proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

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.

But you've already admitted that self-replicating cars and robots don't exist. So it's clearly not a good explanation for something if that something doesn't exist in the first place.

If you can prove the existence of a self-replicating car or robot, then maybe you'll have a point. But since those things have never existed, your entire argument is nonsensical. You're just running in circles. Again.

 

[pitabread]

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

First of all, the timing of when fossil species existed and what would be considered "out of order" is entirely contingent on whatever we are talking about, the existing fossils and the relative patterns we already observe.

Like I said, constructing a picture of past organisms and a general pattern of evolution is estimative since we're dealing with incomplete data. Fossils are found when and where they are found and then patterns are derived from that.

The things you keep pointing to aren't these massive out of order, turn evolution upside down type discoveries you think they are. Rather they are refinements to existing timelines based on prior data. They help adjust and complete the picture of past evolution rather than overturn it.

If the creationist view of past biology was correct (namely all life being poofed into existence at the same time), then the entire fossil record should be different. We should find all manner of life mixed up together; in a nutshell, none of the patterns of evolutionary development we observe in the fossil record should exist at all.

So if at which point will I admit evolution is false? My answer is when the fossil record is completely different.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Bugeyed,

That was my error in not stating that science does not have the standard definition of 'theory', which 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.' (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v theory).

Science's meaning of 'theory' is: 'A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses' (source).

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.

Evolution can't be based on observation of evolutionary processes for macroevolution as they happened. You and I were not there to see the dinosaurs and humans deposited in the same layers of rock.

Whoa! Wait! How did the definition suddenly have a 'Pre'supposition attached to it, where did that come from?

Your presupposition is that you only interpret the evidence in creation from an evolutionary perspective. You do not consider the evidence from historical science, as found in Scripture. By the way, historical science also is science.

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.

So what? That doesn't prove that it is correct when you censor other information that doesn't fit within science's worldviews.

I've also looked into the Egyptian Religions from wence pretty much all middle east and european religions descended from, including the Abrahamic religions.

There is another one of your presuppositions. The evidence of the reliable Scriptures contradicts that view.

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.

See what you've done with your evolutionary presuppositions!

• Human fossils can be found in the same layer as dinosaurs but that doesn't have to be the best explanation. Ever heard of evidence uncovered in support of the destruction of every living thing on the earth through Noah's Flood (Genesis 6).
• 
• Full size interpretation of Noah's Ark in Dordrecht, Netherlands
  
• Even your use of 'Precambrian' is an evolutionary view (see Origin of life, Precambrian evolution).

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.

Your claim is that evolution is 'a model built on observation and evidence - otherwise it wouldn't have been a scientific theory in the first place'.

God has given you some of the evidence in Romans 1:18-32. Your mind is closed to that information that you can investigate in creation. Why? Your naturalistic presuppositions!!

You can't accept that criteria used to test the reliability of any document, including the writings of The Australian newspaper of 30 years ago, Captain Cook's journals, and that finds the New Testament to be superbly reliable:

If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. (Is the New Testament text reliable? Greg Koukl).​

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?

You DO know this information about God's creation as he has revealed it to you in Scripture and creation. But you are not open to receive it. God is not going to hit you with a bolt of Canberra lightning (I used to pastor a church in the ACT) to make you sit up and take notice of God's existence.

What did Jesus say about the evidence? In the story he told about the rich man and Lazarus, one experiencing blessedness and the other torment, this is recorded:

‘He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’ (Luke 16:31).​

If you won't believe the evidence for God in creation, and the evidence in a reliable Bible, you won't be convinced even if God would raise someone from the dead - or you were hit by a lightning bolt. Or, if I continue to reason with you. Wouldn't you agree that at this present time you are NOT open to consider the evidence in Scripture? If that is so, why do you come onto a Christian forum to spread your evolutionary message?

All human beings who reject the reliable evidence in Scripture do so because of what Romans 1:18 states, 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (NIV)

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?

Are you a textual critic who has investigated why the Bible, both OT and NT, is a book of reliable, trustworthy, credible documents? Many have written advanced doctorates on this topic. I did it myself. I have a PhD in New Testament in which I investigated a dimension of the historical Jesus - 482pp dissertation.

The NT's and OT's reliability are based on evidence - not evolutionary evidence - but textual evidence. You have given me standard throw-away lines from atheists. Take a read of F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?.

I don't expect you to be open to that evidence because of your presuppositional bias to reject such evidence. You haven't demonstrated that you are open to ALL of the evidence. You appear to be open only to evolutionary scientific evidence and not historical science that investigates the truthfulness of any historical document.

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?

He has already proven he's real in creation and through the death and resurrection of Jesus. You'll know about his reality in a very different way at his Second Coming. See: What will happen when Jesus comes again?

I pray that you will be open to ALL of the evidence and not listen to your selective hearing and reading.

If you clicked on my name under my avatar to read my profile, you'd know I'm an Aussie bloke from Brissy.

Oz

 

[pitabread]

God is not going to hit you with a bolt of Canberra lightning (I used to pastor a church in the ACT) to make you sit up and take notice of God's existence.

