proving evolution as just a "theory"

[The Times]

?? I do -- what's your point?

I love my Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[xianghua]

Of course it's evidence for evolution. It's the very process of evolution that we are observing.

so a dog evolving into a dog is evidence that a fish can evolve into human? ok.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey hey.

I would.



Such as?

What would you expect in relation to a form of evidence?

What would be an example of proof that would convince you?

Cheers

Something besides your opinion, that can be independently verified.

 

[xianghua]

No, because we already know that cars are manufactured.

but both car and a living thing can add small changes to their structure. so according to this logic a car+ 100 my=an airplane. do you agree or disagree?

We don't have to, that's the point. Your analogy doesn't work on things of which we already know the origin.

as we already know the origin of spinning motors. right?

 

[bhsmte]

so a dog evolving into a dog is evidence that a fish can evolve into human? ok.

Strawman much?

 

[xianghua]

Let's just say if Cars occurred naturally, then cars would occur naturally. Of course, this isn't so in this reality, right?

right. as spinning motors or living things cant evolve naturally in reality. right?

 

[xianghua]

Scientific observations are not limited to before our eyes and in real time. In fact if a population of fish evolved into cats (much less during a human lifetime) that would falsify evolution because extant taxa don't evolve into extant taxa.

You sure do comment a lot about evolution despite, apparently, not knowing a thing about it.

Scientific observations are not limited to before our eyes and in real time. In fact if a population of fish evolved into cats (much less during a human lifetime) that would falsify evolution because extant taxa don't evolve into extant taxa.

You sure do comment a lot about evolution despite, apparently, not knowing a thing about it.

actually its not was my claim: "I'm here to demonstrate that common descent - as a hypothesis at face value - is a better explanation than intelligent design because common descent is observed in nature"

but as i said: we cant observe a fish that evolve into human.

 

[Jimmy D]

right. as spinning motors or living things cant evolve naturally in reality. right?

Wrong.

 

[Jimmy D]

actually it wasnt my claim: "I'm here to demonstrate that common descent - as a hypothesis at face value - is a better explanation than intelligent design because common descent is observed in nature"

but as i said: we cant observe a fish that evolve into human.

Can you observe a fish being designed supernaturally? Can you observe anything being supernaturally designed?

 

[PsychoSarah]

true. we can also see people making a genome. so this criteria also fit with biological creatures.

-_- no, because we were only able to "make genomes" relatively recently, and they are all based off of ones that already exist. Although, I would call it a huge stretch to call inserting a few foreign genes into a genome "making a genome". That's like saying that a person adding a custom paint job to a car is "making a car".

Obviously, if life on this planet were created by something, it probably wouldn't be something that originated here. Yet, thanks to the lack of evidence for such a creator, trying to conclude this happened even though a viable natural process exists as a much more evidenced explanation is illogical. Humans can make caves, but that doesn't mean all caves were made by us.

as there no natural process that can produce a living thing out of non-living thing.

Abiogenesis experiments in 2013 confirmed that organic molecules can come together to form basic cells in the right environmental conditions, so you are incorrect. Not that this is relevant to evolution in the slightest. You want to talk about the origin of life, then I am game for it, just don't act like the theory of evolution covers it or even demands life have a natural origin.

so as you can see - those 2 criteria fit well with creatures too.

You definitely seem to think so, but I disagree.

 

[sfs]

I love my Lord Jesus Christ.

Good. Again, what's your point? Lots of Christians love the same lord, and also accept evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Now answer the question. Is it a vast conspiracy or did they all miss something you didn’t?

here are several cases that should be note:

and this:

Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change

or this:

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe

or this:

University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter

i dont think that it's a conspiracy, but im sure that something is wrong here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

here are several cases that should be note:

and this:

Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change

or this:

Biologist: I Lost My Job Because I Don't Believe in Evolution

or this:

University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter

i dont think that it's a conspiracy, but im sure that something is wrong here.

Oh my goodness, everyone knows that Ben Stein's Expelled flat out lies about the reasons the various creationists were "fired" (quotes because not all of them that claim to be fired actually were; one of them was working as a temp to begin with, and their pre-established period of working simply ran out and they weren't hired on for additional time). One of the people fired published a paper without permission first when protocol demanded it, so the content of the paper they published was actually irrelevant to them being fired. Another was fired for teaching creationism instead of evolution... in a college biology class. Part of the job description is to teach evolution, regardless as to your personal feelings on it. That is, they weren't doing their job any more than a history professor that happens to be a Holocaust denialist refusing to cover WW2 in their lectures is doing their job.

I'll vouch for the guy that discovered the triceratops horn, though. This one was legitimately fired for his beliefs.

