proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Subduction Zone]

I find that hard to believe, frankly.

I have heard of one or two. But I wonder how he knows that they are atheist. Many Christians treat other Christians as atheists if they do not agree with them 100%. But then most Christians do not understand what an atheist is.

 

[tas8831]

Well please let me know when you can test and reproduce evolution from a common ancestor will you? I will swallow my pride and say well I guess they were right all along. So far all they have is supposition based on assumption. We have yet to show a plant can become an animal.

Turnabout is fair play -

Well please let me know when you can test and reproduce creation from nothing will you? I will swallow my pride and say well I guess they were right all along. So far all they have is presupposition based on Faith. We have yet to be shown how dust can become organic compounds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because all too often, in the past there is none, and no, I don't have records to all that any more than anyone here would and I'm not going to go back and prove it. Geez. Also I guess Ive stopped talking you seriously to the point I tend to skim your post now days.

Kenny, you know that is not true. There is almost always an explanation. I have seen you ignore explanations time after time. Not just from me, but from other posters. For example in your latest response to sfs he had explained how evolution is "proven" in the post that you demanded he explain how evolution is proven.

Just because you ignore an explanation, do not understand an explanation, or cannot understand an explanation does not mean that no explanation was given.

And you could easily shut me up about how you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. You could simply try to learn for once.

 

[Kenny'sID]

For me the question is not about who, but how.

I was trying to make another point with the question, but I understand.

To me it's simple as can be, but that's just me....clearly.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is not a "defense", it is an observation.

It's so obviously wrong/untrue, I see it as a defensive tool.

And of course you aren't going to admit that possibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Turnabout is fair play -

Well please let me know when you can test and reproduce creation from nothing will you? I will swallow my pride and say well I guess they were right all along. So far all they have is presupposition based on Faith. We have yet to be shown how dust can become organic compounds.

Sorry but you are simply wrong about "dust" becoming organic compounds. That was proven in the the 1950's with the Miller Urey experiment. At that time many creationists claimed that organic compounds, a key need for abiogenesis, could not arise naturally. They were shown to be wrong. And when the early Earth atmosphere was found to be possibly in error they ran the experiment again with different atmospheres. It kept making organic compounds.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's so obviously wrong/untrue, I see it as a defensive tool.

And of course you aren't going to admit that possibility.

Well, as usual you are wrong. If it was just a defensive tool I would not offer to educate those that lack such an understanding.

And Kenny, since you are wrong an amazing number of times you should never accuse others of being wrong, at least not until you have tried to learn.

Kenny, if it was just a defensive tool I would not offer to take away that defense from me. Try to use a little logic instead of making false accusations. Technically an accusation that you cannot substantiate is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry but you are simply wrong about "dust" becoming organic compounds. That was proven in the the 1950's with the Miller Urey experiment. At that time many creationists claimed that organic compounds, a key need for abiogenesis, could not arise naturally. They were shown to be wrong. And when the early Earth atmosphere was found to be possibly in error they ran the experiment again with different atmospheres. It kept making organic compounds.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

To be fair, Miller started out with some organic compounds (HCN, for example), but I am wondering what mechanism God employed in transmuting abiotic 'dust of the ground' (mostly silicates, I presume) into lipids and the like.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I find that hard to believe, frankly.

This is why I have hard time talking to atheists. You guys say you want to interlocute, you say you want "untarnished truth," but when someone then presents it to you, you hedge.

Notice..........I said "few" atheist teachers I have had were that way. But, the ones that I had that were that way......were that way. I'm not relating to you some snippet from a Ripley's museum.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Since you are uneducated in the sciences and refuse to learn you have no basis for calling it nonsense.

Of course I do.

Tell me Micky Mouse created to world, and I don't need a basis, common sense tells me it's ridiculous, but
I do offer benefit of doubt in that you may prove it. I'm still waiting for what I think is a reasonable request.

And that attempted demanding of your opponent is getting old, no matter how you choose to spin up the same drivel. I do wish you could stop using those tactics to hide the fact you cannot prove evolution.

Prove it or simply come back when you can, it'll save us all tons of time.

 

[tas8831]

Did you mean to follow that with a period?

Cute, but I note that you lopped off most of the post:

Not to you, or to anyone who is either incapable or unwilling to use simple common sense reasoning.

So I am incapable or unwilling to use simple common sense and reasoning.

Interesting.

Is it common sense, or reasoning, that drives people to believe, without question, the tale of the World Wide Flood that not only left no evidence that one would associate with a true world-wide event. Contrast that with, say, the K-T asteroid impact which left a detectable layer of iridium all over the earth.

The Noachian deluge did not seem to disturb the Egyptians or the Chinese. Odd.

I can at least say, all thing that are here by other than natural means, are created

Which things are those, and more importantly HOW DO YOU KNOW?

You made a mere assertion. Where is your 'reason' and 'common sense' - does common sense dictate that a mere assertion is unassailable proof?

, so that is proof enough for me the rest was created as well. If that doesn't work for you and you'd rather go with "it just appeared"...have at it.

To the contrary - isn't the very foundation of your belief system that it all 'just appeared'? Dust of the ground made into an adult, fully formed human male? How does that work, exactly? Please use your common sense and reason to EXPLAIN how that can happen.

My reason and common sense informs me that mere assertions do not count as evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Quoting out of context is almost always dishonest, especially when the answer to your question was in the post that you edited in your quote.

LOL, the "dishonest christian" claim is another tired tactic. I have to ask, do you really think I'll take that to heart and feel I've been dishonest?

How dishonest is it to claim evolution but not be able to prove it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Cute, but I note that you lopped off most of the post:

No lop, just didn't put it there to begin with.

If it proves evolution, let me know and I'll give it a look.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, the "dishonest christian" claim is another tired tactic. I have to ask, do you really think I'll take that to heart and feel I've been dishonest?

How dishonest is it to claim evolution but not be able to prove it.

Please Kenny, you continue in your inability to be honest. Why what you did was wrong was explained to you. Once again you ignored or did not understand the explanation. In other words you were either dishonest or you should have asked for a further explanation.

And evolution has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. Once again you will not let yourself learn. And when others offer to help you your only defense is to run away or to ignore the offer.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I do.

Nope, you don't. You only make claims based upon your own ignorance and refuse to allow others to help you.

Tell me Micky Mouse created to world, and I don't need a basis, common sense tells me it's ridiculous, but
I do offer benefit of doubt in that you may prove it. I'm still waiting for what I think is a reasonable request.

Your actual beliefs are much closer to Micky Mouse creating the world. Others have offered to help you. I have offered to help you. If you refuse to learn you really should not be criticizing an idea.

And that attempted demanding of your opponent is getting old, no matter how you choose to spin up the same drivel. I do wish you could stop using those tactics to hide the fact you cannot prove evolution.

It is not drivel, that is a false accusation and you know it. If you were not so afraid you could have learned what is and what is not evidence a long long time ago.

Prove it or simply come back when you can, it'll save us all tons of time.

Or you could try to learn for once and see that the answer has been presented to you countless times.

When you are ready to learn I and others are ready to help you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, as usual you are wrong. If it was just a defensive tool I would not offer to educate those that lack such an understanding.

And Kenny, since you are wrong an amazing number of times you should never accuse others of being wrong, at least not until you have tried to learn.

Kenny, if it was just a defensive tool I would not offer to take away that defense from me. Try to use a little logic instead of making false accusations. Technically an accusation that you cannot substantiate is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment.

You're about as far from making me feel guilty as you can possibly be lol, so how bout we take it all back down to topic/proving evolution is anything more than a theory, and if one cannot do that, they should probably just stay out of the conversation...fair enough..

 

[Kenny'sID]

Still waiting for that proof.

Since I am trying to use my time more wisely, can you all please do me a favor? Once you have dead proof of evolution, from start to date, please start your post with "here is dead proof of evolution".

That way, all I need do is skim or search the thread for what's on topic/the only thing that really matters here, and can skip the irrelevant.

Thanks.

 

[TBDude65]

Still waiting for that proof.

Since I am trying to use my time more wisely, can you all please do me a favor? Once you have dead proof of evolution, from start to date, please start your post with "here is dead proof of evolution".

That way, all I need do is skim or search the thread for what's on topic/the only thing that really matters here, and can skip the irrelevant.

Thanks.

What would constitute proof of evolution if not the wealth of data and evidence from the scientific literature? (I mean, one could post links to research all day and still have a long ways to go)

Do you want an experiment that would allow you to collect the data yourself? (I can recommend studies for you to replicate, particularly in paleontology and paleobiology where you can study morphological change through time in a given clade, but this will require you to become adept at species identification which is a skill that takes quite a bit of practice to really get. You could also replicate the experiments from the evolutionary biology literature too. The Lenski experiment is a good one, but one could look at all sorts of organisms in their surrounding area)

A thought experiment to show proof of concepts? (there is a game I tentatively call "the evolution game" that I have used in class before to teach students about how selection pressure affects populations through successive generations. It's fun and uses jelly beans and various utensils for grasping them, but in order to this experiment you'll need to compute some basic statistics and you'll also need several other volunteers to help you do it)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're about as far from making me feel guilty as you can possibly be lol, so how bout we take it all back down to topic/proving evolution is anything more than a theory, and if one cannot do that, they should probably just stay out of the conversation...fair enough..

That is such a shame. That only indicates that your morals need some work. You won't allow yourself to see how you are "sinning".

The problem is that you will not allow yourself to understand the proof that you keep demanding. That is not proper behavior for anyone.