proving evolution as just a "theory"

DogmaHunter · Oct 18, 2017

SkyWriting said:
If you spend time in scientific circles, you find it's about status and prestige.
Which provides more money.

Money for research is primarily an investment in knowledge gathering with as goal a ROI in some form or another through practical application directly flowing from that knowledge.

You need stuff that works for that.

Prestige and status is important in science yes. But it will only go to those who actually have something to investigate. Creationism is not one of those things.

xianghua · Oct 18, 2017

gaara4158 said:
I think what you’re getting at is the argument from irreducible complexity. That’s fine, but then you have to point to something in biology that’s irreducibly complex. Can you?

why not? take a motion system for instance. any motion system will need at least several parts for it's minimal function. similar to the minimal car example.

pitabread · Oct 18, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
They do not use the words assumption and belief, they use the words theory and fact. Same thing though.

Not in the slightest.

DogmaHunter · Oct 18, 2017

xianghua said:
why not? take a motion system for instance. any motion system will need at least several parts for it's minimal function. similar to the minimal car example.

He asked you for a specific example in biology.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 18, 2017

PsychoSarah said:
No, because what you just outlined is a fallacy humans are prone to, not evidence for anything. That something looks designed is a subjective assessment that doesn't mean the actual thing is designed. Same way how our brains trick us into thinking this looks like a face, yet, it isn't a face.

Or the way our brains trick us into believing similarity means common descent?

Speedwell · Oct 18, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Or the way our brains trick us into believing similarity means common descent?

Yes, if all the evidence there was for common descent was a layman's subjective assessment of similarity.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 18, 2017

Belk said:
So your answer on why every scientific and academic institution accepts evolution as science is that it is a belief system? That somehow a bunch of people independently came up with similar theories. Then they managed to convince a society steeped in biblical belief that this false idea was true? Somehow this false belief has managed to not only become the predominant theory that underpins every biological science but to withstand every competing theory for 150+ years?

That strains credulity to the breaking point.

Why not? They once convinced everyone on earth that the Milky-Way was the entire universe. Had the observational data and the mathematics to back up that belief. Were entirely sincere in their belief, but still wrong.

We even had a period of epicycles, so sure where they they were correct they just continued to refine their belief and never bothered to look for the reality.

bhsmte · Oct 18, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
We say there is a zero chance the Bible is wrong. Your the one putting your faith in yourself. We trust in God. Once again you are projecting.

I am projecting, because i am the one who has no issue stating i could be wrong???

Major league LOL!

Justatruthseeker · Oct 18, 2017

Speedwell said:
Yes, if all the evidence there was for common descent was a layman's subjective assessment of similarity.

Oh I totally agree in common descent.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when those two meet donwe see a variation in the species.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate does a new form appear in the species.

The Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian. Nor does the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. Asian remains Asian, African remains African, Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remains Mastiff.

And such is why every single fossil ever found remains the same from the oldest one found to the youngest one found.

Kind after Kind, I agree. It’s just your idea of common descent differs from all of the evidence..

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2017

bhsmte said:
i could be wrong???

Oh, ok, I did not know you were talking about yourself. I though you were accusing others.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian.

What is an Asian? I have a son who claims to be Asian but when I had him tested he was only 34%. Race is not a scientific belief anymore, they go by haplogroups and there are quite a few of them.

bhsmte · Oct 18, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Oh, ok, I did not know you were talking about yourself. I though you were accusing others.

I was talking about those who need to convince themselves they never could be wrong, did you miss that.

And i know you have this need to clip posts when you reply, but you arent fooling anyone, you are only revealing something about yourself.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2017

pitabread said:
Not in the slightest.

Maybe not in your dictionary but we use a different dictionary than you do.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 18, 2017

Jimmy D said:
More or less correct.

Nothing more or less to it, you have observ

This would suggest africans and asians are separately created wouldn't it? Is that what you think?

Why would it suggest that? Are you not aware that over 100 breeds of dogs came from wolves? So that several races of humans came from one is no more surprising.

More or less correct.

Nothing more or less to it, you have observed nothing else"

This would suggest Huskies and Mastiffs are separately created wouldn't it? Is that what you think?

Why wouldn’t it? Are you no the aware that over 100 breeds of dogs came from wolves?

I thought that the you said that the wolf genome contained all the possible variations we see in the different dog breeds, you're contradicting yourself.

Not in the least. You simply don’t understand that half the chromosomes are in the male and half in the female. You start from the flawed assumption that life went from simple to complex, instead of perfect from the start and is degrading over time and becoming less pure and confined into racial characteristics.

Mind you, we know that both of those are wrong - Mutations are responsible for variation.

And yet finches are varying at a rapid pace, and mutations are unable to explain their variation.....

Eh? What theory says that, can you cite your source?

My bad, I should of said African evolved into all the races we see today.

Repeating things doesn't make them true. Especially idiotic things like a dog evolving into an already extent form of dog, where did you get that from?

Agreed, your repeating evolution is a fact won’t ever make it a fact.

Even in Mastiffs we see a great deal of variation, why is that?

Yet they remain Mastiffs do they not? Selective breeding with specific traits and other breeds.

Speedwell · Oct 18, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Oh I totally agree in common descent.

you missed the point. I said, if all the evidence there was for common descent was a layman's subjective assessment of similarity.

There is a good deal more of evidence than just a layman's subjective assessment of similarity.

bhsmte · Oct 18, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Maybe not in your dictionary but we use a different dictionary than you do.

We noticed.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2017

bhsmte said:
I was talking about those who need to convince themselves they never could be wrong, did you miss that.

Yep you were talking about yourself, I thought we covered this already.

And i know you have this need to clip posts when you reply, but you arent fooling anyone, you are only revealing something about yourself.

Yep that is the way the ball bounces. I do not know anything about you unless you tell me. God can show me but He is not a tattletale He does not talk behind peoples back. If He tells someone something about you He will show you at the same time.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2017

Speedwell said:
you missed the point. I said, if all the evidence there was for common descent was a layman's subjective assessment of similarity.

There is a good deal more of evidence than just a layman's subjective assessment of similarity.

Assessment of the evidence is not the evidence.

Evolution and Creationism have the exact same evidence. In some cases they have different assessments and different conclusions about that evidence.

joshua 1 9 · Oct 18, 2017

bhsmte said:
We noticed.

Did you know that people are either in bondage or they are free. There is no middle ground.

bhsmte · Oct 18, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Yep you were talking about yourself, I thought we covered this already.

Yep that is the way the ball bounces. I do not know anything about you unless you tell me. God can show me but He is not a tattletale He does not talk behind peoples back. If He tells someone something about you He will show you at the same time.

One simple suggestion; read my entire posts and there should be no problems. You appear to ignore certain parts when it suits you.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency