What proof would you need? (2)

[Gath]

Sorry to break the news to you but evolution is inconstant with the findings in genetics and science in general.

Then why do a majority of scientists believe it?

You can go on creationist websites all you want, but those aren't legitimate arguments against evolution.

You have two challenges to overcome to prove evolution:

• provide real evidence
• discover a new physics and a new chemistry

Well, we've already provided real evidence, and it works with the current physics and chemistry that we have...

I have participated in several threads about evolution. Both of the ones that come to mind showed that either the participants did not understand there own dogma or that they could not support there position with real evidence. You are more than welcome to begin a new thread…

Creationists in this forum welcome fresh meat.

Evolution is not dogma. It is scientific fact. You can deny it all you want, but that isn't going to change a thing. The scientific community will move on with or without you.

 

[pgp_protector]

Starting a thread is a big investment in time but it has its rewards. I extend a friendly invitation to prove your point.

Post and they will come.

Starting a thread takes the same amount of time as typing a post.

 

[Jazer]

the True inhabitants of the British isles were the Celts and Celtic is nothing like English.

Under the Romans when they had Garrisons set up it was the British that the Romans protected. So the Anglos and Saxtons were considered barbarians because they were outside of the Roman or the Civilized world. When the Greek Empire fell the Anglos and Saxtons moved in for land to grow their food. Later on the Normans came along.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Under the Romans when they had Garrisons set up it was the British that the Romans protected. So the Anglos and Saxtons were considered barbarians because they were outside of the Roman or the Civilized world. When the Greek Empire fell the Anglos and Saxtons moved in for land to grow their food. Later on the Normans came along.

This is a novel take on history. Just for clarity, did you mean the Greek Empire? And it's Saxons, not Saxtons. And Angles, but not to worry.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorry to break the news to you but evolution is inconstant with the findings in genetics and science in general.

The consistency of the genetic code and the twin-nested hierarchy say otherwise.

Also evolution in its early beginning provided an explanation of abiogenesis but since the new evolution synthesis (accepting spontaneous generation could not happen) abiogenesis is no longer covered by the Darwinist.

Show me the chapter on abiogenesis in Darwin's on the Origin of Species. Not to mention the fact that spontaneous generation was disproved back in the 18th century. You can also explain to us how the theory of evolution is affected by whether God created the first life, or abiogenesis did.

You have two challenges to overcome to prove evolution:

• provide real evidence

• 
  We have over 100 years of "real" evidence. Isn't that enough?
  
  

  [*]discover a new physics and a new chemistry

Nonsense. Its creationists yourself who demand new chemistry and physics. Like re-writing the second law of thermodynamics.

I have participated in several threads about evolution. Both of the ones that come to mind showed that either the participants did not understand there own dogma or that they could not support there position with real evidence. You are more than welcome to begin a new thread…

We don't have dogma, like you do. That is why science works and your theology based creationism fails.

Creationists in this forum welcome fresh meat.

Your post shows that creationists in this forum excel in one thing only: Rhetoric.

 

[Astridhere]

Then why do a majority of scientists believe it?

You can go on creationist websites all you want, but those aren't legitimate arguments against evolution.
[/list]Well, we've already provided real evidence, and it works with the current physics and chemistry that we have...

No you do not have consistency. Indeed morphology contradicts DNA in many cases between kinds which is exactly what a creationists would expect to find and we do not require a plethora of hand waving terms to be invented to address the annomolies eg homoplasy and convergent evolution; ornag/human/chimp, pig/whale/hippo.


Evolution is not dogma. It is scientific fact. You can deny it all you want, but that isn't going to change a thing. The scientific community will move on with or without you.

The scientific community will continue to hand wave away anything that does not fit.

Unfortunately for you, all you have is 150 years of contradiction and change.

Indeed not one of you can support any small point offered as an evolutionary support and need to fall back on the holistic supports provided by a plethora of inconsistency, denial and a bunch of non plausible scenarios without merit.

Remember for 150 years well credentialed evolutionists were united in suggesting the fossil evidence supported mankind evolved from a knuckelwalking ape. This 150 years was overturned by one single fossil as has been the case many times.

If you think being skeptical of anything your researchers provide as evolutionary support is ignorant then I would say that the falsification of 150 years of woffle shoved down creationists throats really demonstrates whom the term 'ignorant' really applies to.

 

[begt]

The (DNA-based) phylogenetic tree of life is in itself enough proof for evolution. Either that or the god/gods that might exist (or some other farfetched "explanation") have made great efforts to have us think that evolution is true with the purpose of misleading us.

Tree of Life Web Project (this is a goldmine if you´re interested in biology/taxonomy)

BTW morphology is not expected to match DNA perfectly LOL...

 

[Mikecpking]

Unfortunately for you, all you have is 150 years of contradiction and change.

Indeed not one of you can support any small point offered as an evolutionary support and need to fall back on the holistic supports provided by a plethora of inconsistency, denial and a bunch of non plausible scenarios without merit.

Remember for 150 years well credentialed evolutionists were united in suggesting the fossil evidence supported mankind evolved from a knuckelwalking ape. This 150 years was overturned by one single fossil as has been the case many times.

If you think being skeptical of anything your researchers provide as evolutionary support is ignorant then I would say that the falsification of 150 years of woffle shoved down creationists throats really demonstrates whom the term 'ignorant' really applies to.

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism by AronRa - YouTube

 

[mzungu]

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism by AronRa - YouTube

Very good video but if you think Astrid will actually watch it then I fear you are knocking on a deaf man's door.

Honestly, the biggest threat to Christianity are the fundamentalist Christians who even go so far as to claim that Adam and Eve spoke English, and or God's chosen land is the USA, and other such divisive and blatantly racist beliefs that point to a more sinister Aryan direction if I may use that word.

I have known Atheists who are more Christian in their ways than most fundamentalists here who use Christianity as a political tool and not as a spiritual guide!

No wonder Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth!

 

[begt]

Great video MikecpKing. He really puts emphasis on the phylogenetic tree of life at the end of the clip.

I don't see how anyone with some intellectual honesty can still be a creationist after having seen it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism by AronRa - YouTube

Ah, AronRa, I remember when he used to grace our halls. Now he's on to bigger things.

 

[pgp_protector]

Great video MikecpKing. He really puts emphasis on the phylogenetic tree of life at the end of the clip.

I don't see how anyone with some intellectual honesty can still be a creationist after having seen it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah, AronRa, I remember when he used to grace our halls. Now he's on to bigger things.

I miss AronRa. He hasn't been online here in ages

 

[Mikecpking]

AronRa has produced quite a few videos on this series, and although I don't accept his atheism, hits the nail on the head with what evolution is about and even leaves room for evolution being a mechanism by how God creates in an earlier talk.

 

[Mikecpking]

Very good video but if you think Astrid will actually watch it then I fear you are knocking on a deaf man's door.

Honestly, the biggest threat to Christianity are the fundamentalist Christians who even go so far as to claim that Adam and Eve spoke English, and or God's chosen land is the USA, and other such divisive and blatantly racist beliefs that point to a more sinister Aryan direction if I may use that word.

I have known Atheists who are more Christian in their ways than most fundamentalists here who use Christianity as a political tool and not as a spiritual guide!

No wonder Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth!

Sadly, it is crationism that brings Christianity into disrepute. There are at least 4 verses in scripture that God challenges and encourages us to look into the creation, and sadly for Astrid, does not look into biblical styles of writing to even realise that Genesis 1 is actually a poem to remember the Sabbath!

 

[CabVet]

I have known Atheists who are more Christian in their ways than most fundamentalists here who use Christianity as a political tool and not as a spiritual guide!

+1 very much so.

 

[Mikecpking]

Why would you want to include a God and which God would you include? all of them or just yours?

Why? For me, I have an interest in cosmology and with the whole universe being subject to fixed rules like the speed of light, E=MC2 and so on has the unviverse being 'just right' for life..eg here.

The Christian and Hebrew God (my God) reveals himself in the person of Jesus and I really do not see a conflict between my faith nor anything in science and all the other disiplines related to the study of the natural world and the the universe we live in.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why would you want to include a God and which God would you include? all of them or just yours?

I think his point is that AronRa doesn't preclude God.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Honestly, the biggest threat to Christianity are the fundamentalist Christians who even go so far as to claim that Adam and Eve spoke English, and or God's chosen land is the USA, and other such divisive and blatantly racist beliefs that point to a more sinister Aryan direction if I may use that word.

No wonder Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth!

Creationism is more much virulent among Muslims than it is among Christians. Other countries with a high percentage of Christians don't have the same level of support for creationism as the USA does.

By contrast, almost all countries with a high population of Muslims strongly support creationism. Egypt - one of the few Islamic nations which teaches evolution in schools - actually has the least amount of supporters for evolution.

Muslim support for evolution is roughly the same in the USA as it is in Islamic countries:

A recent sociological study analyzing religious patterns in Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan) included a question about evolution as an example of an idea that challenges a “fundamental religious belief widely held by Muslims”. The respondents were asked: “Do you agree or disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution?” Only 16% of Indonesians, 14% of Pakistanis, 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin’s theory is probably or most certainly true.

- Bracing for Islamic Creationism​

​

Study from the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research (USA, 2005)​

​

• Protestants who support evolution = 43%
• Catholics who support evolution = 61%
• Orthodox Christians who support evolution = 41%
• Muslims who support evolution = 20%

People have this weird idea that creationism is exclusive to Christians. And let's not even get started on Muslim nationalism ...

 

[Mikecpking]

Do you mean like the hole being made for the water that's in it? the water just fills the hole no more no less,
could it be the other way around or is your way just a believers way of thinking?

Like saying the desert was designed for camels or the Arctic was made for Polar bears and grass was made for cows.

When a meteor hits the earth again it might not be 'just right' for anything.

If one subscribes to the 'rare earth' idea, it seems we have the conditions here just right for life (position of the planet, stable star, seasons, water, moon to stabilise rotation and so on). Plus inflation of the universe being within a few percentage points for matter to pull together to form stars and galaxies in the first place..it is a lot of 'luck'!

Or, as my favourite rock band would put it "Why are we here? Because we are here!"

You choose!