So, you are refusing to compare skeletons? Not very empirical of you.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
I've refusing to use your false paradigm as the lens through which to view empirical evidence.
Evolution cannot account for the origins of life, but it assuredly can account for how "water deer" developed into two new distinct species: hippos and dolphins. The pressures of natural selection over time given different environments with different adaptive pressures logically creates different forms.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, there is NO naturalistic, materialistic explanation for life.
Again, begging the question.
No, Skeeter, it absolutely cannot account for any such thing.
Evolutionists can fantasize about how it might have happened but there is exactly zero evidence that such fantasies actually did happen nor is there any mindless, undirected mechanism in nature that could possibly cause it!
You must acknowledge microevolution. We see that in a lab. Macroevolution is the same thing over greater time and greater environmental change.
Right Divider
Body part
Pure mythology.
Not only is there no evidence for common descent from a single common ancestor, but there is evidence against it. And there is evidence that intelligent design was involved with life we see today.
To your claim that adaptive pressures can cause mutated organisms too survive better: the generation that can adapt, or rather out-reproduce its ancestors, in certain environments will always be a subset of the DNA code-space of previous generations. Any code-space has a finite number of subsets. This is shown in the Lenski e.coli experiment and malaria drug resistance, amoung others. In fact, all the experiments where the cause of increased fitness is tracked, this subset phenomena shines out. Without exception. This would cause a scientifically minded person to at least be curious if the popular paradigm is wrong. And it would also inform an honest person that someone believing intelligent design is reasonable based on the evidence.
I am intrigued. Can you post some links? I googled key words and did not get anything that hits the spot.
No! There has never been a single scintilla of anything that is evolution that has ever been observed - PERIOD!
I don't care how many YouTube videos claim otherwise. I don't care how many different strains of Sal-manila bacterium you can get to replicate, I don't care how many "variants" of a virus you want to point at. It IS NOT evolution. There has never been any bacterium change into something that isn't a bacterium. There has never been any virus that turned into something that isn't a virus. The definitions of words like "species" are as flimsy and flexible as bungee cords but there hasn't ever been a 'kind' that has ever turned into a different 'kind'.
Of course its hard for mortals to observe a process that usually occurs over centuries. There was some claims that algae was observed to live singularly in the wild and group together in the lab when faced with a predator that is made less effective by grouping. One lab observed the grouping remained four years after the predator was removed while other such groupings more temporary. Your thoughts? Try to remain calm and civil if your temperament allows.
Me neither. I look at peer reviewed journals or at least secondary sources that rely on peer reviewed journals.
Maybe-- try to care more.
Algae that becomes multicellular and then reproduces together seems compelling to me. If the multicellular version can no longer reproduce with the singular, that is a new species to me.
One tiny part of why evolution isn't science. In its present form, it isn't even falsifiable, never mind scientific.
Adaptation is not evolution. There are experiments that have been running for literally decades with thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria and not only are they still bacteria, they are still the same kind of bacteria! They eat different stuff than they used to but there hasn't been anything that even resembles a move toward becoming something other than a bacterium.
So you're the only one allowed to be insulting? Is that it?
That wasn't the point and you know it.
There hasn't ever been even one single example of evolution happening - period. It does not happen because it will not happen because it cannot happen. Even the most primitively basic biological system is wildly more complex than any mindless system could ever produce.
Intentionally ignoring the point doesn't make it go away.
Show me all the viral variants you want and I'll show you the EXACT same number of viruses.
It's compelling to you because you're desperate for anything that will allow you to cling to your atheistic worldview. It's still algae and it won't ever be anything else other than algae.
And no one, literally no one but you, cares AT ALL about what something is or isn't "to you". Besides that, speciation, IS NOT evolution!
Clete
It's actually really easy to observe changes in populations. The problem for you is that those changes don't result in the creature becoming another.
For example:
| * Finches Adapt in 17 Years, Not 2.3 Million: As for Charles Darwin's finches, they're claimed to have taken 2,300,000 years to diversify from an initial species blown onto the Galapagos Islands. Yet individuals from a single finch species on a U.S. Bird Reservation in the Pacific were introduced to a group of small islands 300 miles away and in at most 17 years, lPhoto of a finchike Darwin's finches, they had diversified their beaks, related muscles, and behavior to fill various ecological niches. See also Jean Lightner's review of the Grants' 40 Years. |
You are confusing a theory with a hypothesis. A theory which would be better off called a theorem is a paradigm that is supported by falsifiable findings from many different angles. A convergence of evidence exists before an organizing principle becomes a theory.
