proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kenny'sID]

"The evidence is everything we do."

Well, that makes things crystal clear...even I'm convinced now.

Answer those questions? You mean I'm to waste my time tinkering with your so called tests because *you*/others are convinced that provides any proof at all?

I think your getting way ahead of yourself there.

Show me your proof of evolution. You cannot do it, and no one here ever has been able to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What findings? You say they fall apart, which ones? Can I suggest that you won't "rehash them" because you are talking nonsense? I'm happy to accept correction if there have been developments in the scientific community I've missed.

The "point" is that you claim that "their findings fall apart" which isn't really true.

You may suggest what you like.

I was clear there too. Listen, if you don't want to accept what I say, that's fine, but that doesn't do away with my reasons for not wanting to bother....they are still in place whether you like them or not.

You'll not goad me into wasting my time on the same ol same ol.

Show me some real proof of evolution. If you have already done that point me too it, butt please, be sure it's dead proof of evolution, and doesn't waste our time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The link to the thread was in the post you quoted.

Then point out where in the link. Surley you were able to understand that was my request....Geez

 

[sfs]

Answer those questions?

Yes, answer those questions, or any of the other questions about genetic data that evolution answers.

You mean I'm to waste my time tinkering with your so called tests because *you*/others are convinced that provides any proof at all?

No, I mean provide the explanation that creationists constantly claim they have for the real data from biology. I've listed a few areas of real data. So where's the explanation?

You're not going to evade the questions because answering them would be a waste of time; you're going to evade them because you are utterly incapable of answering them. I know you can't answer them. You know you can't answer them. Everyone reading this knows you can't answer them. Why not just say so?

Show me some real proof of evolution.

The test -- the "proof", if you like -- of any model is how well it explains and predicts data. Evolution does that with the data from biology. As you've just demonstrated, you can't do that. So why are you wasting everyone's time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, been there and you haven't proved a thing. Let us know when you can stop claiming, and start proving.

Wrong, but then you won't even bother to learn what is and what is not evidence.

I have been catching up here and I continually see that all that creationists have is an argument from incredulity at best. Generally a true lack of understanding of how science is done at the most basic of levels is all that your side has demonstrated here.

Of course the reason that creationists are afraid of evidence is because they know that they do not have any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do fundamentalists even CARE to propose a scientific view of creationism?

Because rightfully so they are jealous of the accomplishments of scientists using the scientific method. They sadly have nothing when creationism is applied. But that won't stop them from pretending.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may suggest what you like.

I was clear there too. Listen, if you don't want to accept what I say, that's fine, but that doesn't do away with my reasons for not wanting to bother....they are still in place whether you like them or not.

You'll not goad me into wasting my time on the same ol same ol.

Show me some real proof of evolution. If you have already done that point me too it, butt please, be sure it's dead proof of evolution, and doesn't waste our time.

Until you learn what is and what is not evidence you will not let yourself understand.

Are you ready to learn? What would you like to cover first, the nature of evidence or the scientific method?

 

[Hieronymus]

Wrong, but then you won't even bother to learn what is and what is not evidence.

I have been catching up here and I continually see that all that creationists have is an argument from incredulity at best. Generally a true lack of understanding of how science is done at the most basic of levels is all that your side has demonstrated here.

And that's just the same old fried air atheists have to offer...

Of course the reason that creationists are afraid of evidence is because they know that they do not have any.

Hahaha! I think that's pretty funny.
It's probably you who ignores it.
Our reality is proof of a Creator in itself.
You on the other hand have condemned yourself into believing all of it came about for no reason, without purpose, by dead unconscious forces.
Forces of which you have no idea as to how or why they came to be.

 

[Jimmy D]

You may suggest what you like.

I was clear there too. Listen, if you don't want to accept what I say, that's fine, but that doesn't do away with my reasons for not wanting to bother....they are still in place whether you like them or not.

You'll not goad me into wasting my time on the same ol same ol.

Show me some real proof of evolution. If you have already done that point me too it, butt please, be sure it's dead proof of evolution, and doesn't waste our time.

You made a claim that "findings were falling apart". Which findings? If you can't back up your assertions when challenged you shouldn't make them.

I'm not interested in "proving" evolution to you, I don't care what you believe. I was responding to your bizarre claims that's all. Do you retract them now?

Once one watches those findings fall apart time after time....what's the point

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that's just the same old fried air atheists have to offer...

How is an observation of your lack of an education in the sciences "fried air"?

Hahaha! I think that's pretty funny.
It's probably you who ignores it.
Our reality is proof of a Creator in itself.
You on the other hand have condemned yourself into believing all of it came about for no reason, without purpose, by dead unconscious forces.
Forces of which you have no idea as to how or why they came to be.

Nope, unlike you I am not afraid to learn. And you obviously have no clue as to what "proof" is. Please note that in front of people that do understand evidence and proof that your side continually loses. That is why your side loses court case after court case, even when the judge is a conservative one appointed by a Republican.

And no, what makes you think that we believe in "no reason"? Just because you cannot understand the science does not mean that there was no reason for our appearance. You are merely making the claim of magic while we rely on testable repeatable science.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then point out where in the link. Surley you were able to understand that was my request....Geez

Do you want me to point out the exact moment you disappeared from the thread? Maybe I was hasty with my wording and you were just too busy with other things to respond?

To avoid deralling the thread how about I just withdraw what I said? Perhaps we could discuss something constructive instead.

 

[pitabread]

After a decade i fear it is no use..

Eh, I'm not surprised. There has been nothing new in the ID camp for the past decade or so, and most of the arguments are re-hashes of stuff which is decades old.

ID/Creationism is stuck in a rut in that regard.

 

[Hieronymus]

Eh, I'm not surprised. There has been nothing new in the ID camp for the past decade or so, and most of the arguments are re-hashes of stuff which is decades old.

ID/Creationism is stuck in a rut in that regard.

No, i think you're just blind to their case(s) for creation and against evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Well, as i said, this can be used as a good piece of evidence to make a case for evolution, but i don't think it poses a problem for creationism.

Again, not talking about evidence. I'm talking about direct application of knowledge based on evolutionary biology. In the case of phylogenetics, we're talking about applications of shared ancestry between spaces.

Not evidence. Application.

But that's the assumption you use as a conclusion.
You decided: procreated mutations = evolution.

Replication and mutation is part of the mechanisms of biological evolution. After all, we observe those happening in nature including the evolution of novel proteins or new functions. The Theory of Evolution describes how that works.

And in a sense this is true, but it's no explanation for purposeful complex systems arising over time.

"purposeful complex system" is just a gobbledegook phrase. What is purposeful? Whose purpose? What is complex? How does one define complexity of biological systems?

 

[Hieronymus]

How is an observation of your lack of an education in the sciences "fried air"?

Because you can not observe it.

 

[pitabread]

No, i think you're just blind to their case(s) for creation and against evolution.

You don't know me.

I've combed through more creationist/ID material than most creationists. I've read entire published works from various creationist/ID authors and debated this stuff ad nauseum on forums like this.

What I've found is there really isn't much actually arguing in favor of creationism or ID. Rather, most of what creationists/ID advocates argue is a negative argument against evolution (usually based on gaps in knowledge; hence, the arguments from incredulity) and then assuming intelligent creation as a default position.

And that's fine for a theological basis, but real science doesn't work like that.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's beyond the realm of the natural sciences.
That doesn't mean science can dismiss it, it means they can not approach it.You fail to realise, as many do, that SCIENTIFIC in this case means NATURAL.
Theology is another ballpark altogether.

Yes, scientific means natural. So what? Nature is the physical sciences' sphere of competence. They have nothing to say about the supernatural, one way or the other. If you want to talk about God, theology is your subject; not science.

 

[Hieronymus]

Again, not talking about evidence. I'm talking about direct application of knowledge based on evolutionary biology. In the case of phylogenetics, we're talking about applications of shared ancestry between spaces.

Not evidence. Application.

When you put a sticker on biology that says "evolutionary" it's still biology, based on the present reality of things.
Yeah, i know many species / kinds have similarities, making things work the same way in a phylum, but why would that point away from creation?
Again, it can be used as evidence to support evolution, but not against creation.
If i can repair a car engine i may well be able to repair a motorcycle engine.

Replication and mutation is part of the mechanisms of biological evolution. After all, we observe those happening in nature including the evolution of novel proteins or new functions. The Theory of Evolution describes how that works.

No genetics do that.
The fact that mutation and selection occurs doesn't make evolution true, they're just premises for evolution to be possible.
But is it realistic to expect miracles from accumulating data corruption?
Of course not.
You're lucky if it survives at all for more than a million years or so.
If it wasn't for the reparation system doing its thing, it would be over much sooner.
By itself, gradual changes imply that you'll be stuck with non functional systems until it miraculously becomes operational.
You'd probably call that incredulity, but i call your beliefs delusional.

"purposeful complex system" is just a gobbledegook phrase. What is purposeful?

A lung, a liver, an eye, plants in an eco system, the flagellum, etcetera etcetera.... ... etcetera.....

Whose purpose?

Now that's an excellent question.
Difficult to answer.
But it is easy to answer who benefits.
Organisms and the eco system benefit from things to work properly.
Organisms want to live, you see.

What is complex? How does one define complexity of biological systems?

Now who is being incredulous?
Do you realize how many high level studies here are into our reality and living nature in particular?
Do you think a factory is a complex thing? Or a digital network?
Need i say more?

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, scientific means natural. So what?

So it's not possible to approach supernatural things, which was your complaint earlier.

 

[lesliedellow]

So it's not possible to approach supernatural things, which was your complaint earlier.

I didn't make any complaint about science being unable to address the supernatural. I might have complained about creationists' determined, ongoing and dishonest attempts to ignore the physical evidence for evolution and a 4.6 billion year old Earth.