proving evolution as just a "theory"

Jimmy D · Oct 30, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
So just as Husky mates with Mastiff and makes a Chinook, so the different wolf breeds mated and made the Husky.

Have we ever observed to wolves mating to produce a husky? Can they still do it or are such miraculous transformations restricted to the past?

Was this hybrid part wolf/part husky, 100% husky, a gradual transformation towards the husky kind?

Have you got any evidence of this?

Justatruthseeker said:
And was the Chinook also one of those originally created as well? The problem with fanatical beliefs is it gets you into trouble, by not accepting how life propagates, and how we observed the Chinook come into existence...

Is life "propagated" by a new species being born one at a time by two members of a different species? This first husky that was born to two wolves, what did it mate with to produce the husky population?

We observe that populations evolve, not individuals. We do not observe new species suddenly popping out of their ancestors as a brand new species. Where have you seen such a thing occuring?

Jimmy D · Oct 30, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
You are merely showing your inability to defend against the mountains of evidence.

I understand, ad hominem attacks is what all evolutionists resort to in the end when the mountains of empericial data end up falsifying their theory, yet they can’t bring themselves to abandon their beliefs they have invested so much time in. It’s an old worn out tactic of attack the poster when one cannot answer the post itself. Old and worn out and simply shows your fear.

Please provide evidence of the super genomes that you claim contained all the information for future variations.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
That’s because you choose to ignore those mountains of data.

Asian remains Asian despite all those mutations. African remains African despite all those mutations.

So where did the Asian and the African come from in the first place?

Are you going to claim that they arose via incestuous inbreeding of the 4 breeding pairs of middle easterners on the ark?

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

The Times said:
Prooving recursive iterations from one species to another must have a scientific mathematical equation to back it up with, that is based on the time linear history of fossil records.

The absense of scientific mathematical equations is evidence of a failed theory. Evolution Theory is a conspiracy theory, much like the flat earth conspiracy theory.

We must therefore reject the Theory based on the absense of scientific maths required to back it up.

Aren't you one of those pseudo-erudite creationists that equates using pompous speech patterns with intelligence and pertinent knowledge (which is kind of shot down by spelling errors, sorry)?

Well, here is some maths for you:

THEORETICAL
EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS

and some more:

Population Genetics - A Concise Guide

Have at it, Einstein.

And we will look forward to your admission that you were 100% wrong in your claims re: 'absense [sic] of scientific maths'.

But we'll never get it. Creationists are like that.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Call it what you will. This is not all I spend my time on.

And yet you like to make absurd, inflammatory comments on it, then bail.

YOU: The theories keep changing to match the results in scientific tests and discovery. It's why Darwin's original theory is not followed by most who actually believe in evolution theory as it stands today.

i.e. test results bit them, so they changed their theory on what kind of stick it is.

Click to expand...

JimmyD:
I'm curious as to what "test results bit them"?

Me too.

Oh, right - you don't want to go into the weeds on your own assertions...

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
This is a Christian forum site.

Yes - the sub-forum "Creation & Evolution" on the section called "Physical & Life Sciences."

I guess you missed that part.

Didn't you claim to be some sort of IT data miner and analyst?

If I want to get into this stuff I don't do it here.

More cop outs.

Then tell me where you will support your own claims, and I will go there.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Any test result or discovery that forces a change to any theory.

LOL!

Right, OK.

So no specifics, then?

Just bland assertions?

All hat, no cattle?

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
I think you worship science way too much.

I think you think you understand more than you do.

Way too much.

It is a useful tool, but remember, we are modern in our understanding and knowledge. And at their time, ALL scientists were "modern" in their understanding and knowledge.

You don't know what you don't know.

And yet, the creationist will declare they know all - more so than people that actually study certain subjects as a profession.

Odd how that works.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Argument from observation, which is a part of the scientific method.

So it is your observation that there is evidence for 'design' in DNA.

Lets hear about your observations, then.

And if these observations of yours are to parrot some intelligent design propagandist or to be in awe at the big numbers and such, then, well, we will have confirmation.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
I no longer respect your opinion on this subject.

Of education, knowledge and wisdom, the greatest is wisdom and the least is education.

All you've proven to me is that you have education. Awesome!

All you've proven is that you are very good at spewing Discovery Institute talking points, puffing up your own ego, and dodging.

If you cannot support a single one of your assertions (which thus far, you cannot), just say so such that we can not keep wasting out time trying to get something more than a dopey analogy or a suite of unsupported assertions out of you.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Jesus used simple parables quite effectively. I use analogies quite effectively. I know. I use them in my line of work going on 35 years now. People rave about them. The people that don't like them always have the following two attributes:
1. They are on the internet.
2. They simply do not agree with the point I'm trying to make with the analogy.

I've gotten quite used to that response when dealing with leftists, AGW proponents and evolution True Believers. It is to be expected.

Such humility.

I find that, with my 30 years of encountering religious fanatics on the internet that see themselves as the ultimate authorities on all things that they do not understand well enough to realize how little they know is that they think analogies are evidence, when they are not.

Creationist True Believers think that the rantings of numerologists from the ancient middle east are 100% true and without error, and distort even the words of these mythicists when necessary to prop up their 'True' beliefs.

When they are not dodging and puffing up their egos, that is.

So how about less phony pop psychology and dodging and more actual EVIDENCE and SCIENCE on this forum in the "PHYSICAL & LIFE SCIENCES" forum?

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

duplicate

TLK Valentine · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Jesus used simple parables quite effectively.

Not effectively enough considering how many Christians miss the point of them. John warned against that sort of thing in his Gospel, but too many Christians ignored him, too.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Yes. I agree. I'm new here and getting a feel for the other members and what and how they want to discuss this stuff. I actually had no intention of going beyond the specifically Christian threads and just threw something in here and got intellectually sucked in.

I intentionally avoid the political stuff too, but that is my REAL weakness, so it was easier to avoid. You guys have fun!

so, this is your second attempt at bailing.

Why not jest leave and get it over with?

One less Dunning-Kruger Effect datum point to deal with.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

PsychoSarah said:
-_- why would all the genes pertaining to feathers need to be near each other?

Don't you just love these little gems of "I have no idea what I am talking about" from creationists?

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

duplicate

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

bhsmte said:
Well, on this part of the site, you will be asked to provide evidence for your claims and people with give rebuttals to the same. If this is uncomfortable, maybe another part of the site is better suited for you.

Yup. Analogies may work in Sunday School, but on this forum... Not so much.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Almost there said:
Absolutely. Though it is not a comfort issue. It is a time management issue.

You wrote that before.

Yet you seem to have had time to make dozens of posts in the meantime.

Seems like 'time management' is just another cop out.

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

delete

tas8831 · Oct 30, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Oh we agree. Which is why most hide from the facts, it will destroy their belief system.

Like believing humans came about from mutation, while ignoring observational evidence of over 100 dog breed from one wolf stock, then claim that couldn’t be the same way 12 to 15 races of humans came about.

Actually, we understand how that happened - via the artifiical selection of clustered alleles which arose via mutations.

You keep ignoring (or not understanding) how genetics and stuff works.

After all, you wrote what is in my signature - if one gene controlled it all, then obviously no new breeds could possibly exist at all WITHOUT mutations producing variation.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency