proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

I agree that a car can't evolve.

thanks. so if a car cant evolve stepwise from a self replicating molecule what make you think its possible to evolve a biological system in the same way?

 

[doubtingmerle]

and how it will solve the problem of ic systems?

Through biological reproduction with modifications.

 

[bhsmte]

see my comment to tyke. there is no stepwise way to evolve a complex biological system.

Prove it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

thanks. so if a car cant evolve stepwise from a self replicating molecule what make you think its possible to evolve a biological system in the same way?

Biological reproduction with modifications. (Cars do not reproduce)

 

[xianghua]

Biological reproduction with modifications. (Cars do not reproduce)

i actually did said that i talk about self replicating matter. so do you agree that if we had a self replicating matter it can evolve into a car?

 

[xianghua]

Prove it.

i just did. the olfactory system need at least several parts\steps for a minimal sense of smell. so it cant evolve stepwise.

 

[bhsmte]

i just did. the olfactory system need at least several parts\steps for a minimal sense of smell. so it cant evolve stepwise.

When are you going to write a scientific paper about this, submit it for peer review and collect your Nobel prize?

 

[xianghua]

When are you going to write a scientific paper about this, submit it for peer review and collect your Nobel prize?

so can you falsify my example or not?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i actually did said that i talk about self replicating matter. so do you agree that if we had a self replicating matter it can evolve into a car?

Define "car".

 

[xianghua]

Define "car".

you dont know what a car is?

 

[Speedwell]

i just did. the olfactory system need at least several parts\steps for a minimal sense of smell. so it cant evolve stepwise.

Why not?

 

[xianghua]

Why not?

because it need at least several parts for its minimal function. this isnt evolution by smell steps and only a creation can explain it.

 

[Speedwell]

because it need at least several parts for its minimal function. this isnt evolution by smell steps and only a creation can explain it.

No, that's what you are trying to prove; it's not a given. To say that "it "can't evolve by small steps" has not been demonstranted.

 

[xianghua]

No, that's what you are trying to prove; it's not a given. To say that "it "can't evolve by small steps" has not been demonstranted.

i can say the same for the car example: you cant prove that a car cant evolve stepwise from a self replicating matter.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you dont know what a car is?

Yes I know what I mean when I use the word car. I don't know what you mean when you use the word car.

 

[pitabread]

thanks. so if a car cant evolve stepwise from a self replicating molecule what make you think its possible to evolve a biological system in the same way?

How are you still confused about the difference between living things and non-living things?

That's the question you ought to be asking...

 

[doubtingmerle]

i actually did said that i talk about self replicating matter. so do you agree that if we had a self replicating matter it can evolve into a car?

An animal could conceivably evolve into a different species of animal that superficially resembles a car. "Superficially resembling a car" is not the same as being a car. It would be impossible for an animal to evolve into an actual car. The reason for this is simple. Cars are not animals. Animals evolve into other animals, not into inanimate objects.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Have you talked to these people?

Yes and Wiki has an article on the subject. I do not believe the evidence supports a KJV only approach.

"The King James Only movement is advocacy by a loosely associated group of Protestant Christians, that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to other English translations, and that other versions, especially those based on Westcott and Hort's revision of the text of the Greek Testament, are not to be trusted and are based on corrupted manuscripts. Adherents of the movement believe that the KJV is the last and best of a series of translations based on what they consider the most reliable of Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. They believe that newer translations of the Bible are inferior to the King James, and are not as true to the original text. They disapprove of the versions which use the minority text known as the Alexandrian Text or are based upon it.

They see the King James Version as the greatest English translation ever produced, needing no further enhancements. They believe that modern translators have conspired to corrupt Scripture and lead believers away from the true Christian faith and cite alleged flaws in the modern English translations which originated in Alexandria, Egypt identified with Origen, Westcott-Hort, and Aland, also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or critical text."

 

[omega2xx]

First of all, that quote is 40 years old. Second of all, what's the context? Creationists have a long history of out-of-context quotes, so without the context the quote itself is meaningless.

Every time a quote refutes a doctrine of evolution, it is claimed to be taken out of context. Why don't you put it in context and we will see if it changes the statement.

Time doesn't change truth and you can't provide even one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species. All you have done is shown that you do not understand mutations.

Thank you.

 

[omega2xx]

An animal could conceivably evolve into a different species of animal that superficially resembles a car. "Superficially resembling a car" is not the same as being a car. It would be impossible for an animal to evolve into an actual car. The reason for this is simple. Cars are not animals. Animals evolve into other animals, not into inanimate objects.

Why don't you provide an example of an animal evolving into a different species. Do not forget to include the science that made it possible.