 

[xianghua]

Abiogenesis experiments in 2013 confirmed that organic molecules can come together to form basic cells in the right environmental conditions, so you are incorrect.

do you have any reference for this claim?

Not that this is relevant to evolution in the slightest.

true. i just talking about the first cell. but it' also fit well with evolution, since we dont have any proof that a cell can evolve into a creature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

do you have any reference for this claim?

Of course, I started an entire thread about it a while ago.
The easy to read one New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far
The direct work of Jack Szostak (sadly, the full text demands a subscription now, ugh) Nonenzymatic Template-Directed RNA Synthesis Inside Model Protocells | Science
More stuff on the protocells https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...encedaily+(ScienceDaily:+Latest+Science+News)

true. i just talking about the first cell. but it' also fit well with evolution, since we dont have any proof that a cell can evolve into a creature.

-_- except that creatures are, in fact, made of cells, and some of the simpler multicellular organisms are just glorified colonies of cells.

 

[HitchSlap]

Now what do you want me to do with it?

Apply Hume's maxim.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

right. as spinning motors or living things cant evolve naturally in reality. right?

Yet this is what all of the evidence shows... That you don't like it is your own problem, not everyone else's

 

[Tinker Grey]

Say I Love My Lord Jesus!

Just say it.

I love my Lord Jesus.

Hmm ... not much of a test.

 

[gaara4158]

I didn't misrepresent anything you said. I simply pointed out to you that the change we observe can't even cross the racial or breed barrier without mating occurring between different races or breeds. If it can't even cross that barrier, how do you expect the species barrier to be crossed?

What race barrier? What breed barrier? All "races" of humans stem from a common ancestor and all breeds of dog stem from a common ancestor. Even creationists accept this. What on Earth are you talking about?

I simply pointed out to you what we observe as empirical evidence. That the mostly likely explanation is incorrect classifications in the fossil record, since those classifications fail to match what we observe in real life.

The question we're discussing isn't "What's wrong with evolution?" It's "why all the biodiversity?"

Here, like this:

Question: Why does life come in so many different shapes and sizes?

My answer: Over time, populations change and diverge due to natural selection driven by environmental pressures.

Your answer: incorrect classifications in the fossil record, since those classifications fail to match what we observe in real life.

You're criticizing evolution, which is fine, but you're not answering the question. I'm happy to explain why your criticisms are erroneous, but first I need you to acknowledge that evolution and intelligent design are NOT on equal footing because one has a mechanism that can be demonstrated and the other does not.

Sure change over time existed

This is all I needed from you. Now, can you demonstrate that your "intelligent designer" exists?

but then how did that life originate in the first place that changed over time?

This is another discussion entirely and currently the answer isn't known. That doesn't stop us from understanding what happened after life originated.

I propose a creator from dust. Life only propagates from existing life. Never have we observed life originate from inanimate matter. That change over time occurs has nothing to do with a creator one way or another, except He made us adaptable to survive. What has to do with a creator is the origin of that life that changes over time.

Ahh, but evolutionists always then claim how life began has nothing to do with evolution, even if without life beginning, there would be no evolution...... that's simply avoidance of the most important aspect of both arguments. The change that occurs is in reality irrelevant to the debate of creation or evolution. It in the end boils down to how life all began.

You're not too far off the rails here, but what you're missing is that you can't just propose a creator because it fits neatly in a knowledge gap. Sure, we don't observe life coming from non-life. We also don't observe creators. If you're going to propose a creator as an explanation for something, you're going to have to demonstrate that creators actually exist before the explanation is to be taken seriously. Scientific models that attempt to explain abiogenesis all utilize principles, forces, and elements that have already been shown to exist. Your model just claims "God did it" without demonstrating God even exists.

That's been the crux of the issue this whole time, and that's what makes evolution a better explanation that intelligent design every time.

 

[gaara4158]

but both car and a living thing can add small changes to their structure. so according to this logic a car+ 100 my=an airplane. do you agree or disagree?

That's a cosmetic similarity you're mistaking for something more. The formula isn't simply object+time=evolution. Evolution is possible in biology because lifeforms, left to their own devices, reproduce imperfectly, and whichever copies survive best in turn make copies of themselves, and the process goes on indefinitely until total extinction, which obviously hasn't occurred yet. Cars, on the other hand, do not reproduce. They are designed and manufactured, and if left alone for any expanse of time will do nothing other than decay. The changes you see occurring in different "generations" of cars are due to them constantly being redesigned and remanufactured.

As you can see, the two are not analogous. One changes over time due to natural processes, the other changes over time due to redesign and manufacture.

So no, disagree.

as we already know the origin of spinning motors. right?

I'm fairly certain a quick google search can find you the origins of most spinning motors, flagellar or otherwise.