proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

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

Specific examples?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

LOL

 

[pitabread]

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

So I've noticed.

 

[Jimmy D]

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

Yes, by now I think I'm aware of that. But unlike you I don't believe that all that variation came from a super-genome - of which you can produce no evidence. On the other hand, there is a mechanism that would explain in such variation which is well evidenced but which you won't accept for some strange reason.

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.

That's what the fossil record suggests, don't confuse "assumption" with "observation". I wouldn't use the term "from simple to complex" necessarily though.

It's interesting that you posit that life began "pefect" and degraded over time, have you got any evidence of this?

How do you explain beneficial mutations that allow organisms to thrive in environments that their close relations couldn't? Surely that would imply an improvement rather that a degradation?

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

I posted too hastily, so I've amended that, my apologies. Obviously natural selection can explain the variety of finches.

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

No problem, just done it myself.

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

Yep, still mastiffs.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

How do you assess this evidence from a Creationist point of view?

 

[Belk]

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.

For the same reason we don't doubt the theory of relativity. Because non of the tests performed to date have falsified the theory. The reason that we no longer believe the Milky-Way is the whole universe is because tests were performed that showed it to be false. So far nothing has show evolution to be false. It has been 150+ years and thousands upon thousands of tests have been performed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Every fossil remained the same? Can you clarify?

What needs clarified? Every fossil of T-Rex remains the same from the youngest to the oldest found. Not a single solitary fossil shows evidence of evolution. Each one is distinct and remains that way for every one you can find.

Well it appears to paleontologists that the fossil record demonstrates common descent, there are tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting this. I thought that you were critical of those who ignore scientific evidence so why are you doing it here?

There were tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers saying the Milky-Way was the entire universe too. Didn’t make that any more real than evolution. There were peer reviewed papers about the coelacanth too, until we actually found a living one and tested its DNA tho. Funny how we don’t hear anything about the transitional colecanth anymore.

Can you give us any evidence or an example of your A + B = C claim.

Already have, it’s called reality, you know, Husky A and Mastiff B make Chinook C. Or Asian A and African B make Afro-Asian C. Ahh but what’s a little empirical evidence have to do with evolution. My bad.

The first thing I thought of was Tiktaalik, how does your theory account for it's appearance in the Devonian?

You mean it’s sudden appearance fully formed with no predecessors? Maybe you should ask your theory that same question......

Funny, it's what biologists and paleontolgists have been observing and recording for 200 years, so who is this "we"? Why do you ignore their findings?

You mean the same biologists and paleontologist that see animals mate right in front of their eyes, ignore their own scientific definitions and call them separate species? And you wonder why you can’t follow them either......

Are you saying that Indians, Han Chinese, Indonesians, Nepalese, Mongolians etc are all the same?

Same Kind. Are you claiming they are separate species? Why not, no more differences in finches.

[/quote]
I'd suggest that if several hundred years ago you had journeyed by horse from Central africa to Japan you would spot very minor differences in the indiginous people you encountered as you travelled from west to east. Yet if you lined up a Japanese person, an Indian person and a Nigerian person the difference in appearance would be significant.[/quote]
Why wouldn’t there be differences as the races interbred?

How would you account for their differences?

What part of Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian escaped you?

If we didn't know the lineage of dogs, we could look at their fossils and infer their relationships and development. How you believe they might be classified in your imaginary scenario is irrelevant.

Right, like they inferred with those ceratopsia? Starting with Triceratops and Torosaurus? But then we’ve already seen how well they did there in getting things all messed up.... and that’s with babies and adults of the same exact species, let alone different breeds or subspecies within the species..... yah, I am sure they’d get it all wrong just as they have with ceratopsia.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

-_- oh, and it is creationists always talking about how unlikely it would be for the 3 billion base pairs in human DNA to be in their order randomly (even though evolution isn't random, only mutations are). There comes a point in which how much sequences match goes beyond the realm of coincidence. For DNA, that's any two genomes that have more than 25% of their genomes match (this is how much genomes could match purely at random, given that every living thing has DNA as its genetic material and DNA only has 4 different nucleotide bases).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For the same reason we don't doubt the theory of relativity. Because non of the tests performed to date have falsified the theory. The reason that we no longer believe the Milky-Way is the whole universe is because tests were performed that showed it to be false. So far nothing has show evolution to be false. It has been 150+ years and thousands upon thousands of tests have been performed.

Like E. coli remaining E. coli? Tests have been performed, you just ignore the actual conclusion of those tests. E. coli remaining E. coli shows no evolution of species at all. Or did you mean peas that remain peas? Or fruit flys that remain fruit flys?

And why don’t you doubt Relativity? Or at least where it is applied? It’s 99% accurate in the solar system, but the minute you step outside of that it suddenly requires 96% ad hoc theory after ad hoc theory applied to it to make it even approach a semblance of correctness.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- oh, and it is creationists always talking about how unlikely it would be for the 3 billion base pairs in human DNA to be in their order randomly (even though evolution isn't random, only mutations are). There comes a point in which how much sequences match goes beyond the realm of coincidence. For DNA, that's any two genomes that have more than 25% of their genomes match (this is how much genomes could match purely at random, given that every living thing has DNA as its genetic material and DNA only has 4 different nucleotide bases).

