proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's evidence of common design not common descent. Similarities do not prove evolution from common ancestor.

I gave you the example of a broken vitanim c gene and you claim it is common design. The creator designed us with a broken vitamin c gene? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I find this an incoherent reply to the arguments being made, but hey that is allright, we have come to expect this reply from those who dogmatically hold to the religion of Evolution.

Its perfectly sensible. For you to call in incoherent means you don't understand it, it does call for a little abstract reasoning. It is my opinion that much of the opposition to evolution comes from people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that.

 

[Hieronymus]

You deny common descent? Have you seen all the evidence? It's amazing.

Why is it not evidence of common manufacturer?
And where is the evidence that is missing (well, it's missing of course... )

We gave a chicken embryo hands, dude!

Without intelligence and skills?

There's pretty clear evidence that all life came from a single, basic design. It uses the same logic that shows that you and your grandmother are related.

No there is not.
it's what 'they' decided is the truth and brainwash us with.

 

[bhsmte]

I gave you the example of a broken vitanim c gene and you claim it is common design. The creator designed us with a broken vitamin c gene? That doesn't make sense.

Maybe he was having a bad day.

 

[bhsmte]

Its perfectly sensible. For you to call in incoherent means you don't understand it, it does call for a little abstract reasoning. It is my opinion that much of the opposition to evolution comes from people for whom the basic concepts are simply over their head. Can't help that.

I would disagree. I believe most folks simply need to deny the evidence of evolution, because it threatens a tightly held belief and they create strawmen arguments to support their denial.

 

[Audacious]

Why is it not evidence of common manufacturer?

It's very simple: what's more likely -- that you and your cousin are related, or that you and your cousin were specially designed by the same person?

Related works better.

Without intelligence and skills?

Embryos don't normally have that. It's a lot easier to give something hands than to give it a human brain. You just insert one gene (the hedgehog gene, actually) into its DNA at the beginning of its growth, and it'll eventually start to grow hands! It's awesome.

(Note: I may be confusing the hedgehog gene with the sonic hedgehog gene.).

You should read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It's quite awesome.

No there is not.

Things with similar genes and traits and such tend to be related. Therefore, your hand and a chicken's wing having the same basic structures indicates a relationship, just as your uncle and you both having blue eyes. Common genes, even when used differently, indicate common ancestry. (You got those genes from somewhere.).

it's what 'they' decided is the truth and brainwash us with.

Why even have a conversation about science if you're a conspiracy theorist? There is no evidence anyone can give where you won't just wave away by saying that the anti-christian evil people are covering it up.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What makes you think that your theology should be taught in public school classes at all, much less given "equal time" with science?

What makes you think the same?

Equal time with almighty science? ...sounds so official when all it really means is equal time with unproven opinions, and theory. Y'all really need to stop presenting that as if it's some kind of impenetrable shield against creation. It's as if you need to sell your evolution, using the tools of commercial TV.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't think so. I think only science should be taught in science class.

But since you mention it, the Roman Catholics are the largest Christian denomination in the country. How about teaching their theology in science class?

I think I already said, go for it, can't be any worse than evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

I think I already said, go for it, can't be any worse than evolution.

Good. Their theology allows for evolution and Catholic schools already teach it in science class. I'm glad you're OK with it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, myth.

Definition:

1. A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2. A widely held but false belief or idea

You just described what many creationists consider a widely held false belief.

Big Bang cosmology doesn't deal with "nothing from nothing and then it happened by itself"

Evolutionary biology doesn't deal with "nothing from nothing and then it happened by itself"

So, I'm left wondering what it is exactly you're talking about?

Then what does it deal with, the pretty picture you posted at the end of your comment? Seems to me you'd a just explained, so I'm left wondering why you didn't address it a all? Please no more excuses/contrariness, I was clear on what I was talking about.

I don't need to seriously question creationism, as it does not require serious attention. It is a nonsense, pushed by individuals that can't deal with reality as it is presented to them.

Nor does evolution, as I've said several times, and in part, in your own words, it's nonsense pushed by individuals that can't deal with the reality of Hell, hence the God that produced it, a punishment for not wanting to obey. So they make a frail attempt to do make it all go away with a ridiculous, nothing from nothing (if you don't like nothing from nothing, you explain it) theory that makes no sense at all, and the onlyreason it sticks at all, is because it's an illusion many choose for the same reason...easy to get takers. Creationism makes much more sense right out the door.

Again, neither Big Bang cosmology or evolutionary biology deals with "boom from nothing and eventually we are all here". If you've got an objection to either theory, it would help you if you actually argued against what they actually say.

Then what does it deal with? Objection? Objection to what? Give me something to object too. Sheesh.

Big Bang:

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the big bang, a non answer is probably worse than the usual excuses/evasiveness.

 

[pitabread]

Please point me to the observation of evolution from a common ancestor. Please give me the link that shows that science has been able to test and reproduce evolution from a common ancestor. Don't point me to similarities testing or adaptation testing. I want actual observation and testing that actually shows evolution from a common ancestor. I will even accept an actual observation and testing and reproduction of something that clearly evolved into something that it wasn't from the beginning.

Forget the evidence for a moment. What I would suggest starting with is understanding the scientific method. You keep claiming that evolution/common ancestry can't be tested. First you need to understand how science works, then you'll have a better baseline for understanding how things like common ancestry can and are tested.

That is where I would start: learn how hypotheses are formed and tested. Learn what "testing" and "observation" actually means (note: it doesn't mean necessarily recreating an event; it can be looking at outcomes from a past event). Then go from there.

What Is Science?
The Scientific Method
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

 

[Aman777]

You're pushing a false equivalency. In the science class room, Christian creationism has exactly the same level of legitimacy as the creation stories of all other religions (i.e. zero).

False, since the Christian understanding of Genesis AGREES in every way with the discoveries of Science and History, IF you have the proper interpretation, which you obviously do NOT. It's probably not your fault though, since you were most likely brain washed by the teachers of the False ToE as a little child. Amen?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Again, you're suggesting that a 150+ years worth of development of a biological theory of evolution by thousands upon thousands of scientists of various faiths, nationalities, generations, etc, publishing millions of papers of research, and taught in universities and used by industry, is for the purpose of disbelief in the Christian faith.

Which is just nonsense. Especially since there is nothing inherent to disbelief in God or Christianity specifically within the context of the theory of evolution, which is merely a theory to explain biological change in the natural world.

It's the high conceit of creationists/Biblical literalists to think this is about all them. It's not.

"A million/whatever people can't be wrong" is no answer, they have been before and they are on this.

 

[pitabread]

"A million/whatever people can't be wrong" is no answer, they have been before and they are on this.

This wasn't about who is right or wrong. This was about the notion that a scientific theory like evolution was created for the purpose of denying god.

It's a silly notion that is demonstrably false given the number of theists including Christians who have no problem with biological evolution and modern science.

 

[gaara4158]

What makes you think the same?

Equal time with almighty science? ...sounds so official when all it really means is equal time with unproven opinions, and theory. Y'all really need to stop presenting that as if it's some kind of impenetrable shield against creation. It's as if you need to sell your evolution, using the tools of commercial TV.

Science is a discipline designed to eliminate all biases, subjectivity, and "unproven opinions" in the effort to uncover the nature of reality. If creation were verified through scientific tests and research, it would be taught the same way evolution is taught now.

Unfortunately, creationism can pass no such tests, so it remains in the myth column. It's nothing personal, it's just good science.

 

[Aman777]

This wasn't about who is right or wrong. This was about the notion that a scientific theory like evolution was created for the purpose of denying god.

It's a silly notion that is demonstrably false given the number of theists including Christians who have no problem with biological evolution and modern science.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

He's here....and he's fat, rich and has total power. Beware...

 

[Audacious]

"A million/whatever people can't be wrong" is no answer, they have been before and they are on this.

