proving evolution as just a "theory"

rjs330 · Oct 5, 2017

Ophiolite said:
Possibly, prior to university level education, the provisional nature of all scientific theories and hypotheses would benefit from a little more emphasis.However, I have seen no evidence that this is the case at any reasonable quality university. (If you have such evidence, please present it.)

When we examine the wealth of evidence from an amazing variety of specialities we find that the best explanation to account for the myriad observations is that of descent with modification from a common ancestor. The evidence and the logical network connecting the various aspects is so profound (and no equivalent scientifically rigorous explanation is available) that to withhold acceptance would be unsupportable.

Yes, that acceptance is provisional, but so is the expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It is, therefore, for practical purposes wholly reasonable to think of it - on a day to day basis - as a 'fact'.

If your faith prevents you from accepting this 'fact', I have no problem with this. If you wish to deny common ancestry on the basis of your faith go ahead. But please, do not have the bad taste to twist science, the scientific method, and the sincerity of tens of thousands of sincere, hardworking scientists, many of whom are Christians, by denying common ancestry based upon your distorted interpretation of the science.

I deny common ancestry not only based upon my faith but by the lack of evidence of such. Just because scientists are hard working doesn't mean they are not wrong. So far for all the so called evidence I have been subjected to I haven't seen anything but conjecture, supposition and assumption. Not one single piece of evidence has been actually observed of one thing changing into another, nor has any testing shown one thing changing into another and there has been zero reproduction of the theory.

Until all those hard working scientists can actually show something changing into something else I'm not buying it. All so called fossil evidence for such remains supposition and assumption. All Gene evidence is the same. You and others interpret it as so, but none of you can show it to be so. You may continue to believe if you wish, but all your evidence shows is similarities which is evidence of common design just as much as it is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

rjs330 · Oct 5, 2017

Astrophile said:
Can you think of any natural process by which humans and chimps (and other apes) could have acquired almost identical DNA (or coding sequences) without being descended from common ancestors?

Yes they were created that way. It was perfectly natural process because God created nature and it's laws. He created each creature individually from others. Humans were created completely unique from all others. Hence the reason why we are having this discussion instead of chimps.

xianghua · Oct 5, 2017

tas8831 said:
Please explain how this improves vision. I know that creationists have written essays claiming this, but that does not make it so.

see here:

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

Ophiolite · Oct 5, 2017

rjs330 said:
I deny common ancestry not only based upon my faith but by the lack of evidence of such. Just because scientists are hard working doesn't mean they are not wrong. So far for all the so called evidence I have been subjected to I haven't seen anything but conjecture, supposition and assumption. Not one single piece of evidence has been actually observed of one thing changing into another, nor has any testing shown one thing changing into another and there has been zero reproduction of the theory.

Until all those hard working scientists can actually show something changing into something else I'm not buying it. All so called fossil evidence for such remains supposition and assumption. All Gene evidence is the same. You and others interpret it as so, but none of you can show it to be so. You may continue to believe if you wish, but all your evidence shows is similarities which is evidence of common design just as much as it is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

I had been constructing a detailed riposte to this post. However, as I got deeper into it I realised that your approach was essentially one of sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "Na, na, na, na, na." as loudly as possible. No evidence, no data, no science, nothing will convince you. But please, if you have any respect, do not try to claim the science is faulty. That stance stinks. Hold to your faith based belief - I have no problem with that, but this disregard for sound science is sickening.

pitabread · Oct 5, 2017

xianghua said:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ficial-bacterial-flagellum-that-consists-of-a

and its even less complex and sophisticated then a real flagellum.

You know what else is different? It's not organic.

Speedwell · Oct 5, 2017

rjs330 said:
Yes they were created that way. It was perfectly natural process because God created nature and it's laws. He created each creature individually from others. Humans were created completely unique from all others. Hence the reason why we are having this discussion instead of chimps.

Yes, that's what He did. The reason we are having this discussion is to determine how He did so. Was it how science is gradually finding out by studying the nature and laws which God created? Or was it some other way, one which flys in the face of those laws?

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

tas8831 said:
The argument from awe.

How impressive.

I'm sure Sunday School children will find such argumentation overwhelming. But I do suggest brushing up on your spelling.

I awaited my result for my Engineering exam, as the teacher gave them out and announced them before the class. I got 59 out of 60, one other student spoke out loud as the teacher and other students heard him saying, "he must got one mark less because he spelled his name wrong"

I can accept that!

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, that's what YOU believe.

It is not a belief, rather one would expect millions of transmutation of neomorphs to xenomorphs from the evolution of sea based to land based lifeforms, which accounts for millions of millions of years of evolutionary processes.

To presume that perfect sea based begat perfect land based lifeforms, is not scientific and is not by definition evolution.

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Yeah... no. Just no.

The willingness to be an independent teacher is not everyone's call. It is only those who break out of the chains of indoctrinated schooling that can really see the world without preconceived biases.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 5, 2017

The Times said:
It is not a belief, rather one would expect millions of transmutation of neomorphs to xenomorphs from the evolution of sea based to land based lifeforms, which accounts for millions of millions of years of evolutionary processes.

