years, some of these would become fully aquatic (or the other way round).

Some animals have even done the trip from land to sea and back to land multiple times.

Here's an example:

Also, there's a dead give away when it comes to fish ("fish" as in the generic term - not the cladistic term). Those that used to live on the land, mammals like dolphines and whales, do not swim by moving from side to side. Nope, they swim by moving their tale up and down. You know why? Because their spine evolved to run on the land. And on the land, mammals run by "hopping" up and down.

This "movement" translated back into how dolphins and whales swim. Not sideways, but up and down. As if they are "hopping" through the water.

You should read up on evolutionary history of such animals. It's extremely fascinating and on top of having fun, you'll actually learn something.

... For no reason

Not for "no reason". For survival.

... Sits around in the water long enough to be come a fish

No, that's not how it works. But how would you know how it works? It's not like are actually interested in learning about it or have ever taken the effort to learn about it, right?

... And you think the story of Jonah is a lie. All this reasoning from three skulls.

No, not from "three skulls".
Thousand and thousand of them. And not just skulls.

But hey man... whatever makes you think you can reasonably deny science and believe whatever you want to believe, right?

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
P.s.where is the evidence of your dolphin with legs... Becoming a fish...

florida2 · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Out of all those millions of fossils the best examples were on that page .... I am far from convinced ... You give me three skulls only vaguely related and expect me to bow to you will. When I have prayed for the sick and seen them healed, had God in very clear ways communicate to me, seen many signs. You want me to become a sinner. So can burn in hell. Forget it you are but man not my god. I am trying to save this world from hell and all you give me is three unrelated skulls.

What are you talking about? The majority of Christians accept evolution. Nobody wants you to become a sinner they just want you to not be ignorant.

Please take some time to go and watch some basic videos on evolution or read a few articles to get a grasp of the basics. At the moment you are just going on incoherantly about fossils making it very difficult to provide any evidence that you would look at.

That is assuming that you would ever accept any evidence for evolution, or is your mind completely closed?

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Go eat fish for your whole life and tell me how it goes growing gills.

It seems you aren't even aware that a whale is a mammal.

Not only do you not know the first thing about evolution, it seems you didn't even bring 2nd grade level biology to a good end.

Yet, you feel you are qualified to tell biology teachers what they should and should teach.

This is like saying Einstein is wrong when you can't even comprehend basic algebra.

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Dogma hunter ... Three sculls prove little.

This forum isn't big enough to post them all.

And you asked for just one fossil. I gave you 3.
But please, stop the dishonesty. You aren't planning on accepting any fossil. I could give you thousands upon thousands and you'ld still be complaining and pretending that it doesn't mean anything.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others. But there is one way that the average man CAN fight back, and that is by using the fossil record. We can all understand and SEE fossils. We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution.

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see. The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.

So your challenge is to provide evidence for evolution without referring to much of the relevant evidence because you don't understand it? Is that about right? Is this thread a joke?

florida2 · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Florida2 you sAy fossilisation is rare not it is not we have fossils of most modern land animals that would suggest for every generation we should have fossils.

Excuse me, fossilisation is very rare and the record is incomplete (bolding mine):

Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[27] Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a small percentage of life-forms can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, which will never demonstrate an exact half-way point.[28]

The fossil record is heavily slanted toward organisms with hard parts, leaving most groups of soft-bodied organisms with little to no role.[27] It is replete with the mollusks, the vertebrates, the echinoderms, the brachiopods and some groups of arthropods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Limitations

So you see, trying to rely solely on the fossil record won't get you very far as it is estimated that 99% of species that have ever existed are not known to us because of the limitations of the fossil record.

That is why the study of DNA is vital evidence for evolution and is far more robust and thorough than just digging up fossils. If there wasn't a single fossil in the entire world we could still show that evolution happened due to genetics. Fossils are just the icing on the very well evidenced cake.

FutureAndAHope said:
You can run away from the facts to your supposedly secure genetics, but so far I have had people here quoting genetic prof of evolution which has since been discredited.

