proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

So the obvious implications in those studies are lost on you.

Got it.

Can you at least muster the integrity to retract your slur about the outcomes of these analyses being based on "assumptions"? Because they are not - they are based on observable phenomena.

There are no obvious scientific implications. Since you have no evidence, they are based on assumptions.

Apes and humans are different species and DNA prove it.

 

[omega2xx]

As evolution, nor any science, does not deny the existence of G-d, how is it godless? In fact, science is encouraged by my religion as the proper way to learn about His universe (see my signature below). Of course, we also we know that the Bible is neither a history nor a science book, but a book of His moral and ethical teachings.

Evolution is not based on science. You have no evidence to support anything the TOE preaches.

Some of the Bible is history and where the Bible touches on science, it is right. Specifically "after their kind' That is proved thousands of times every day and it can't be falsified.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And I think, if you would apply the same skepticism to the Bible that you do to the Koran, you would see right through the arguments for the Bible also.

Not at all, not even one tiny little. The Bible is every bit as exact and precise as one of my son's mathematical formulas. The God that created the Universe and the Laws of the Universe gives us His written word that contains all of the exactness and precision you could ever want or ask for.

 

[rjs330]

Which is exactly why I don't want right-wing fundamentalist Protestants running the school curriculum.

Why not? That's who ran the schools when they were started. It worked well for years. It's the socialist agenda that has taken over the schools since then that has been the problem. Of course it is a societal problem as well. You should read the Forgotten Man book and you'll get a better picture if what happened and why. Evolution from a common ancestor is a lie and has been pushed so hard and long that it is now established belief.

 

[doubtingmerle]

First of all read the posts and look at the pictures. That's what they show. I may be getting mixed up on who said what exactly but the thought is the same.

Actually I was responding to a specific assertion that was made here, that there were no creatures that can be shown to be the ancestor of two species. I presented pictures that illustrate one creature, the Hyracotherium, to be indeed an ancestor (or close cousin of an ancestor) of several species.

This one fact does not prove common descent of all animals. It confirms the point I was making.

The explanation is these fossils are not evidence since they cannot be shown to be actually evolving. They are scattered throughout the planet and suddenly appearing as complete creatures. It is assumed they evolved from one to another.

Actually, no, the fossils leading to the horse are not scattered about the world. All of the evolution from Hyra to Equus is documented by fossils in North America (see Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years ).

And the point is that we are not dealing with sudden appearance of new creatures. Rather, there is a long line of creatures that step by step look more like the modern horse, donkey and zebra as time goes on. Knowing this, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion the Hyrocatherium evolved into zebras.

This is still not evidence that all life came from a common ancestor even if the horse thing was accurate. And that's a mighty big if.

How do you explain the available evidence? Nothing close to a horse or zebra is found 50 million years ago. Instead we find an abundance of Hyracotherium. Then we gradually see an introduction of creatures that look more and more like a horse and zebra as time goes on. Do you agree that the most likely explanation is that Hyra evolved? If not, how do you explain those fossils down there?

If you can address the question of horse evolution, we can ask what you think of other evolution. But if you cannot address this case that has such strong evidence, there is not much need to push the debate further. See Horse Evolution .

 

[doubtingmerle]

Part of the challenge is its creationists' best interest to not understand. Otherwise it becomes harder to make claims like there is "no evidence" for evolution.

Upton Sinclair wrote, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

I find it even more difficult to get a man to understand something if his eternal salvation depends upon his not understanding it.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not? That's who ran the schools when they were started. It worked well for years.

Like in the 19th century when Evangelical Protestantism held an entirely unwarranted status as de facto state religion and little Catholic kids were routinely beaten for not going along with it. Even now such things go on. During the Texas high school football game prayer case (Santa Fe School District v. Doe) it came out that public school teachers were sending Catholic and Mormon kids home in tears by telling them that they belonged to "godless cults." I've lived in the Bible Belt myself and my own kids were bullied for "What your daddy believes about the Bible." I know from personal experience what goes on where Evangelical Protestanism has the upper hand and it stinks.

The socialist agenda that has taken over the schools since then that has been the problem.

I suppose you would see it as a problem that the public schools can't teach that God wants us to recriminalize homosexuality, extend the death penalty, abolish gun control, union membership, workplace safety legislation, environmental regulation, child labor laws and the minimum wage, a God who glories in jingoistic nationalism and nativist bigotry, a God for whom only unregulated corporate capitalism is an acceptable economic system for man. No thanks, I'd rather have what you call the "socialist agenda"--it's more compatible with my Christian faith.

 

[ruthiesea]

Evolution from a common ancestor is a lie and has been pushed so hard and long that it is now established belief.

A lie backed by thousands of scientific studies and that cannot be invalidated? Would you have your religious beliefs, not shared by all religions, taught in science classes?

If you ever actually read Origin of Species you'd find that it is a a study that starts with observation followed by deduced explanations. From there conclusions are reached and testable predictions are made. Those predictions were tested with the purpose of invalidating the theory. However, 150 years later all the results have supported the theory.

Please recommend a book that follows the same scientific path for the development for a valid theory of creationism without reference to Genesis. Remember, the Bible does not constitute actual scientific evidence.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution from a common ancestor is a lie and has been pushed so hard and long that it is now established belief.

It's an applied science kiddo. This is what you and other creationists don't want to acknowledge. The only lies here are the ones you tell yourself so that you can continue to live in denial.

 

[ruthiesea]

Evolution is not based on science. You have no evidence to support anything the TOE preaches.

Some of the Bible is history and where the Bible touches on science, it is right. Specifically "after their kind' That is proved thousands of times every day and it can't be falsified.

Of course evolution is based on science. It has all of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. Perhaps you should read Origin of Species as well as some of the thousands of supporting studies. Certainly, creationism comes no where close to being a valid theory.

At best, the Bible is historical fiction. However, whether or not the stories are factual or not does not change their importance to teaching us morals and ethics. I'm not sure where the Bible 'touches' on science.

What is the definition of "kind"?

 

[pitabread]

as i said: those are the minority rather then the majority.

Irrelevant. It still shows that "wheels" aren't "conserved" among airplanes. Your don't really have an argument here, you just don't want to admit it.

its also logical to conclude that if a sequence is conserve among many creatures- then it has an important rule. otherwise it need to show more variations like other proteins. thus the conservation.

Not from a design POV, only from an evolutionary one.

And now we're right back to square one where you start repeating yourself again. :/

 

[rjs330]

It's an applied science kiddo. This is what you and other creationists don't want to acknowledge. The only lies here are the ones you tell yourself so that you can continue to live in denial.

It's still not science. Not really, because science can be observed tested and reproduced. You can't observe commin ancestry evolution, you can't test it or reproduce it. It's a an assumption. It's a belief system. It is based upon common design and then twisted into a belief system. All observable data shows that all things are remain what they are as a family or group. Dogs are dogs and cats are cats.
Nothing changes into anything else. A worm is a worm.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's still not science. Not really, because science can be observed tested and reproduced.

LOL. He said that it's an applied science. Do you know what that means?

 

[omega2xx]

Of course evolution is based on science. It has all of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. Perhaps you should read Origin of Species as well as some of the thousands of supporting studies. Certainly, creationism comes no where close to being a valid theory.

Wonderful. I am sure you will be able to provide the scientific evidence for natural selection. Perhaps you should read some books on basic genetics.

At best, the Bible is historical fiction.

What is your evidence that the stories in the Bible are fiction>

However, whether or not the stories are factual or not does not change their importance to teaching us morals and ethics. I'm not sure where the Bible 'touches' on science.

"After their kind" is science. It follows the laws of genetics. It is verified thousands of time every day, is observable and can't be falsified. It is also verified by the fossil record.

What is the definition of "kind"?

Basically any species that can mate and reproduce. Any species you can name is a kind. A cat is a kind, a dog is a kind, an oak tree is a kind etc.

 

[omega2xx]

A lie backed by thousands of scientific studies and that cannot be invalidated? Would you have your religious beliefs, not shared by all religions, taught in science classes?

Provide a scientific study that shows how a land animal can become a sea creature.

If you ever actually read Origin of Species you'd find that it is a a study that starts with observation followed by deduced explanations.

But no evidence. Darwin recognized the problem of explaining the origin of the eye. Has that problem been solved yet? Keep in mind Darwin was not a scientists.

From there conclusions are reached and testable predictions are made. Those predictions were tested with the purpose of invalidating the theory. However, 150 years later all the results have supported the theory.

Wonderful. I am sure you can give us the evidence that supports something the TOE preaches. Just one will be enough. Let suggest you offer the evidence for natural selection. If that is too hard, pick any example you want to.

[/QUOTE]Please recommend a book that follows the same scientific path for the development for a valid theory of creationism without reference to Genesis.[/QUOTE]

The origin of the heavens and the earth can't be verified by a book other than the Bible. However "God did it" is the best explanation for their existence. Can you explain the origin of matter, energy and life from lifeless elements?

Remember, the Bible does not constitute actual scientific evidence.

After their kind is as scientific as it gets.

 

[omega2xx]

Which is exactly why I don't want right-wing fundamentalist Protestants running the school curriculum.

The left wing, politically correct fundamentalist have taken America from Number one in education to about 14th. The Dept of Education and teacher unions are a disgrace to the public education system. Even home-school teachers without a degree in education do better job education their children.

It seems the right wingers were doing a far better job and with less money per student.

 

[Jimmy D]

But no evidence. Darwin recognized the problem of explaining the origin of the eye. Has that problem been solved yet? Keep in mind Darwin was not a scientists.

Eh?

 

[omega2xx]

Eh?

If you consider that evidence, you are in worse shape than I can imagine.

I consider that is an admission you can't provide any evidence for evolution.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Wonderful. I am sure you will be able to provide the scientific evidence for natural selection. Perhaps you should read some books on basic genetics.

....like these?:
Comparing Patterns of Natural Selection across Species Using Selective Signatures
Darwinian natural selection: its enduring explanatory power
Perhaps you should just read some books? Any books? (except that creationists tripe, of course)

What is your evidence that the stories in the Bible are fiction

Because of the evidence that the stories in the Qur'An are fact?

"After their kind" is science. It follows the laws of genetics. It is verified thousands of time every day, is observable and can't be falsified. It is also verified by the fossil record.

What's the scientific definition of "kind" then?

Basically any species that can mate and reproduce. Any species you can name is a kind. A cat is a kind, a dog is a kind, an oak tree is a kind etc.

What about the Snow Leopard, it can't be crossbred with any of the other cats, is it of its own kind? Why/why not? I'm not after examples, I want to know a framework by which we can objectively identify what a "kind" is. If your definition is just that it can reproduce, then a Snow Leopard (and millions more species like it) are actually their own kind, meaning the Ark immediately becomes a non-starter just on the numbers of species against that criteria alone. Of course, then there's ring species, how do they work? Are the ends of these ring species different kinds?? If not, then what happens if the middle of this ring species is wiped out or separates permanently? Are they their own kind then?

Provide a scientific study that shows how a land animal can become a sea creature.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.or.11.pdf
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
Transition of Eocene Whales from Land to Sea: Evidence from Bone Microstructure
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
....Okay, that last one is a laypeople article.... I figured you won't understand the science in these other peer reviewed studies of Whale Evolution from a land animal so threw it in the mix for you. No, no, don't thank me, I don't mind helping you google your education material for you...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

But no evidence. Darwin recognized the problem of explaining the origin of the eye. Has that problem been solved yet? Keep in mind Darw2in was not a scientists.

Eh?

If you consider that evidence, you are in worse shape than I can imagine.

I consider that is an admission you can't provide any evidence for evolution.

I'm Tired Of Seeing This Charles Darwin Quote Taken Out Of Context:

"In the sixth chapter of On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin addresses "Organs of Extreme Perfection" – organs like the eye, the formation of which due to natural selection, Darwin "freely confessed," seems "absurd in the highest possible degree." But this is only part of a much longer quote.
~
In fact, the full quotation demonstrates Darwin's thoughts on the matter to be quite the opposite:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

​