• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
also: we realy need to believe that a terrestrial dog- like creature evolved into a whale in about 4-5 my?

No, you need to believe that an "Intelligent designer" created this dog like creature, destroyed it before anyone saw it, and then created a very similar creature but which could live in the sea 4 million years later, only to destroy and replace it with a similar creature etc, etc, etc for tens of millions of years until we see the whales of today. Everyone's got to have a hobby I suppose, eternity is a long time.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

How is comparing cars relevant to analyzing genes? Analogies are only so useful.

Do forensic scientists have to observe a crime take place in order to prove one very likely happened?

Not at all - and yet people like you keep demanding direct observation of evolution.

Odd how you want to argue both sides of an argument depending on the issue.

Isn't it?
So then you do have an example where a random mutation was observed under a controlled condition in a multi celled organism which was beneficial and information gaining Because you don't get a free circular reasoning pass here.

Wait - did you not just write "Do forensic scientists have to observe a crime take place in order to prove one very likely happened?" in response to being asked if you had seen an act of creation?

Why the double standards? Because you recognize that without them, you have no leg to stand on?


I have not done so - can you show me where I made those connections?

I agree that observed patterns of mutations are evidence for evolution. I know that patterns of shared mutations are indicative of common descent because of the tests on knowns. But I have never answered the question about applying tested methods to unknowns with anything remotely similar to "because evolution is true."

Was that just a fantasy exchange of yours?

Since you like analogies to inanimate objects, lets try this one -

The Wright brothers wanted to build a heavier-than-air flying machine. They knew it had to have wings, but they were not sure exactly how to make them for their machine - what shape, size, etc. So they made models. And they tested the models to which one generated the most lift and such. Then they made scale models using these test results. Then they tweaked the results of those tests, and made a real heavier-than-air flying craft.

The results of their work was then used - and added to - to ultimately make things like the F-35.

If we were to apply your logical argument made against DNA analysis supporting evolution, we would have to dismiss that applicability of the Wright Flyer of 1903 to modern aircraft.

Which makes no sense.

That is like claiming you have invented a device that weighs invisible fairies.

No, it is like claiming that the work of dozens of researchers and programmers and mathematicians and geneticists has produced a means of assessing hypotheses of common ancestry based on known trends and observations in the genomes of catalogued taxa.

And being asked how do you know it is accurate? And you saying because it weighs known things accurately. Then being asked how much do invisible fairies weigh? and you respond "according to the scale they don't weigh anything."

All these dopey and inapt analogies, all to say "I don't understand how those analyses operate, but I must dismiss evolution at all costs, so I will misrepresent your position and do all I can to obscure the actual implications of the research you presented."
You have to prove the basic premise that fairies even exist before you can say your fairy machine is accurate.

Sort of like testing analytical methods on known lineages?


And yet another creationist that cannot see the relevance of the studies, even when they are explained.

It has to be voluntary, I cannot believe that all creationists are this under-informed.

We cannot build upon that premise as if it is a known fact and use it to claim that our test works and then claim the premise is true because our test proves it.

Of course we can.


We calibrate scales using known masses. Your claim is, in essence, like declaring the use of known masses to calibrate scales is a travesty because it assumes that the scales measure the mass in the first place.

You are just very, very desperate to find a way to dismiss a great tool for assessing evolutionary relatedness.

And you are making yourself look silly and desperate in doing so.


Are you really this unaware of the use of things like standards?
To prove the premise is even possible you must present an example where a random mutation was observed under a controlled condition in a multi celled organism which was beneficial and information gaining.

"Do forensic scientists have to observe a crime take place in order to prove one very likely happened?"


"Do forensic scientists have to observe a crime take place in order to prove one very likely happened?"

Good for the YEC goose, but not fore the non-YEC gander.

If it were not for doouble-standards, the creationist would have no standards at all.


Amazing.

Amazing how you will argue out of both sides of your mouth to rescue your bible claims and dismiss evolution.

You people are something to behold.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,214
9,085
65
✟431,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Good point. But evolution is all they have. They have no other way to explain any if it.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Good point. But evolution is all they have. They have no other way to explain any if it.

Biological evolution is the only explanation on the table. There is no explanation via creation currently.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,214
9,085
65
✟431,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
And we all cite our sources.

I could also have pointed out that exact same post is taken verbatim from another forum (EvC) where the points have been addressed.
No we don't. I have seen many many evolutionists on here say stuff but not cite the source. It happens all the time. My point is so what? It we we're writing a doctoral thesis or an article for a paper or magazine it will be problematic. Here we are just a bunch of people sharing information thoughts and ideas. Who cares if someone doesn't cite the source where they got the information. If you want a source ask for one.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yep. It's a little silly to accuse any of us of plagarism.

Do you even know what plagiarism is?

It is not recounting something you read or heard, it is pasting, verbatim, the words of others and presenting them as your own. It is an act of dishonesty.

I don't know about others, but I have personally caught 3 YECs plagiarizing on here, and none of them would confess even when I presented the original sources.


I would say that THAT is silly, at best.
 
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,214
9,085
65
✟431,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Biological evolution is the only explanation on the table. There is no explanation via creation currently.
Sure there is. It's call Genesis.
At least where the original creatures all came from. You may discuss the fact that evolution among creatures exists such as the finches wing change or a lizard's digestive system change. But as far as where and how it all started we have that information.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


More later - but I find it hilarious that you present anomalies and 'curious cases' as vindication, when we all know that in order for your 3rd grade bible genetics to be real, these would have to be the norm, not mere anomalies and curiosities.

And by the way - funny that you link to the man with 44 chromosomes - your fellow YECs like to use karyotype claims against evolution. But here you are implying that it is no big deal.

of course, having an extra chromosome is NOT tertraploid, but how would you know that?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,214
9,085
65
✟431,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Who cares? What do you care if someone quotes something in here without posting the source. We are not writing a thesis. Please show a verbatim cut and paste where someone did that. And please show how that is so terrible.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

It's not an actual explanation. An explanation goes into the details of how things came about (in other words what the underlying mechanisms were involved). A proper explanation would also better cover exactly what was created. Creationists keep going on about "kinds" but can't seem to agree on any remotely consistent definition. Furthermore there is little to no agreement or evidence on what those originally created kinds would have entailed genetically and how they subsequently diversified.

So no, you don't have an explanation. The details in Genesis amount to little more than "God made stuff".
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,214
9,085
65
✟431,367.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal

Ah so you don't have any evidence. I didn't think so. It's based upon faith just like mine is. Because ID is obvious. But the intelligence behind it is not verifiable
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

Gotcha. I figured your references to "phonetic traits" were; didn't realize "allies" was the same deal.

Funny how the resident genetics expert hasn't corrected you though .
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Ah so you don't have any evidence. I didn't think so. It's based upon faith just like mine is.

If you actually bothered to look into modern abiogenesis research, you'd know there's a wee bit more to it than just "faith". But you won't so you don't.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ah so you don't have any evidence. I didn't think so. It's based upon faith just like mine is. Because ID is obvious. But the intelligence behind it is not verifiable
And we have a pigeon chess winner.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I'm not sure I understand you point and or question?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Dude, you flat out ignored me when I presented an example of mutation changing skin color. The genetic differences between "races" are extremely minor, and you'd have to think mutation never happens to think that it can't create such minor differences.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Ah so you don't have any evidence. I didn't think so. It's based upon faith just like mine is. Because ID is obvious. But the intelligence behind it is not verifiable
So says another creationist not participating in my evolution experiment I made specifically for creationists.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.