Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I can do better than faith alone, I have several million pages of peer-reviewed research and study coupled with evidence of a DNA family tree of every living thing reaching back over 3 billion years.

Several million pages of peer-reviewed research and not one example of an organism evolving into another organism.

The truth is not measured in quantity of words.

originally posted by: peter vlar
venomous words

I was going to respond with substance, but you provided nothing but comments about my intelligence and a small tidbit about my mom. Great job Pete!

'Evolution' is a theory that claims all life on Earth arose from other species, which arose from other species, which also arose from other species, and so on, forever before that. It claims all species on Earth today came to exist from one, or a few, primitive single celled organisms, which came to exist from a primordial stew, although the primordial stew is already assumed to exist before 'evolution' occurred later on!!


And the proof for 'evolution' of all species on Earth being from other species, which existed before them, is thousands of extinct species which didn't exist, or were known to exist, at the time humans existed on Earth!


All of those long extinct species, because nobody knew they existed, are held up as 'proof' of their remarkably absurd theory! Simply because nobody can proven they were NOT 'ancestor' species', allows them to claim they WERE our 'ancestor' species.

Nobody can ever 'match' species by common DNA, because ALL species on Earth today share DNA.

A mosquito shares DNA with humans, for example. Why would they not hold up a mosquito, as our ancestor species, when we have common DNA? Because mosquitoes exist to day, with humans, which makes it impossible for them to link us with mosquitoes as our ancient 'ancestor' species, which later 'evolved' into humans, over 'billions of years'!

So they ignore all living species on Earth, which share DNA, because it proves DNA is common to ALL species, but it is UNIQUE to each and every species, and always has been unique to each species on Earth, whether living today, or extinct.



We know that all species on Earth today, came from the same species before, and before that, for all time before that. They will remain the same species, in future, and always will be. No species has ever 'evolved' into another species, and never will.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Can you give me an example of the type of change you are wanting to see? Evolution and adaptation are pretty simple concepts to understand, but none of them involve changing one genus into another.

Well.......


As an evolutionists, using that line of thought, how do you explain the diversity we see today?

Airplanes are not built by random chance, right?

If you saw an airplane for the first time, would you believe it was created by random chance, or not?


If you saw cars, and computers, and TV sets for the first time, would you believe this 'diversity' is from random chance, too?

You could not build airplanes, or cars, or TV sets, no matter how you tried to build them.


Would you then try to suggest a theory, which claims that airplanes, cars, and TB sets were created by random chance, over millions of years, or not?


'Evolution' is even worse than that. It assumes as a fact that life itself was randomly created, and then tries to claim that every other life was created from it, over time...

As we cannot create any form of life, at all, no matter how we try to create life, we assume life is from random chance, and all life was created by random chance, as well!!!!


How did this airplane come to exist, to an ignorant fool, who cannot build airplanes? The fool will claim airplanes were created by random chance.


Can you identify whether something is created randomly, from something created by an intelligence?

a reply to: Akragon

Doesn't it have to be proven right before it can be proven wrong?

a reply to: carsforkids

Doesn't it have to be proven right before it can be proven wrong?

Depends.
Are you talking about science or religious belief?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carsforkids

Doesn't it have to be proven right before it can be proven wrong?

Depends.
Are you talking about science or religious belief?

Science is a religious belief.

a reply to: turbonium1

You're wrong.

About a lot of things.

a reply to: Phage

Can you just answer the question please?
The context is evolution.

a reply to: carsforkids

Sure. As soon as you provide the clarification I requested.

a reply to: Phage

Evolution I apologize.

"can you prove evolution wrong"

a reply to: carsforkids

So, science then.

No, in science a theory does not have to be proven right. But it does need to account for the available evidence.

If it can be shown that evidence refutes it, the theory may be rejected.

a reply to: Phage

Nor in religion

Thank you

a reply to: carsforkids

Faith requires no evidence.
That's sort of the point. Isn't it?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carsforkids

Doesn't it have to be proven right before it can be proven wrong?

Depends.
Are you talking about science or religious belief?

Science is a religious belief.

name a single religion that adapts to its discoveries?

Science isn't religion...period

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carsforkids

Faith requires no evidence.
That's sort of the point. Isn't it?

No evidence no data and no theory. It is truth to be held as self evident I guess.

a reply to: carsforkids

No evidence no data and no theory

Yep.
That's one of the differences between religion and science. Science requires evidence.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carsforkids


Yep.
That's one of the differences between religion and science.

Fair enough

a reply to: Akragon

You are correct.
Science is not a religion.
Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.
To them it is their religion. They may not claim it as such but you can see it in the way they post.
There are many examples in this thread alone.

religious

adjective

re·​li·​gious |  ri-ˈli-jəs  

Definition of religious

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

3a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

b: FERVENT, ZEALOUS

link

a reply to: Quadrivium

Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.

Yes.
However an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quadrivium

Yet, it can be argued that some people are religious about the theory of Evolution.

Yes.
However an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Is that lack of evidence that they are religious or that they know they are religious?
Please clarify.