proving evolution as just a "theory"

sfs said:

Creationism makes no predictions about genetics that I can find. Common descent does. Lots and lots of correct predictions. Almost like it was correct or something.

Click to expand...

Quoted for emphasis.

It astounds me that creationists think that creationism is anywhere remotely on par with real biological sciences. When push comes to shove, it becomes obvious how vacuous creationism is.

Allandavid said:

How it came to be the way it is requires evidence...

Click to expand...

In examining the world and the universe what evidence is there against creation?

HitchSlap said:

so what?

Click to expand...

OK if so nothing ... then you do it!!

tas8831 said:

Assertion.

Click to expand...

History in the real world.

Waggles said:

OK if so nothing ... then you do it!!

Click to expand...

And if I did, what would that prove?

Waggles said:

In examining the world and the universe what evidence is there against creation?

Click to expand...

Marsupials.

xianghua said:

true. so this is evidence for a common descent with human. not chimp.

Click to expand...

Dishonest truncation of my quote does not make the point I made disappear.

The genes and centomere/telomeres of human 2 show that it is a fusion of chimpanzee/LCA 2a and 2b.

Waggles said:

Sure. Ask your friend to show you real evidence for evolution.
Ask for him to take you to any museum and share the evidence of species transitioning from one species to another.
Ask him to show you how kidneys evolved, or the liver or the spleen or the heart and circulatory
system evolved. Ask for the evidence. Ask him to prove it.
In the end he can't.

You know dinosaurs had all the body components - skeleton; muscles, organs, digestive systems;
eyes; brains; spinal cords; etc etc etc - they died out some supposed 65 million years ago and
ruled the world for hundreds of millions of years before.
So if dinosaurs had everything to be complex warm blooded animals and reproduce then just when did
all these necessary body parts evolve to allow for this? and from what?

When you get into the nitty gritty of the how of evolution there is only supposition and hopeful
wishing. Show me the evolution of the eyes and sight: eyeballs that are cameras, rods and cones
that are photographically sensitive to images; optic nerves; brain receptors; turning upside down
images into the right way up. Should be easy to show all the steps involved from light sensitive bacteria
right through to what we can visualize today.

Creation is self evident, evolution is continuing to deliberately deny the truth.

Click to expand...

*** bookmarked to reply later ***

Hieronymus said:

Yes i have.
Have you ever noticed how evolution is promoted ?
Same thing.

Click to expand...

Bahahah! Laughable.

Allandavid said:

As others have pointed out, you are conflating 'faith' and 'hope' and 'trust'. There is a differential requirement on evidence for each

Click to expand...

Hey hey

Please excuse me my friend, what others?

Conflate - to combine (two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc.) into one. I have not tried to combine these 3 together.

Faith and hope are distinct yet related, hope is built on faith. Love isnt always intangible but does involve hope, faith and trust.


Now back to where we were my dear.

Have you not experienced faith being rewarded in your life in some form?

For instance. Trust and hope in someone - love?

What form of evidence would make you believe there is a God?

Cheers

Jimmy D said:

No offence taken, I found it curious that you asked a question but didn't comment on my response

Click to expand...

Hello


Im so sorry. Please provide the comment you want a response for my friend.

Jimmy D said:

I keep telling you that I am ignorant about giraffe evolution so I don't know why you keep asking me about it. I'm sure that there are plenty of online resources on the topic if you wish to learn, unless this is leading to a "gotcha" question, in which case you might as well cut to the chase.

Click to expand...

Dont fear. I made a statement and asked if you would agree with the statement. Im asking questions to learn your individual position.

You have stated that you have a lack of knowledge re evolution of the giraffe but gave me 2 options ie sparring and mating. This does not show a lack of information. This shows uncertainty - not able to be relied on; not known or definite.

You are uncertain.

Jimmy D said:

I'm also curious as to why you're focusing on my uncertainty about very specific aspects of evolution, it in no way demonstrates that I have any doubts about common descent.

Click to expand...

Why are you certain here, can you explain your faith in common descent?

What constitutes proof here - an instance?

Jimmy D said:

I have enough understanding to realise why evidence from the fossil record, geographical distribution of species and most importantly genetics confirm this to be a fact.

Click to expand...

Ok.

Show me how these evidences in relation to the fossil record, geographical distribution of species and genetics, confirm the fact?


