• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Status
Not open for further replies.

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟34,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Meaning what for me? I'm not allowed to interject another possible explanation? Hate to be the bearer of bad news but we do things just like that here on a Christian website. :)

Is this another convenient rule designed to tie the opponents hands even tighter.

I mean if you all want a debate, fine but with all your rules excuses, and convenient changing of terminology, if we comply, you'll eventually be debating a brick wall because you have done away with disagreements by rule, not with proof.
My point isn't (and never was nor was it even implied) that you aren't allowed to have your own opinion, but that your opinion (from a paucity of scientific knowledge) is nowhere near as qualified as that of an expert's opinion. And you use your ignorance of science as a justification for ignoring the opinion's of experts. It's not a very convincing way of supporting your assertions.

You could demonstrate a sufficient understanding of science, if you would engage with the scientific literature and/or replicate the studies to show how and why they are wrong. Instead of doing this however, you shift the goalposts or just ignore that which makes you feel uncomfortable while throwing out red herrings.

So, once again, what is it exactly you want? What is that you are hoping that you'll "prove" in this conversation?
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, no background in science then? That would clearly reinforce the observation that you truly do not understand science. Especially given the rest of the rant that seems to suggest that someone who is largely ignorant of science, can still be considered well versed enough to logically contradict scientific conclusions. This seems like a good case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

OK, if you choose to resort to not paying attention as your excuse to carry on with preposterous suppositions, that's up to you.

Maybe others will buy your tossing around the "you don't understand science" ball, because all else has failed for you.

Or maybe they will see it's just another cop out as I do. :)
I'm wondering what one thing that proves or helps to prove evolution could possibly be so complicated that it cannot be explained to anyone with average intelligence?

Stop with the excuses please and explain how evolution is fact and not theory. Serious, all the trouble you have gone through to pretend the problem is that I don't understand, could have been better spent explaining how evolution is a fact...funny how you couldn't just do that.
 
Upvote 0

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟34,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
OK, if you choose to resort to not paying attention as your excuse to carry on with preposterous suppositions, that's up to you.

Maybe others will buy your tossing around the "you don't understand science" ball, because all else has failed for you.

Or maybe they will see it's just another cop out as I do. :)
I'm wondering what one thing that proves or helps to prove evolution could possibly be so complicated that it cannot be explained to anyone with average intelligence?

Stop with the excuses please and explain how evolution is fact and not theory. Serious, all the trouble you have gone through to pretend the problem is that I don't understand, could have been better spent explaining how evolution is a fact...funny how you couldn't just do that.
No one can explain anything to you when you make it clear you won't actually engage with the substance of the explanation. You've already been given a wealth of info from the scientific literature, so giving you more will make no difference. I even offered to help you conduct your own research to disprove evolution, and you balked at that too. How can anyone give you what you want when you won't accept what you are given?

You seem to mistakenly think that your ignorance is just as good as my knowledge. This is asinine.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I mean if you all want a debate, fine but with all your rules excuses, and convenient changing of terminology, if we comply, you'll eventually be debating a brick wall because you have done away with disagreements by rule, not with proof.

How about debating evidence rather than semantics? Dodge, dip, duck, dodge, dive!
 
Upvote 0

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟34,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
How about debating evidence rather than semantics? Dodge, dip, duck, dodge, dive!
He’s not even correctly arguing semantics
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Stop with the excuses please and explain how evolution is fact and not theory. Serious, all the trouble you have gone through to pretend the problem is that I don't understand, could have been better spent explaining how evolution is a fact...funny how you couldn't just do that.

C'mon Kenny, engage with the evidence, I keep bringing this up because it's so straightforward....


Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.


Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that represent a gradual change from a little dog-like little creature to the horses we see today?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that represent a gradual change from a little dog-like little creature to the horses we see today?

Goddidit?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Wakalix
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,194
6,997
71
USA
✟585,424.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Because that would be untrue.

Others would disagree.

You all have things headed every which way here, making it impossible to continue with any one train of thought at times.

As I mentioned before, talk among yourselves and come to some solid agreements, then show your list, or more likely "lists" of rules so we have some common ground, otherwise this just isn't going to work.

I'll give you some time with that.
 
Upvote 0

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟34,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Others would disagree.

You all have things headed every which way here, making it impossible to continue with any one train of thought at times.

As I mentioned before, talk among yourselves and come to some solid agreements, then show your list, or more likely "lists" of rules so we have some common ground, otherwise this just isn't going to work.

I'll give you some time with that.
And these “others” who disagree with the theory of evolution provide the same dearth of knowledge of evolution and the same paucity of evidence for creationism/ID. Meaning it’s irrelvant that they disagree with respect to the fact of evolution.

You want answers to your questions, but don’t answer questions posed to you. Please address my questions
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I can not believe you brought this up. Horses did not evolve from small to big. Now they try to cover this up with double talk: "This image shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. " So they admit that straight line evolution of the horse has been falsified even if they are still using the exact same visual aids to promote their theory of how horses evolved.
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
What Utter Rubbish!

No God of any sort has said anything about ERVs, let alone yours. The Bible was written by unknown authors so If there is a God, then what you're implying is that he has planted all the evidence to look like all life evolved - why would he do that if he wants us to think we were created? I'm more than happy to note God hasn't said anything about it one way or another. We've had to find all this out ourselves, but let's follow this train of thought, shall we?

We've been able to identify ERVs in our DNA because we can observe the process by which it infects us, and every other life form on this planet. We've been able to replicate it in the Lab, and in fact, we've even been able to reconstruct many of them from the remnants left in our genomes - including Ancient ones we've been able to reconstruct using a type of DNA profile overlay from other species that also share it to augment the original viral complex into its original form, we can then introduce it to new cells and watch it reinfect them in its original guise, so we know unequivocally that it was a virus. (see: Tracking interspecies transmission and long-term evolution of an ancient retrovirus using the genomes of modern mammals. - PubMed - NCBI) - we can then examine the genomes of all the species alive today and work out when it was active and in what state the phylogenetic tree was in when it did so (incidentally, matching exactly what we would see through genetic inheritance - see one particular example of many: Tracking interspecies transmission and long-term evolution of an ancient retrovirus using the genomes of modern mammals of the same article where it demonstrates humans, chimps and gorillas were yet to diverge however gibbons and orangutans had already split away). Knowing what we know about ERVs, we know they fixate in a genome at the same loci by inheritance, yet when contracted in another species separately, they fixate at a completely different loci.

We can determine how long ago this virus was active in a number of different ways - one through rates of mutation, the other through fixation in genomes of species and how it correlates with the tree of life - every time we do this, they match! They always match!

So let's put aside Both our points of view for a bit, and follow the observations to their conclusion. Now, so we're clear, this is what we observe:
  1. ERVs are known to infect at very different loci in a genome when contracted separately, the odds of separate contractions of any given retrovirus at the exact same loci in another organism is so vanishingly small as to be ignorable. We've replicated this in the lab and in the field ad-nauseum. We repeat this exercise all the time.
  2. We know that ERVs are inherited in the exact same loci in offspring once fixated in a genome. This too has been observed ad-nauseum. Also, we continue to do this all the time too.
  3. In general, All species have hundreds of thousands of observable ERV remnants in their genomes - we have around 208,000!
  4. We have seen speciation events in both the lab and in the field and observe ERVs following points 1. and 2. above, a falsifiable test would be to observe either an ERV not carried over to the same loci in offspring, or we observe these Retroviruses infecting organisms at the same loci - we've never been able to falsify this point using either of these tests. Ever. Also, we've never observed another wholesale method that could
  5. We can reliably map ancestral relationships using these observations of ERVs (and not just DNA similarities/differences, which is another superset method of doing so) - this too has been reproduced in both the lab and the field successfully and reliably matches other unique methods to achieve ancestral relationships.
  6. the exact same method by which we can determine how far back any two human beings shared an ancestor using ERV inheritance, we can perform the same test on any two species of life to determine the distance to a shared ancestor, including humans and other great apes, and mammals, and animals, and vertibrates, and eukaryotes, etc.
Let's discuss these points, what problems (if any) do you see with these points and what conclusion would you come to if you have no preconceived (invested) position? Why do we reliably make these unique and very specific observations repeatedly? Also, see: ERVs and tell me what you have a problem with on that page too, so we can get to the root of your misunderstanding here.

