proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

Wouldn't that require the Shroud of Turin to be confirmed as genuine?

Why? You see Asian remaining Asian despite mutations at every birth. You see African remaining African despite mutations at every birth. The only time you have seen even a change in race was when those two interbreed.

Yet you still have faith it is mutations that cause change, despite seeing with our own eyes how that variation actually came about.

If you can ignore the empirical evidence and walk by faith, why can’t he?

 

[joshua 1 9]

everything is made from the same protons, neutrons and electrons

Yes but with a computer & DNA the switch is either on or off (restricted) With God you are in or out there is no middle ground or fence sitting with Him. Marriage is more like atoms with attractions, repulsions and neutral.

 

[pitabread]

Not that mutations rarely ever do anything but damage the recipient. It is the act of interbreeding which brings variation into the Kind.

And why is this the case? Why is it only interbreeding which brings 'variation'? What are the genetics at work there?

Do you have any real explanation for what you keep asserting? Because so far it appears you have no idea whatsoever.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why? You see Asian remaining Asian despite mutations at every birth. You see African remaining African despite mutations at every birth. The only time you have seen even a change in race was when those two interbreed.

Yet you still have faith it is mutations that cause change, despite seeing with our own eyes how that variation actually came about.

If you can ignore the empirical evidence and walk by faith, why can’t he?

How long have you been observing Asians and Africans? A few generations? Several generations?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And why is this the case? Why is it only interbreeding which brings 'variation'? What are the genetics at work there?

Do you have any real explanation for what you keep asserting? Because so far it appears you have no idea whatsoever.

So if you didn’t know the exact reason why a thermonuclear bomb worked, you would ignore believing it did when it happened before your eyes?

It doesn’t matter why. All that matters is the fact that the only time you have seen changes is when two interbreed. Your excuse to need to know the exact mechanism is just that, an excuse to avoid the truth. Every single generation of Asian born has remained Asian, despite all those mutations. Only when we observe them mate with another non-Asian race does a new race enter the record.

Your mutations can’t even cross the race barrier, explain to me why I should accept they can cross the species barrier? If your mutations could actually change race, you might have an argument for your belief, but as it stands you got nothing. Just your belief that they do it anyways, despite the empirical observation of how new races actually happen.

I understand you are looking for an excuse to ignore the truth, but sorry, it will remain true regardless. I understand you have no counter to this delima, and so seek to avoid accepting the truth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How long have you been observing Asians and Africans? A few generations? Several generations?

And why should I believe it takes thousands or millions when all we need do is wait nine months after an Asian and African mate to observe a new race enter the record?

 

[bhsmte]

Wouldn't that require the Shroud of Turin to be confirmed as genuine?

Evidently not. We call that; small details.

 

[bhsmte]

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." 2Timothy2:15

Words and interpretations written by anonymous authors, may convince you.

 

[bhsmte]

I use key words so people can do their own google search and their own research on the subject.

Try supporting your claims with your own research. Just a thought.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And why should I believe it takes thousands or millions when all we need do is wait nine months after an Asian and African mate to observe a new race enter the record?

Why indeed should you believe anything else? You've got two eyes and a brain; They've never failed you before.

Keep working with what you've got, I say. Who needs anything else?

 

[rjs330]

I was really hoping you had more to contribute than hand waving. But since that appears to be the only tool in your box, that's what you're going to stick with I guess.

Well if evolutionists had some actual scientific evidence of common ancestry I wouldn't have much to say. So far all they have come up with is common design, which doesn't mean common ancestry unless you assume it does.

 

[Speedwell]

Well if evolutionists had some actual scientific evidence of common ancestry I wouldn't have much to say. So far all they have come up with is common design, which doesn't mean common ancestry unless you assume it does.

But "common design" lacks a mechanism. Common ancestor proposal at least has a competent mechanism of development on which to base the inference.

 

[rjs330]

Repeatedly screaming "assumptions" after it has been explained to you that doing so does not actually address the evidence or make it go away is yet another sign that you have zero to contribute to a meaningful conversation.

Well I have offered meaningful conversation in that I have pointed out that all the evidence points to common design. Which no evolutionists have been able to show otherwise. I have pointed out the assumptions contained with evolution showing how evolutionists use similarities to say it shows evolution when in fact it doesn't but it does show common design. If evolutionists actually had some real testable verifiable observed evolution of common ancestry I would sit up and take notice.

 

[rjs330]

How about you actually demonstrate how "common design" is a scientifically viable concept, demonstrate a workable "common design" model and explain how it can substitute for current applications of applied evolutionary biology.

Take your time. I'll wait.

How about the fact that all things are made of common materials. How about all life on this planet have materials in common. How about every single piece of evidence that evolutionists offer is evidence of common design. The fact that RVs do what they do show similarities of living things which are evidence of common design. How about the fact that life adapts and changes in order to survive is evidence of common design. Point to any evolutionary "evidence" and you can see common design.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But "common design" lacks a mechanism. Common ancestor proposal at least has a competent mechanism of development on which to base the inference.

You propose life started from non-life, yes? Even if you understand life only proceeds from life. You have faith anyways this was not always true.

So do I, from dust. It’s simply the how that we disagree on. You think random chance in a universe so orderly we can write laws to describe its behavior. I disagree, nothing random to it.

 

[rjs330]

I know that Creationists are very, very dishonest and tend to pretend things were never posted, but I posted this list of problems for "common design" and you seem to have ignored them. Any chance you can actually address them?
-----------------------
Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?
Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?
Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?
Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?

Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.

Actually they are precisely evidence of common design. The building blocks of life. All things being designed and use the the same genes that function in certain ways within the creature that was created and doesn't function in others because it was designed that way. It's not that hard.

 

[Speedwell]

How about the fact that all things are made of common materials. How about all life on this planet have materials in common. How about every single piece of evidence that evolutionists offer is evidence of common design. The fact that RVs do what they do show similarities of living things which are evidence of common design. How about the fact that life adapts and changes in order to survive is evidence of common design. Point to any evolutionary "evidence" and you can see common design.

But that does not rule out the possibility that the common design was achieved by evolution. In order to rule out evolution, you have to show that common design was achieved by some other mechanism.

 

[rjs330]

But "common design" lacks a mechanism. Common ancestor proposal at least has a competent mechanism of development on which to base the inference.

The mechanism is the one who created the design and used it to create life.

 

[Speedwell]

You propose life started from non-life, yes? Even if you understand life only proceeds from life. You have faith anyways this was not always true.

So do I, from dust. It’s simply the how that we disagree on. You think random chance in a universe so orderly we can write laws to describe its behavior. I disagree, nothing random to it.

I see no point in responding to you. You obviously prefer to make up things about what I think.

 

[bhsmte]

I see no point in responding to you. You obviously prefer to make up things about what I think.

Common theme, with biblical creationists.