Prove it or remove it challenge

[FutureAndAHope]

Any way I am off to bed need some sleep.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Understood, but i will add the rules should be a little more flexible when it comes to the history of the development of the theories of Physical and of life sciences. For in ancient times many scientific ideas will be mix with some type of religion...

Well, yeah a given. But, as a rule of thumb, if someone is talking about a modern scientific theory, stick to modern scientific sources. It makes everything easier and lessens the risk of a thread being shutdown or shunted over to Apologetics.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

We are not responsible for your education. There are quite a few webpages with very good material on what evolution is. Read them first.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

L


Are you truely open... You guys gave me splendid pictures of whale fossils ... I researched and found they were for the most part made up falsified pictures. We not you rather deceived and deceiving me. You put trust in something thAt was not true. At least I am researching the fossils you give me.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why does accepting evolution make a person a sinner ... For me personally it would be sin, because I believe that death did not enter gods world until Adam and Eve sinned. I believe the bible.

Here's a question...

Do you think there is a chance that what you believe actually isn't correct?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you truely open... You guys gave me splendid pictures of whale fossils ... I researched and found they were for the most part made up falsified pictures

You didn't "research" anything. You went straight to a creationist site, which you have probably pinned in your "favorites", and simply swallowed whatever is written there about whale fossils.

 

[Nithavela]

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Hi in regard to one of the earlier posts where Keith miller Supposedly proved evolution in the video new finds show he was incorrect http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-debunks-human-chromosome

Quoting from that link: "I have now published new research on the alleged fusion site, revealing genetic data that fully debunk it"

When clicking the reference, it brings you to answers in genesis. This is not a peer reviewed scientific publication. It's a creation site that tells their "researchers" not to use the scientific method and to disregard any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It openly states it's bias. Would you consider a source that states it's bias to be credible? Creation sites are notorious for twisting facts and lying. Kenneth Miller would laugh in his face. The human genome project was a 13 year study, yet you're going to trust a failed scientist who only has 58 papers to his name in 20 years (mostly about soybeans)?

 

[Loudmouth]

We can all understand and SEE fossils.

In my experience with creationists, this isn't the case. For example, can you tell us what features a fossil would need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps? I'm betting that you can't.

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.

First, we shouldn't expect to see that many changes between species in the fossil record because fossilization is rare, and we have searched such a tiny portion of the fossil record. New fossil species are being found almost monthly.

Second, we do find transitional fossils.

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.

And now you have demonstrated that you don't understand fossils, and you don't see the physical differences between them. It isn't just size.

The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk.

You are aware that DNA tests are allowed in court, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

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 ... For no reason ... Sits around in the water long enough to be come a fish ... And you think the story of Jonah is a lie. All this reasoning from three skulls.

Right . . . who in the world could imagine any species living half in water and half on land . . .

 

[AionPhanes]

You all better explain "the change at the cellular level" but don't be using any of that complicated genetics stuff just stick to discussing fossils. <~ You serious?

 

[Loudmouth]

You all better explain "the change at the cellular level" but don't be using any of that complicated genetics stuff just stick to discussing fossils. <~ You serious?

Apparently, we aren't allowed to use any fossils, either. If they look transitional, they are automatically called "artistic renditions" and immediately ignored.

 

[AionPhanes]

I'm open to all sorts of non-mainstream ideas. Even partial to a few that eliminative materialist scientists would probably dismiss as woo. I don't think anyone can outright deny the very obvious fact that evolution takes place and still be taken seriously though. It has been verified experimentally on numerous occasion. We literally have seen it take place in populations under observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That reminded me of this video:

What would happen to that pastor if he took his "power of the holy spirit" on the street?

 

[Nithavela]

That reminded me of this video:

What would happen to that pastor if he took his "power of the holy spirit" on the street?

Propably not much, after all, this spell only seems to work on willing targets. He asks them, after all. It's doubtfull that a crook would willingly fail his will save.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Propably not much, after all, this spell only seems to work on willing targets. He asks them, after all. It's doubtfull that a crook would willingly fail his will save.

The Kiai master's students fell too. They tend to think that they really felt something just as the followers of that pastor "felt" the holy spirit. The lesson to be learned from the Kiai master is not to take yourself too seriously or you might live to regret it.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Apparently, we aren't allowed to use any fossils, either. If they look transitional, they are automatically called "artistic renditions" and immediately ignored.

Look mate I ask you to go do the research on the fossil in question. The scientific images, that show what was actually found show a single skull with around five small bone fragments. Yet you evolutionist gods have created from this fossil an entire skeleton to prove to me that evolution really did occur. Compare your pictures to reality. Stop accusing me of being unscientific when I look into the facts.

 

[-57]

Would you like to shut up those who believes in evolutionism? Ask them how mutations add up.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Look mate I ask you to go do the research on the fossil in question.

I gave you plenty of good examples in my initial reply. Why are you so hung up on the fossil record? There are so many fossils we've found that demonstrate the fact of evolution, it's not even that interesting anymore. Answer this question: What features would a fossil have that would, in your mind, demonstrate evidence for evolution? This should help everyone here provide you with examples.

The scientific images, that show what was actually found show a single skull with around five small bone fragments.

You can actually learn a lot about an animal by looking at it's bones. For example, you can figure out their diet just by looking at their teeth. You can figure out of an animal walked upright by looking at it's hips. Like Australopithecus Afarensis had bipedal hips but also had long ape like arms and curled fingers.

Compare your pictures to reality.

Or we could sequence genomes of other animals and compare it to ours and it shows overwhelming evidence for decent with modification and that we share a common ancestor. It's an independent study that comes to the same conclusion as the fossil record and in my opinion is far more interesting.

Stop accusing me of being unscientific when I look into the facts.

Starting at a conclusion and working backwards, twisting facts to support that conclusion is not scientific. That's pseudoscience. Your friends at creationist websites are notorious for that. It's why they can't get published in a reputable publication.

 

[-57]

I gave you plenty of good examples in my initial reply. Why are you so hung up on the fossil record? There are so many fossils we've found that demonstrate the fact of evolution, it's not even that interesting anymore. Answer this question: What features would a fossil have that would, in your mind, demonstrate evidence for evolution? This should help everyone here provide you with examples.



You can actually learn a lot about an animal by looking at it's bones. For example, you can figure out their diet just by looking at their teeth. You can figure out of an animal walked upright by looking at it's hips. Like Australopithecus Afarensis had bipedal hips but also had long ape like arms and curled fingers.

Or we could sequence genomes of other animals and compare it to ours and it shows overwhelming evidence for decent with modification and that we share a common ancestor. It's an independent study that comes to the same conclusion as the fossil record and in my opinion is far more interesting.



Starting at a conclusion and working backwards, twisting facts to support that conclusion is not scientific. That's pseudoscience. Your friends at creationist websites are notorious for that. It's why they can't get published in a reputable publication.

You can start around the 5:50 time mark...