proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

the best ANSWER: ask your friend to evolve into a feathered creature........
why has evolution stopped?
give credit to the mastermind behind these marvelous creation.....

Since when has evolution stopped?

 

[kwame1]

then why has it taken soo long for human to turn into rock?
we were Apes as you believe and turned to humans because we wante to be humans and why are we stucked?

 

[kwame1]

Since when has evolution stopped?

then why has it taken soo long for human to turn into rock?
we were Apes as you believe and turned to humans because we wanted to be humans and why are we stucked?

 

[rjs330]

Here is on e example:

How do you decide if something is factual?"[/URL]

and it is so terrible due to the inherent dishonesty.

Sorry the link didn't work. I don't don't understand what the inherent dishonesty is.

 

[rjs330]

Since when has evolution stopped?

It never began if we are talking common ancestor evolving into all there is. Human has always been human, spider has always been spider, bird has always been bird and fish has always been fish.

 

[rjs330]

I did this math based on dogs, since I don't know the mutation rate of Triops specifically and need a rate of change well documented to compare to. Based on dog breeds, a new breed of dog can be produced by only members of a single existing breed within about 27 generations. My experiment spans about 173 generations. Based on the two crustaceans for which I can find mutation rate, Triops realistically could have a mutation rate at about 40% that of dogs. This would make the 173 generations equivalent to about 70 dog generations. So, should get a new "breed" of Triops, unless their mutation rate is exceptionally slow.


-_- knowing biology, evolution hasn't produced something "completely" different ever. Bacteria aren't "completely" different from humans, for example. Some traits always seem to be retained, like the fact that every living thing on this planet has DNA as their genetic material.

However, different numbers of segments in the legs and other such physiological changes are possible within my experiment. It's just that on the genetic scale, the experimental population would still be recognizable as a Triops. It's highly unlikely for a genus transition to occur within just 10 years, even if it is entirely possible for them to lose the trait for which that genus is named (the three eyes).

Ah yes we do have DNA. Evidence of common design. Bacteria are not human. Neither are chimpanzies. We are different from beetles and spiders. I always have to specify completely different cause if I don't evolutionists always say things like "what about this kind of beetle, it changed into the color of beetle". I mean show me a beetle that changes into something that is not a beetle. That's completely different.

 

[pitabread]

It never began if we are talking common ancestor evolving into all there is. Human has always been human, spider has always been spider, bird has always been bird and fish has always been fish.

I love how the further creationists get away from humans, the broader the allowance for evolutionary change becomes.

You do know that birds, spiders, and fish represent entire classes and/or orders of organisms represented by thousands of individual species, right?

Heck, there are almost 50,000 individual known species of spiders alone.

"Spider has always been spider" indeed...

 

[rjs330]

Unless you're planning to make the argument that there is no point to the quest for knowledge or scientific advancement, then this comment has no point. I mean, we also existed for a very long time pooping in the woods and banging rocks to together to make fire. So what?



There is currently no cohesive framework or scientific model for intelligence design, consequently there are no derived scientific applications thereof.

You can keep going on about "commonalities" or "common design", but you have no scientific framework to back that up. It's just babble.



Again, unless you're arguing that we shouldn't keep applying newly gained knowledge to try to continually improve the way we do things, then I'm not sure of your point.



No it's not, because it doesn't explain anything. (Do you know what explaining thing entails?)

What "God did it" is is just a plug. It's a stop-gap for areas where we lack more coherent explanations. It was what people invoked in days past when they didn't know how weather or natural disasters worked. Likewise, it's currently being plugged into a gap of human knowledge around the origin of life.

At the end of the day, "God did it" doesn't actually provide with any relevant knowledge about how things were created. And certainly nothing we can apply in a scientific or functional sense.

You said something along the lines of how important believing in evolution is for our survival. My point is that is nonsense and I pointed that out. The fact that God created all there is, is not necessary to find medicines and know how to best raise crops. Believing in evolution from a common ancestor is not necessary to find medicines and know how to best raise crops.
Knowing there is common design is extremely helpful when it comes to medical research.

