proving evolution as just a "theory"

[AV1611VET]

And since you and I are both humans, what does that make us?

Sinners in the hands of an angry God?

(You, of all people, should get this.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sinners in the hands of an angry God?

Angry enough to plague us with Thalidomide? Pluto? L'Aquila? Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? the Hindenburg? Apollo I? the Twin Towers? the Titanic? Vioxx? lead paint? mustard gas? asbestos in the ceiling? Agent Orange? LSD? marijuana? eugenics? Y2K? Hale-Bopp? Harmonic Convergence? overpopulation? murder of unborn? and AIDS?

Just to name a few?

(You, of all people, should get this.)

Of course I do -- And I get that Edwards was just as human (and therefore, just as fallible) as you or I.

 

[xianghua]

Finding tetrapod tracks about 15My earlier or so isn't a big deviation to evolutionary timelines. Especially when we're taking about the origin of tetrapods which occurred within a timeframe of about 400Mya to 370Mya to begin with. If we found tetrapod tracks occurring hundreds of million years prior, that might be an issue.

so where is the bounds? by pushing it 30 my eariler? 40? 50? in which point you will admit that evolution is false?

 

[TLK Valentine]

so where is the bounds? by pushing it 30 my eariler? 40? 50? in which point you will admit that evolution is false?

When did you find them?

 

[xianghua]

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.

its very simple. there are several options under the creation model. here is at least 2:

1) the designer made them in a different time period.
2) this is the result of population size. so small population will not leave behind any fossil.

and this is indeed explain the data better then evolution since the best explanation for the existence of a self replicating robot\ car is a designer rather then a natural process.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Bugey,

This is where you are trying to kid me that you 'don't presume anything', but still 'accept the theory of evolution'.

Well, not kidding as I've explained to you already, I accept it as the best explanation of the biodiversity of life on this planet. Feel free to show me any other model and the evidence in support of it that produces actual real-world results we can use.

What is a theory? It is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.‘Darwin's theory of evolution" (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v theory). So a theory is a supposition, not a proof with evidence.

Well, it's a model built on observation and evidence - otherwise it wouldn't have been a scientific theory in the first place. You do know what a Scientific Theory is, right? It certainly isn't a supposition without evidence... that's just blinkered nonsense.

Therefore, you do have a presupposition that the theory of evolution is true 'as the best explanation of the biodiversity of life on this planet'. It has not been proven. If it had been, it would not be called a 'theory'.

Whoa! Wait! How did the definition suddenly have a 'Pre'supposition attached to it, where did that come from? Also, it seems you don't know what a 'Theory' is as it relates to Science. In science, a 'Theory' is a well-established model of some aspect about reality. a Theory generally explains a body of facts, observations and can comprise of laws, formulas and conditions that appy. it provides an explanatory framework we can then use to make useful predictions about further observations and discoveries that the Theory would apply to - and I'll touch on this in a sec. In short, there is no higher position an idea can hold in science than a Scientific Theory. It literally is the pinnacle of Science.

A theory can't be 'the best explanation' until it is tested and the evidence is found to support it. The testing of it also needs the ability to falsify it.

the Theory of Evolution is probably the most well-tested theory in all of science. We know more about Evolution than we do about Atoms, Gravity, the Big Bang and Germs.

Here are some (of the many) predictions made by the Theory of Evolution (from Evolution myths: Evolution is not predictive ):

Old age planet
Nevertheless, although evolution’s predictive power might appear limited, the theory can be and is used to make predictions at all sorts of levels. Darwin realised that the Earth must be very old for there to have been enough time for all the life on it to evolve. It has turned out to be even older than he thought.

He also predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions (trillions if you count microfossils) have been. Researchers have even been able to predict the age and kind of rocks in which certain transitional fossils should occur, as with the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik.

Or take the famous peppered moth, which evolved black colouration to adapt to pollution-stained trees during industrialisation in Britain. Remove the pollution and the light strain should once again predominate, which is just what is happening.

Bugged by bugs
Perhaps the most striking prediction in biology was made in 1975 by entomologist Richard Alexander. After studying the evolution of eusocial insects such as termites, he predicted that some burrowing rodents in the tropics might have evolved the same eusocial system – as later proved to be the case with the naked mole-rat.

Evolutionary theory can and increasingly is being put to more practical use. For instance, if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, it is clear that resistant insect strains are likely to evolve. What is less obvious is that you can slow this process by growing regular plants alongside the GM ones, as was predicted and has turned out to be the case.

Many researchers developing treatments for infectious diseases now try to consider how resistance could evolve and find ways to prevent it, for instance by giving certain drugs in combination. This slows the evolution of resistance because pathogens have to acquire several mutations to survive the treatment.

Most predictions relate to very specific aspects of evolutionary theory. If a eusocial mammal like the naked mole-rat had not been found, for instance, it would have proved only that Alexander’s ideas about the evolution of eusocial behaviour were probably wrong, not that there is anything wrong with the wider theory. However, some broad predictions – including the age of Earth, the existence of transitional fossils and the common origin of life – are crucial tests of the basic theory (see Evolution cannot be disproved).​

If you want to see falsifiable tests for Evolution, continue on to read Evolution myths: Evolution cannot be disproved - I won't copy/paste it all here... but in short, a falsification would be any of the following:

• Human fossils found in the same layer as Dinosaurs.
• Precambrian Rabbit fossil.
• a feathered mammal, or a bird with mammary glands.
• Any naturally occurring living organism (humans included) that don't fit neatly in their place in the tree of life according to their evolved traits (i.e. all features are a subset modification of the features they are descended from)
• etc.

Your analogy about the new born baby doesn't hold water.

Why? It's one thing to assert it doesn't, another thing to explain why. Do you disagree the baby doesn't communicate by default, or do you think it had to presuppose it didn't first? How is that different from a potential believer that may take up any number of religions available to them that isn't Christianity, or perhaps not take one up at all until there's an appropriate amount of evidence to indicate the correct religion to take up?

Yes, there is a reason why evolution is taught nearly universally in the classroom. It's the promotion of dogma without evidence for macroevolution. It comes with lots of fancy dresses to try to 'prove' evolution but it is really bluff, but the younger youth don't get what you are trying to do in the classroom. It also means the God factor of the Creator God is denied and can't be brought into the classroom.

No God is denied at all - it's just that the topic of God doesn't fall under the subject of Science - unless you have some method by which God could be scientifically considered? Anyway, as discussed above, there is no Dogma, there's actually Evidence and testable predictions that make the Theory practical and useful. Do you deny vaccines exist? Do you deny that we can determine your relatedness to any other human (and for that matter any other life form on this planet) through your DNA? Do you deny we have made tremendous strides in farming and food production than ever before in human history?

You do, but you won't accept it. God doesn't believe in atheists. This is what he thinks about the evidence of His existence that you reject. I didn't invent this. It is God's estimate of your ability or inability to see God's attributes in creation and what causes your blindness to them. With this evidence, you are 'without excuse' before God:

Okay, well why don't I know this? Why hasn't God made this known to me? there's been more than ample time to make himself known to me before this (40+ years of open and honest inquiry before I took a scientific view of all religions...) - am I not important to him? Why would he give me a thinking apparatus and let me think otherwise with it if he wanted to have a personal relationship with me?

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is for ever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them (Romans 1:18-32 NIV, emphasis added).
You have the evidence of God's existence and his eternal power and divine nature right before you every day you live, but you you turn God away. Why? Take a read of verse 18.

That's what all secularists, humanists, agnostics and atheists do, including yourself.

Okay, who wrote this and how do you know? Why should this writing mean anything to anyone wthout knowing where it came from? Here's the thing - the Theory of Evolution is backed by Evidence and practical use. What evidence do you have for these writings being authored by God, and of what practical use does it have in reality?

I'm sorry I can't respond to all you said. It's bedtime for me, 11.35pm, Monday night.

Well that's no problem, I understand. By that I'm going to assume you're in Queensland - Me personally am in Canberra - I'm on nightshift at the moment so will be here for quite some more hours yet...

If you are 'always open' to the evidence, read that section of Romans 1 again and again and get the understanding of why God does not believe in atheists and that they will be 'without excuse' when they face God in judgment. His existence is screaming at us all in creation.

I've read it many, many times. I've also read the Qur'An/Hadeef (though not in Arabic) and the Hindu Vedas. I've also looked into the Egyptian Religions from wence pretty much all middle east and european religions descended from, including the Abrahamic religions.

Bugey, your presuppositions are too embedded to allow you - at the moment - to consider God's view of the evidence for himself and the creation of the universe.

Are you saying God isn't powerful enough to prove he's real? even by personal revelation? I don't accept your unsupported assertion that I have presuppositions and you certainly haven't offered any evidence for it besides your own presupposition that your bible is written by a God, so is it that you aren't taking this seriously, are you just trolling me to be funny?

 

[Aman777]

Sounds like it doesn't matter who dies, or when?

Only if you keep the atheist definition of die, which is to be eliminated forever. Their worst nightmare is to wake up to Judgment.

And if we "reject" Him, He will kill us.

No. He lets us have our own free choice even if that means eternal damnation.

Perhaps they prefer their idea of self to your idea of God?

Good, since they have eternity with self, to realize what they missed. That's Hell.

 

[Aman777]

Ah, here's your error -- you don't know the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

No, that would be an unbeliever's problem. Intelligence is inherited and knowledge is obtained. The false ToE teaches that we develop our intelligence through mindless nature, BUT they cannot explain the process and WHY they cannot repeat it, so they lie and claim that it's Science. Of course Buffoons will believe anything in order to remain in their godless condition.

