proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Common design doesn’t lack a mechanism. It’s called male and female and hereditary trees. You just believe one becomes many, I believe two becomes many. You believe one thing can become many things. I believe two things can become many different variations within that Kind.

As Asian remains Asian and African remaining African and making an Afro-Asian when mating has shown you. You believe in accumulated change over time. I believe nine months is all it takes, as empirical data shows. The only question is how long it takes for those two to come together.

I just ask you apply observation to the fossil history.

 

[Speedwell]

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

Which still does not rule out evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Well obviously you can’t believe in Creation, since the same Bible told you Kind after Kind, not evolution of one into many.

If over 100 breeds of dogs came from one wolf stock from interbreeding, not mutations, then why not accept what observation tells us?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have yet to see anyone explain to me why common design can not explain everything we see???

 

[Speedwell]

I have yet to see anyone explain to me why common design can not explain everything we see???

Because nobody cares to do so. The existence of a "designer" is an unfalsifiable proposition so cannot be ruled out using science.

 

[Speedwell]

Well obviously you can’t believe in Creation, since the same Bible told you Kind after Kind, not evolution of one into many.

I don't care. I dismiss your interpretation of Genesis on theological grounds which have nothing to do with evolution.

If over 100 breeds of dogs came from one wolf stock from interbreeding, not mutations, then why not accept what observation tells us?

Because I think your example of dog breeds is silly and has nothing to do with how evolution actually occurs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

What else is there besides empericial observation? Ahh do you mean theory alone? Poor substitute for actual empericial evidence, I thought theory needed observational evidence to be valid???

If theory can’t be made to fit the observational data, I would say the theory was flawed. Since observational evidence shows us Afro-Asian doesn’t evolve from the Asian or African, nor the Chinook from the Husky or Mastiff, theory that contends otherwise must indeed be flawed, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't care. I dismiss your interpretation of Genesis on theological grounds which have nothing to do with evolution.

Because I think your example of dog breeds is silly and has nothing to do with how evolution actually occurs.

And yet the only time you have seen variation occur is when two mated.... I think your belief in evolution while ignoring how that variation actually happened is silly.... but hey, to each their own....

And I doubt you can dismiss my interpretation of Genesis on theological grounds.... not without refusing to refer back to the original Hebrew in which God gave it, instead of mistaken English translations.

 

[Skreeper]

You've got two eyes and a brain; They've never failed you before.

Based on the responses in this thread I wouldn't be too sure about that...

 

[Speedwell]

And yet the only time you have seen variation occur is when two mated.... I think your belief in evolution while ignoring how that variation actually happened is silly.... but hey, to each their own....

Yes. I think your idea about how reproductive variation occurs has nothing to do with how variation occurs in reality. It does not explain, for example, how variation occurs in creatures which produce unisexually.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Why?

Asian doesn’t evolve into theAfrAsian, nor does the African. The Asian always remains Asian.

Did you ever stop to think that’s why every single fossil ever found always remains the same from the oldest to youngest found? That new forms appear suddenly, not because they evolved, but because like the Chinook two mated? Maybe the flaw simply lies in the belief of how that variation happened?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes. I think your idea about how reproductive variation occurs has nothing to do with how variation occurs in reality. It does not explain, for example, how variation occurs in creatures which produce unisexually.

Why doesn’t it? It’s a fact that bacteria, which reproduce asexually, get other genes from other bacteria, even dead ones. So whether by mating or subsuming them, it’s still the addition of new genes.

No one denies that a mutation may benefit accidentally a creature. But peas remained peas, fruit flies remained fruit flies, and on and on and on..... no one ever claimed that a mutation might not change the hair color or eye color, but I’ve yet to see proof in a subjective classification system it can change beyond that.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe the flaw simply lies in the belief of how that variation happened?

That would certainly explain your position. But in science, in order to replace a currently accepted theory, you must have a proposal which explains the currently available data better than the existing theory. "Design" explains nothing. It is a way of saying "God did it," nothing more. But God could have done evolution, too, so what's the point?

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Out of curiosity, how do you define "life"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What else is there besides empericial observation?

What does it matter? You've accomplished so much with nothing else, why look for more?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because nobody cares to do so. The existence of a "designer" is an unfalsifiable proposition so cannot be ruled out using science.

What science? That Asian never become anything but Asian? That a new race only happens when two mate? We aren’t discussing the creator, but the false belief of evolution. That is the subject of this thread.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What does it matter? You've accomplished so much with nothing else, why look for more?

You could just say you don’t have any and not be snide about it.

 

[pitabread]

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.

You're not actually explaining how any of those things are evidence of common design. You haven't even bothered to define what common design is.

Instead of just saying "How about the fact that all things are made of common materials", you need to provide a proper explanation. This means defining a scientific model including providing a base definition for what common design is, defining any constraints associated with the model, and subsequent hypotheses (predictions) and then testing of those hypotheses.

And consequently, you'd be able to respond with, "Common materials are evidence of common design because..." and then you continue with an actual explanation detailing how and why common materials are evidence for common design.

It's kind of like when you have a test in school and a teacher asks you to show your work. I'm asking you to show your work. You get no points for one liners.

In fact all you've really done so far is confirm that if life was specially created, that it was created to look like it evolved.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You could just say you don’t have any and not be snide about it.

You see snideness? That's odd. There wasn't any, but based on what you saw and believed, what other conclusions are there?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Out of curiosity, how do you define "life"?

I’d say I am alive, bacteria are alive, but rocks aren’t.