Prove it or remove it challenge

[FutureAndAHope]

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.



Life imitates art.



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

please go have a look at the link I provided there were around 5 unrelated bone fragments your picture is entirely made up no matter what you call it

 

[MerlinJ]

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.

I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves by jumping right into the evidence. Judging from the questions you've asked, it's not clear that you understand the theory of evolution. It would be difficult for you to understand what is or isn't evidence if you don't understand why.

Could you summarize the main points of the theory?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've read through the four pages of this thread, and I just... this has to be a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

 

[Queller]

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 ...

I can't imagine it, and neither does evolutionary theory. You're railing against something that doesn't exist.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The main points of the theory of evolution revolve around micro changes, or mutations to our genetic code. Resulting in gradual change over time. The evolutionary argument is that this can create new information. Where as a creationist says that mutations can only alter existing code resulting in loss of genetic information.

 

[Nithavela]

The main points of the theory of evolution revolve around micro changes, or mutations to our genetic code. Resulting in gradual change over time. The evolutionary argument is that this can create new information. Where as a creationist says that mutations can only alter existing code resulting in loss of genetic information.

Define "new information" and "loss of information".

Do you even know what the DNA does?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The main points of the theory of evolution revolve around micro changes, or mutations to our genetic code. Resulting in gradual change over time. The evolutionary argument is that this can create new information. Where as a creationist says that mutations can only alter existing code resulting in loss of genetic information.

You wouldn't happen to be a friend of Ewan McDonald?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Define "new information" and "loss of information".

Do you even know what the DNA does?

I have yet to see anyone who's anti-evolution actually able to fulfill that criteria.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Indeed... but considering the "level" of knowledge exhibited here of both biology as science as a whole, I thought it was best to let it slide, as these explanations are more likely to simply confuse the OP even more.

 

[The Cadet]

The main points of the theory of evolution revolve around micro changes, or mutations to our genetic code. Resulting in gradual change over time. The evolutionary argument is that this can create new information. Where as a creationist says that mutations can only alter existing code resulting in loss of genetic information.

While this is not the most confused definition of evolution I've heard on this forum, it is missing a few key points (natural selection and speciation), and nothing in evolution has anything to do with information theory.

The idea that it's possible to "create new information" is nonsense, if we're going by the typical mathematical definition of the term; it's like claiming that it's possible to "create new numbers". But even beyond that, it's trivial to show mutations which increase "information" are possible - all that's necessary is a gene duplication followed by a point mutation, as "CAGTCAAT" is undeniably an increase in information over "CAGT".

 

[Oafman]

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

This tells me that you don't accept the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution by natural selection because you don't understand much of it.

But surely this is the point of your son's education. In some years, I imagine at high school, he will learn about the genetic evidence, and about RNA and DNA; and much more, and those huge swathes of evidence will be available to him in a way that they aren't to you. This is the point of him going to school. You should welcome that.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I am not an expert on dna so will not pretend to know it all. like I said I know the basics.

I will ask you a question, if I was able to prove to you that a person in my wife's family was proclaimed dead by doctors. With degrees in medicine. And through the prayer of her biological father was instantly raised back to life would you believe? Because it happened in my wife's family. 100% provable and testable. See http://www.everybodymattersministry.com for the story.

You may be trying to make me into a scientist, but in reality I already know what is true about God. I know he created the world. I trust. Grid yuan creation scientist, many with PhDs rather than evolutionists. I am sure every person to some extent has to rely only on the basis of trust another persons science.

 

[justcoolforyou]

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.

18For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,

like strings of the harp, produce new melody,

while the flow of music steadily persists.

And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.

19For land creatures were changed into water creatures,

and those that swam went over on land.


Wisdom, Chapter 19 catholic and orthodox bible ,Septuagint scriptures

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not an expert on dna so will not pretend to know it all. like I said I know the basics.

I will ask you a question, if I was able to prove to you that a person in my wife's family was proclaimed dead by doctors. With degrees in medicine. And through the prayer of her biological father was instantly raised back to life would you believe? Because it happened in my wife's family. 100% provable and testable. See http://www.everybodymattersministry.com for the story.

You seem to here to promote your apologetics ministry, not to discuss. I doubt the sincerity of your "challenge."

You may be trying to make me into a scientist, but in reality I already know what is true about God. I know he created the world.

How do you know that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi in regard to the lovely picture provided to prove whale/ dolphin evolution

Support, not prove. Fossils support the evolutionary model, they do not prove it. As I have already told you.

do you know that is just an artists representation

Really? You mean, those are drawings and not photographs of the actual fossils? Wauw! I totally did not realise that!!!!!

It's just for clarity dude. If you wish to see the actual fossils - google them. Or go visit a museum somewhere that has them displayed.

, it does not accurately show the bones that were found.

Yes, they do.

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.

More importantly, it's a creationist site.
Try an actual scientific source.

Not sure it works on a desktop. If you look at the fossil you will see there is no body.

If you look at the site and compare it to actual scientific sources, you also see that it is full of lies and misinformation.

The whole body has been imagined

Regardless of that being false, I post drawings of the skulls, not the bodies.

, based upon a preconceived idea of what it should look like, not what it acrually does.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

18For the elements, in ever-changing harmony,

like strings of the harp, produce new melody,

while the flow of music steadily persists.

And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place.

19For land creatures were changed into water creatures,

and those that swam went over on land.


Wisdom, Chapter 19 catholic and orthodox bible ,Septuagint scriptures

That has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[justcoolforyou]

That has nothing to do with evolution.

Then what?

 

[JackRT]

By Dr. Francis CollinsEditor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views. As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers. I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection? Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

 

[The Cadet]

I will ask you a question, if I was able to prove to you that a person in my wife's family was proclaimed dead by doctors. With degrees in medicine. And through the prayer of her biological father was instantly raised back to life would you believe? Because it happened in my wife's family. 100% provable and testable.

Great. Prove it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I presume you are talking about the Commonwealth Government, or your local state (Victorian?) Government? Yeah, that's very unlikely. This isn't the US (thankfully).