proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

That's not what I asked. I asked you to prove to me that cars can reproduce. Show me an example of that happening in the real world.

But, but..............

 

[rjs330]

Similarities are predicted by and are consistent with the theory. Common ancestry is inferred, not assumed. There is no compelling alternative inference.

Sure there is. The opposite can also be equally true if you are casting that broad of a net. Differences can infer that common ancestry is not consistent with the theory.

But reality again shows that the theory is preposterous. All observed and testable data shows that things do not and have never changed to be other than what they are in a group. Humans and monkeys have similarities, yet the differences are great enough that they remain separate from each other and there is no observation or testable evidence that shows anything else. Unless you assume it does.

 

[Skreeper]

I don't know about the TOE, but when I ask for evidence for a change of species, all the evos have always pointed to mutations.

Why are you here criticizing the TOE when you know nothing about it? Maybe you should attend a basic biology/evolution class first before you criticize the most well-supported scientific theory.

You could start here: Understanding Evolution

 

[Speedwell]

Sure there is. The opposite can also be equally true if you are casting that broad of a net. Differences can infer that common ancestry is not consistent with the theory.

But reality again shows that the theory is preposterous. All observed and testable data shows that things do not and have never changed to be other than what they are in a group. Humans and monkeys have similarities, yet the differences are great enough that they remain separate from each other and there is no observation or testable evidence that shows anything else. Unless you assume it does.

What would be the alternative? That many thousands of similar species came into existence de novo over time and then became extinct in such a way as to present the appearance of a developmental series in the fossil record? Why should I believe that when we have on hand an evolutionary mechanism which acounts for that appearance? Why should we not then infer that the process began with one or a few single species? Why not, when despite the whining of creationists, no evidence has been found which rules it out? Yes, it's an inference, but unless some evidence is discovered which falsifies it, it remains a reasonable one.

 

[doubtingmerle]

(can't tell who stated this first, the quote function might be mis-aligned).
(edit: thx, fixed quote)
Still,
since no one understands dna like God does,
and since "fake news" is the order of the days we live in,
why believe "fake news" ?
Just seek God, and believe His Word .
That is the only "safe" ground.
Only God has the Words leading to Eternal LIfe in Jesus.
dna won't make any diffference, nor help to get there.

I hate to break this to you, but the prophets who told you they got their message from God were delivering fake news.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Look, I've been in these debates for over a decade now. And I can tell you that nobody ever changes their mind. At the end of the day, it is largely pointless

For the record, the number of creationist debaters that changed their mind is greater than or equal to one.

I changed my mind.

 

[Kylie]

I passed 3 college courses that included evolution was a fact, and that was before I became a Christian. How many have you passed?

Oh, because no one understands anything until they've passed a college course on it...

What mistakes have I made about evolution? Be specific.

You've claimed there is no evidence for it, for a start. If you'd paid attention in one of your college courses, you'd have seen the evidence.

Dudess pick one and cut and paste with it offered.

lol dudess.

If you refuse to click and read, that's your problem, not mine. Your laziness does not mean you are right. It just makes you look silly.

You are right. I quit reading post because the NEVER provide any evidence. Prove me wrong.

Maybe if you read some of them you'd find out you are wrong.

Here's a SINGLE webpage that has a list of lots of pieces of evidence for evolution. If you find that you are unable to click on this link and read it, then you probably shouldn't be in here.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[doubtingmerle]

there is no real different between a self replicating car and a self replicating creature in terms of complexity. so this analogy hold water.

Is this self replicating "car" an animal or a manufactured assembly of minerals?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Give a qualified person a blind sample of ape DNA and of human DNA. Teh will identify which one is from the ape and which ne is from the human.

Now give him the DNA from 2 apes and he will tell you they are both apes. Give him a sample of DNA from 2 humans and he will tell you they are both humans.

Now give him a sample of your DNA and my DNA. He will tell you we ar both human, but not related biologically.

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

Give a qualified lab a sample of human DNA and they could tell you if that person was male or female. The fact that you can tell this from the DNA does nothing to say that males are not related to females.

I conclude that your logic is flawed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

prove it. prove that a system that is ic in a creature can evolve stepwise when in non living thing its impossible. by the way (just as a note) english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

Do you or do you not agree that animals can do some things that watches cannot do? Please answer.

If your answer is "yes", then your argument that animals necessarily need to have the same evolutionary restraints as watches is bogus.

If your answer is "no", I will shake my head in sorrow.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't need to because as far back as we have any record of a human remains so. Your the one that says cats and humans came from the same ancestor. Please show the progression. It's your claim.

Wrong. The fossil record shows humans have evolved.

 

[pitabread]

All observed and testable data shows that things do not and have never changed to be other than what they are in a group.

And what "observed and testable data" is that?

Because what real observation has shown is that life has evolved and diversified over billions of years. You're effectively claiming there is some mysteriously biological barrier limiting biological change and/or diversity. So what is that barrier?

 

[pitabread]

For the record, the number of creationist debaters that changed their mind is greater than or equal to one.

I changed my mind.

There is a bit of hyperbole in my statement; people occasionally do change views. But it's extremely rare.

In the decade+ I've debated this stuff, I've only ever seen it once. There was an individual on this forum who started out as a YEC. They kept asking a lot of questions about creationism, but when they didn't get answers (including from their fellow YECs), they abandoned YECism and adopted more of a theistic evolutionary viewpoint.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is a bit of hyperbole in my statement; people occasionally do change views. But it's extremely rare.

In the decade+ I've debated this stuff, I've only ever seen it once. There was an individual on this forum who started out as a YEC. They kept asking a lot of questions about creationism, but when they didn't get answers (including from their fellow YECs), they abandoned YECism and adopted more of a theistic evolutionary viewpoint.

It takes time. I never heard a creationist say in the middle of the argument, "Golly, you are right, maybe we did evolve!"

 

[omega2xx]

Give a qualified lab a sample of human DNA and they could tell you if that person was male or female. The fact that you can tell this from the DNA does nothing to say that males are not related to females.

I conclude that your logic is flawed.

Males and females of the same species, human or animal, are related, and their DNA will prove it.

I conclude you do not understand what DNA does.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh, because no one understands anything until they've passed a college course on it...

You said I don't understand natural selection. I showed that I understand it better than your do.

You've claimed there is no evidence for it, for a start. If you'd paid attention in one of your college courses, you'd have seen the evidence.<<

You claim there is but can't produce the evidence. You would if you could but you can't.

lol dudess.

If you refuse to click and read, that's your problem, not mine. Your laziness does not mean you are right. It just makes you look silly.

And you not willing to take 5 minuets to prove me wrong make you look unable to do what you say.

]Maybe if you read some of them you'd find out you are wrong.

I have read them for 20 years. It is as waste of time, they NEVER provide any evidence. Prove me wrong.

Here's a SINGLE webpage that has a list of lots of pieces of evidence for evolution. If you find that you are unable to click on this link and read it, then you probably shouldn't be in here.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Why are you here criticizing the TOE when you know nothing about it? Maybe you should attend a basic biology/evolution class first before you criticize the most well-supported scientific theory.

You could start here: Understanding Evolution

Cut and paste the evidence your link shows. Maybe your problem is that you think opinions you agree with are evidence. Think again.

 

[Kylie]

Cut and paste the evidence your link shows. Maybe your problem is that you think opinions you agree with are evidence. Think again.

Dude, grow up and click the bloody link.

 

[omega2xx]

Look, I've been in these debates for over a decade now. And I can tell you that nobody ever changes their mind.

i have been in these debates for over 2 decades and I can tell you, you don't know if anyone has changed their mind.

At the end of the day, it is largely pointless since creationists are not actually looking for nor interested in scientific evidence.

The why do you continue? If you think creationist are not interested in scientific evidence, you need to get your crystal ball re-calibrated . It is giving you false information. I can tell you that in my 2 decades not one thing the TOE preaches has been supported by real scientific evidene Why don't you be the first since you know so much about the subject..

Like I already said, if you want evidence for evolution you'd already be off reading about it instead of wasting your time here. But you're not, so here you are.

If you had any, you would fall all over your self to prove me wrong and support your religion.

Whenever presented with science, creationists just find ways to dismiss, hand-wave away or otherwise ignore it. As your next sentence demonstrates:

Proving you still think opinions that are refuted by real science are evidence.



Since this is a lie. Plenty of scientific evidence gets presented, but creationists filter it out.

What's especially amazing to me is this even applies to examples of modern applications of the theory of evolution. It's always fascinating to watch some of the metal gymnastics creationists go through to avoid having to even acknowledge applied biological evolution; they're literally ignoring or denying real-world scientific application being performed as we speak.

At the end of the day, all of this discussion and debate is irrelevant. Creationists believe whatever they want to believe. And science marches on.[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, if this person is given a sample of chimpanzee DNA and human DNA he or she will be able to tell which is which.



If the person is given a sample of chimpanzee DNA and orang-utan DNA, he or she will not only be able to tell which is which but will be able to say which animal's DNA is more similar to human DNA.

Also proving humans are not related to either of those other species. Thank you.



It used to be said that everybody in Britain is descended from John of Gaunt (1340-1399). If this is true, the Queen, who is certainly descended from John of Gaunt, and I are about 20th cousins. If our expert was given a sample of my DNA and the Queen's DNA, would he or she be able to say whether we are related or only that we are both humans? See how difficult it is if you don't understand DNA.[/QUOTE]

I don't know or care about that. Your DNA and her DNA will PROVE you are both homo-sapian, and not descended from apes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Give a qualified person a blind sample of ape DNA and of human DNA. Teh will identify which one is from the ape and which ne is from the human.

They will probably also be able to tell you that they are related.

Now give him the DNA from 2 apes and he will tell you they are both apes. Give him a sample of DNA from 2 humans and he will tell you they are both humans.

Also related.

Now give him a sample of your DNA and my DNA. He will tell you we ar both human, but not related biologically.

Are you sure? Are you claiming our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather wasn't biological?

Perhaps you need to review degrees of relatedness.

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

I do, but you apparently don't.