 

[Aman777]

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

IF you could understand the Bible, you would realize that God is Love, and has no "bad parts". Your posts indicate that you are the same as most Godhaters since you refuse to be specific in your rants. Go ahead and post them and watch as this Creationist destroys your twisted views.

 

[Aman777]

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

Who ate first? Was it Eve? Yes. What happened when she ate? Did she lose her Shekinah Glory which kept her from showing her nakedness. Gen 3:7 Of course she did. Now, it's your time to explain HOW Eve could have tempted old Adam Gen 3:12 whose first words explained his desire for her:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Only if you keep the atheist definition of die, which is to be eliminated forever. Their worst nightmare is to wake up to Judgment.

Let's compromise, and use a definition of "die" which means to be eliminated from this world. Amen?

No. He lets us have our own free choice even if that means eternal damnation.

While making it very clear that if we choose in a manner He doesn't like, He will inflict that eternal damnation upon us.

Good, since they have eternity with self, to realize what they missed. That's Hell.

When Jesus went on and on about that whole "lake of fire" routine, was he just telling tales?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, that would be an unbeliever's problem. Intelligence is inherited and knowledge is obtained. The false ToE teaches that we develop our intelligence through mindless nature, BUT they cannot explain the process and WHY they cannot repeat it, so they lie and claim that it's Science. Of course Buffoons will believe anything in order to remain in their godless condition.

You didn't get it then; you still don't get it now.

Knowledge is information. Intelligence is the ability to acquire information.

A textbook has knowledge, but no intelligence. A dog has intelligence and knowledge. A human has more intelligence and knowledge than a dog.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who ate first? Was it Eve? Yes. What happened when she ate? Did she lose her Shekinah Glory which kept her from showing her nakedness. Gen 3:7 Of course she did.

Shekinah Glory = shamelessness. Got it.

Now, it's your time to explain HOW Eve could have tempted old Adam

The same way the serpent tempted Eve... by offering.

Or is it your contention that Eve saw the serpent's nakedness first and just decided that she had to have it?

Gen 3:12 whose first words explained his desire for her:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Exactly as God commanded them to do in Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Or is it your contention that we're supposed to obey God, but we're not supposed to want to obey God? Talk about a recipe for neurosis...

Furthermore, Adam's expression of desire for Eve (if we choose to consider it to be such), cannot possibly be sinful in nature... look at the order of events, and get back to me when you figure out why.

...if you can't see it, get back to me sooner.

 

[David_M]

Name them.

Already did, the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris)

Note, legs and paws. No Flippers.

 

[David_M]

Name those that can.

See previous reply.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So you won't accept "pictures" or "words" now?

LOL

Hmm. Maybe we should try a catchy jingle, huh?

 

[xianghua]

Nature can design things, such as snowflakes.

but not something like a watch or a robot. right?

And now you say your fictitious self reproducing cars have babies and DNA. Then they are not cars.

why not? so call it a self replicating car. bascially its still a 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.

its only a belief rather then science.

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.

not realy. since you cant prove that animals can evolve from other kinds of animals. and again: even a self replicating watch cant evolve naturally. like an animal cant.

 

[bhsmte]

but not something like a watch or a robot. right?




why not? so call it a self replicating car. bascially its still a car.



its only a belief rather then science.

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.

not realy. since you cant prove that animals can evolve from other kinds of animals. and again: even a self replicating watch cant evolve naturally. like an animal cant.[/QUOTE]

When are we getting a definition of robot? Funny you cant define something, you constantly talk about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but not something like a watch or a robot. right?

You are moving the goalposts. You said nature can't design things. I gave you a counterexample, snowflakes. So your assertion is wrong.

And so far you have given no evidence that nature can not design a zebra. We have defeated your two arguments: 1) that nature cannot design anything, and 2) that if watches can't evolve then zebras can't either (zebras can do some things watches can't)

why not? so call it a self replicating car. bascially its still a car.

Wrong. An animal "car" that has baby animal "cars" is not basically a car. It's more like a horse.

not realy. since you cant prove that animals can evolve from other kinds of animals. and again: even a self replicating watch cant evolve naturally. like an animal cant.

Animals can do some things that watches can't do.

 

[xianghua]

You are moving the goalposts. You said nature can't design things.

where i said it? i only talked about complex objects like a watch or a robot.

And so far you have given no evidence that nature can not design a zebra.

i gave at least 2 evidence against it:

1) that there isnt a stepwise way to evolve a complex biological system (like the hearing system that no one so far falsify).

2) by the fact that we know that things like a spinning motors (like the flagellum) are evidence for design.

Wrong. An animal "car" that has baby animal "cars" is not basically a car. It's more like a horse.

if its look like this object (just with the ability to reproduce and made from organic components) you will call it a horse? realy?:

(image from File:Ferrari F40 with tinted glass.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)