Adaptation when spread across centuries is a basically evolution. There are so many things we cannot observe directly but we understand because of science. A drugs action on the body is not observed directly per se. We see little sections of the process and extrapolate results across various studies.
Not what I was going for but sounds good.
Just because it is too complex for you to fathom, does not make it untrue. Fossil record studies and DNA analysis provide compelling support for evolution. We see the mechanisms of evolution ie adaptation via direct observation. We make accurate predictions based on our understanding of evolution.
It would be easier to prove to you that evolution is a valid theory, if we could see speciation under controlled conditions.. We come close to that, but it appears we do not have that for you. We do not need it to have a confident understanding of evolution, however. The convergence of many investigations support evolution as a valid theory that has informed us immeasurably in medical care and other areas.
Speciation seems integral to the theory of evolution. Do you think speciation has occurred?
Right Divider
Body part
Goo to you is such a vague idea that it does not qualify as a theory or even a hypothesis.
No, it's NOT. Adaptation is built into every creature. It does NOT show an ever advancing chain of life.
Direct observation and repeatability are the hallmarks of real science. Vague ideas about past events is flaky "science".
Not true. We can repeatedly measure the effects of drugs on the body. That is real science.
No, they don't (unless your are already a "true believer" and will believe anything).
Once again, there is no "upward progress" observed. Just minor changes within narrow limits.
Utter hogwash.
Speciation is simply kinds branching out within the limits of their kind. It does not support goo to you.
You do not need anything. You are already convinced without supporting evidence.
Speciation is NOT an "upward path" to anywhere.
Last edited:
See Right Divider's post above. I can't respond with anything better.
The real problem here is three fold.
1. You accept all kinds of things as veritable proof of evolution, that aren't even close to even being evidence, never mind proof (see above posts for examples).
2. You entirely ignore things that are absolute proof that evolution cannot have happened. And it's not like there's just one or two such things! There's just gobs and gobs of them. For example, we've been discussing in general terms the idea that complex biological systems cannot have happened via mindless natural processes, right? Well, that's not even the half of it because evolutionists don't simply claim that wildly complex systems like eye sight, flight, and even warm bloodedness evolved, they believe that they evolved MORE THAN ONCE! They claim that the appendix evolved more than thirty separate times!
What's more is that we don't even have to go to the wildly complex! Evolution is literally doomed to failure in any attempt to explain, even conceptually, how non-directed material processes bring about a system where three genetic "letters" (i.e chemicals) code for one amino acid.
That simply cannot happen, Skeeter! It is a literal impossibility. It makes no difference how many eternities of time you've got to try and that single point alone is sufficient to falsify the entire theory of evolution!
3. You CANNOT be convinced! There very simply isn't ANYTHING that ANYONE could ever say that will move you one single inch off your belief in evolution. It makes no difference how many examples of things you are shown that no evolutionist will ever be able to explain, even on a vague conceptual level. It makes no difference how many times someone shows you that the goal posts keep getting moved. It makes no difference how many unexpected findings are discovered that evolutionary theory cannot account for. You're like Wile E. Coyote. You will chase the Road Runner of Evolution no matter what! Getting smashed by boulder after boulder just doesn't make any difference whatsoever. You just keep right on chasing that which cannot be caught.
Clete
Last edited:
One species never gives birth to another literally. Subgroups adapt to different environments. Gradually and incrementally the changes march on. In time the two subgroups are physiologically incompatible for mating. We could continue to call them subgroups or see them as different species.Goo to you is such a vague idea that it does not qualify as a theory or even a hypothesis.
No, it's NOT. Adaptation is built into every creature. It does NOT show an ever advancing chain of life.
Direct observation and repeatability are the hallmarks of real science. Vague ideas about past events is flaky "science".
Not true. We can repeatedly measure the effects of drugs on the body. That is real science.
No, they don't (unless are already a "true believer" and will believe anything).
Once again, there is no "upward progress" observed. Just minor changes within narrow limits.
Utter hogwash.
Speciation is simply kinds branching out within the limits of their kind. It does not support goo to you.
You do need anything. You are already convinced without supporting evidence.
Speciation is NOT an "upward path" to anywhere.
Try to extrapolate and expand what you know about adaptation over time.
Right Divider
Body part
So...nothing NEW here... how does this help your "theory" that an amoeba can turn into a man (with enough mistakes and enough time)?
Hilarious.
Instead of wild conjecture.... how about we just stick with facts.
So you concur? Progress then.
The mistakes and time alone do nothing. The systematic pressures of competitive mating are the engine.