proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

They EXACTLY Evolve from a molecule... DNA is a Molecule! Cars don't grow, they're manufactured. but Sure, Show me a car that grows from a strand of DNA.

1. Barracuda (Plymouth)

2. Beetle (Volkswagen)

3. Bison (Chevrolet heavy-duty truck)

4. Blackhawk (Stutz)

5. Bluebird (Nissan/Datsun)

6. Bronco (Ford)

7. Charger (Dodge)

8. Cheetah (rare 1960s high-performance sports car)

9. Cobra (Shelby, Shelby-Ford)

10. Cougar (Mercury)

11. Fox (Audi, Volkswagen)

12. Gazelle (Singer)

13. Honey Bee (Nissan/Datsun)

14. Impala (Chevrolet)

15. Jaguar (outgrowth of S.S. Cars, formerly Swallow Sidecars, Ltd.)

16. Lark (Studebaker)

17. Marlin (AMC)

18. Mustang (Ford)

19. Pinto (Ford)

20. Rabbit (Volkswagen)

21. Ram (Dodge)

22. Road Runner (Plymouth)

23. Sable (Mercury)

24. Skylark (Buick)

25. Spider/Spyder (Porsche)

26. Stag (Triumph)

27. Sting Ray/Stingray (Chevrolet Corvette)

28. Super Bee (Dodge)

29. Thunderbird (Ford)

30. Viper (Dodge)

31. Wasp (Hudson)

32. White Eagle (Kissel)

33. Wildcat (Buick)

 

[xianghua]

I'm here to demonstrate that common descent - as a hypothesis at face value - is a better explanation than intelligent design because common descent is observed in nature

but it's not observed. you can't observe a fish evolving into a cat for instance.

I know a watch is designed because I know it's a watch, and I know watches are designed.

we also know that genomes are designed:

First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created

so according to this criteria genomes are also the product of design.

 

[tas8831]

but new species is just a variation. it's still belong to the same family and basically it's the same creature. so it's not evidence for evolution.

So what is the source for the extant variety we see from a created Kind?

And how does that variation come about?

None of the other creationists have successfully answered that (if they have tried at all).

 

[tas8831]

we also know that genomes are designed:

First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created

so according to this criteria genomes are also the product of design.

Why do you keep trying to equate human activity with God's activity?

Are you actually arguing that humans are God?

 

[bhsmte]

in automatic factory cars also evolving from tiny parts. so according to this criteria cars are also the product of a natural process.

LOL

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of maybe you can articulate on your inability to get my point? But I think I get it, it's your choice to not see it, and not a problem with my point at all.

Funny you should choose that analogy.

Due to a fairly sever bout with polio as a child, I was kind of a pin cushion for what were probably well meaning, experimenting orthopedic surgeons back in the late 50's and 60's. When I got older and learned a bit about mechanics, I realized I would have been much better of with the surgeon being guided by Joe six pack mechanic, who actually thought about what they were doing before they made the cuts.

Also, you are talking experts and self proclaimed experts. If you want to assume everyone in the field knows what they are doing, have at it...I don't, and far from it.

I don't know if they wen to the moon or not, but there are a lot of non experts questioning it, and well they should. But, in your world, they should just sit back and believe the experts. That, at least, should drive my point home, if not...well, I tried.

Its like those experts claiming speciation, then when you point out every single definition of species which contradicts what they point to, they cry your lack of understanding because your not an expert. Yet supposedly it was the experts that wrote the definitions in all the dictionaries and science books.... The same ones I read that the experts read.

Then you got 20 million of these experts and they cant even agree what the definition means, but you can be sure those on here know it means anything except what the scientific written definitions say it is. Thge experts are still arguing about it, but its already settled that species is whatever one wants it to be at any given time. Silly putty that is useless at defining anything.

What is species? Why its those that interbreed, no, its those that share an ecological niche, no its those that share genetic traits, wait that cant be it, no its those that look a little different. No, its whatever anyone decides they need it to be to get their names written in the books as the discoverer of a species to satisfy their ego or support their belief. It stopped being meaningfull years ago and is a totally useless and arbitrary designation to uphold a totally useless and arbitrary theory.

Which evolution is true? Why its gradulism, no its sudden transition, no its neo-darwinism, no its take your pick it doesnt matter. You can switch from one to the next from one post to the next if need be. Why bother with definitions and consistency in so-called science that in reality is no science at all.

Experts, the term lost any meaning whatsoever when evolutionists stopped following their own scientific definitions so they could call anything anything they wanted at any given time. Science without scientific definitions is no science at all. Instead its a farce where anything can be used to prove ones beliefs without having to justify anything.

 

[gaara4158]

Then Ill ask you something that should be simple. Show me the common ancestor that split to become man and chimp.

Cant show you God until you understand the things made....and that my friend is a long ways off. But have patience, it is coming. Romans 1:20

I don't have to show you the individual because I've explained the mechanism to you. Natural selection is demonstrably capable of causing change within populations over time. Natural selection exists. You still have to show me your god because you're using him as an explanation for biodiversity.

In other words, natural selection is a better explanation for biodiversity than creationism because natural selection can be shown to exist and a creator cannot.

It's quite simple indeed.

 

[gaara4158]

You will see Him before the end of Today at the Judgment. Then, you can tell everyone what it's like to stand in front of a man who is brighter than the Sun. His name is Jesus, and He is your Judge. God Bless you

I guess I'm just supposed to take your word for it? No thanks. Until I have confirmation he's as real as natural selection, natural selection will remain a better explanation for biodiversity than divine creation. That's all there is to it.

 

[xianghua]

So what is the source for the extant variety we see from a created Kind?

And how does that variation come about?

what is the problem? if you talking about the species level then we can explain it without a design. just by a natural process. but in the family level it's another story, since it's about different creatures.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Its like those experts claiming speciation, then when you point out every single definition of species which contradicts what they point to, they cry your lack of understanding because your not an expert. Yet supposedly it was the experts that wrote the definitions in all the dictionaries and science books.... The same ones I read that the experts read.

Then you got 20 million of these experts and they cant even agree what the definition means, but you can be sure those on here know it means anything except what the scientific written definitions say it is. Thge experts are still arguing about it, but its already settled that species is whatever one wants it to be at any given time. Silly putty that is useless at defining anything.

What is species? Why its those that interbreed, no, its those that share an ecological niche, no its those that share genetic traits, wait that cant be it, no its those that look a little different. No, its whatever anyone decides they need it to be to get their names written in the books as the discoverer of a species to satisfy their ego or support their belief. It stopped being meaningfull years ago and is a totally useless and arbitrary designation to uphold a totally useless and arbitrary theory.

Which evolution is true? Why its gradulism, no its sudden transition, no its neo-darwinism, no its take your pick it doesnt matter. You can switch from one to the next from one post to the next if need be. Why bother with definitions and consistency in so-called science that in reality is no science at all.

Experts, the term lost any meaning whatsoever when evolutionists stopped following their own scientific definitions so they could call anything anything they wanted at any given time. Science without scientific definitions is no science at all. Instead its a farce where anything can be used to prove ones beliefs without having to justify anything.

I like it.

No all that close to topic, but I've come to conclusion, no matter how much I know about anything, to never coin myself as an "expert". To do so would be setting myself of for some awful embarrassing moments when, say, Joe big belly 6 pack shuts me out when I *thought* I knew what I was talking about.

 

[gaara4158]

but it's not observed. you can't observe a fish evolving into a cat for instance.

What did I JUST finish telling you? I'm not trying to prove the evolution of fish to cats right now. I'm explaining how natural selection is a real phenomenon that lends validity to common descent over intelligent design.

We don't directly witness fish evolving into cats because that takes hundreds of millions of years. However, we do observe evolution happening in small steps. Wolves to dogs, for example. We also don't observe divine beings creating or designing new creatures. We don't even observe divine beings. Your intelligent design hypothesis has no legs.

we also know that genomes are designed:

First Live Organism with Synthetic Genome Created

so according to this criteria genomes are also the product of design.

This just proves that our criteria for determining what's designed and what's not is inherently flawed and therefore not sufficient to infer a designer as an explanation for biodiversity.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are tyou actually trying to put the fact naturql selection, so

We don't directly witness fish evolving into cats because that takes hundreds of millions of years.

