proving evolution as just a "theory"

tas8831 · Dec 17, 2017

2tim_215 said:
Why is common ancestor more "logical" or "rational" than Common Creator? That would certainly explain the similarities in DNA and closeness of some Genomes, in a much simpler fashion BTW.

There are patterns of shared mutations in noncoding DNA.

Why would a creator do that? Put shared mutations in noncoding DNA of taxa that we believe are related via descent?

How is that simpler?

I take a Creator God which has documentary evidence going back 4000 years (or more) over billions of years of "supposed" evolutionary theory any day of the week.

What do you mean by "documentary" evidence?

I interpret that to mean you actually think that because God is mentioned in the scroll stories that we now call Scripture that this means something other than superstitious, ancient middle eastern numerologists wrote those tales to keep people in line and rationalize their often grotesque behavior.

I hope I am wrong?

If you mean evidence in general - Great - so maybe you have not noticed that there are a couple of thread asking creationists such as yourself for the very evidence you just indicate exists.

tas8831 · Dec 17, 2017

Uber Genius said:
It is time for you to grow up both intellectually and emotionally. You could have engaged my points about the ramifications (knock down objections) of thencambrian explosion. Instead I get ad hominem attacks.

An educated person would have replied with explanations for those data concomitant with the neo-Darwinian inference, you respond with propaganda.

'You have given us a great example of the type of rhetoric that flourishes out here on this forum. No education desired or required. You are now giving a justification for why the last 150 years of evolutionary theory is wrong based on making up stuff.'

tas8831 · Dec 17, 2017

rjs330 said:
Are you still on this nonsense?

Apparently so.

Good grief the majority of evolutionists don't have any knowledge of evolution themselves except what they read about on evolutionary sites.

How many of them copy-paste what they see there and present it as their own?

And since creationism is not taught it schools like evolution there is not many places to go for information.

You totally fail to see the issue.

The issue is not going to site X, reading material there, and drawing conclusions, which you may then later bring into a discussion. We ALL do that.

The issue is the copying and pasting of material from site X and pretending that it is your own material.

Why is that so hard for creationists to grasp?

As a related issue - if you go to creationist site X, read an article filled with 'refutations' of evolution claims - how is it that you are confident in the validity of the claims?

Please note that I started a thread showing that a creationist medical doctor had misrepresented a scientific publication about Tiktaalik - how many 10s of thousands of creationists read that same article I did and instead of realizing her incompetence/dishonesty, ran with her conclusions and started argument son discussion forums?

Creationist David Menton, PhD, did even worse - he wrote a 'refutation' of the relevance of Tiktaalik by declaring that it coul dnot have supported its weight on land because its pectoral girdle was not attached directly to the axial skeleton, and that Tiktaalik's pelvic fins were too insubstantial. Problem is - at the time he wrote the essay, Tiktaalik's pelvic fins had not yet been described in print, and all kinds of animals lack the pectoral girdle - axial skeleton connections that Menton declared to be a necessity (such as deer).

How many creationists would have known that? How many creationists used Menton's articles to argue against the relevance of Tiktaalik?

How many creationists copy-pasted Menton's words and used them as their own on the internet because they did not actually understand what Menton was writing about, but were impressed by it and plus, it propped up their anti-evolution stance?

tas8831 · Dec 17, 2017

Aman777 said:
You speak like someone who has never read the Bible.

You speak like someone that was taught to ignore the bad parts of the bible.

Speedwell · Dec 17, 2017

rjs330 said:
Are you still on this nonsense? Good grief the majority of evolutionists don't have any knowledge of evolution themselves except what they read about on evolutionary sites.

No, evolutionists are not afraid of reading books and taking courses. Theres is a genetics text sitting on the shelf by my computer--right next to the Oxford Companion to the Bible and the Bible itself.

And since creationism is not taught it schools like evolution there is not many places to go for information.

Why not go the same places evolutionists do? Read The Genesis Flood, Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Darwin on Trial and many others.

TLK Valentine · Dec 17, 2017

Aman777 said:
Sexual sin, since his desire for the fallen Eve caused him to want to be like her, in the flesh, and fulfill his desire for her.

Of course, you have Biblical support for this interpretation, correct?

Astrophile · Dec 17, 2017

Delete

Astrophile · Dec 17, 2017

xianghua said:
realy? so i will use this image to prove that truck evolved from a car:

(image from Commercial Car Insurance | Girard Insurance)

now, you can say that those vehicles cant reproduce. but even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution.

And we also don't have any step-wise way to evolve many system in those vehicles. like my hearing example in a living creature.

The problem is not that road vehicles can't reproduce themselves; the problem is that living things only come into existence by a reproductive process. The mammals of the Jurassic period, with fully functional mammalian ears, must have been descended from Permian and earlier ancestors. However, we don't find fossil mammals or animals with mammalian ears in Permian rocks, so the obvious inference the Jurassic mammals must have evolved from Permian animals that were not mammals and that did not have mammalian ears. This is what doubtingmerle explained in post 5661 with the diagram showing the transition from the reptilian jaw and ear of the mammal-like reptiles to the mammalian jaw and ear of true mammals.

What is your explanation of the observed fossil record that appears to show evolution from mammal-like reptiles to mammals? Did mammal-like reptiles and true mammals all live together in a pre-Flood Garden of Eden? Alternatively, did the Permian mammal-like reptiles all suddenly die out, with God creating and then exterminating progressively more mammalian assemblages during the Triassic period? Unless creationists can offer a hypothesis that both explains the observed facts better than evolution does and makes testable predictions, scientists are going to continue to reject creationist ideas in favour of evolution.

pitabread · Dec 17, 2017

rjs330 said:
Good grief the majority of evolutionists don't have any knowledge of evolution themselves except what they read about on evolutionary sites.

Can't speak about others, but my own quest for knowledge about evolution has included taking undergrad courses in University, reading various books about evolutionary biology and genetics (including the better part of an entire textbook, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Edition), and dozens of journal papers.

So where has your knowledge on the subject come from?

doubtingmerle · Dec 17, 2017

rjs330 said:
There are no specific scriptures that state, the earth was created with age imbedded, however the totality of the creation indicates such. Such as the stars and animals and humans were created as adults. The plants were created fully formed as well. So though there is no quote that says "the earth was created as appearing old" the description of creation shows that age was built in. The other thing is we do not know how long the earth hung in space before God started the creation of life on it. It could have been here for some time.

And the rocks were created complete with fossils already in them? So all those dinos in the Jurassic rocks never existed?

doubtingmerle · Dec 17, 2017

xianghua said:
but even if they had all those traits they still be evidence for design rather then a natural process. so the same is true for creatures

for the sake of the argument lets say yes.

call it whatever you want. it will make no different.

of course. so what?

no. the new fossil belong to a basilosaurus. means its predate georgiacetus that suppose to be more primitive:

Georgiacetus - Wikipedia

"Uhen 2008 created a new clade, Pelagiceti, for the common ancestor of Basilosauridae and all of its descendants, including Neoceti, the living cetaceans. He placed Georgiacetus near the base of this clade together with Eocetus and perhaps Babiacetus because of the assumed presence of a fluke and very compressed posterior caudal vertebrae in these genera.[2]"

now you can say that we may find some fossils in the future to close the gaps but in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. so my question again: if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution th

Nature can design things, such as snowflakes. How do you know it can't design things?

And please don't say it can't design things because watches can't. Nature can do some things watches can't do.

And now you say your fictitious self reproducing cars have babies and DNA. Then they are not cars. No car can possible have a baby car that grows up to be an adult car.

You seem to be talking about animals that look like cars. If an animal looked like a car then it could still evolve, yes.

It makes a huge difference if you are talking about an animal that looks like a car or a car that builds a model of itself. Animals can do things like evolve and have babies. Cars cannot.

I see you now agree that animals can do some things that watches cannot. Great. So we will ignore all your arguments that said since watches cannot evolve therefore animals can't evolve. You now finally admit that animals can do some things that watches cant do.

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

David_M said:
Well, there is that word "usually" which means that sometimes they are connected by intermediates (you know, those things that you claim don't exist at all). I seem to remember that there are some marine deposits that have excellent fossils for many lineages of molluscs and/or trilobytes that demonstrates how they evolved with a wealth of intermediates.

"Usually" means most of the time. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils wold be intermediates. There is no evidence showing molluscs and trilobytes. Someone said there is and you have accepted it by faith alone.

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

David_M said:
Why would they? Seals have flippers. It Otters who have legs. Have you ever seen an Otter?

You know, the animals that you forgot about that have legs but live and hunt in the sea much as seals do.

Name them.

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

David_M said:
That was not your claim, your claim was that no mammal with legs rather than flippers could survive if it hunted in a marine environment. Reality, and you own admission, shows that you were wrong. It says much of your character that you cant even admit you forgot, or didn't know, about sea otters.

Name those that can.

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

Bugeyedcreepy said:
Evidently you would be wrong. I bet I understand it better than you.

If you understood it, you would provide some.

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
What we don't understand is your claim that, since we do not find a series of intermediates at the species level, therefore such intermediates do not exist. We have documented many intermediates at the genera level and above. You simply ignore that, and go back to your infamous 50 word quotes about the species level.

If you have them, name them

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
That is what scientists do for a living.

Right, and when they prove something is more than an opinion, they provide the evidence to support what they say.

AV1611VET · Dec 18, 2017

OzSpen said:
Not a word here about the universe being created with age embedded into it.

Embedded age is "maturity without history."

OzSpen said:
What is motivating you to reach your eisegetical conclusion - your reading into the text what is not there?

Let me quote from Adam Clarke's Commentary:

Adam Clarke said:
It appears that God created every thing, not only perfect as it respects its nature, but also in a state of maturity, so that every vegetable production appeared at once in full growth; and this was necessary that man, when he came into being, might find every thing ready for his use.

omega2xx · Dec 18, 2017

pitabread said:
You're not asking in good faith given you're already demonstrated no interest in receiving said evidence.

So why are you here really?

I will gladly receive any evidence you cut an paste from a link, and I have told you will I no longer read links.

I am here to show that evolution is not based on real science.

OzSpen · Dec 18, 2017

omega2xx said:
I will gladly receive any evidence you cut an paste from a link, and I have told you will I no longer read links.

I am here to show that evolution is not based on real science.

Please do not cut/copy and paste from a link without giving credit for the source. Otherwise, it is plagarism.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency