• 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.

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You deliberately misrepresent what a scientific theory is on your first page. I didn’t bother reading beyond that.
 
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

This is riddled with falsehoods, misinformation and apparent misunderstanding of basic biology.

A few examples:

Your explanation of what a theory is isn't correct with respect to how the word "Theory" is used in science. Consequently, your explanation as to why evolution is only a theory isn't correct.

You claim that speciation hasn't been observed, when in fact it has. Your understanding of speciation and species barriers is also incomplete, given that species barriers in nature aren't also absolute. They can be a bit 'fuzzy' given things like hybridization, ring species, etc.

Your whole discussion around reproduction is just odd. First of all, just called it "sexual reproduction". Nobody calls it "gender based reproduction". That just sounds weird.

Second, there are more variations in nature than pure sexual or pure asexual reproduction, including organisms capable of both, organisms that are hermaphroditic and organisms that can change their sex.

At lot of the other claims are just bizarre. For example that animals should be evolving 360 degree vision or dogs shouldn't have tails. I'm not even sure what to say about that. It almost reads like satire.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,137
9,055
65
✟430,123.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Exactly and that's why fossil record cannot be used as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. But that doesn't stop the evolutionists from trying. It's purely an assumption because there is no real evidence from the fossil record for it.
 
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
Exactly and that's why fossil record cannot be used as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. But that doesn't stop the evolutionists from trying. It's purely an assumption because there is no real evidence from the fossil record for it.
It's not just an assumption, it's a reasonable inference from the data at hand. Why is that a problem?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,137
9,055
65
✟430,123.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal

The evolution of the eye is only guesswork. We've never seen the eye come into being through evolution and we've never been able to test the theory in any fashion. You believe in evolution therefore the eye evolved. We don't therefore the eye didn't. Both are belief systems without "evidence" or observation or testing. Darwin didn't figure it out out at all. The "evolution" of the eye theory is merely a guess and assumption. As the poster pointed out it simply is not realistically possible. But that doesn't stop an evolutionist because they believe in evolution and no matter what argument is made it can't be true because they believe in evolution. It's a circular argument.
 
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
Exactly and that's why fossil record cannot be used as evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. But that doesn't stop the evolutionists from trying. It's purely an assumption because there is no real evidence from the fossil record for it.

I asked you previously but you never answered: Do you believe that individual species have been continuously supernaturally created throughout the last ~4 billion years of Earth's history?
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,137
9,055
65
✟430,123.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
It's not just an assumption, it's a reasonable inference from the data at hand. Why is that a problem?
Because it's not a reasonable inference because the data is severely lacking. It's merely an inference because one believes in evolution. It always starts with the belief. I believe therefore whatever is handed to me is "evidence" no matter how flimsy it might be. The evidence is assumed to be evidence of evolution even though there really isn't any evidence. The evidence itself is assumed.
 
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

This isn't true at all. Hypotheses around eye (and vision) evolution are tested all the time. Like anything in science, it involves taking what we know, forming a hypothesis around how something could have occurred (whether formation of gross structures, underyling genetic changes, etc), determining predictions based on those hypothesis and then testing those predictions.

To suggest this is just "guesswork" is a gross misrepresentation of how science actually works.
 
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Everything in its current state is a product of evolution if you believe in evolution.. you can't have it both ways. The caterpillar turning into a butterfly is the current evolved state of the caterpillar/butterfly if you believe in evolution. The catepillar, butterfly, and process are products of evolution of you believe in evolution.

And in terms of the evolve process being based on an imperfect process that creates slight changes.. how do you know the process is imperfect vs directed for the purpose of creating variation?

If God wanted to populate the earth with different creatures.. using the same material.. what better way than to use this process.

And these rules for evolution support many different species developing all at once. Once life decided to happen on earth the variation process was already in effect causes multiple species to show up within seconds of each other. And full blown different animals/mammals and insects within A very short period.

Your evolution could barely show any effects.. seeing that you would have larger items and smaller minute changes for the imperfect practice would have less of an effect.

It would seem you'd have an explosion of species.. followed by incredibly slight changes.. and possibly some dying out for what ever reasons.
 
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes but.. you are still on the surface. The question is.. what gives everything the properties that it obviously has? It can't get them from itself..

..in all honesty before any of these items could exist.. the thought and laws behind the items properties and interactions had to exist.
 
Reactions: Tayla
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No the logics are there.. it's your inability to process it that's lacking..

That's why I ask the simple question.. define "nothing"..

After you define nothing we can see where the bread down on either of our logic occurs.
 
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Where did these physical laws come from? How can you see that these laws are there and not have an assignment for their origin?

Some one had to create that law.. and obviously it wasn't the item the law is applied to.

The item couldn't even come into physical being without the law to govern and define it being in place prior to anything physical even showing up.

Before the universe.. before time.. before anything physical.. there had to have been intellect.
 
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

We've had this discussion already. Either you're stuck having to explain where this pre-universe intellect came from or you're engaging in special pleading to avoid having to explain it.

Either way, this goes nowhere.
 
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We've had this discussion already. Either you're stuck having to explain where this pre-universe intellect came from or you're engaging in special pleading to avoid having to explain it.

Either way, this goes nowhere.
It leads to intelligent design and you understand it. It proves God exists.. maybe not the religious "God".. but it definitely proves the existence of a designer..

Think about it.. you have 2 magnets that come into existence on different sides of the universe.. All the exact same laws of magnets apply to both magnets so obviously the magnets aren't creating their own laws and defining themselves. The law applies across the board.. so the law isn't the magnet.

This is proof of a "Desinger"
 
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

Demonstrating uniformity of the laws of the universe only demonstrates uniformity of the laws of the universe. It doesn't provide any kind of proof of any kind of designer, intelligent or otherwise.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Demonstrating uniformity of the laws of the universe only demonstrates uniformity of the laws of the universe. It doesn't provide any kind of proof of any kind of designer, intelligent or otherwise.
It does.. here's another question for you or anyone else ..

Can the object exist without the laws Or can the laws exist without the object?
 
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
It does..

That's merely an assertion and not a particularly convincing one at that.

Your argument is merely "X exists and therefore Designerdidit". But you haven't demonstrated how your conclusion follows from your premise.
 
Upvote 0

MrAnderson9

Helping You Achieve Perfetcion
Sep 28, 2017
110
23
43
North Carolina
✟1,891.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's merely an assertion and not a particularly convincing one at that.

Your argument is merely "X exists and therefore Designerdidit". But you haven't demonstrated how your conclusion follows from your premise.
I think this is a cop out. What other logical conclusion do you have for this other than it is the work of a Designer?

If you don't have one will you admit that this is the most logical explanation ?
 
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
I think this is a cop out. What other logical conclusion do you have for this other than it is the work of a Designer?

If you don't have one will you admit that this is the most logical explanation ?

An explanation doesn't gain logical credibility merely from the absence of other explanations.

It could very well be that the laws and nature of the universe just exist and that there is no outside supernatural designer or intelligence. We may be searching for a cause where one need not apply in the first place.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.