 

[pitabread]

You said something along the lines of how important believing in evolution is for our survival. My point is that is nonsense and I pointed that out.

All you did was make allusions to the fact that there was a time when we survived with less knowledge than we have now. Which is true, but unless you're actively advocating for stopping the quest for knowledge to improve our technology, society and general well-being, you really don't have a point.

Believing in evolution from a common ancestor is not necessary to find medicines and know how to best raise crops.

And yet evolution (inc. phylogenetics which is the study of evolutionary relationships) is an applied science within those very fields, particularly with respect to modern genomics.

Knowing there is common design is extremely helpful when it comes to medical research.

You won't find any evidence of a "common design" scientific model in any medical research.

 

[ruthiesea]

That the parade of so called progressive human skulls do not demonstrate what is claimed. Not even close.

So, what do they demonstrate?

 

[rjs330]

I love how the further creationists get away from humans, the broader the allowance for evolutionary change becomes.

You do know that birds, spiders, and fish represent entire classes and/or orders of organisms represented by thousands of individual species, right?

Heck, there are almost 50,000 individual known species of spiders alone.

"Spider has always been spider" indeed...

Yep and they are still spiders! Imagine that! And they always have been since the beginning. Jusy like humans.

 

[pitabread]

Yep and they are still spiders! Imagine that! And they always have been since the beginning. Jusy like humans.

You missed the point completely.

Saying things like "fish has always been fish" or "spider has always been spider" is like saying "mammals have always been mammals".

You're implicitly accepting a level of evolutionary change far beyond something like common ancestry between humans and other primates.

 

[bhsmte]

then why has it taken soo long for human to turn into rock?
we were Apes as you believe and turned to humans because we wanted to be humans and why are we stucked?

LOL

 

[dmmesdale]

You missed the point completely.

Saying things like "fish has always been fish" or "spider has always been spider" is like saying "mammals have always been mammals".

That is what is observed. Take a Poodle and introduce it back into the wild and in five generations you will not have a poodle, but you will have a dog. What you will not have is a poodle on a one way trip to becoming a cockroach. It is a variation within a means not a one way trip to the moon.

 

[pitabread]

That is what is observed. Take a Poodle and introduce it back into the wild and in five generations you will not have a poodle but you will have a dog. What you will not have is a poodle on a one way trip to becoming a cockroach. it is a variation within a means not a one way trip to the moon.

 

[DavidFirth]

It is preaching, i would agree.

Both Christ and Paul preached often and to many. You condemn BradB for preaching?

 

[bhsmte]

Both Christ and Paul preached often and to many. You condemn BradB for preaching?

Brad can preach what he likes. The thing is, this is the science portion of the forum and he will be asked to support his claims.

If that is uncomfortable, there are Christian only sections he can preach.

 

[dmmesdale]

Brad can preach what he likes. The thing is, this is the science portion of the forum and he will be asked to support his claims.

Support yours. Prove common ancestry.

If that is uncomfortable, there are Christian only sections he can preach.

And there are nonChristian forums, so?

 

[DavidFirth]

Brad can preach what he likes. The thing is, this is the science portion of the forum and he will be asked to support his claims.

If that is uncomfortable, there are Christian only sections he can preach.

Well, if "science only" means that scripture is considered unreliable then I'm in the wrong forum.

 

[Jimmy D]

The fossils to which I am referring are found abundantly across and at the surface of each layer that is said to be separated by great amounts of time. I can accept that perhaps rain drop prints and animal tracks could have been formed and preserved temporarily by drying mud. However to claim they would be preserved for hundreds of thousands of years while the next layer is being deposited... I find this notion impossible. The abundance of such preserved fossils at the surface between each layer implies that the layer was laid down, the animals and heavy rain left the tracks and then another layer was laid over it quite fast. Does it prove there was a world wide global flood? No of course not. It just shows that most of the observed strata layers must have been laid quickly in during wet conditions. (Like you would expect to observe if there had been a world wide global flood.)

Right, they can form in various ways, ergo, not evidence of a global flood. In fact, if you are basing your claims of a flood on the biblical account I’ll go further and say that these fossils are evidence against it, such violent flood waters erode trace fossils.