Whoa Nelly..that's only a claim.

I mean seriously, you all should know better than to assume such a thing, but they've actually got you believing it isn't just theory, but fact, when you have no earthly idea if it is or is not. Are you all listening to yourselves?

Amazing.

 

[rjs330]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care about the implications to your religion. It makes no mention of it at all. Anywhere. To the extent anyone uses it to undermine any position, religious or otherwise, it's because it explains the facts about reality. That you don't like it is inconsequential. Perhaps you should find a way to reconcile the facts with your religion, or find a better religion.

Then why is it used so often try try and disprove the bible. Why do evolutionists come to Christian websites and post things about how evolution disproves what the Bible says?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Then why is it used so often try try and disprove the bible. Why do evolutionists come to Christian websites and post things about how evolution disproves what the Bible says?

THe devil made 'em do it. (every day, every opposition to Jesus, "to kill, to steal, and to destroy (faith and souls)", everywhere on earth)

 

[gaara4158]

I like it.

No all that close to topic, but I've come to conclusion, no matter how much I know about anything, to never coin myself as an "expert". To do so would be setting myself of for some awful embarrassing moments when, say, Joe big belly 6 pack shuts me out when I *thought* I knew what I was talking about.

A wise conclusion. Whenever a scientist submits his findings to peers at a conference, he always prefaces his presentation with "I'm sure someone in the room knows more about this than I do, but here's what I found..." It's important not to pretend to be something you're not. You'll inevitably be humiliated by someone who actually is what you're pretending to be.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

in automatic factory cars also evolving from tiny parts. so according to this criteria cars are also the product of a natural process.

You're just wrong on this. Small parts aren't a molecule, nor does a car put itself together either. I have no doubt you're going to assert that IKEA kit furniture is proof of ID too?

-_- no wonder you're no scientist...

 

[gaara4158]

Then why is it used so often try try and disprove the bible. Why do evolutionists come to Christian websites and post things about how evolution disproves what the Bible says?

Not many do. It's mostly just in response to creationists insisting that evolution is false because it contradicts the Genesis account.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

1. Barracuda (Plymouth)

2. Beetle (Volkswagen)

3. Bison (Chevrolet heavy-duty truck)

4. Blackhawk (Stutz)

5. Bluebird (Nissan/Datsun)

6. Bronco (Ford)

7. Charger (Dodge)

8. Cheetah (rare 1960s high-performance sports car)

9. Cobra (Shelby, Shelby-Ford)

10. Cougar (Mercury)

11. Fox (Audi, Volkswagen)

12. Gazelle (Singer)

13. Honey Bee (Nissan/Datsun)

14. Impala (Chevrolet)

15. Jaguar (outgrowth of S.S. Cars, formerly Swallow Sidecars, Ltd.)

16. Lark (Studebaker)

17. Marlin (AMC)

18. Mustang (Ford)

19. Pinto (Ford)

20. Rabbit (Volkswagen)

21. Ram (Dodge)

22. Road Runner (Plymouth)

23. Sable (Mercury)

24. Skylark (Buick)

25. Spider/Spyder (Porsche)

26. Stag (Triumph)

27. Sting Ray/Stingray (Chevrolet Corvette)

28. Super Bee (Dodge)

29. Thunderbird (Ford)

30. Viper (Dodge)

31. Wasp (Hudson)

32. White Eagle (Kissel)

33. Wildcat (Buick)

.... soooooo..... cool list of cars, not much in the way of them growing from a molecule tho, amirite??

 

[Speedwell]

Then why is it used so often try try and disprove the bible. Why do evolutionists come to Christian websites and post things about how evolution disproves what the Bible says?

Because so many of you want to teach creationism in public school science classes or otherwise make it the basis of public policy. If it was just something you believed and taught in your own homes and churches nobody else would care about it, any more than we care that Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat. Basically, you guys started it by trying to use the Bible to discredit science.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then why is it used so often try try and disprove the bible. Why do evolutionists come to Christian websites and post things about how evolution disproves what the Bible says?

-_- I don't? As long as no one claims that every sentence in the bible is literally true, I don't bother to even address the bible all that much. And the only reason I feel the need then is because the book contradicts itself, making it impossible for every word to be true.