I've always believed that if an all-powerful supernatural entity capable of interacting with our universe existed, and that they actively desired my belief in their existence, they would provide an unequivocal demonstration of said existence.

The fact they don't do such a thing implies that if they do exist, they clearly don't care whether I believe in them or not, or they don't exist in the first place.

 

[Speedwell]

Bugeyed,

That was my error in not stating that science does not have the standard definition of 'theory', which 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.' (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v theory).

Science's meaning of 'theory' is: 'A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses' (source).



Evolution can't be based on observation of evolutionary processes for macroevolution as they happened. You and I were not there to see the dinosaurs and humans deposited in the same layers of rock.



Your presupposition is that you only interpret the evidence in creation from an evolutionary perspective. You do not consider the evidence from historical science, as found in Scripture. By the way, historical science also is science.



So what? That doesn't prove that it is correct when you censor other information that doesn't fit within science's worldviews.



There is another one of your presuppositions. The evidence of the reliable Scriptures contradicts that view.



See what you've done with your evolutionary presuppositions!

• Human fossils can be found in the same layer as dinosaurs but that doesn't have to be the best explanation. Ever heard of evidence uncovered in support of the destruction of every living thing on the earth through Noah's Flood (Genesis 6).
• 
• Full size interpretation of Noah's Ark in Dordrecht, Netherlands
  
• Even your use of 'Precambrian' is an evolutionary view (see Origin of life, Precambrian evolution).

Your claim is that evolution is 'a model built on observation and evidence - otherwise it wouldn't have been a scientific theory in the first place'.

God has given you some of the evidence in Romans 1:18-32. Your mind is closed to that information that you can investigate in creation. Why? Your naturalistic presuppositions!!

You can't accept that criteria used to test the reliability of any document, including the writings of The Australian newspaper of 30 years ago, Captain Cook's journals, and that finds the New Testament to be superbly reliable:

If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. (Is the New Testament text reliable? Greg Koukl).​

You DO know this information about God's creation as he has revealed it to you in Scripture and creation. But you are not open to receive it. God is not going to hit you with a bolt of Canberra lightning (I used to pastor a church in the ACT) to make you sit up and take notice of God's existence.

What did Jesus say about the evidence? In the story he told about the rich man and Lazarus, one experiencing blessedness and the other torment, this is recorded:

‘He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”’ (Luke 16:31).​

If you won't believe the evidence for God in creation, and the evidence in a reliable Bible, you won't be convinced even if God would raise someone from the dead - or you were hit by a lightning bolt. Or, if I continue to reason with you. Wouldn't you agree that at this present time you are NOT open to consider the evidence in Scripture? If that is so, why do you come onto a Christian forum to spread your evolutionary message?

All human beings who reject the reliable evidence in Scripture do so because of what Romans 1:18 states, 'The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (NIV)



Are you a textual critic who has investigated why the Bible, both OT and NT, is a book of reliable, trustworthy, credible documents? Many have written advanced doctorates on this topic. I did it myself. I have a PhD in New Testament in which I investigated a dimension of the historical Jesus - 482pp dissertation.

The NT's and OT's reliability are based on evidence - not evolutionary evidence - but textual evidence. You have given me standard throw-away lines from atheists. Take a read of F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?.

I don't expect you to be open to that evidence because of your presuppositional bias to reject such evidence. You haven't demonstrated that you are open to ALL of the evidence. You appear to be open only to evolutionary scientific evidence and not historical science that investigates the truthfulness of any historical document.



He has already proven he's real in creation and through the death and resurrection of Jesus. You'll know about his reality in a very different way at his Second Coming. See: What will happen when Jesus comes again?

I pray that you will be open to ALL of the evidence and not listen to your selective hearing and reading.

If you clicked on my name under my avatar to read my profile, you'd know I'm an Aussie bloke from Brissy.

Oz

What does the historical reliablility of the New Testament have to do with the genre determination of the Genesis stories in the Old?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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)

That object could not possibly have babies.

Once again please answer: When you refer to a self reproducing car are you talking about an animal or an inanimate machine? When we ask that question you are completely paralyzed and refuse to answer. If you cannot answer a basic question about this figment of your imagination, how is anybody supposed to know what you are talking about?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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)

that is your assertion. How do you know there is not a stepwise plan that you are not aware of?

But even if there was no stepwise plan here, how do you know that something did not work around the hurdle, and evolution proceed from there?

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

Irrelevant. Animals can do some things that electric motors can not do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Animals can do some things that electric motors can not do.

Both die.

 

[doubtingmerle]

even a self replicating watch cant evolve naturally. like an animal cant.

Sir, you and I agreed that animals can do some things that a watch can not do. The fact that a watch cannot evolve does not prove an animal can't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Both die.

Animals physically die. Watches metaphorically die. That is different.

Animals can do some things that a watch can't.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is another one of your presuppositions. The evidence of the reliable Scriptures contradicts that view.

And here is the most enormous presupposition - you presuppose that the Bible is the word of god. Once we drop that presupposition and look solely at evidence we find the Bible to be less than convincing.

