proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

But every post he posts shows less response and more insults as the desparation increases.

Seen it all before but that was particularly bad, especially when I had no idea why it was directed at me, and thanks for letting me know what was up there.

I guess he just sneaked out the door when I confronted him twice on what was going on. lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am quite certain you would need to call it such.

It's obviously a very very convenient excuse to take place of not being able to prove it, and yes, I'm quite certain I need to call it such..

 

[Kenny'sID]

That doesn’t even make sense. What a surprise.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have to show you the individual because I've explained the mechanism to you. Natural selection is demonstrably capable of causing change within populations over time. Natural selection exists. You still have to show me your god because you're using him as an explanation for biodiversity.

In other words, natural selection is a better explanation for biodiversity than creationism because natural selection can be shown to exist and a creator cannot.

It's quite simple indeed.

I see biodiversity all around me. Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Asian mates with African and we get Afro-Asian. Yes the time of nine months, give or take a week or so depending on individual cases is about how long diversity takes.

But I also see only Kind after Kind. I have yet to see an Asian become anything other than an Asian until they mate with the African. And then the Asian still remained the Asian. But against all observational evidence you want me to believe the Asian or the African evolve into the Afro-Asian over long periods of time, when it actually occurred with no evolution and in nine months roughly. This is why you cant find those transitory species in the fossil record, they never existed. Fossil A mated with fossil B and Fossil C, different from the other two, was born and suddenly appeared in the fossil record.

Its their incorrectly labeling fossil A and fossil B as separate species that leads to the false belief in evolution. Just as if I incorrectly labeled the Asian and African as separate species, I would come to the incorrect belief concerning the origin of the Afro-Asian if I never saw them in life, but only by bones.

We are not debating diversity within Kinds, that is obvious, but their unsupported claims that A or B becomes C without A or B mating. Neither the Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian. They like every single fossil ever found remain the same....... And just like in the fossil record the new form appears suddenly, with no transitionals between it and its predecessor.

It is quite simple indeed.

And I thank you kindly for your response without feeling the need to use ad hominem attacks. So refreshing that a supporter of evolution can do so. Although I should say the same to Psychsarah, she never participates in that either.

And no, Asian and African are not separate Kinds, but diversity within the Kind. It is their mistaken classification of the diversity within species as separate species which leads to the error of evolutionary belief. The Asian is locked into its racial attributes as is the African. Only when those two mate and share genomes does a new race develop. There is no evolution of one species into many species, which is why all fossils remain the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found. Only those variations within that species mating and producing new variations within that species. Why new forms appear suddenly. Learn the lessons real life propagation teaches.

 

[The Times]

Aaarrrrggghhh

You do that alot to yourself.

Aryan. Arian was a early church hetrodox.
2. Hitler banned Darwin.
3. With what part of "natural selection" are you having the most trouble? Is it the natural part?
4. Selective breeding in humans goes all the way back to the Spartans. Do try and learn a little history before spouting off and looking foolish.

All were into eugenics and experimented to realise a super human race, which totally goes against the ethical and moral teachings of Christianity.

Would you please stop associating Christianity with autocratic dictators who used social Darwinism to realise their genocidal goals.

Stop propagating fake news about Hitler following a Christian path.

Your so against Christianity that you ignore my posts that highlight that the fruits of Evolution Theory is anarchy leading to genocide. We have historic evidence trenched in blood for the last 100 years.

 

[HitchSlap]

You do that alot to yourself.



All were into eugenics and experimented to realise a super human race, which totally goes against the ethical and moral teachings of Christianity.

Would you please stop associating Christianity with autocratic dictators who used social Darwinism to realise their genocidal goals.

Stop propagating fake news about Hitler following a Christian path.

Your so against Christianity that you ignore my posts that highlight that the fruits of Evolution Theory is anarchy leading to genocide. We have historic evidence trenched in blood for the last 100 years.

"Gott Mit Uns"

 

[pitabread]

And yet you claim that the then existing extant species (of which no examples exist - conveniently) evolved into both the then existing extant human and chimpanzee species. I sense a contradiction occurring. Ahh, I see, only when the existing species dies out and cant be found to have ever existed, does it evolve into a new species. I might buy your assumption if you could point me to even one of these common ancestors that split to become new species?

Now if you wanted to claim that fossil A mated with fossil B and created fossil C, according to every single observation we have observed of propagation....... But that isnt what you are proposing. You propose nothing ever once observed..... You know, Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. But when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff Mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. But when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook. I'd suggest your one evolving into another is based upon ignoring the other half of the equation......

I suggest reading a biology textbook, or maybe visiting a web site like this: Welcome to Evolution 101!

I really have little desire to explain to you how evolution works. Whether you understand it or not, it's not my issue.

Are you saying weather systems show evidence of design? Of course not, but then that's why the weather is so unpredictable and the universe can have laws written to describe it. Yet a law written about the weather - a true random occurrence, would be invalid from one day to the next.

I said that weather systems are example of complex phenomena in nature, not design.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suggest reading a biology textbook, or maybe visiting a web site like this: Welcome to Evolution 101!

I already have, in fact thats why I am having a discussion on here with your fellow evolutionists about interbreeding finches being the same species and not separate species.