Now for extra credit, pretend you're a Muslim, or Jewish, or a Hindu, or Bhuddist, or even a Scientologist for that matter, what conclusion would you come to on the observations above? and Why did you answer the way you did for these other faiths?

I wait patiently for your reply.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟34,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I can not believe you brought this up. Horses did not evolve from small to big. Now they try to cover this up with double talk: "This image shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. " So they admit that straight line evolution of the horse has been falsified even if they are still using the exact same visual aids to promote their theory of how horses evolved.
No one in the paleontological community believes that evolution as recorded in the fossil record (such as that of the lineage of horses) is linear. The complex nature of evolution (one where ancestors leave descendants along multiple branches, some of which persist and some of which do not) does not disprove evolution nor does it invalidate the ancestral relationships between the modern Equus and the ancestral populations of animals like Eohippus.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I can not believe you brought this up. Horses did not evolve from small to big. Now they try to cover this up with double talk: "This image shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse. " So they admit that straight line evolution of the horse has been falsified even if they are still using the exact same visual aids to promote their theory of how horses evolved.

The article linked clearly states that,
As TB says, your objections are spurious, rather than invent strawmen why not comment on what palaeontologists actually say? What is your explanation of the sequence of Equidae fossils we find? Multiple special creations? Guided evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In examining the world and the universe what evidence is there against creation?
What evidence is there for it?
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, including marsupials, that disproves or denies creation.
Sure there is, for example: All the evidence that shows we share a common ancestor.
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?
Of course not - but then again, a child doesn't always obey.. That said, the child has prior experience/reason to listen to its parents
What would u call it when this child has to accept this authority?
Trust.... and because I was beaten to that punch by @Bungle_Bear , and you replied:
Greetings bear. Good answer

faith

complete TRUST or confidence in someone or something.
...and you continued with another who answered similarly...
Faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

A child trusts his mother and does not know any better. Reasoning skills are not generally attributable to children.

A kid who thinks the way you described is going to get a burnt hand - earned respect.

If the child trusted his mother (faith), he would not have a burnt hand!!! :) this shows faith being rewarded and his faith/trust in his mother.

Sure one could say if he never touches the stove he will never learn himself. What this does show is that child is not wrong to have faith in its mother and to have listened.

Earned respect!?! Do children think that way? As a 6 uear old kid, did you actually think that way?

Does God need to earn your respect?
If you conflate Trust and Faith, then sure, I trust in plenty of things/people around me just as this child would trust its parents (again, not always, but experience/evidence will remind them of the benefits of heeding a parent's word.... but that's actually coming back to evidence again)- but I do so on a reasoned background of prior experience and/or evidence, just as this child example of yours does. I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before. I trust my workmates won't let me down when we're on the job because of prior experience observing their capabilities and actions. I cross the road using prior experience that I won't get mowed down at a pedestrian crossing, I trust the pilot of an airliner because of all the evidence of them going up and coming down safely every day of the week, etc.

What I don't have is Faith - that is Trust without evidence or reason. The Faith I refer to is the faith invoked when a believer is asked for evidence of a God, and their response is ".... Well, you just gotta have Faith..." - well, No, no I don't. To me, that form of Faith, especially in a religious context, is irrational. I can come to believe anything on that version of Faith - I can believe in fairies on Faith, I can believe there's a refrigerator sized diamond buried in my back yard on Faith, I can believe Odin and Thor are going to drop by for coffee later today on Faith. No irrational thought could be ruled out if one can use Faith in the same unevidenced, unreasoned way that a believer invokes it. I can point to pretty much any believer of any other religion besides yours and they'll gleefully tell me they believe in their Deity on exactly the same Faith that you use to believe in yours.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, I'm one of the scientists creationists are constantly attacking, so it would seem that they do indeed care. What they don't seem to care about is data.
I feel for you but if others think you are on the wrong side of the fence on this as I do...oh well. It's clearly an important matter to some, and well it should be, but those attacks go both ways.
:D LOLWHUT!?? You mean he 'attacked' creationists with evidence, reasoned arguments and data??
I already did, and mentioned it a few times.
Well, I've obviously missed it then, so could you either state it again or point me to the post?
I won't laugh at you, but I won't dignify that with reply either. :)
Well, I'm preparing to laugh hideously at you! :D :D :D I fear you simply don't understand Science, nor the Scientific Method at all! If you point out your post where you show how Scientific Proof is a thing, I'll go over it with you and explain why you're wrong.

Don't run away on me now...
 
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟26,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
and what this suppose prediction? explain more because so far im not sure im follow you. also prove that you predicted it before you get the data.



here are two predictions under the creation model:

the creation model predict that we will find evidence for design. we indeed found such evidence like this one:
Structure-of-the-prokaryotic-flagellum.jpeg
How is that evidence for design?
the creation model predict that we will find many examples of non-hierarchy in nature. we indeed found many cases like this one:

View attachment 208469 those evidence fully support the creation model.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041

Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline
That is a nested hierarchy.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Meaning what for me? I'm not allowed to interject another possible explanation? Hate to be the bearer of bad news but we do things just like that here on a Christian website. :)

Is this another convenient rule designed to tie the opponents hands even tighter.

I mean if you all want a debate, fine but with all your rules excuses, and convenient changing of terminology, if we comply, you'll eventually be debating a brick wall because you have done away with disagreements by rule, not with proof.
The point was, that the validity of the theory of evolution and the proposition that God exists and is author of the universe are distinct--the truth or falsity of one has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the other.
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But back to subject, can you prove evolution is more than theory? Or is that an admission you cannot?
:D Oh, Goodness! You !!!CLEARLY!!! have no idea about Science, let alone how it works...


Evolution is a fact
It is a theory, so where does that leave us...another "Says you, others would disagree." I'll be happy to leave it at that.
:D Oh Dear! It's Both a THEORY - AAAAANNNNNDDDDD - a FACT!

Evolution is a FACT - things change. the THEORY of Evolution explains those facts - it gives us a predictive framework by which we can make accurate practical applications to the real world - for example, we can test drug interactions against diseases and organism reactions/side effects in lab mice that share near identical genes to humans, we can formulate influenza (and other) vaccines based on the Theory, we can advise hopeful parents on the probability of genetic diseases and how to minimise the chances of passing them on/treating them. in fact, we're almost at the point where we can genetically engineer out these diseases in-vitro, thanks to the Theory of Evolution!
Meaning what for me? I'm not allowed to interject another possible explanation? Hate to be the bearer of bad news but we do things just like that here on a Christian website. :)

Is this another convenient rule designed to tie the opponents hands even tighter.

I mean if you all want a debate, fine but with all your rules excuses, and convenient changing of terminology, if we comply, you'll eventually be debating a brick wall because you have done away with disagreements by rule, not with proof.
You can interject anything you'd like, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously unless you have evidence in support of it.
So, no background in science then? That would clearly reinforce the observation that you truly do not understand science. Especially given the rest of the rant that seems to suggest that someone who is largely ignorant of science, can still be considered well versed enough to logically contradict scientific conclusions. This seems like a good case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The "ability to observe the natural" isn't any sort of indicator about whether or not you have a competent understanding of science (both as a method and as a body of knowledge attained via the scientific method).
OK, if you choose to resort to not paying attention as your excuse to carry on with preposterous suppositions, that's up to you.

Maybe others will buy your tossing around the "you don't understand science" ball, because all else has failed for you.

Or maybe they will see it's just another cop out as I do. :)
I'm wondering what one thing that proves or helps to prove evolution could possibly be so complicated that it cannot be explained to anyone with average intelligence?

Stop with the excuses please and explain how evolution is fact and not theory. Serious, all the trouble you have gone through to pretend the problem is that I don't understand, could have been better spent explaining how evolution is a fact...funny how you couldn't just do that.
LOL! I hadn't got to any of these posts when I made my own observations you knew nothing about Science and the Scientific Method, so this is Hilarity of the highest order!! :D Again, Evolution is a !!FACT!! ~~AND~~ a !!THEORY!!

it's a FACT things change,

AND

the THEORY explains those facts.​

I live in hope that something penetrates that brick you have for a head, but I'm not holding my breath...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.