proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

You keep saying that as if Scientology has anything to do with science, which it doesn't.

True. But he really, really needs to believe that though.

 

[tas8831]

Kinda like a chemist telling me I should believe in deep time because of SN1987A, eh?

Or an astronomer telling me I should believe DNA shows we're Magilla Gorilla's cousin?

No, more like a 3D modeler declaring that an alternate form of a gene is called an "allie" and that an insertion mutation during DNA replication is not a 'new letter'.

 

[tas8831]

I've seen some weird methods chosen to attack evolution, but fan terms from a horror movie explicitly about intelligent design feels particularly inappropriate.

I once saw a creationist link to an ad for one of the X-Men movies to 'prove' that mutations are bad...

 

[AV1611VET]

I once saw a creationist link to an ad for one of the X-Men movies to 'prove' that mutations are bad...

I have found both the MISSING LINK and ABIOGENESIS!

 

[xianghua]

We observe descent all the time. We have never observed a creator. Common descent is therefore a better explanation than a common creator.

we don't observe one creature evolving into another. we do observe that complex things need a designer. therefore science support creation and not a evolution.

 

[xianghua]

The fact that our genes are compatible with chicken genes (that you can just stick one in and watch it work) is actually proof that we share common ancestry.

humans also have genes for feathers developmant:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/


so according to this criteria we now need to believe that humans evolved from birds?. of course not. shared genes can be evidence for the same designer.

 

[tas8831]

humans also have genes for feathers developmant:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/


so according to this criteria we now need to believe that humans evolved from birds?. of course not. shared genes can be evidence for the same designer.

Then perhaps you can present a DNA analysis which demonstrates this?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We observe descent all the time. We have never observed a creator. Common descent is therefore a better explanation than a common creator.

Yes we do. We observe Asian mating with Asian and producing only Asian. African mating with African producing only African. Only when we observe the Asian mate with the African do we observe a new form in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian.

We observe Husky mating with Husky and producing only Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Only when we observe Husky mate with the Mastiff do we observe a new form in the species. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook.

We do indeed observe common descent without evolution of one form into another and with no common ancestors splitting to become several. The common decent we observe in no way supports evolutionary claims in the slightest.

Nor does the fossil record. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. As did every single other fossil. Just as the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, the Husky remains a Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff.

Only in the imagination does one creature split and become another. In real life two subspecies mate and another subspecies within that species arises. There is no evolution, no common ancestor that split on any non-existent evolutionary tree. And such is why every single common ancestor on every single evolutionary tree is missing. They did not exist. One subspecies never becomes another. It takes two to create a new subspecies. There is no splitting, no evolution. Each subspecies always remains the same, and only when two mate does a new subspecies come into existence.

Error after error, incorrect classification after incorrect classification and ignoring how life propagates is what constitutes the theory of evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Error after error, incorrect classification after incorrect classification and ignoring how life propagates is what constitutes the theory of evolution.

And all those allies and DNA letters and genetic strands, oh my!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And all those allies and DNA letters and genetic strands, oh my!

According to biologists 50 mutations occur at every birth. But guess what. Those Asian allies and DNA still remain Asian. Those African DNA still remain African. The only way they changed was when the Asian mates with the African to produce the Afro-Asian.

Never has one evolved into anything other than what they started as.

But then that's why you avoided discussing Finches after giving your definition of species......

But then I didn't expect a serious reply to my post since none of you can present a defense against empirical evidence, except ignore it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

we don't observe one creature evolving into another. we do observe that complex things need a designer. therefore science support creation and not a evolution.

-_- no, a complex cave system is formed naturally, and a simple hammer is designed. Complexity has nothing to do with design.

 

[W2L]

-_- no, a complex cave system is formed naturally, and a simple hammer is designed. Complexity has nothing to do with design.

A hammer is more skilfully made than meets the eye. It takes years of practice to forge and heat treat a hammer properly. Ifr you are doing it by hand its a lot of work.

 

[gaara4158]

we don't observe one creature evolving into another. we do observe that complex things need a designer. therefore science support creation and not a evolution.

We observe creatures sharing common ancestors. For example, siblings share the same parents and cousins share the same grandparents. We don't observe creatures being designed by some "creator" and we don't observe any kind of "creator" being. Science supports what we observe. We observe common ancestry occurring all the time. We never observe creation. Therefore science supports common ancestry and not creation.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes we do. We observe Asian mating with Asian and producing only Asian. African mating with African producing only African. Only when we observe the Asian mate with the African do we observe a new form in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian.

We observe Husky mating with Husky and producing only Husky. Mastiff mating with Mastiff producing only Mastiff. Only when we observe Husky mate with the Mastiff do we observe a new form in the species. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook.

We do indeed observe common descent without evolution of one form into another and with no common ancestors splitting to become several. The common decent we observe in no way supports evolutionary claims in the slightest.

Nor does the fossil record. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. As did every single other fossil. Just as the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African, the Husky remains a Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff.

Only in the imagination does one creature split and become another. In real life two subspecies mate and another subspecies within that species arises. There is no evolution, no common ancestor that split on any non-existent evolutionary tree. And such is why every single common ancestor on every single evolutionary tree is missing. They did not exist. One subspecies never becomes another. It takes two to create a new subspecies. There is no splitting, no evolution. Each subspecies always remains the same, and only when two mate does a new subspecies come into existence.

Error after error, incorrect classification after incorrect classification and ignoring how life propagates is what constitutes the theory of evolution.

That's a tired, misinformed critique of evolution, but even if you were correct, evolution is still a better explanation than creation for the simple fact that change in allele frequency within a population over time is a known, observed fact and a creator is neither known nor observed.

In other words, evolution has the mechanism to back it up. Creationism has no creator to back it up.

 

[gaara4158]

A hammer is more skilfully made than meets the eye. It takes years of practice to forge and heat treat a hammer properly. Ifr you are doing it by hand its a lot of work.

And yet it's simple. Therefore complexity is not an indicator of design.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A hammer is more skilfully made than meets the eye. It takes years of practice to forge and heat treat a hammer properly. Ifr you are doing it by hand its a lot of work.

-_- yet, a hammer is simple, regardless of the complexity of the steps it takes to make one. That's the entire point; how complex an object is has nothing to do with whether or not it can naturally occur or how complex the processes involved in its production were.

 

[W2L]

-_- yet, a hammer is simple, regardless of the complexity of the steps it takes to make one. That's the entire point; how complex an object is has nothing to do with whether or not it can naturally occur or how complex the processes involved in its production were.

Thanks for the re Sarah

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's a tired, misinformed critique of evolution, but even if you were correct, evolution is still a better explanation than creation for the simple fact that change in allele frequency within a population over time is a known, observed fact and a creator is neither known nor observed.

In other words, evolution has the mechanism to back it up. Creationism has no creator to back it up.

What evidence? That Asian remains Asian and African remains African and the only time you see a new form is when those two mate?

What evolution occurred? None at all.

Changes in alleles? What have they done? Asians have always been Asians, Africans have always been Africans. You have observed no changes in the entire history of mankind.

Oh, you mean fantasy changes that occurred millions of years ago because you incorrectly label subspecies in the fossil record as separate species?

I see no mechanism at all. I see no changes to any living creature despite those claimed 50 mutations at birth. Oh yes, that's right it takes millions of years, so is totally unfalsifiable and therefore no theory at all.

 

[gaara4158]

we don't observe one creature evolving into another. we do observe that complex things need a designer. therefore science support creation and not a evolution.

I didn't say we observe one creature evolving into another, I said we observe common descent, as a phenomenon. We observe that designed things need designers. Complexity is not a requirement for design, and design is not a requirement for complexity. We do not observe a creator for life. We observe many organisms having common ancestors. Because it is observed, it is a better explanation for life than creation.

What evidence? That Asian remains Asian and African remains African and the only time you see a new form is when those two mate?

Stop trying to answer your own questions. You fail catastrophically.

Changes in alleles? What have they done? Asians have always been Asians, Africans have always been Africans. You have observed no changes in the entire history of mankind.

Even if you're a creationist you have to believe that all humans, traced back far enough, share the same ancestors. What's your point here?
And seriously? No changes in the entire history of mankind? You're just trolling now.

Oh, you mean fantasy changes that occurred millions of years ago because you incorrectly label subspecies in the fossil record as separate species?

If scientists are in error, you're welcome to correct them.

I see no mechanism at all. I see no changes to any living creature despite those claimed 50 mutations at birth. Oh yes, that's right it takes millions of years, so is totally unfalsifiable and therefore no theory at all.

It's called natural selection. It's not even in dispute. Again, you really should stop trying to answer your own questions and wait for someone competent to do it for you.

 

[pitabread]

we don't observe one creature evolving into another.

Of course we do. Nature is full of examples.

we don't observe one creature evolving into another. we do observe that complex things need a designer.

Except complex things don't need a designer. Weather patterns are complex, do they need designers?