proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Almost there]

Pssst. It's falling apart. Little by little. Headed toward maximum entropy. Thermal equilibrium. Kaputniksville. Total ruin.

I don't know what you consider 'beautiful and coordinated,' but this 'beautiful and coordinated' place is headed for aitch in an aitchbasket.

It's not my home. I'm just a pilgrim here.

Exactly!

What? Me worry?

 

[Almost there]

What do you mean "all of it"? Catastrophism and uniformitarianism are geological schools of thought.

Changes in nature.

You know, stuff like the Cambrian explosion

 

[pitabread]

Changes in nature.

You know, stuff like the Cambrian explosion

I fail to see what that has to do with 'catastrophism'...

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly!

What? Me worry?

 

[gaara4158]

The Pluto Issue (again)

Ten years and you’re still harping on that. It’s been explained to you plenty of times so I won’t waste my time doing it again.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, don't worry about me. I'm not going to require you to prove or disprove evolution or creation. Since none of us were there, and evolution theory can not be proved, since a theory can't be proved, none of us will know until either the Lord returns or we die. And in either case, the argument becomes moot at that point.

So you don’t care about reality unless it means you can live forever? Interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ten years and you’re still harping on that. It’s been explained to you plenty of times so I won’t waste my time doing it again.

You asked ... I answered.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ten years and you’re still harping on that. It’s been explained to you plenty of times so I won’t waste my time doing it again.

AV is willfully, gleefully ignorant about a great many things. Interacting with him in any way - except to debunk his BS for the benefit of people reading along - will always be a waste of time.

 

[USincognito]

so if we will find a human fossil alongside a t-rex one it will not make any problem for evolution, since there is a margin of error.

Incorrect.

 

[USincognito]

He didn't. The problem is with your ToE which cannot tell us the difference between Humans (descendants of Adam) and prehistoric people (descendants of the common ancestor of Apes). IOW, it's an incomplete, untrue, made up theory of godless men who REJECT God's Truth in Genesis.

***Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?

It doesn't matter since I just refuted (proved wrong) your false ToE. You are left all alone twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.

*** Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?
Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?

Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.

Sure it does since there would be NO living creatures if God had not created them. Your feeble part truth leaves out that part too, since it has no idea where the creatures it studies had their origin. Hint: We are His and Their kinds. Amen?

 

[USincognito]

OK, so then you're an animal and there's no distinction between animals and men. Where is this said to us in the Bible? Or are you just a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the Bible?

You might want to review the forum rules.

 

[USincognito]

Now EVERYBODY is a catastrophist.

Say what now?

 

[sfs]

OK, so then you're an animal and there's no distinction between animals and men. Where is this said to us in the Bible? Or are you just a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the Bible?

'I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”'

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we will find a human fossil alongside a t-rex one it will not make any problem for evolution, since there is a margin of error.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):

is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

These vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

Do you even know what a nested hierarchy is?
Sounds like you don't.

yes its is.

No, it isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We'll go ahead and do that then. What I am more interested in is if you are able to show the crustaceans evolve into something that's not a crustacean. That would be something.

That would indeed be something....
Since it would turn the biological science on its head... what with having observed something that would falsify evolution and all....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Common Ancestor vs Common Creator: Which is more rational and makes more sense?

The option that has actual verifiable evidence that checks out.
Which would be the first and not the latter.

Something based on millions of years and rock samples with no history to back it up? Or something with plenty historical reference, many eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence (something that Evolution does not have since there was no writing available 4.5 Million years ago, not even 100,000 years ago).

Ow boy.

and to make matters worse, how could one know what exactly happened here on the earth for the last 4 million years.

You don't need to know.
The DNA of extant species is more then enough to demonstrate an evolutionary past.
We don't need a single fossil or rock for that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

not realy. if there is a system that cant evolve stepwise then small steps cant make big step.



again: if he will have a big hole in the middle, he will not reach his target.

Imaginary holes won't exactly stop a person from walking, though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is the thing that amazes me about the whole evolution vs creation debate. The more we know about it, the more complex, beautiful and coordinated it is. i.e. the more we know, the more it looks like someone designed it.

Neither of those things are indicators of artificial design.
All those things can easily be accomplished though simple natural processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but i proved it with the car example

You asserted it. Asserting things is not the same thing as proving them.