Defining a species

"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

Although there is no ambiguity in the fact these finches are one and all interbreeding, they seem reluctant to have to admit that Darwin made an honest mistake in believing them reproductively isolated. I could understand if there was some question as to whether or not they were interbreeding. If we were discussing bacteria, we would have to search for a different way to decide. But we are not discussing bacteria, nor is their any ambiguity in their producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses. But of course they obfuscate as I am sure you would do if you were to try to explain evolution to me. I expect its because you cant rationally do so is why, but not your job sounds good. Then what is your reason for being on this forum if not to enlighten us poor deluded souls?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Triops are "creeping creatures", made by the Hands of Jesus to live temporary lives and are subject to death and total destruction.

Their 3 month long lifespan makes them particularly temporary. Is that a problem with participating in the experiment?

 

[rjs330]

Because so many of you want to teach creationism in public school science classes or otherwise make it the basis of public policy. If it was just something you believed and taught in your own homes and churches nobody else would care about it, any more than we care that Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat. Basically, you guys started it by trying to use the Bible to discredit science.

No we didn't. Creationism was taught before evolution came on the scene. They started it. Then creationism got tossed out and we want it back in. Because evolution isn't science either.

 

[rjs330]

-_- I don't? As long as no one claims that every sentence in the bible is literally true, I don't bother to even address the bible all that much. And the only reason I feel the need then is because the book contradicts itself, making it impossible for every word to be true.

You would be incorrect on the supposed contradictions. And if you think literalists think every word is literally true then you don't understand literalism. We understand very well language and it's uses.

 

[pitabread]

Then creationism got tossed out and we want it back in.

Well too bad, that's not how it works.

Because evolution isn't science either.

I'm sure the various biotech firms which utilize evolution as an applied science in their work would be surprised to hear that.

You can keep repeating "it's not a science" over and over, but you're only lying to yourself. Like it or not, the theory of evolution is a foundational part of modern biology and is taught as such. And it especially behooves nations to do so if they intend to be economically competitive in areas of applied biology. Of which there are some pretty significant areas, especially agriculture and medicine.

 

[rjs330]

Well too bad, that's not how it works.



I'm sure the various biotech firms which utilize evolution as an applied science in their work would be surprised to hear that.

Remember, I'm not talking about adaptation. I am talking about evolution from a common ancestor isn't real science. Firms that use adaptation such as a virus changing to continue to survive etc are fine. I have no issue with that. Life adapts and changes all the time. What life has never done is evolve from a common ancestor and you do not have to believe in that to make the biotech stuff work.

 

[Audacious]

Remember, I'm not talking about adaptation. I am talking about evolution from a common ancestor isn't real science.

The only people who disagree with you is virtually all of biology.

A nice read: Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

 

[pitabread]

Remember, I'm not talking about adaptation. I am talking about evolution from a common ancestor

So am I. Phylogenetics (evolutionary relationships) is an applied science. This even includes direct application of things like primate phylogenies that creationists continue to assert is fiction. Yet, it's useful science.

What life has never done is evolve from a common ancestor and you do not have to believe in that to make the biotech stuff work.

Again, phylogenetics is an applied science, particularly with respect to modern genomics. There is a whole world of science out there including the very things creationists dispute that are currently being applied.

 

[rjs330]

The only people who disagree with you is virtually all of biology.

A nice read: Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

I don't really care. Evolution from a common ancestor is not real science. It can't be tested, or reproduced. It's an assumption.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution from a common ancestor is not real science. It can't be tested, or reproduced.

You're wrong about the testing part; like everything in science, it can be and is tested. You just don't care.

Plus, the process itself is observable. We see the same process operating today. There is nothing magical about evolution whether it's happening in our lifetimes or millions of years ago.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You would be incorrect on the supposed contradictions. And if you think literalists think every word is literally true then you don't understand literalism. We understand very well language and it's uses.

If you don't think that when some people say "every word of the bible is true", they can't possibly mean that literally, you haven't been on this site long enough.

Also, some of the contradictions are extremely blatant.
NU 25:9 24,000 died in the plague.
1CO 10:8 23,000 died in the plague.

JG 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him.
JG 5:25-27 Sisera was standing.

1SA 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2SA 1:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2SA 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1CH 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.

2SA 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1CH 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.

The third one is a personal favorite, because of how convoluted the attempts at explaining it away are. They can be as ridiculous as suggesting he fell on his sword as an enemy soldier shot at him with arrows or hacked at him with their own sword, and this was all done through the will of god.

 

[rjs330]

So am I. Phylogenetics (evolutionary relationships) is an applied science. This even includes direct application of things like primate phylogenies that creationists continue to assert is fiction. Yet, it's useful science.



Again, phylogenetics is an applied science, particularly with respect to modern genomics. There is a whole world of science out there including the very things creationists dispute that are currently being applied.

But none of that is evidence that shows common ancestry. It's great stuff but doesn't show common ancestor evolution. You may assume it does but that doesn't mean it does. Evolutionists live to point to similarities but all that really shows is that there are similarities in nature. Evidence of common design. Evolution assumes similarity is evidence of common ancestor.

 

[Belk]

No we didn't. Creationism was taught before evolution came on the scene. They started it. Then creationism got tossed out and we want it back in. Because evolution isn't science either.

That's odd. All the scientists and the scientific community at large says it is science. All the university science departments accept it as science. So is it a giant conspiracy or is the vast majority of the scientific community stupid?