proving evolution as just a "theory"

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks for proving my point.

What point?

I just completely countered your nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

I've gone as deep into the weeds on this subject as I'm gonna go on this particular site. It's all out there in Bing and Google, and most of it is even out there in public libraries - which is where I had to go for this stuff back in the 70's through 90's.

What a cop out.

Typical of these 'holier than thou' types - makes assertions with a pretense of certainty and superiority, then when asked to support said assertions, condescends and bails.

 

[tas8831]

So how do you know that evolution from a common ancestor is true if you can't observe it?

So how do you know that creation of Adam from dust of the ground is true if you can't observe it?

At least we have evidence. You have ancient tales.

 

[bhsmte]

So how do you know that creation of Adam from dust of the ground is true if you can't observe it?

At least we have evidence. You have ancient tales.

Special pleading?

 

[Jimmy D]

this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):

is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

(image from Vehicles)



yes its is. since we can find shared traits in far groups, but not in some groups between them. so its non-hierarchy.

How can those vehicles be arranged into a nested hierarchy?

 

[Jimmy D]

You are overthinking it. A simple picture to make a simple, and valid, point.

Strange, I thought Tas provided some data from a couple of scientific papers. It seems to be a recurring theme that creationists suddenly clam up, ignore posts or resort to their bumper sticker slogans when asked for their "interpretation" of actual scientific evidence.

As the late, great James Brown sang.....

"You're like a dull knife that just ain't cuttin'
You're just talking loud and saying nothing"

 

[Jimmy D]

The theories keep changing to match the results in scientific tests and discovery. It's why Darwin's original theory is not followed by most who actually believe in evolution theory as it stands today.

i.e. test results bit them, so they changed their theory on what kind of stick it is.

I'm curious as to what "test results bit them"?

 

[tas8831]

Christianity, though, is more of a "live and let live" type of belief system.

LOL!

Well, unless you are not a Christian... or are gay.. or foreign.. or...

One thing's for sure. They won't force you to bake the cake.

No - they will force you to conform or be subject to discrimination at the very least.

 

[tas8831]

This is the thing that amazes me about the whole evolution vs creation debate. The more we know about it, the more complex, beautiful and coordinated it is. i.e. the more we know, the more it looks like someone designed it.

Providing one approaches biology and biochemistry as a non-biologist, non-biochemist, and one who ascribes what they do not understand to their preferred deity.

 

[tas8831]

Regarding evidence for evolution, yes, it exists, in as much as gold exists in the ocean.

Yes.

But evidence for creation exists in as much as water exists in the ocean.

Not even close.

It is everywhere. It is in you DNA.

Show this.

Argument from awe?

 

[Jimmy D]

Argument from awe?

Argument from ore.

(Gold? Nevermind, I'll get my coat.)

 

[tas8831]

What if someone believes someone designed it? Can that lead to understanding? If not, why not?

If you see a device in a field that looks an awfully lot like an interstellar spacecraft that was designed by someone, which foundational assumption regarding how it came to exist would aid in understanding what it is, how it was made and why it exists: Belief that someone designed it, or belief that it is an accident of evolution?

Absurd analogy.

NO biologist would ever consider that a spacecraft 'evolved.'

Why do so many creationists rely on these simple-minded, silly "analogies" that no sensible person accepts as valid?

Is nature not far more complex than that? Is the simplest living creature not more complex than that?

Argument from awe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why do so many creationists rely on these simple-minded, silly "analogies" that no sensible person accepts as valid?

Because they're not accustomed to preaching to anyone but the choir.

 

[tas8831]

It most certainly is SUPPORTING evidence until some better theory comes along.

How?

How is 'complexity' evidence of 'design'?

Most competent designers indicate that simplicity in design is far more elegant.

And so far, all evolution gives us is the equivalent of seeing the effects of rust on an old chevy in a field and arguing that that same rust is how the Chevy came into existence in the first place.

Right, that is exactly what evolution gives those that cannot be bothered to even try to understand evolution.

Given the content and tone of your posts thus far, i suggest you start here:


https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[xianghua]

With evolution is based on empirical evidence.

can you give a specific empirical evidence for evolution (not variation)? thanks.

Creationism is based on reading a book and believing that it is historically and scientifically valid

no. creation (i dont speak about the bible now but any creation event in general) is base on scientific evidence, as you can see here:

the self replicating watch argument

 

[xianghua]

Don't we use the genetic make up of all things to determine the tree? What is common in this genetic make up? What do we find in all living things? What is the make up of cells? Don't we all have them? It's common design! Once again evolutionists look at the commonality of all things and say "look a phylogentic tree!" Creationists look at the same things and say God used the same materials to create all life. He arranged those materials in certain patterns that made each creature unique from the others. But it's still the same materials.

we also need to include the evidence against this tree:

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution

"This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong."

"“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”."

 

[Almost there]

What a cop out.

Typical of these 'holier than thou' types - makes assertions with a pretense of certainty and superiority, then when asked to support said assertions, condescends and bails.

Call it what you will. This is not all I spend my time on.

 

[xianghua]

Except that those same patterns are exactly how phylogenetic trees are derived as a demonstration of common ancestry. So we're right back to the same claim: that life was designed, yet somehow has the appearance of evolution.

If you want to argue to the contrary, you can't keep claiming that the evidence for evolution is somehow evidence for common design. You have to break that pattern and demonstrate patterns that only could be explained by independent design and not evolution.

if i will show you that a phylogenetic tree can be explain by design too, you will admit that evolution is false, or you will still believe it anyway?

 

[Almost there]

Strange, I thought Tas provided some data from a couple of scientific papers. It seems to be a recurring theme that creationists suddenly clam up, ignore posts or resort to their bumper sticker slogans when asked for their "interpretation" of actual scientific evidence.

As the late, great James Brown sang.....

"You're like a dull knife that just ain't cuttin'
You're just talking loud and saying nothing"

This is a Christian forum site. If I want to get into this stuff I don't do it here.

 

[Almost there]

I'm curious as to what "test results bit them"?

Any test result or discovery that forces a change to any theory.