The most contradictory statement made to date without even seeing it. Typical evolutionist PR. Mutations are random, but evolution which proceeds by mutation is not random. That ecological and geological changes which are random influence evolution, but evolution is not random. And people wonder why evolution can’t be falsified with thinking like that, it’s no wonder the data doesn’t matter to you all.

You are confused, that is plain to see.

Let’s talk about matches since every single proton, neutron and electron that everything is made up of is exactly the same. That you confuse everything being made from the same building blocks as meaning all things arose from one thing, is that flawed starting point, which leads to flawed interpretations of what you see. It’s all from the same Dust, why should it not all have similarity?

 

[xianghua]

He asked you for a specific example in biology.

a motion systems exist in nature too, you know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Yah I know. They don’t classify us as they do the rest of the animal kingdom (except dogs), even if we are supposed to be just evolved animals.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Sure there is, such as finches mating right in front of their noses and refusing to follow their own scientific definitions they wrote.... yah, I’d trust those people, wouldn’t everyone?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, by now I think I'm aware of that. But unlike you I don't believe that all that variation came from a super-genome - of which you can produce no evidence. On the other hand, there is a mechanism that would explain in such variation which is well evidenced but which you won't accept for some strange reason.

What mechanism, those 50+ mutations at every birth that can’t even change an Asian or African into another race, versus actual empirical observation of exactly what does do it? Those mutations in every Husky and Mastiff that can’t cross the breed barrier versus actual empirical observations of exactly what does do it? Funny how everything to go from Asian and African to Afro-Asian is already in the genome, as is Husky and Mastiff to Chinook. Versus your (sorry their) fantasy of it needing to first be mutated in over millions of years. Why it took 9 months in the human and what 26 or 28 weeks for dogs? I got more evidence it’s already in the genome than you do it takes millions of years of mutation.

That's what the fossil record suggests, don't confuse "assumption" with "observation". I wouldn't use the term "from simple to complex" necessarily though.

I wouldn’t either since every form of life was created fully formed. But that’s what they say.

It's interesting that you posit that life began "pefect" and degraded over time, have you got any evidence of this?

Hey, it’s them that claim the genome is now 98% non-functional because of error over time.

How do you explain beneficial mutations that allow organisms to thrive in environments that their close relations couldn't? Surely that would imply an improvement rather that a degradation?

Surely your not going to ignore that I have already said the quadrillionth mutation may in some accidental way impart a benefit to the organism. But most result in that 98% non-functional trash that it ends up being.

I posted too hastily, so I've amended that, my apologies. Obviously natural selection can explain the variety of finches.

Or just the fact that they are interbreeding, 3 of them so intensely that they are merging into one as they put it?

No problem, just done it myself.



Yep, still mastiffs.

So why object to the empirical evidence then and propose something different far, far in the past when you couldn’t observe what mated with what?

 

[Belk]

Like E. coli remaining E. coli? Tests have been performed, you just ignore the actual conclusion of those tests. E. coli remaining E. coli shows no evolution of species at all. Or did you mean peas that remain peas? Or fruit flys that remain fruit flys?

If fruit flies did not remain fruit flies that would falsify the theory of evolution. It is readily apparent that you do not know what the theory predicts. If the theory did not work then it would be changed. That is how science works and what has happened. If it didn't the constant testing and real world application of evolutionary theory would show us where there were issues.

And why don’t you doubt Relativity? Or at least where it is applied? It’s 99% accurate in the solar system, but the minute you step outside of that it suddenly requires 96% ad hoc theory after ad hoc theory applied to it to make it even approach a semblance of correctness.....

How about we stick to your lack of understanding of a single theory at a time.

 

[pitabread]

What mechanism, those 50+ mutations at every birth that can’t even change an Asian or African into another race, versus actual empirical observation of exactly what does do it?

Out of curiosity, but have ever actually looked into the underlying genetics behind different 'races' and variation of the human species?

I ask because having looked into skin pigmentation, as an example, there is marked evidence of highly conserved genes with respect to populations of individuals with darker skin (typically equatorial regions), versus far less genetic conservation (i.e. greater allelelic variation) in populations with lighter skin. Which is exactly what you'd expect to find in an evolutionary scenario where mutations and selective pressures relative to environments were taking place.

 

[Aman777]

Are you saying that people who believe in evolution and not Special Creation are not even Christians?

Yes or no will do.

No, since I am NOT the Judge and some would use a yes as a reason to report me and silence my voice. They've done it before. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

WOW. What a strange attitude.

It's God's Truth. Only those listed in the Lamb's book of life enter Heaven. Rev 21:27 The rest are lost.

 

[Aman777]

All in response to a request for 3 examples supporting this claim:


"What you don't know is that God's Truth in Genesis chapter one AGREES with the recent discoveries of Science."


Amen? Nope.

Then, please enlighten us to our mistakes IF you can. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Do Creationists honestly expect us to take them seriously when they post asinine stuff like this?

Darwhinists can't take disagreement with their ToE, since way down deep they too, know it's a lie from the pits of Hell.