proving evolution as just a "theory"

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

pitabread said:
We label things "human", "lizard", "spider" for ease of classification/identification of things. However, those classifications do not exist in nature and consequently neither do any biological barriers to evolutionary change beyond the obvious (i.e. basic biochemistry/physics).

Consequently the assertion that "Except humans are creating humans and always have and always will" is not demonstrably true. Or to put it another way, it's certainly possible that we may eventually evolve into something that based on today's classification of Homo sapiens, we may no longer classify as such.

More speculation? Not surprised. In nature we have creatures. Man calls them spiders or lizards or homo sapiens or whatever label we decide to slap on. But nature doesn't have a name. They are what they are. They are obvious and real. They always have been. Man speculates what they might have been based upon an assumption that they were not always such. Man believes all things came from a common ancestor. Yet we cannot really show that. Creationists say creatures were created as kinds and spread from there. Through the ages they may have adapted and changed through a natural process in order to survive. But that was design. Spiders were always spiders, birds were always birds, and onions were always onions.

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

Hieronymus said:
But it IS evidence.
But it's not proof.
You can interpret the evidence both ways though.
But you can help build a case for evolution by pointing at what seems to be common descent.I agree.
But it makes me wonder to what extent sub species could have descended from an early main species.
I think it ends where specific organs or architecture come in to view.
You can't (well i can't) expect this to form by itself by accidentally writing pieces of the correct genes, that accidentally become complete and functioning, through random mutation upon random mutation, which were not corrected, supposedly dominated the gene pools while having no benefit yet...

The tree is an assumption of evidence. They look at Similarities and build an evidential case for evolution. Similarities do not a tree make. It's not real evidence. I do agree that subspecies can occur such as different kinds of spiders or lizards or birds or whatever. I don't disagree with that possibility at all. But that is not evidence that all things, plants and animals came from a common ancestor.

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
What field is that? So far you have merely shown utter ignorance about the subject. And you fear discussing the topic. Your fear tells me that you have no clue.

And once again you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. You are making statements about others that you cannot support. When you accuse others of "speculation" that is making a charge against your neighbor and if you can't support your accusations they are the same as being false.

And what makes you think that the theory of evolution cannot be tested? You misstated the scientific method in your post too.

So let's take a break from discussing evolution and discuss the three items that you clearly do not understand. You clearly do not understand what is and what is not evidence. You do not understand the scientific method. You do not understand what observation is. Let's go over those first, then we can discuss the theory of evolution if you wish.

Lol! Fear? I've been talking this whole time about this topic. I've discussed this til I'm blue in the face.

I'm not breaking any commandment as I am attacking evolution. Not people. You may believe in a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean the theory is correct. I've supported my position very well thank you. I've pointed out that evolution from a common ancestor is not observable testable or reproducible and so far no one has been able to point to anything science has done to observe it, test it using nature's methods or reproduce it.

Let's just look at observed evolution from a common ancestor. Has someone observed it?

Allandavid · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
The tree is an assumption of evidence. They look at Similarities and build an evidential case for evolution. Similarities do not a tree make. It's not real evidence. I do agree that subspecies can occur such as different kinds of spiders or lizards or birds or whatever. I don't disagree with that possibility at all. But that is not evidence that all things, plants and animals came from a common ancestor.

And no one says that it is only similarities that make the case for evolutionary theory. The evidence goes much deeper and broader. But you refuse to look at it...

Allandavid · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Lol! Fear? I've been talking this whole time about this topic. I've discussed this til I'm blue in the face.

I'm not breaking any commandment as I am attacking evolution. Not people. You may believe in a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean the theory is correct. I've supported my position very well thank you. I've pointed out that evolution from a common ancestor is not observable testable or reproducible and so far no one has been able to point to anything science has done to observe it, test it using nature's methods or reproduce it.

Let's just look at observed evolution from a common ancestor. Has someone observed it?

We have indeed observed the process of evolution. Common ancestry is simply that process played out over time.

It's funny...it wasn't so long ago that most creationists just flat out denied that any evolutionary processes took place. Then, because they couldn't avoid what was before their eyes, they begrudgingly conceded that 'micro' evolution took place.

They are evolving....

The time will come when they accept, as many devout theists already do, that their religious beliefs can happily exist alongside an acceptance of the theory.

As with most evolutionary change, it's just a matter of time...

HitchSlap · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Let's just look at observed evolution from a common ancestor. Has someone observed it?

Yes. That's what everyone's been trying to tell you.

Wakalix · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
More speculation? Not surprised. In nature we have creatures. Man calls them spiders or lizards or homo sapiens or whatever label we decide to slap on. But nature doesn't have a name. They are what they are. They are obvious and real. They always have been.

One of those claims is not like the other / One of those claims just doesn't belong
"Is it the claim that just because things are the case now, they must necessarily have been the place before?"
Ding ding ding!

Man speculates what they might have been based upon an assumption that they were not always such.

More like "scientist considers the possibility of common ancestry and change over time, finds evidence for this possibility, accepts it as truth."

Man believes all things came from a common ancestor. Yet we cannot really show that.

You're right, we can never be 100% sure that anything is the case, but we have a better understanding of evolution than we do of gravity, for reason's sake! Just saying "you can never really know" resembles "death by faint praise."

Creationists say creatures were created as kinds and spread from there. Through the ages they may have adapted and changed through a natural process in order to survive. But that was design. Spiders were always spiders, birds were always birds, and onions were always onions.

"Man believes spiders were always spiders, yet we cannot really show that." It's weird how you apply much more skepticism to claims besides your own... other theories must be 100% certain or else your theory is the true one. Highly illogical.

Wakalix · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Let's just look at observed evolution from a common ancestor. Has someone observed it?

Yes, we have. "But you weren't there!" Yes, well, I can look at an event without being in the same spatio-temporal position as the event. Just as photons are emitted by an object, then hit my eyes, serving as evidence of the object, the effects of history reveal the nature of that history. It's just more convoluted and uncertain. But nothing is ever certain - a space alien could have projected everything but the solar system onto a technological screen around us. Who knows? But unless there's a reason to think that the deceiving space alien exists, we carry on as if the world we observe is real, including the parts that have already happened.

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

PsychoSarah said:
-_- what do you intend to accomplish by cutting out most of my post that explains the difference between the common use of the term "proof" and what proof is from an academic perspective?

There are other possibilities for how your hand got burned, or how you ended up mistaking it for burned. As long as there are other possibilities, no matter how unlikely they are, you haven't "proven" that it was the stove that burned your hand. Again, this is why asking for "proof" is asking for a standard impossible for science to meet, no matter how good the evidence is. To obtain proof is to not only support a particular conclusion, but it is also to exclude all other possibilities... including ones you aren't personally aware of.

It isn't that we don't have to "prove" evolution. It is that "proof" isn't what you are acting as if it is. You can't even prove to me that you exist, and I am talking to you right now. Additionally, you may have confusion as to what the difference between the theory of evolution and the phenomenon it attempts to explain. Evolution the theory isn't literally that populations of organisms change over time and generations. Evolution the theory is an explanation of HOW and WHY populations of organisms change over time and generations.

As for the process itself, there are plenty of opportunities to observe it if you want. Just Google search "evolution experiment".

Actually, you have it backwards. Science doesn't determine what a "fact" is, facts determine the course of science. Facts are gleaned through observation. For example, we can factually determine that your hand was damaged by it not being in a healthy state. The scientific theory relevant to you burning your hand would be the most evidenced explanation as to how and why it happened, but no scientific theory could guarantee that it is a fully correct explanation. Could get 99.99% certain, but never 100% certain. After all, someone could have cast an evil spell to burn your hand, because magic hasn't been disproven. A ridiculous conclusion? Sure, given the lack of evidence supporting it, but as it hasn't been disproven, it is a possibility nevertheless and has to be recognized. Proof narrows down possibilities to just 1, which is why it only applies to math.