My favorite is: "961,000,000,000 smokers can't be wrong!"

 

[gaara4158]

False, since the Christian understanding of Genesis AGREES in every way with the discoveries of Science and History, IF you have the proper interpretation, which you obviously do NOT. It's probably not your fault though, since you were most likely brain washed by the teachers of the False ToE as a little child. Amen?

What good is your Genesis account if you have to adjust your interpretation every time new scientific discoveries come out? Why not just go with the science?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I would disagree. I believe most folks simply need to deny the evidence of evolution, because it threatens a tightly held belief and they create strawmen arguments to support their denial.

Well, of course that applies as well. We all know how, under hypnosis, people can fail to see things that they are suggested they should not see. There's every reason to say people can likewise be blinded to what would otherwise be plain by their tribal loyalties and their upbringing.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's very simple: what's more likely -- that you and your cousin are related, or that you and your cousin were specially designed by the same person?

Related works better.

My cousin and i are both humans, so what's your point?

Embryos don't normally have that. It's a lot easier to give something hands than to give it a human brain. You just insert one gene (the hedgehog gene, actually) into its DNA at the beginning of its growth, and it'll eventually start to grow hands! It's awesome.

Yeah, living nature is awesome, and so is science.
But did that gene get in the chicken by chance or did someone put it there?
What would make you think such things can happen by chance at all anyway?
Because they proclaim it is so?

(Note: I may be confusing the hedgehog gene with the sonic hedgehog gene.).

You should read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It's quite awesome.

It's naturalistic propaganda.
Just like that guy who wrote a book about a blind watch maker.
I wonder when he'll get his broken watch repaired by his watchmaker...

Things with similar genes and traits and such tend to be related.

Only when it's the same species this is certain.
Beyond that is the conviction they want you to subscribe to.
But they have no evidence to make a solid case for that.
Why do you think people eventually dismissed evolution, while being brainwashed with it for years, while being called fools by the brainwashed majority?

Therefore, your hand and a chicken's wing having the same basic structures indicates a relationship, just as your uncle and you both having blue eyes. Common genes, even when used differently, indicate common ancestry. (You got those genes from somewhere.).

Apples and oranges.
My uncle is like me a human, of the human kind.
Why would a creator not use similar parts to create different things that live in the same environment?
Don't get me wrong, i understand your line of thinking, i haven't forgotten what i used to believe in the past, and there are indeed many common traits among various kinds.
But there are also very different traits for different kinds.
It seems like you assume that if God created living nature, he would have made every kind of organism totally unique in every way.
But why would He?
I can argue why He would not though.
Basically, plants are food for animals (including humans), and turn the exhaled breaths into fresh air to breathe.
So as a consequence animals are hydrocarbon eaters who need lungs and a skeleton to support it, etcetera...
Point is, animals obviously share traits when they live in the same (or similar) environment.

Why even have a conversation about science if you're a conspiracy theorist?

What is a conspiracy theorist according to you?
Are you proposing people with power do not conspire things?
Are you really that naive?

There is no evidence anyone can give where you won't just wave away by saying that the anti-christian evil people are covering it up.

Have you ever seriously looked into what makes the powers that shouldn't be tick?
Do you think they're fans of Jesus?
Who is their "God"?
You don't think that's relevant?
Do you really believe there is no such thing as indoctrination in a world where we all are on line on a daily basis, when we're not watching TV?
Do you believe you can be right about these things when you have blind faith in what the world would have you believe?

Of course there is evidence for anti-Christian propaganda.
More than there is for evolution, obviously.
I don't blame you for not knowing about these things and therefore not believing things like that, it is afterall highly controversial and often ambiguous, and not only because there is also a lot of disinformation within the so called 'truth movement', but because these things are often hidden from plain sight, but sometimes also hidden IN plain sight.
But you can't go argue here form ignorance towards people who choose to look a little further than shallow school education, TV and newspapers.

Why do you think Jesus will return with the wrath of God?
Or don't you believe that either?