And since we are curious as to why some things dont get a comment. From my previous post, could you please respond to the below question re giraffe safety mechanism.







##########
This lowering and raising of the giraffe neck seems to have a safety mechanism. This seems like a solution to a problem.

How do you account for this 'reasoning' if we consider evolution as an unguided process?
##########

Cheers

Bugeyedcreepy said:

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

Click to expand...

Hello bugs. What's up doc/friend

Lets look at a child and a mother. A child is told not to touch the stove by its mother because the stove is hot and will burn the child.

The child has no knowledge and does not understand certain things. Is it wrong for the child to have faith in its mother and listen?

Waggles said:

In examining the world and the universe what evidence is there against creation?

Click to expand...

There is no evidence for biblical creation. You will probably agree that there is no evidence for pixies. Since there is no evidence for pixies I do not tend to believe in them. Do you believe in pixies?

_-iconoclast-_ said:

Hello bugs. What's up doc/friend

Lets look at a child and a mother. A child is told not to touch the stove by its mother because the stove is hot and will burn the child.

The child has no knowledge and does not understand certain things. Is it wrong for the child to have faith in its mother and listen?

Click to expand...

A child tends to learn that its parents know more than it does. Accepting their word is not "faith". You still do not seem to understand that word since you keep misusing it.

Subduction Zone said:

There is no evidence for biblical creation. You will probably agree that there is no evidence for pixies. Since there is no evidence for pixies I do not tend to believe in them. Do you believe in pixies?

Click to expand...

Hey hey sub my dear friend

False arguement. Should we identify this logical fallacy?

Subduction Zone said:

A child tends to learn that its parents know more than it does. Accepting their word is not "faith". You still do not seem to understand that word since you keep misusing it.

Click to expand...

What would u call it when this child has to accept this authority?

_-iconoclast-_ said:

Hey hey sub my dear friend

False arguement. Should we identify this logical fallacy?

Click to expand...

How so?

Since you have failed at logic before I do not have too much hope for you this time around.

_-iconoclast-_ said:

What would u call it when this child has to accept this authority?

Click to expand...

He does not "have to", but I would call it an earned respect. That is not faith in any way at all.

_-iconoclast-_ said:

What would u call it when this child has to accept this authority?

Click to expand...

Trust.

Kenny'sID said:

Was working on it as you posted that.

Click to expand...

Well you didn't work very hard, you didn't address any of it. As to what you did write, that's nice, I'm not trying to tell you how life began or dissuade you of you faith in God, why not comment on the evidence I presented instead, maybe ponder what I've written below?

rjs330 said:

This is fantastic. It is a prime example of what I am speaking about. Point one is the horse thing. It's an assumption that the eohippus evolved. We have no observation of such a thing. We are guessing that is what happened. We believe in evolution and therefore believe that happened. We don't know if the transition actually occurred.

Click to expand...

No.1 - "The horse thing"

Everything I posted was based on observation, there were no assumptions. Literally thousands of fossils have been found that, when lined up chronologically, show a clear transition from eohippus to the modern horse. These have been and can be observed in the fossil record. I wouldn't be surprised if you reject the dating of such fossils (with no scientific justification, just proclaiming it's based on assumptions no doubt) but Eohippus is found in the oldest strata and the fossils can be seen progressing gradually in sequence towards the modern horse as we observe them in more recent strata. This is clear as day, there are no mysterious gaps, no huge leaps in difference that can't be accounted for, which is why I chose the "horse thing".

Now, If we look at this sequence and wonder why these fossils are deposited as they are what logical conclusion can we draw? That the populations gradually adapted over time in response to selective pressures? Given that we can observe, in real time, the mechanisms by which such changes occur (remember the Blackcaps which have been observed to adapt and change in response to environmental pressures?) such a conclusion is inescapable.



But no, you say, despite all these observations confirming the theory formulated by Darwin from his observations of nature all those years ago, they are all just "assumptions"!

So I will ask again (you ignored the question last time) how do you explain these observations?

Again we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically with all those changes adding up to significant differences over longer periods of time - As far as I understand it the creation "model" would suggest that over long stretches of time a slightly different species was created out of dust of the ground, only to go extinct and be replaced by another and another and another, is that what you think? I can't figure it out?