God has given you some of the evidence in Romans 1:18-32. Your mind is closed to that information that you can investigate in creation. Why? Your naturalistic presuppositions!!

Whose presupposition is it that the Bible is the word of God?

If we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. (Is the New Testament text reliable? Greg Koukl).​

Nonsense. The problem with NT is that there are no other texts or physical evidence supporting them. Most texts we consider reliable have multiple verifying sources. Mr Koukl is relying on false equivalence to make this statement.

Are you a textual critic who has investigated why the Bible, both OT and NT, is a book of reliable, trustworthy, credible documents? Many have written advanced doctorates on this topic. I did it myself. I have a PhD in New Testament in which I investigated a dimension of the historical Jesus - 482pp dissertation.

Other than the Bible, what documentary evidence did you use?

The NT's and OT's reliability are based on evidence - not evolutionary evidence - but textual evidence. You have given me standard throw-away lines from atheists. Take a read of F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?.

There is nothing in that book to indicate the documents are anything other than stories. The whole argument appears to be "the documents were written between 20 and 70 years after Jesus death, therefore they must be accurate."

I don't expect you to be open to that evidence because of your presuppositional bias to reject such evidence. You haven't demonstrated that you are open to ALL of the evidence. You appear to be open only to evolutionary scientific evidence and not historical science that investigates the truthfulness of any historical document.

Please provide evidence for the truthfulness of the NT documents.

 

[OzSpen]

What does the historical reliablility of the New Testament have to do with the genre determination of the Genesis stories in the Old?

Genre determination is an interpretation of the document that does not relate to the truthful reliability of the OT and the Genesis record.

 

[USincognito]

That was my error in not stating that science does not have the standard definition of 'theory', which is,

Dictionaries do not provide the "standard" definition for a word, but merely it's common definition. I would note that the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for theory is the scientific definition:

1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (ex. the wave theory of light)

Evolution can't be based on observation of evolutionary processes for macroevolution as they happened. You and I were not there to see the dinosaurs and humans deposited in the same layers of rock.

Scientific observation is not limited to real time and before our eyes. As far as fossils go, unearthing them is the observation.

Human fossils can be found in the same layer as dinosaurs but that doesn't have to be the best explanation.

That has never once happened.

Ever heard of evidence uncovered in support of the destruction of every living thing on the earth through Noah's Flood (Genesis 6).

There is none. There are innumerable problems from geology and an insurmountable one from genetics - the lack of bottlenecks in every terrestrial vertebrate. E

Even your use of 'Precambrian' is an evolutionary view (see Origin of life, Precambrian evolution).

Precambrian is a geological term and therefore has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[OzSpen]

Good question! I don't include it.

History, if it disagrees with the Bible, can take a hike.

Come on, AV! Captain James Cook and his crew sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770 in the ship, the Endeavour, and that's not in the Bible. However it is an historical fact.

The Bible does not address and contain ALL historical knowledge. There's nothing about the Holocaust and other contemporary pogroms in the Bible (e.g. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mao) but they are historical fact.

Are you telling me to 'take a hike' for stating these facts of history? How can the Holocaust disagree with the Bible when it is not contained in the Bible? Or am I on the wrong wavelength?

Oz

 

[omega2xx]

Already did, the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris)

Note, legs and paws. No Flippers.

And otters will never have flippers or fins and they do not search on land for food.

 

[omega2xx]

...in journals, not in 50 word quotes.

Not always. That is just an excuse admitting you can't prove natural selection or anything else the TOE preaches.

 

[OzSpen]

Have you seen my Apple Challenge, which causes even the most educated here to avoid admitting that creationism didn't generate any evidence?

Creationism does generate evidence (an apple is evidence) but not experimental evidence that involves observation and repeatable experimentation.

 

[OzSpen]

Dictionaries do not provide the "standard" definition for a word, but merely it's common definition. I would note that the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for theory is the scientific definition:

1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (ex. the wave theory of light)

So, in your view, dictionaries do not provide 'standard' definitions but 'common definition(s). So what do you do? Provide me with a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of 'theory'.

Seems like a whiff of hypocrisy here.

Oz

 

[omega2xx]

No someone who demands evidence then completely fails to address it is dishonest.

"More than words" what a pathetic excuse. So you won't accept "pictures" or "words" now?

LOL

I will accept words. Anyone who thinks pictures does not understand "verifiable evidence."

 

[omega2xx]

I take it you didn't bother checking then?

You posted the following quote, obviously taken from a creationist propaganda website....

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study...

...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

But why are there full stops where a portion of the text has been removed? Why remove it? What should have been there reads....

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Which completely changes the quote. Gould feels that... "the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record." The fact you have to cut that portion out to misrepresent his view and try to prop up some pathetic argument against the fossil record speaks volumes about the Creationist mind set.

It's transparently dishonest and shows that you really haven't got a clue about what you are talking about if you are prepared to accept such garbage as one of "your sources".

I look forward to your denial.

It is transparently dishonest to say you have evidence that supports natural selection, but won't produce it.

I look forward to you saying you have produced it.