The Demise of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I do, but you are trying to spin the word "proof". You must spin the idea that uncertain and changing theories are "proof"

No, I am using it properly. There is no spin on my side. I never said that theories are proof, that was your error.

 

[Need answers]

The creation story was proven wrong a long time ago. Yes, theories can be shown to be wrong. In fact they are constantly changing and improving themselves. You appear to be working on a false dichotomy. Demonstrating that evolution is wrong would not be evidence for creationism. Creationism as an idea lost a long time ago.

Creationism is actually logical. I dont mean the story of creation necessarily, just that we and this world were created via intelligence, and not some mindless act of evolution which has no intelligent creator.

 

[Need answers]

No, I am using it properly. There is no spin on my side. I never said that theories are proof, that was your error.

Yup, you spinnin bro

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism is actually logical. I dont mean the story of creation necessarily, just that we and this world were created via intelligence, and not some mindless act of evolution which has no intelligent creator.

Then why cannot one creationist form a logical argument? What can't one creationist understand the concept of evidence.

How and why life evolved is well understood. It is only the details that are being worked on at this point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup, you spinnin bro

Let's not make false accusations. You are presently breaking the rules.


Do you think that you can argue logically? Do you think that you can learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Kylie]

I have seen all the available evidence and none of it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary development is scientifically possible.

Really?

What do you think of the analysis of trabecular evidence for a Human-like gait in Australopithecus africanus done by Barak, Liebermann, et al? Do you agree with their conclusion that the 2D principal trabecular orientation in the sagittal plane of an Australopithecus is very similar to that of Humans?

 

[Need answers]

Then why cannot one creationist form a logical argument? What can't one creationist understand the concept of evidence.

How and why life evolved is well understood. It is only the details that are being worked on at this point.

God gave you evidence that he is real. His creation itself is so clearly not a mindless act of evolution but is created by a creator, God.

 

[Kylie]

God gave you evidence that he is real. His creation itself is so clearly not a mindless act of evolution but is created by a creator, God.

Do you think evolution is random?

 

[Need answers]

Do you think evolution is random?

Mindless.

 

[Kylie]

Mindless.

Answer the question I asked please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God gave you evidence that he is real. His creation itself is so clearly not a mindless act of evolution but is created by a creator, God.

If he did then why can't any creationists present it? I have a feeling that you do not understand the concept. How about we take a break and discuss the concept of evidence first?

 

[Need answers]

Answer the question I asked please.

I did. I said its mindless. I dont wish to derail my comment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mindless.

Gravity is mindless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. I said its mindless. I dont wish to derail my comment.

So it is not random. Good. We can move on then.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Really?

What do you think of the analysis of trabecular evidence for a Human-like gait in Australopithecus africanus done by Barak, Liebermann, et al? Do you agree with their conclusion that the 2D principal trabecular orientation in the sagittal plane of an Australopithecus is very similar to that of Humans?

Similar is not human, and the absence of complete fossils and skeletons shows that this creature probably did not exist at all, but could be an invention of evolutionists made up of a few random bones which could very well be a combination of human and ape bones, cobbled together to make it appear that it could be the creature they are describing. They don't know whether the creature could walk on two legs or not, because there are no photos or videos of it; only an artist's impression of what it might be. But artists' impressions are not conclusive proof.

 

[Need answers]

If he did then why can't any creationists present it? I have a feeling that you do not understand the concept. How about we take a break and discuss the concept of evidence first?

Evidence that you say is uncertain and can change? You were created by God. Why is that so hard to believe?

 

[Larniavc]

knows that for something to be a science it has to be proved

You have just rule yourself out if the scientific method. Nothing is proved- scientific conclusions are always tentative. That’s why a creationist is by definition not a scientist.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Do you think evolution is random?

Yes. It is a random development through time and chance. But it has never been replicated or tested by science, so no one knows how it happened, or even if it actually did.

 

[Larniavc]

Any evidence that one kind of organism has actually changed to another kind. Or such as the artist impression that the blue whale evolved from a land-based four legged creature, or the other artist impression that shows the development of an ape to a human being. If you can produce a series of photographs showing how this development happened, this will be proof for me - that would be observation.

What do you think of the significance of this image.

Google Image Result for https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

 

[Need answers]

So it is not random. Good. We can move on then.

I didnt say that. However i'll comment. Random things can happen by a mindless accident or by designed creation. What does something being random or not prove?