As for the common use of the term "proof", I have no idea what your personal standard of evidence is, so trying to cater to it would be silly. But, I'll provide some evidence for evolution any time you like, as long as that's actually what you are requesting. If you insist on "proof", I'll take it as an unwillingness to learn.

You must have missed it, because it is brought up from time to time, and I am not the only person that brings it up.

This post is really quite humorous. It really demonstrates why evolution from a common ancestor works for the evolutionist. A lot of reasons why your hand got burned? Seriously? Let's just throw reason out the window. Let's throw observation, resting and reproducing out the window with it. I observe my hand was unburned before I placed it on the stove. I place it on a cold stove and nothing happens. I turn in the heat and place my hand on the burner and I get burned. Observed, tested and if I do the same thing with any number of hands it will turn out the same. Proof. This is why evolution falls flat on its face.

At least with the hand I can create and recreate. Let's just say someone did cast a spell that 1% of the time. At least you would need some sort of evidence that it happened to make that claim. You don't have that evidence in evolution. You can't see it, test it or reproduce it. It's speculation based on an assumption.

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

Bugeyedcreepy said:
I wouldn't, Faith is the worst way to come about the truth of something. I can take anything on faith.

Yes.

Trust is NOT Faith. I have trust in quite a many things, because of previous evidence in support of it. I love and trust my partner, and I have evidence of her love for me. Faith - even by the Bible - is a belief without evidence. As for what form of evidence would make me believe there is a God? Not sure, but I'm sure if there is a God as described by Christians, then God would know exactly what would make me believe.... and hasn't done so.

because of the Evidence that supports it.

Sure we did, that's what the evidence indicates...

Rubbish. If we were independently created, then surely we could predict our genomes wouldn't share hundreds of thousands of ERVs (each of which would almost invariably have to be found at different loci if we contracted it separately) with other organisms on this planet, right? We at least, would have unique DNA when compared to other animals allegedly divinely and uniquely created - our genome when compared to other forms of life ought to be at least as unique as the genomes of a hedgehog, echidna and porcupine. Given the incredible and diverse nature of DNA, the fact that all life looks exactly like we're all related in a branching fashion would mean either an alleged Intelligent Designer wanted to fool us into thinking all life is related and evolved naturally in a branching pattern, or that we did in fact evolved naturally into the diversity of life we see today.

I'll have to go out on a limb here and say that you have a skewed idea on what scientific evidence is, or that you don't work in a field that actually uses evidence in the strict sense that science uses it. I'd be interested to know what line of work though...

Show anything, anywhere where Science has proven something. Science actually works on disproving things, which in turn helps us narrow in on the truth,

No, Science never proves anything, it only ever disproves.

Again you assume thats the case. You assume the ERV shows common ancestry. You don't know it does. It just as well shows common design. And God didn't deceive anyone because he told you in his word how he did it and how long it took. You look at creation with an eye that believes in evolution rather than looking at creation from one who sees it through the lense of those who trust what God told us. You can't accuse God of deception when he told you how it was done. The fact you don't believe it is on you not God.

You interpret what you find with the eye of evolution because you believe in it rather than believe what God told you. It's a matter of interpretation and you have chosen to interpret similarities and common design as evolution.

HitchSlap · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Again you assume thats the case. You assume the ERV shows common ancestry. You don't know it does. It just as well shows common design. And God didn't deceive anyone because he told you in his word how he did it and how long it took. You look at creation with an eye that believes in evolution rather than looking at creation from one who sees it through the lense of those who trust what God told us. You can't accuse God of deception when he told you how it was done. The fact you don't believe it is on you not God.

You interpret what you find with the eye of evolution because you believe in it rather than believe what God told you. It's a matter of interpretation and you have chosen to interpret similarities and common design as evolution.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -C.D.

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

Wakalix said:
One of those claims is not like the other / One of those claims just doesn't belong
"Is it the claim that just because things are the case now, they must necessarily have been the place before?"
Ding ding ding!

