proving evolution as just a "theory"

[joshua 1 9]

Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science.

Yet they deny that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real and the people we read about in the Bible were descended from them. Even though the DNA evidence shows us that most of the people living on the Arab continental plate are descended from Abraham.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so we can see that they dont break up into many small pieces.[/QUOTE
-_- whether or not they break apart would depend upon their composition, and distance from the ground. Just because I managed to find ONE cave, and literally only one cave, in which large stalactites could be seen on the ground in one piece does not mean that stalactites that fall to the floor normally remain in one piece. Heck, the fact that I only found one picture like that would suggest that this is the exception rather than the norm.

they are also too few. if indeed they break up every 10000 years and lets say that the cave age is about 1my we should find much more then few pieces.[/QUOTE
-_- ever think they might get covered up by forming stalagmites? Or dissolve, for that matter.

very unlikely. here is a new cave that found no long time ago (still close to visitors as far as i know and even its location being kept secret):

and again we can see the same result. (image from timesofisrael.com)

-_- I don't know what you are talking about, since that ground is all chunky from fallen rocks.

Also, you never answered my question: wouldn't it be better to use stalagmites rather than stalactites, because they are more structurally stable and form essentially the same way?Also, you never answered my question: wouldn't it be better to use stalagmites rather than stalactites, because they are more structurally stable and form essentially the same way?

 

[PsychoSarah]

ugh, not letting me edit that post for some reason, it's not all supposed to be a quote mass like that.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yet they deny that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real and the people we read about in the Bible were descended from them. Even though the DNA evidence shows us that most of the people living on the Arab continental plate are descended from Abraham.

Really?

I would have thought that normal people going about their day to day business couldn't care less about the fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis.

It's cute that you think they do though.

 

[tas8831]

Really Brad?

A sequence of Equid fossils that paleontologists accept as a geat example has been presented.. unfortunately it didn't meet you unrealistic demands. (By the way, my response to your "rib" objection was ignored.) Besides only a tiny percentage of the flora and fauna that has ever existed undergoes fossilization, and they're difficult to find - It still paints a very clear picture to anyone with an open mind though.... and it ain't special creation.

Not that we particularly rely on the fossil record for evidence anyway.

I won't even dignify that with an answer given the examples presented in this thread.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10



Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science. Yet the only objections come from those with religious reasons to reject it. Yet it's an applied science that has real world applications. Yet empirical evidence exists which cannot be otherwise explained.

The majority of your posts in this thread are merely parrotting creationist PRATTs suggesting that you have little interest in actually learning about these subjects. I suggest a change in reading material, you might find the answers to the questions you asked above - no one is here to spoon feed you.

Isn't it so awesome how creationists demand ultra-detailed, step-by-step, evidence backed 100% (to their liking, anyway) examples of every thing they can think of in order to even consider evolution has merit, even as the absolute best they can offer for their preferred alternative is 'bible says so.'

And they wonder why, in this "information age", people are abandoning their bible-based faith in droves.

 

[USincognito]

As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution.

Yeah, about that...

 

[tas8831]

Yet they deny that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real

You have presented no evidence that they were.

and the people we read about in the Bible were descended from them.

Question begging.

Even though the DNA evidence shows us that most of the people living on the Arab continental plate are descended from Abraham.

Please provide the actual evidence that anyone anywhere at any time has presented DNA evidence that Abraham was a real person and that what you claim has merit.

 

[USincognito]

Man (who was given dominion over creation sinned) and death entered into all of creation as a result of our curse. This curse effected all of creation.

Anything "broken" ...see above answer.

That's a lovely ad hoc response, it doesn't actually explain why the Intelligent Designer (remember, my response was to the claim of common design) would place a whole bunch of virus DNA in humans and chimpanzees plus the other broken genes/gene pathways.

 

[tas8831]

Please allow me to direct your attention to a little court case that you seem to be unfamiliar with which set precedence for the entire country in 2013 entitled the "Fair Use Act":

I am afraid that you have confused "copyright" with "plagiarism":

What is Plagiarism? - Plagiarism.org

All of the following are considered plagiarism:

-turning in someone else's work as your own
-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
-copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)


Copyright infringement is a legal issue - plagiarism is an ethical one.

Why do you want to gloss that over?

So please stop accusing Christians of dishonesty when they have done nothing of the sort.

Please stop trying to establish special rules for Christians so they can avoid being called out for their dishonesty - do you also support Roy Moore because Mary and Joseph? because 14 year olds are asking for it?

If you were truly interested in the truth at all you would have at least attempted to address the issues raised rather than to "distract" by whining about plagiarism.

Right. I have never addressed the issues.

Just pointed out Christian dishonesty.

OK...

As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution.

You point out what YOU consider to be 'facts'. But if this is your 'fact':

Not a single example of a finely graduated chain between major forms has ever been presented, and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists. Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.

Then no wonder nobody paid attention to you (though I suspect that several people probably explain how silly those criteria are).



Would you find it a real poser for Christianity/creationism if someone declared that no Christian creationists on here had addressed the fact that nobody has provided a single example of a finely graduated chain between Adam and Roy Moore?

No examples of an act of creation of a man from dust within the last 10,000 years?

No evidence that the original pair of the beetle "kind" had the ability to produce some 350,000 distinct species in less than 4500 years (post-flood)?

 

[BradB]

Really Brad? A sequence of Equid fossils that paleontologists accept as a geat example has been presented.. unfortunately it didn't meet you unrealistic demands. (By the way, my response to your "rib" objection was ignored.)

Again if you just throw out the possibility of special creation then it is more than adequate. The paleontologists you are referring to do just that and therefore of course they accept it. I however do not, thus I require an actual finely graduated chain rather than a contrived one. And there is nothing unrealistic about it. I ignored the ribs comment because it didn't really make a difference to the overall problem of not being an actual finely graduated chain.

Not that we particularly rely on the fossil record for evidence anyway.

Good so then you agree that in a debate between evolution and creation the issue cannot be resolved from the fossils? We can get past that and move on.

I won't even dignify that with an answer given the examples presented in this thread.

Well first let me point out that my schedule is a little hectic and some times I barely have time to read what is directed at me much less everyone else. So let's just say some things may get past me in here.

1 Really? You think skin color represents an "observed" random mutation in a controlled environment? How do you know those alleles were not already present in the population?
2 Same as above
3 E coli are single celled not multi celled
4 blond hair not observed, bacteria again single celled
5 again with the Tibetans. Two of the same doesn't count as two.
6 Not sure how this was supposed to be an example?
7 grey wolves not an observed in controlled conditions
8 mice not an observed mutation just assumed.
9 blue eyes exist within the gene pool
10 Not an example of observed under controlled environment.

Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science. Yet the only objections come from those with religious reasons to reject it.

It is not rejected for religious reasons. It is rejected because religious people are not willing to just toss out the possibility of special creation. Thus for scientific reasons we reject the conclusions that main stream science are arriving at because they do.

 

[pitabread]

and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists.

You've been given examples of beneficial mutations. Either you've already forgotten or you ignored them.

To the evolution deniers

 

[BradB]

I am afraid that you have confused "copyright" with "plagiarism":

What is Plagiarism? - Plagiarism.org

All of the following are considered plagiarism:

-turning in someone else's work as your own
-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

Well just in case you weren't clear we are not doing "work" here or writing master pieces. We're having a discussion. We are allowed to copy other creationists and or evolutionists comments and throw them into the conversation if they best answer to the discussion.
I'm done with this subject.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is not rejected for religious reasons. It is rejected because religious people are not willing to just toss out the possibility of special creation. Thus for scientific reasons we reject the conclusions that main stream science are arriving at because they do.

Religious people don't know enough about science to make that call.

 

[Jimmy D]

Religious people don't know enough about science to make that call.

A lot do Hitch to be fair, I don’t include Brad in that though, given his comments on well documented mutations above.

 

[BradB]

Isn't it so awesome how creationists demand ultra-detailed, step-by-step, evidence backed 100% (to their liking, anyway)

Umm...no. Evolutionist say a circle evolved into a star and the evidence is that they are both geometric two dimensional shapes. We say "but there's this guy who left a note claiming he made the star and made the circle at the same time." So we ask to see an example of a chain of shapes leading from a circle up to a star. In response you present a triangle, a square, and a pentagon and claim there it is... there's your chain. We say that's not a chain because we don't see the actual changes we only see large jumps from one major form to another. You walk away shaking your head saying "ridiculous artists...always demanding every single step." But the truth friend is that there's nothing ridiculous about expecting to see the process of the formation from one to the other. That is the thinking of a rational mind. No we never ask to see "step by step." But we also don't expect to have to check our brains at the door with the hats. If there is evidence in the fossil record that shows evolution rather than creation happened, then we want to see the process happen at least once. Is that too great to ask? I think not. If no such evidence exists then just admit that when it comes to a debate between evolution and creation, there is no clear evidence proving one over the other in the fossils.

 

[BradB]

You've been given examples of beneficial mutations. Either you've already forgotten or you ignored them.
To the evolution deniers

Neither... To the evolution deniers

 

[Speedwell]

If no such evidence exists then just admit that when it comes to a debate between evolution and creation, there is no clear evidence proving one over the other in the fossils.

So what does "Special Creation" mean to you in terms of the fossil record? A continuous sequence of de novo species creation and extinction events such that the extinct species, if arranged in time order, appear to form a developmental series?

 

[bhsmte]

Man (who was given dominion over creation sinned) and death entered into all of creation as a result of our curse. This curse effected all of creation.



Anything "broken" ...see above answer.

Sounds like preaching.

 

[Astrophile]

Let me just ask a couple of questions if you please. At the moons current drift rate of 1.5 inches a year that means that it was only about 750 feet closer around 6000 years ago. How much closer at the same rate of drift was it during the assumed life time of T-Rex?

About 1550 miles, or about 2500 km. Remember that the Moon's average distance is 238,900 miles (384,400 km) and that the difference between the average distance and its closest distance (perigee) is about 17400 miles (28,000 km), so that since the time of T-rex the Moon has receded less than a tenth of the difference between its average distance and its closest distance.

 

[HitchSlap]

A lot do Hitch to be fair, I don’t include Brad in that though, given his comments on well documented mutations above.

Yeah, I suppose the irony is lost over the webz. My point being, no religious person with relevant training in paleontology would ever make that claim.