When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Subduction Zone]

That didn't sound too convincing.

From an atheist's perspective, I would assume he was [sic] either a man or a woman.

It does not need to be. If you want to claim that he was anything but a man the burden of proof is upon you. I can only say that there is no valid reason to think that he was not just a man.

 

[46AND2]

Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

What would you accept as proof of evolution?

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yes, but the common-design argument is bogus. It does not explain why there is a genetic mechanism of inheritance. It would assume that I look like my father simply because the Designer had in min a common design for humans. OK, but what did I inherit from my father, what role did my genes play in this?
And there are other fallacies here. Why should teh Designer have a common design in mind? Whatever is created has nothing whatsoever to do with its predecessors, it is a wholly independent event. Given that the Designer is creative, he or she need not stick with the same old, same old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry none of that is proof unless you,want it to. Its still,all assumption because you cannot prove any of it causes one creature to turn into,something else. You can try to explain until you are blue in the face but all your explanations do is prove that you want evolution to be true no matter the fact you can't prove it. All those wonderful discoveries show is common design not evolution. When someone can prove that one thing can evolve into something else then you will,have proof. Until then it is only wishful thinking.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Actually all of that is evidence for evolution. And there is no denying that. If you deny that it only means that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Science does not use "proofs". As the saying goes proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and none that supports the concept of creationism.

 

[Robert Palase]

What would you accept as proof of evolution?

Nothing, acceptance would mean abandoning his belief and he would never do that, without his belief he would feel worthless.

No one can change a creationists mind they must change their own minds and the majority of them do eventually come to their senses.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, but the common-design argument is bogus. It does not explain why there is a genetic mechanism of inheritance. It would assume that I look like my father simply because the Designer had in min a common design for humans. OK, but what did I inherit from my father, what role did my genes play in this?
And there are other fallacies here. Why should teh Designer have a common design in mind? Whatever is created has nothing whatsoever to do with its predecessors, it is a wholly independent event. Given that the Designer is creative, he or she need not stick with the same old, same old.

Exactly, what did you inherit from your father? You inherited some traits and also had some new,ones. But what you didn't inherit was a gene that begins to turn you into something else, something inhuman. Unless you of,course believe in the X-Men.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Actually all of that is evidence for evolution. And there is no denying that. If you deny that it only means that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Science does not use "proofs". As the saying goes proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and none that supports the concept of creationism.

Actually all of it supports creation. Because God made everything according to its kind. What do we have and always have had on this planet? All kinds of living creatures. Myriads of them, Fossils proving different kinds of creatures. Most all of them with similarities to one another which speaks of common design. Yet all different than one another.

Evolutions nature of evidence is only good upon interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists believe in evolution and their interpretation of what they find is based upon that belief system.

And yes science does use proofs. You can prove gravity. You can prove the earth is spinning. You can prove that water boils at a certain temperature. You can my identity by my DNA. All this because you can actually show it in action. Evolution is something you can't prove because you can't seen it in action. You can assume, you can guess. You can believe. But you can't prove. The fossil record proves nothing but that the creature existed. There is no way to say what it came from or what it turned into. Unless of course you make an assumption based upon your belief system.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually all of it supports creation. Because God made everything according to its kind. What do we have and always have had on this planet? All kinds of living creatures. Myriads of them, Fossils proving different kinds of creatures. Most all of them with similarities to one another which speaks of common design. Yet all different than one another.

Evolutions nature of evidence is only good upon interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists believe in evolution and their interpretation of what they find is based upon that belief system.

And yes science does use proofs. You can prove gravity. You can prove the earth is spinning. You can prove that water boils at a certain temperature. You can my identity by my DNA. All this because you can actually show it in action. Evolution is something you can't prove because you can't seen it in action. You can assume, you can guess. You can believe. But you can't prove. The fossil record proves nothing but that the creature existed. There is no way to say what it came from or what it turned into. Unless of course you make an assumption based upon your belief system.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

But aren't you arguing evolution is wrong because it violates your religious belief system?

 

[rjs330]

Nothing, acceptance would mean abandoning his belief and he would never do that, without his belief he would feel worthless.

No one can change a creationists mind they must change their own minds and the majority of them do eventually come to their senses.

I will tell you what would change,my,mind. Actual proof that something was turning into something else. Take any creature you like and watch it evolve into something else and I will believe. I promise.

Please don't insult me.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually all of it supports creation. Because God made everything according to its kind. What do we have and always have had on this planet? All kinds of living creatures. Myriads of them, Fossils proving different kinds of creatures. Most all of them with similarities to one another which speaks of common design. Yet all different than one another.

Wrong. There is in actuality no scientific evidence at all for creationism. All you are doing is misinterpreting the evidence.

Evolutions nature of evidence is only good upon interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists believe in evolution and their interpretation of what they find is based upon that belief system.

It is based upon the only viable interpretation of the evidence. Creationists have no explanation for almost all of the evidence. It is not a matter of bias, it is a matter of fear on the part of creationists. They are afraid to follow the rules for scientific evidence.

And yes science does use proofs. You can prove gravity. You can prove the earth is spinning. You can prove that water boils at a certain temperature. You can my identity by my DNA. All this because you can actually show it in action. Evolution is something you can't prove because you can't seen it in action. You can assume, you can guess. You can believe. But you can't prove. The fossil record proves nothing but that the creature existed. There is no way to say what it came from or what it turned into. Unless of course you make an assumption based upon your belief system.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Wrong again. That is only evidence. What happens if all of a sudden you find yourself in an environment where you do not observe things falling down? Once again you show that you do not understand how science works. And by your standards evolution has been proven while creationism has not been.

I can help you understand the nature of evidence. That is the first step to opening your eyes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will tell you what would change,my,mind. Actual proof that something was turning into something else. Take any creature you like and watch it evolve into something else and I will believe. I promise.

Please don't insult me.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Wrong on two points. First you want evidence not "proof". Second the theory of evolution does not say that an animal turns into something else. There is no "change of kinds" in evolution. You can rest assured that even with evolution all of your children will be human beings since they came from human beings. Of course you and I are apes and so are your children. We are descended from apes, we share a common ancestor with other apes. No change of "kind". Also you and me and your children are all primates. We share a common ancestor with other primates that was a primate too, no change of kind. And you and I and your children are all mammals. We share a common ancestor with the other mammals. No change of kind. And you and I and your children are all tetrapods. We share a common ancestor with other tetrapods such as reptiles and amphibians that was a tetrapod. No change of kind. And we are also all vertebrates, we share a common ancestor with other vertebrates. No change of kind.

Do you see how "change of kind" is a bad term to use?

 

[Robert Palase]

I will tell you what would change,my,mind. Actual proof that something was turning into something else. Take any creature you like and watch it evolve into something else and I will believe. I promise.

Please don't insult me.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

If evolution was shown to be completely wrong your religion would still be no closer to being right, evolution is however a fact and your religion is just a belief like so many others you don't believe in, I just reject one belief more than you.

I am not the one insulting you, you are insulting yourself by asking yourself to believe such foolishness.

 

[AV1611VET]

If evolution was shown to be completely wrong your religion would still be no closer to being right,

That's true!

Teacher: What are 2 + 3?
Evolutionist: 4
Creationist: 5
Teacher: 4 is wrong.

In the above scenario, does the evolutionist's wrong answer make the creationist's right answer "closer to being right"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's true!

Teacher: What are 2 + 3?
Evolutionist: 4
Creationist: 5
Teacher: 4 is wrong.

In the above scenario, does the evolutionist's wrong answer make the creationist's right answer "closer to being right"?

That is a very poorly asked question. I have doubts that you could ever find a case where the evolution side was wrong and the creation side was right. In almost every scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong. That is why creationists will not participate in an actual scientific debate, their loss would be apparent immediately.

 

[Robert Palase]

In almost every scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.

Try.... In 'every' scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try.... In 'every' scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.

I was being rather generous. I am fairly sure that lightning must have made one strike for them, where they had a minor claim that was shown to be correct. No major claim of theirs has ever been right. So a huge error of the sort that was used in the analogy would be only a creationist mistake.

 

[driewerf]

I'll be off for some weeks later today, but specialized structures need specialized code.
Code doesn't write itself.

Yes it does. We have evidence from the lab:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000096

Short summary: in a virus scientists removed the gene that codes for the protein that infects other cells and replaced it by a random sequence. Over 20 genereations they saw a gradual increase in infectivity. This means the virus developped gradually a better protein for infecting host cells, and hence the DNA code "wrote itself".

 

[driewerf]

Yet the theory can't account for how...

Yes it can. And even if the theory couldn't account for, it is enough to say it has happened before our eyes.

 

[driewerf]

Was this a joke? Because if it is your suppose to add a smile face. For the benefit of the lukers: according to Theistic Evolution DNA is the "Language of God". There is no known natural process that can produce DNA.

You are wrong. Gene duplication is a known and documented natural process. Read also the PLOS article linked in my post above.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a very poorly asked question.

Because I used consol's own words in it?

I have doubts that you could ever find a case where the evolution side was wrong and the creation side was right.

You mean like the 1925 Scope's Monkey Trial?

In almost every scientific claim it is of course the creationists that are wrong.

You mean "voted wrong"? such as the Ham vs Nye debate?

That is why creationists will not participate in an actual scientific debate, their loss would be apparent immediately.

If you think you'd like to debate me on the issue of creationism, you just bring all the science you can carry,* and I'll bring one page of the Bible ... just one page ... and we'll see whose loss will be apparent immediately.

* Technically, a talent is the equivalent of something one man can carry. So bring your talent of science, and I'll bring the first page of the Bible.