The person who wishes to dismiss the entirety is genetic evidence accuses me of running away from the facts? Please show us evidence of how genetic support for evolution has been discredited.

Nithavela · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Out of all those millions of fossils the best examples were on that page .... I am far from convinced ... You give me three skulls only vaguely related and expect me to bow to you will. When I have prayed for the sick and seen them healed, had God in very clear ways communicate to me, seen many signs. You want me to become a sinner. So can burn in hell. Forget it you are but man not my god. I am trying to save this world from hell and all you give me is three unrelated skulls.

Wow, you're a true hero.

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Hi dogma hunter you misunderstand my challenge. I mean I want you to show me from the cellular level to modern day beast the continual change that occurred over time.

This is the equivalent of saying "if you can't show me a photograph of your face of every second of your life, then I won't believe that you are aging".

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Out of all those millions of fossils the best examples were on that page .... I am far from convinced ... You give me three skulls only vaguely related and expect me to bow to you will. When I have prayed for the sick and seen them healed, had God in very clear ways communicate to me, seen many signs. You want me to become a sinner. So can burn in hell. Forget it you are but man not my god. I am trying to save this world from hell and all you give me is three unrelated skulls.

There you go. More evidence that your challenge is dishonest.

You are literally saying here that accepting evolution theory will cause you "to burn in hell".

You are not interested in learning. You are only interested in preaching and ranting.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 18, 2016

If you want to know whether evolution provides the best explanation for the diversity of life, then why not expend some intellectual labor to learn about it? Consider reading The Origin of Species as a starting point. It doesn't mention DNA/RNA at all!

DogmaHunter · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
I never said I know nothing about biology I said the average person does not. Sure I don't spend hours studying it. But I know the basics that creationists and evolutionists fight over.

There is no fight.

There are only biologists doing their jobs on the one hand, and creationists kicking and screaming in denial on the other.

Archaeopteryx · Feb 18, 2016

This thread:

JackRT · Feb 18, 2016

DogmaHunter said:
Even though the word "prove" raises somewhat of a red flag in science. But for the purpose of this topic, it's close enough.

In science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts. Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But, being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention. As soon as I see someone demand proof of Evolution or the Big Bang, I know immediately that the person has a deficient understanding of science and how it works.

Jimmy D · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
Hi jimmy I did not ask for your assessment of my mental state I asked for proof now provide it.

But it seems you dismiss any evidence out of hand with comments like "Go eat fish for your whole life and tell me how it goes growing gills."

Why not try a different approach and seek out some fossil evidence that disproves evolution, or better yet demonstrates your particular notions of creation?

FutureAndAHope · Feb 18, 2016

Hi in regard to the lovely picture provided to prove whale/ dolphin evolution do you know that is just an artists representation, it does not accurately show the bones that were found. In reality only a scull and a few other fragments were found. See what was unearthed at http://creation.mobi/article/1776 that is a mobile site. Not sure it works on a desktop. If you look at the fossil you will see there is no body. The whole body has been imagined, based upon a preconceived idea of what it should look like, not what it acrually does.

The Cadet · Feb 18, 2016

FutureAndAHope said:
I never said I know nothing about biology I said the average person does not.

Then why would you object to such evidence being presented? If you understand it, then you shouldn't have a problem with it being used as evidence.

Archaeopteryx said:
This thread:

Life imitates art.

FutureAndAHope said:
just an artists representation

Do you understand the difference between a paleontological reconstruction and an artist's representation?

Queller · Feb 18, 2016

SkyWriting said:
I have to disagree. Animal Husbandry has been in use by goat herders for quite a while.
One need not have any formal education to practice DNA experiments.
99% of Evolutionary theory can be tested experimentally.
1% (or less) deals with theories about the past.
Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or
deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

A differing opinion.

Scientific Method Applied to Forensic Science

Prove it or remove it challenge

Just me

Just me

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Wanderer

Code Monkey

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Just me

SO COOL

I'm where?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency