proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

Uh, no its not assumptions. The chart I showed you was a summary of fossils that have been found and the dates of the fossils. How do you explain that all those fossils have been found in an order that is consistent with evolution?

Evolution of what? Evolution from a common ancestor? I think not. All that shows is that man existed back then. It doesn't show he evolved from the same ancestor the spider did.

 

[rjs330]

it's not that, exactly. Creationists don't believe the Bible is true because they believe in God. They believe in God because they believe that the Bible is true. Their faith in God rests on what they see as the objective historical facticity of scripture. It's a Protestant thing, I can't say that I understand it myself very much.

That's a horrible misrepresentation. The two go hand in hand. Most folks do not believe in God because they happened to read Genesis. Most came to believe because someone told them about God and they believed. There are millions and millions of people who came to know God without a Bible. However most believers obtain a Bible so they can learn more about God and what he teaches. You do exactly the same thing. You believe in the ressurrection and the life of Christ because of what is taught in scripture. It's as simple as that. We didn't believe the Bible first. We believed in God first. Then we learned more once began to read and study the Bible. And all that we see and understand is the Bible is true. Evolution from a common ancestor directly contradicts what God says happened. I trust what God says.

 

[rjs330]

s'funny, because you say that about literally everything.

Cause it's true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

ok. lets be in focus here. do you think that its possible to evolve a new complex system from other complex system just by adding one or 2 parts each step?

Illogical premise; when single mutations can cause the alteration or insertion of multiple genes, what's the point of even asking that question?

say a motion system into a vision system or a hearing system and so on. by the way (just as a general note) english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

I've already seen you say that, but if you think that the language barrier is such an issue, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to debate in a language you aren't adept enough in.

 

[pitabread]

Cause it's true.

Yet whenever I've asked you or any other creationist to substantiate such claims, you've come up short if not outright made excuses to avoid the subject altogether.

In fact, about the only thing I've gleaned from creationists on this forum is that life, if specially created, has the appearance of evolution.

 

[Cat Loaf You]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Give him this

 

[Speedwell]

That's a horrible misrepresentation. The two go hand in hand. Most folks do not believe in God because they happened to read Genesis. Most came to believe because someone told them about God and they believed. There are millions and millions of people who came to know God without a Bible. However most believers obtain a Bible so they can learn more about God and what he teaches.

Maybe, but I suspect that most Christians worldwide know no more of the Bible than the liturgical readings.

You do exactly the same thing. You believe in the ressurrection and the life of Christ because of what is taught in scripture. It's as simple as that. We didn't believe the Bible first. We believed in God first.

Not exactly, no. I believe in God, as you say, because of the witness of others. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Christ for much the same reason. I believe as it is taught in scripture, not solely because it is taught in scripture. But I believe in the authority of scripture because of its divine provenance, not because of its adherence to any particular literary genre. Why do you put it the other way around, unless for the reasons I said? I certainly can't think of any other.
The poster I was responding to declared that if Genesis was not 100% accurate literal history he would throw his Bible in the trash and never darken the door of a church again--this despite the fact that the Bible would still be a divinely inspired book.

 

[doubtingmerle]

what about a case that doesnt fit well with evolution like this one?:

if fossils in the correct order support evolution then fossils in the wrong order should be evidence against it. dont you think?

(image from File:Zachelmie tracks vs selected Devonian fossils.svg - Wikimedia Commons)

It is of course a waste of time to explain things to you, because you just ignore what we say, then wait a while, and then just make the same claims over again as though the previous discussion never happened. We have shown you before how the "Zachelmie tracks" were most likely not made by anything walking on land. See https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints

its fit well also with creation.

Oh dear. You just made me spit out my coffee. Good one.

As you know, I have asked you many times for your view of the fossil record, and your views are not clear. Do you think animals have been advancing steadily from Hyrcocatherium to horse and zebra for the last 50 million years as the fossil record shows? Does the chart I gave you of human evolution accurately reflect the progression of life towards humans? We don't know what you think.

Since your views float all over the place, I am curious how the fossils can be evidence for your view.

 

[doubtingmerle]

s'funny, because you say that about literally everything.

And the odd thing is that post #5543 had the expression s'funny, exactly in the post that creationism predicts it will appear. That's amazing!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Amusing and telling. You call my definition "idiosyncratic" and don't know what it is. I don't have a definition. I use a dictionary. I will accept your definition if it is accurate.

The first entry from Merriam-Webster : "in what manner or way"

So, given that this was addressed in the post to which you responded with "...no explanation as to HOW it is possible" I'll repeat my request. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.

 

[Jimmy D]

The first entry from Merriam-Webster : "in what manner or way"

So, given that this was addressed in the post to which you responded with "...no explanation as to HOW it is possible" I'll repeat my request. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.

It's just a painfully transparent and pathetic tactic. Any evidence presented can be ignored by typing "but how?".

Omega has added nothing to this thread with his trolling.

 

[omega2xx]

The first entry from Merriam-Webster : "in what manner or way"

So, given that this was addressed in the post to which you responded with "...no explanation as to HOW it is possible" I'll repeat my request. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.

How--In what manner or way.

Now tell me in what manner or way natural selection can cause a change of species. Please include a scientific manner or way, not the usual fundie evolution talking points.

 

[omega2xx]

I am not asserting it, I am saying it outright.

Saying my response is funny indicates you can't tell me, scientifically of course, how the environment can be a cause for a change os species.

The only thing the environment might do is make some species extinct.

 

[David_M]

The inability to interbreed doe snot change the species. Too much inter breeding can cause some to become sterile. In the study of ring species, where some were no longer able to breed, the salamanders remained the exact same species they were before. In fact some of them did not become sterile and continued to breed. Guess what they bred.

You don't know what the term "populations unable to interbreed" means do you?

Neither do you understand what ring species are.

Do you not ever think that criticising a scientific theory without understanding what it proposes just makes you look very foolish?

 

[omega2xx]

Trump University by chance?

Are you her to discuss the subject or to make stupid remarks? Evidently you don't have the intellect to intelligently discuss the subject so you resort to insults.

 

[omega2xx]

Can you tell us what an "allie" in DNA is? Creationist justatruthseeker thinks that there are such things in DNA, but I don't know what they are.

Tell me what a creationists justatruthseeker is and I will answer your question.

 

[omega2xx]

Are cheetahs their own kind?

They have some rather dog-like features...

Cheetahs are their own kind and all 4 legged animals have some dogf-like features---4 legs.

So, you do not understand that there is a difference between unfalsifiable (e.g., creationism) and not yet falsified?

You have had over 100 years to falsify it and can't. That should tell you something. It is amusing for someone to think something that happens and is observed thousands of times every day for thousands of years is not evidence of a truth---after their kind in animals, birds, fish and humans.

You can't tell me what the first life form was, how it originated and what it became. Your faith in Darwin might exceed my faith in God.

That was so cool how you wrote the same basic thing over and over.

Thank you . I was hoping the repetition would finally sink in and help you understand what is obvious.

By the way -a blowhole is a nostril, not a nose.

But how would you know?

BTW they are both very different nostrils and one can't become the other. I know by simple observation. If you can't tell the difference maybe you need a trip the a good optometrist.

 

[Jimmy D]

BTW they are both very different nostrils and one can't become the other. I know by simple observation. If you can't tell the difference maybe you need a trip the a good optometrist.

What do you think the difference is between a nostril and a blowhole?

 

[omega2xx]

That's what "asserting" means: to state confidently and emphatically.

But let me get this right. You are saying that there is no such thing as natural selection?

Yes.

That, for example, gazelles which can run faster are just as likely to be eaten by lions as gazelles which can only run more slowly?

Still both survive as they we born don't they and at times the leopard will catch the gazelle, especially the young one that are necessary for the species to survive. If natural selection was true, it might allow the species to survive, but it can't be a mechanism for a change of species.

Also there is no gene for stronger legs. The problem with natural selection is they ASSUME it will cause the species to live longer and produce more kids which will eventually result in a change of species from small changes over many years.

It s biggest problem is offers the science that makes it possible. Now you will say mutations will eventually cause this to happen. Mutations alter characteristics, but the CANNOT change the species.

The albino will remain the exact same species as it parents, but will be missing the normal skin it would have gotten without the mutation.

 

[Jimmy D]

BTW they are both very different nostrils and one can't become the other. I know by simple observation.

Adaptive Evolution of 5′HoxD Genes in the Origin and Diversification of the Cetacean Flipper

limb modification in the mammals has involved the molecular evolution of the Hoxgenes Hoxd12 and Hoxd13, represent an important addition to this growing body of work and highlights the potential role that Hox genes are likely to have had in more recent evolutionary radiations.

The role of Hoxd12 in the modulation of digit number and development of the flipper was also suggested by the results of branch-site models, in which several sites under positive selection were detected on the branch leading to the cetaceans

...................

Why did you completely ignore this, please read the link if you are actually interested in learning anything.