More like "scientist considers the possibility of common ancestry and change over time, finds evidence for this possibility, accepts it as truth."

You're right, we can never be 100% sure that anything is the case, but we have a better understanding of evolution than we do of gravity, for reason's sake! Just saying "you can never really know" resembles "death by faint praise."

"Man believes spiders were always spiders, yet we cannot really show that." It's weird how you apply much more skepticism to claims besides your own... other theories must be 100% certain or else your theory is the true one. Highly illogical.

Why should I be skeptical about what God told me? I freely admit that I have faith.

rjs330 · Sep 25, 2017

Allandavid said:
And no one says that it is only similarities that make the case for evolutionary theory. The evidence goes much deeper and broader. But you refuse to look at it...

I've looked, I am not buying. You've looked into creation and you are not buying. That's ok. The evidence is assumed. It's not real evidence. Its just not there. Sorry. Evolutionists disbelieve common design where that is just as probable as evolution is.

Wakalix · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
This post is really quite humorous. It really demonstrates why evolution from a common ancestor works for the evolutionist. A lot of reasons why your hand got burned? Seriously? Let's just throw reason out the window. Let's throw observation, resting and reproducing out the window with it. I observe my hand was unburned before I placed it on the stove. I place it on a cold stove and nothing happens. I turn in the heat and place my hand on the burner and I get burned. Observed, tested and if I do the same thing with any number of hands it will turn out the same. Proof. This is why evolution falls flat on its face.

At least with the hand I can create and recreate. Let's just say someone did cast a spell that 1% of the time. At least you would need some sort of evidence that it happened to make that claim. You don't have that evidence in evolution. You can't see it, test it or reproduce it. It's speculation based on an assumption.

Reject, ignore, assert: the way of the creationist.

Allandavid · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Why should I be skeptical about what God told me? I freely admit that I have faith.

If you are referring to scriptures, then god 'told' you nothing. Those words were all written by humans. Sure, they claim to have spoken on behalf of a god, just as Mohammed did, just as Joe Smith did, etc. But none of them have any evidence to support their claims either...

Wakalix · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Why should I be skeptical about what God told me? I freely admit that I have faith.

So you don't think that you need evidence for beliefs? Then what's wrong with evolution?

rjs330 said:
I've looked, I am not buying. You've looked into creation and you are not buying. That's ok. The evidence is assumed. It's not real evidence. Its just not there. Sorry. Evolutionists disbelieve common design where that is just as probable as evolution is.

"You don't have any evidence! You don't have any evidence!"
evidence is shown
"You don't have any evidence! You don't have any evidence!"
How easy would it be to make a creationist bot?

Allandavid · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
I've looked, I am not buying. You've looked into creation and you are not buying. That's ok. The evidence is assumed. It's not real evidence. Its just not there. Sorry. Evolutionists disbelieve common design where that is just as probable as evolution is.

You've looked...? Really looked...?

Ok, lets see. Let's try one of the most commonly discussed pieces of evidence...

What is your explanation for the 200,000+ common ERV sites in the genomes of chimpanzees and humans...?

HitchSlap · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Why should I be skeptical about what God told me? I freely admit that I have faith.

When god talks to you, does he have a high, or low pitched voice? I'm just curious.

pitabread · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Man believes all things came from a common ancestor. Yet we cannot really show that. Creationists say creatures were created as kinds and spread from there.

The preponderance of evidence supports the former, not the latter. And this includes the observable evolutionary mechanisms as they operate in nature today and diversify species.

Yet what was the mechanism for creating fully formed species out of thin air? Where is the evidence that supports that fully formed life was created?

pitabread · Sep 25, 2017

rjs330 said:
Again you assume thats the case. You assume the ERV shows common ancestry. You don't know it does. It just as well shows common design.

"Common design" is a buzzword that means nothing. If anything, these continual attempts to co-opt evolutionary models of the history of life on Earth suggests that if life was designed, it was designed to look like it evolved.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency