The Creationist Explanaton

[xianghua]

Where’s YOUR creationist evidence/proof ?!?!

here for instance :

unless you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design. (image from my signature link)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

here for instance :

unless you dont think that a spinning motor is evidence for design. (image from my signature link)

You have never shown how that is evidence for creation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I offer the following observations:

Among the offspring produced by any given species, there is a range of values for any trait; in other words there is variation. For example, some goldfish have golden scales, some have orange scales, some have brownish scales, and some have a mixture. If you have ever observed a litter of puppies or kittens you will have noticed that while they resemble one another, they are not identical. The same thing can be observed in a large family. Although they are the offspring of the same parents and may resemble one another, the siblings are not identical.

This variation extends to all traits, even those vital for the survival of the individual. An eagle, which depends on superior eyesight to locate its prey, can still be born shortsighted. All variations are, therefore, random and not specifically directed toward any preferential adaptation.

Are you with me so far?

Observations? What exactly are you getting at here? Are we going to be observing either proof or evidence that confirms evolution is a fact, or not?

 

[Speedwell]

Observations? What exactly are you getting at here? Are we going to be observing either proof or evidence that confirms evolution is a fact, or not?

Right now we are trying to confirm ("prove" the existence of) reproductive variation. Reproductive variation is one of the processes on which evolution depends. I gave you some common examples of reproductive variation in the hope that you had observed them yourself.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Right now we are trying to confirm ("prove" the existence of) reproductive variation. Reproductive variation is one of the processes on which evolution depends. I gave you some common examples of reproductive variation in the hope that you had observed them yourself.

You're not answering my question. Are we are or are we not going to prove evolution is a fact? Or to put it another way, will reproductive variation lead us to, or in itself prove that?

Seriously, I'm more than willing to get into this, as I know I personally would never have the guts to try to prove something like this so, I respect the fact you will even try. I don't think it's too bright but still guts. However it's only going to make you angry if it doesn't lead to proof/confirming evidence, the full scope of evolution is a fact, that's what happens every time it fails.

So, just being cautious for one, because I don't wan that to happen, anther, I don't wan to waste the time if it's not going to happen, so just making sure.

Are we, at the very least, headed where we are supposed to be headed with this? I also ask because it worries me when I don't get direct answers to a direct question so please do that now.

 

[Speedwell]

You're not answering my question. Are we are or are we not going to prove evolution is a fact? Or to put it another way, will reproductive variation lead us to, or in itself prove that?

Seriously, I'm more than willing to get into this, as I know I personally would never have the guts to try to prove something like this so, I respect the fact you will even try. I don't think it's too bright but still guts. However it's only going to make you angry if it doesn't lead to proof/confirming evidence, the full scope of evolution is a fact, that's what happens every time it fails.

So, just being cautious for one, because I don't wan that to happen, anther, I don't wan to waste the time if it's not going to happen, so just making sure.

Are we, at the very least, headed where we are supposed to be headed with this? I also ask because it worries me when I don't get direct answers to a direct question so please do that now.

Yes, my intention ia to go through it step by step. Keep in mind that the name of the theory is, for good reason, The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. So we are first going to investigate random variation. It was, not coincidentally, the first thing that Darwin noticed which lead him to the insight that became the theory.

So what we have to confirm is,
1. That reproductive variation occurs,
2. That it is random.
3. That the variations can be inherited.

Right now we are working on #1. I gave you some common examples of reproductive variation in the hope that you had observed them yourself.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, my intention ia to go through it step by step. Keep in mind that the name of the theory is, for good reason, The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. So we are first going to investigate random variation. It was, not coincidentally, the first thing that Darwin noticed which lead him to the insight that became the theory.

So what we have to confirm is,
1. That reproductive variation occurs,
2. That it is random.
3. That the variations can be inherited.

Right now we are working on #1. I gave you some common examples of reproductive variation in the hope that you had observed them yourself.

You still didn't answer my question specific question. Not sure if you are subconsciously missing it or what? Very odd.

And I'm already aware of the "theories", and only really concerned that people call evolution fact, so that comment worries me as well.

Once more, this will lead to proof/confirming evidence, the full scope of evolution where we evolved from something completely different than we are today, is a fact? Not a theory, now, a fact. Is that all correct?

A single yes to that will end all my doubt, and we can move on.

 

[Speedwell]

You still didn't answer my question specific question. Not sure if you are subconsciously missing it or what? Very odd.

If you don't think I answered your question, then evidently I didn't understand it.

And I'm already aware of the "theories", and only really concerned that people call evolution fact, so that comment worries me as well.

Evolution is a fact; it is a fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began. The theory of evolution is a theory which attempts to explain that fact. I thought that is what you wanted to be provided with confirming evidence for. The theory, that is.

Once more, this will lead to proof/confirming evidence, the full scope of evolution where we evolved from something completely different than we are today, is a fact? Not a theory, now, a fact. Is that all correct?

I don't know what you mean by "lead to," we've already begun. . The theory of evolution is made up of a number of elements which we must go through one by one. The first of these is reproductive variation, which is what we are working on now. When we are done we will have covered all of them.

A single yes to that will end all my doubt, and we can move on.

I'm not sure of exactly what you are in doubt of, but yes, I will attempt to provide you with confirmation of the theory of evolution.

Or perhaps I have misunderstood you from the beginning. Perhaps what concerns you most is the fact of evolution itself, rather than the nature of the theory which explains it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not sure of exactly what you are in doubt of, but yes, I will attempt to provide you with confirmation of the theory of evolution.

Yet you evaded the question. See? a "single" yes or know would have been an answer to the precise question, but that didn't happen. Instead you changed the question to proving there is a theory. I already went into detail about that, in that I'm aware of the theory already, and my problem lies with it being called a fact.

Once more, this will lead to proof/confirming evidence, the full scope of evolution where we evolved from something completely different than we are today, is a fact? Not a theory, now, a fact. Is that all correct?

Do you understand what I mean by the "full scope of evolution"? I mean the popular version...the fact that man evolved from some little, well, nothing as I understand it, and not some minute happening that suggests to some that we all evolved from some microscopic bug or whatever, doesn't matter, then went from there to what we are today.

Several posts back, Jimmy, suggested that "minute happening" was confirming evidence, or proof of evolution, and while it "may" have been something along those lines, as far as a single incident, it far from explained that full scope I mentioned from the start, or basically what most see is evolution.

I should ask, do you agree that is the full scope of what most consider evolution, at least in a nutshell? And if so, is that what you adhere to as well, or do you have a different view?

 

[Speedwell]

Yet you evaded the question. See? a "single" yes or know would have been an answer to the precise question, but that didn't happen. Instead you changed the question to proving there is a theory. I already went into detail about that, in that I'm aware of the theory already, and my problem lies with it being called a fact.

The theory of evolution is a theory not a fact, and only the ignorant call it so. The fact of evolution, which the theory purports to explain, is a fact.
As a parallel example, the existence of gravity is a fact, but Einsteins theory--which purports to explain gravity--is a theory, not a fact.

Do you understand what I mean by the "full scope of evolution"? I mean the popular version...

I don't care about the "popular version" whatever that may be. I am interested in the scientific version.

I should ask, do you agree that is the full scope of what most consider evolution, at least in a nutshell? And if so, is that what you adhere to as well, or do you have a different view?

I consider the "full scope of evolution" to consist of two things:
1. The fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began, and
2. The explanation of that fact, as provisionally set forth in the theory of evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The theory of evolution is a theory not a fact, and only the ignorant call it so. The fact of evolution, which the theory purports to explain, is a fact.
As a parallel example, the existence of gravity is a fact, but Einsteins theory--which purports to explain gravity--is a theory, not a fact.

Then you are saying the existence of the theory is a fact, but evolutionists theory...which purports to explain it...is theory, not a fact.

So then, what are we doing here? I'm looking for proof/confirming evidence of evolution, the evolution I described is fact and it appears all you will be doing is giving me theory that of course is a fact (it's a fact they have a theory) while the theories content is not a fact, it's just theory, or proposed idea/explanation of how things work.

I consider the "full scope of evolution" to consist of two things:
1. The fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began, and
2. The explanation of that fact, as provisionally set forth in the theory of evolution.

Changed and diversified as in that which I posted, and posted for a reason. Here it is again:

Do you understand what I mean by the "full scope of evolution"? I mean the popular version...the fact that man evolved from some little, well, nothing as I understand it, and not some minute happening that suggests to some that we all evolved from some microscopic bug or whatever, doesn't matter, then went from there to what we are today.

Several posts back, Jimmy, suggested that "minute happening" was confirming evidence, or proof of evolution, and while it "may" have been something along those lines, as far as a single incident, it far from explained that full scope I mentioned from the start, or basically what most see is evolution.

So, since you believe

1. The fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began,

I need to know if, what I was hoping for comment on when I posted it, the fact that there is some "minute happening" of something evolving (and you need to answer this) Is that all you have as:

1. The fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began.

?

Just that one little "happening" could cover that claim completely.

Then this would follow that:

2. The explanation of that fact, as provisionally set forth in the theory of evolution.

So, if I'm understanding where you are headed with all that, you are basically going to try to tell me some little case of something evolving, is confirming evidence of evolution? And that, that has nothing to do with popular belief of evolution, something I explained I was looking for already.

IOW, whether or not there is an incident of a little thing evolving or not, is not of concern to me because it's far from confirming evidence of what is proposed as the "full scope of what we know as evolution". Something you are aware of, whether you believe that's how it works it or not. and something you had to be aware I was looking for.

Now, if you don't "care about that popular belief" the one I'm trying to get confirmed, that's fine, but that would mean you aren't the one to answer the question, you don't even believe the popular belief, and in spite of my trying to get it out of you, you were ambiguous overall at best. So here I am spending a lot of time on nothing, and we haven't even gotten started with the something, that the best I can figure in spite of your ambiguous replies to some of my questioning, is nothing like what I was asking for.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but if so, it's certainly not for lack of trying to figure out what you are doing, and if I'm even close to right, please just say so, and lets stop now before we end up in the situation I mentioned I was trying to avoid from the start.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you are saying the existence of the theory is a fact, but evolutionists theory...which purports to explain it...is theory, not a fact.

So then, what are we doing here? I'm looking for proof/confirming evidence of evolution, the evolution I described is fact and it appears all you will be doing is giving me theory that of course is a fact (it's a fact they have a theory) while the theories content is not a fact, it's just theory, or proposed idea/explanation of how things work.



Changed and diversified as in that which I posted, and posted for a reason. Here it is again:

Do you understand what I mean by the "full scope of evolution"? I mean the popular version...the fact that man evolved from some little, well, nothing as I understand it, and not some minute happening that suggests to some that we all evolved from some microscopic bug or whatever, doesn't matter, then went from there to what we are today.

Several posts back, Jimmy, suggested that "minute happening" was confirming evidence, or proof of evolution, and while it "may" have been something along those lines, as far as a single incident, it far from explained that full scope I mentioned from the start, or basically what most see is evolution.

So, since you believe

1. The fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began,

I need to know if, what I was hoping for comment on when I posted it, the fact that there is some "minute happening" of something evolving (and you need to answer this) Is that all you have as:

1. The fact that life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began.

?

Just that one little "happening" could cover that claim completely.

Then this would follow that:

2. The explanation of that fact, as provisionally set forth in the theory of evolution.

So, if I'm understanding where you are headed with all that, you are basically going to try to tell me some little case of something evolving, is confirming evidence of evolution? And that, that has nothing to do with popular belief of evolution, something I explained I was looking for already.

IOW, whether or not there is an incident of a little thing evolving or not, is not of concern to me because it's far from confirming evidence of what is proposed as the "full scope of what we know as evolution". Something you are aware of, whether you believe that's how it works it or not. and something you had to be aware I was looking for.

Now, if you don't "care about that popular belief" the one I'm trying to get confirmed, that's fine, but that would mean you aren't the one to answer the question, you don't even believe the popular belief, and in spite of my trying to get it out of you, you were ambiguous overall at best. So here I am spending a lot of time on nothing, and we haven't even gotten started with the something, that the best I can figure in spite of your ambiguous replies to some of my questioning, is nothing like what I was asking for.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but if so, it's certainly not for lack of trying to figure out what you are doing, and if I'm even close to right, please just say so, and lets stop now before we end up in the situation I mentioned I was trying to avoid from the start.

So I take from all that, that it is the fact of evolution you wanted "proof of," not the theory. Sorry for the confusion. We sort of take it for granted. In a similar way, if you asked us to "prove gravity" we would probably start talking to you about Einstein's theory. It would not immediately occur to us that it was the existence of gravity itself you wanted proved.

In any case, let us examine the proposition, what we call the fact of evolution:

Life on this planet has changed and diversified since it began.

Read it carefully. What it says is,
1. There are species alive on the Earth now which have not always been here, and species once alive which are here no longer, and
2. Overall, the number of species has tended to increase.

Notice also what it does not say. What it does not say is how this happened. That is what theories are for. Or religions.