To presume that perfect sea based begat perfect land based lifeforms, is not scientific and is not by definition evolution.

For you, it's a belief. We see multiple examples of evolutionary changes in the fossil record, showing the transition from sea based lifeforms to land base lifeforms and also the vice versa.
And I find it so incredibly funny that you, an engineer, deem yourself more intelligent than all the world's biologists.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 5, 2017

The Times said:
The willingness to be an independent teacher is not everyone's call. It is only those who break out of the chains of indoctrinated schooling that can really see the world without preconceived biases.

And yet... you are no teacher. The only thing you are showing is that you are willing to create bogus terms and claims to try and wash away the science of evolution purely because you feel it clashes with your religious convictions.

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I think you've been watching too many science fiction films.

No, I have been from early in my youth a good listener to those who taught evolution theory from the 80s to date. I have come to think that the science fiction. Films narrative is what they push to give life to their evolution theory of cross species contamination.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 5, 2017

The Times said:
No, I have been from early in my youth a good listener to those who taught evolution theory from the 80s to date. I have come to think that the science fiction. Films narrative is what they push to give life to their evolution theory of cross species contamination.

Except you are wrong, and all of your claims about evolution do read as being something that only exists in bad science fiction.

Speedwell · Oct 5, 2017

The Times said:
It is not a belief, rather one would expect millions of transmutation of neomorphs to xenomorphs from the evolution of sea based to land based lifeforms, which accounts for millions of millions of years of evolutionary processes.

To presume that perfect sea based begat perfect land based lifeforms, is not scientific and is not by definition evolution.

You might expect it, but the theory of evolution certainly does not predict or expect it.
One of the basic principles of evolution is that no creature will differ very much from its parents. What you appear to be arguing against is not the theory of evolution, but the "hopeful monster" proposals of Goldschmidt & Schindewolf, long since discredited.

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
For you, it's a belief. We see multiple examples of evolutionary changes in the fossil record, showing the transition from sea based lifeforms to land base lifeforms and also the vice versa.
And I find it so incredibly funny that you, an engineer, deem yourself more intelligent than all the world's biologists.

No, we do not see a transformation from sea based lifeforms to land based lifeforms and vice versa, because those species who became extinct, just like the many frogs and the many butterfly transitioning within a life cycle, highlight adaptation over time, rather than cross species contamination. If there was an evolutionary process there would be cross species contamination and countless failed neomorphs leading to xenomorphs along the way, too numerous to count and their fossil remains would be the evidence for evolution. We don't see that in all of Creation.

Speedwell · Oct 5, 2017

The Times said:
No, we do not see a transformation from sea based lifeforms to land based lifeforms and vice versa, because those species who became extinct, just like the many frogs and the many butterfly transitioning within a life cycle, highlight adaptation over time, rather than cross species contamination. If there was an evolutionary process there would be cross species contamination and countless failed neomorphs leading to xenomorphs along the way, too numerous to count and their fossil remains would be the evidence for evolution. We don't see that in all of Creation.

And it's a good thing, too, because such findings would falsify the theory of evolution--no, not your version of the theory, I mean the real one.

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Speedwell said:
You might expect it, but the theory of evolution certainly does not predict or expect it.
One of the basic principles of evolution is that no creature will differ very much from its parents. What you appear to be arguing against is not the theory of evolution, but the "hopeful monster" proposals of Goldschmidt & Schindewolf, long since discredited.

You just spilled the beans my friend. You said.....

One of the basic principles of evolution is that no creature will differ very much from its parents.

Exactly!

Which means that for a sea based to land based evolution process of cross species contamination to happen, over millions of millions of years, there must be an inclination of sea based lifeform to still want to be sea based and a stronger counteracting force that pushes it towards land based and the tug of war of life will yield many and I mean many neomorphs leading to xenomorphs before one species wins out over the other. In this case it would be the land based. It could also happen vice versa.

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Speedwell said:
And it's a good thing, too, because such findings would falsify the theory of evolution--no, not your version of the theory, I mean the real one.

Please leborate what you mean.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 5, 2017

The Times said:
No, we do not see a transformation from sea based lifeforms to land based lifeforms and vice versa, because those species who became extinct, just like the many frogs and the many butterfly transitioning within a life cycle, highlight adaptation over time, rather than cross species contamination. If there was an evolutionary process there would be cross species contamination and countless failed neomorphs leading to xenomorphs along the way, too numerous to count and their fossil remains would be the evidence for evolution. We don't see that in all of Creation.

You clearly do not understand how evolution works. AT ALL.
And caterpillars in to butterflies and tadpoles in to frogs isn't evolution, it's metamorphosis, a fact that you should have remembered from primary/elementary school science class!

The Times · Oct 5, 2017

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And yet... you are no teacher. The only thing you are showing is that you are willing to create bogus terms and claims to try and wash away the science of evolution purely because you feel it clashes with your religious convictions.

No, on the contrary, I am providing a door way for evolution to prove its real and true worth, if and I mean if it is a valid theory.

proving evolution as just a "theory"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency