Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by liejunkie01
Thanks for your reply but I think you have got the wrong idea of what this thread is MEANT to be about. You obviously hold evolution to be true

Form page 1, post 1 I have been asking. Those that believe evolution is wrong explain diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.

In an ideal world the first page should have been the last time the word evolution was used. All we have had however are people explaining why evolution is wrong and cannot be and not one attempt to explain diversity without it.

People complained about my original title which is why the mods changed it the the silly title it has now, the complete oposite of what I wanted. The irony is no matter the title every thread very quickly enters into the same old circular argument which quite frankly is an old worn out bore.

reply to post by colin42

Colin, I do not believe you will find what you are looking for.
Not trying to shove you head first off of the rock, just trying to share it more evenly.
I have tried to do what you asked. But my beliefs run close with parts of evolution and it is almost impossible to explain without brushing the subject. I also try to speak in a way that you, being an evolutionist, will understand.
It gets hard to do this when you are constantly told "your wrong" or "your scenario is flawed" (mostly by others in the thread).
That just leads to me defending my beliefs by showing the flaws in yours.
So for discussions sake, I will try again.



I believe that All life on earth was created.
This was done in steps (days).

Step 1.( The bible does not state this but it does not deny it either)
The building blocks were formed in the form of microbial life.

Step 2. (day 3)
Plant life was created, with all of the nessasary information built in to create the diversity that we see today using adaptation.

Step 3. (day 4)
Complex marien life was created. As well as birds. These also had the built in information to adapt and speciate.
I have also showed evidence that birds may have been here before dinosaurs. This evidence did not come from Creation sources.

Step 4. (day 5)
Land animals were created. Their DNA was also filled with all of the information they would need to adapt.

Step 5 (day 6)
Creation of Man.


This is creation from the bible (except step 1). This is also a simple break down of the order biology and the fossil records show (with a contradiction on birds)
I say that's not too bad for a book atleast 2500 years old.

Colin,
I doubt if you will get anything more than this from a Creationist, it's not that they do not want to Answer, or that they can't answer (and this is the part many find difficult) but to us diversity began at creation. I do not agree with all Creationist on all things but we all agree on this.
I may believe we have adapted to what we are now but it all boils down to the
one statement evolutionist dislike............GOD DID IT.
peace brother,
Quad

reply to post by Quadrivium

Colin, I do not believe you will find what you are looking for.

I disagree. You have given me what I asked for. The very first one to do it to boot. Thanks.

You have explained why you need to include/brush up against evolution thats fine as you have justified the need. edit that sound pompus when it is meant to be being reasonable.

I believe that All life on earth was created.

No one knows how life started for sure. You maintain it was created by god you will get no argument from me as I have no real information that I can accept one way or the other.
One question for clarity. Days? 24 hour days or days representing stages?

Step 1.( The bible does not state this but it does not deny it either)
The building blocks were formed in the form of microbial life.

Still do not see an issue. A house brick has the potential to build a garden wall, house, in fact anything. I have already agreed that I have no idea why or how life started I think I can easily agree that early microbial life had the potential to produce diversity. You could probably describe the formation of the universe in the same fashion and not be incorrect.

Step 2. (day 3)
Plant life was created, with all of the nessasary information built in to create the diversity that we see today using adaptation.

We may have to work at staying on the rock from here but I am sure we can manage.

I think we can see enough evidence when we look at the night sky that the universe, galaxies, stars, planets form over time from the building blocks created by the 'big event'. (avoided big bang, big inflation and big creation). I am not even sure you can seperate life from the rest of the universe because if that never formed over time then life would have no where to evolve or be created.

It appears to be a universal truth. That given time and small changes (dust forming all we are and know) the universe formed. We are learning everyday about the complexity and diversity of the universe and it appears no less complex than life on this planet.

I think I have made enough points. Your turn. There is plenty of time to work through the days.

Thanks again. I've waited 206 pages for this debate to begin.

reply to post by iterationzero

Except actual biologists in a court of law, where they soundly ripped the concept of flagella being "irreducibly complex" to such shreds that even a judge recognized that the concept of "irreducible complexity" wasn't science. They did the same thing with the blood clotting cascade and another example used by the creationists as their gold standard of "irreducible complexity".

Itsthetooth's inevitable march toward becoming a creationist continues...

The problem here itera is that courts can be wrong.

I'm shocked you don't agree that by looking at this thing, that it's not obvious it was manufactured.
Do you honestly think this mechanical mechanisim is a product of evolution? I would like to see what it evolved from and what else it evolved into.
If you want to assume its not creation, then how can you explain its design?

One question for clarity. Days? 24 hour days or days representing stages?

Not sure. There are four basic views among Creationist.
These views are:
the Calendar Day interpretation
the Day-Age interpretation
the Framework interpretation
and the Analogical Days interpretation

I think we can see enough evidence when we look at the night sky that the universe, galaxies, stars, planets form over time from the building blocks created by the 'big event'. (avoided big bang, big inflation and big creation). I am not even sure you can seperate life from the rest of the universe because if that never formed over time then life would have no where to evolve or be created.

Can't argue with that. Days 1-4 deal with the creation of the universe, while days 3-6 deal with the creation of life.

It appears to be a universal truth. That given time and small changes (dust forming all we are and know) the universe formed. We are learning everyday about the complexity and diversity of the universe and it appears no less complex than life on this planet.

Not sure how small the changes were in the beginning but I agree that the universe is very complex, and what we think we know is just a drop of knowledge in a vast sea yet to learn.
You know, the bible states Adam was formed from dust (lol, had to throw that in).

Thanks again. I've waited 206 pages for this debate to begin.

I Do not mean to sound rude Colin but I stated this about 50 pages ago
Quad

reply to post by Quadrivium
I did respond to that post but you arrived just as someone else infested the thread. There was also a one off post by someone offering emanation as an alternative two good posts lost to the madness of one. We have reached a little quiet so lets use it.

The length of a day. I am aware that there are a few interpretations of what a day means in the book. From my perspective that is really annoying. When I am told the bible holds all the answers and yet I cannot find out if a day is 24 hours, an age or an analogy I hope you can understand the frustration it causes especially when evolution is charged with being full of assumptions. To a person with a brain wired my way that is Irritating , very Irritating.

Religion holds its gods to be eternal so time means nothing to an eternal being so I will assume 1 day to be an analogy. Calenders are definitely man made.

1 Day = 1 Day and then you have major problems. From the stars we observe forming. Supernovas and all the stages between. The geology of this planet all point to a slow formation over billions of years.

On a cosmological scale planets are the micro evolution and galaxies the macro. Is it so far fetched that everywhere we look small changes over time result in the formation of complex and astounding diversity?

The bibles of this world have changed/been translated/interpreted many times and sourced from many older religions is it so unbelievable that ancient peoples that studied the stars would be unable to observe and reason a very similar story to the one we can all see today?

I read something that has stuck with me from a physicist. Every time we answer a question we discover many more questions because of it. I hope that is always the case.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

The length of a day. I am aware that there are a few interpretations of what a day means in the book. From my perspective that is really annoying. When I am told the bible holds all the answers and yet I cannot find out if a day is 24 hours, an age or an analogy I hope you can understand the frustration it causes especially when evolution is charged with being full of assumptions. To a person with a brain wired my way that is Irritating , very Irritating.

Well I hold to the 1 day = an age view myself.
The reason I say this is due to what is written in the Bible.
It is only on day four that He actually gives the term "day" any meaning.

“Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

On a cosmological scale planets are the micro evolution and galaxies the macro. Is it so far fetched that everywhere we look small changes over time result in the formation of complex and astounding diversity?

This is why I am a believer colin, the result of the complex and astounding diversity. With out Outside help how could what we see all around us ever come to be? I truly can not believe it "just happened".

The bibles of this world have changed/been translated/interpreted many times and sourced from many older religions is it so unbelievable that ancient peoples that studied the stars would be unable to observe and reason a very similar story to the one we can all see today?

As far as the bible being changed.........we have the dead sea scrolls and other writtings that show it has changed very little in the past 2000 years.
Studying stars? Sure they could come to the same conclusions. We see that in many of the ancient peoples, especially the myans.
But to write down the order in which we see life come about through biology and the fossil records?.......hmm not so much.

I read something that has stuck with me from a physicist. Every time we answer a question we discover many more questions because of it. I hope that is always the case.

I believe we will always have more question than answers, at least while we're here.
Quad

There is an unfathomable system in play in the universe. The system utilized evolution to obtain perfection and adaptation.

Creationalism and Evolution go hand in hand.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
There is an unfathomable system in play in the universe. The system utilized evolution to obtain perfection and adaptation.

Creationalism and Evolution go hand in hand.

Now see, that's the kind of reason that I see. If there is a God or God entity at the root of the universe, then evolution is simply an effect of the system that God created.

I think that's one thing a lot of people forget too. Evolution is not a condition or a thing, it is an observed effect of change over time.If a creature had a tail, and 200 generations later no longer had one, then it has evolved (though this is an unlikely small amount of time for that kind of change to happen save for extreme environmental changes).

reply to post by Varemia

Now see, that's the kind of reason that I see. If there is a God or God entity at the root of the universe, then evolution is simply an effect of the system that God created.

I think that's one thing a lot of people forget too. Evolution is not a condition or a thing, it is an observed effect of change over time.If a creature had a tail, and 200 generations later no longer had one, then it has evolved (though this is an unlikely small amount of time for that kind of change to happen save for extreme environmental changes).

That depends on what your definition of evolutionism is. If you think it means one species changing into another species over time, then you are lying. That fantasy has NEVER been witnessed anywhere. We do have situations where viruses and bacteria have been witnessed changing strains, but they are still bacteria and viruses.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
That depends on what your definition of evolutionism is. If you think it means one species changing into another species over time, then you are lying. That fantasy has NEVER been witnessed anywhere. We do have situations where viruses and bacteria have been witnessed changing strains, but they are still bacteria and viruses.

That's because if you think that's the definition of evolution, you're an idiot.

Species never just "change" into another species. It's too gradual to ever be seen as such. when Reptiles were first beginning to exhibit traits now attributed to Mammals, scientists didn't look at the fossils and say, "aha, this has evolved into a mammal!"

This isn't Pokemon. Evolution is just minor change over time adding up to large change after hundreds and thousands of minor changes.

Sure I have proof that I didn't evolve from a monkey. I'm allergic to bananas. I haven't evolved that high yet

reply to post by colin42


I can show how evolution is a belief system based upon greater amounts of faith than believing in the Bible's account of creation.

But then I would be telling to deaf ears and blind eyes, as those who are rooted into the evolutionary belief
become willfully ignorant of real facts.

Their faith in a system of unprovable theories if unshakable as they love the flesh more than the spirit.

The present theory of evolution is just a theory. Things can evolve rapidly. Study the origin of the grapefruit. Things can step back in evolution also. Check out what Jack Horner is thinking about. The theory of evolution could be very wrong. Creationism is probably wrong too. Take the middle ground and say "I'm here and it really doesn't matter how I got here". What we do with our life matters. (I suppose evolution matters to someone who studies evolution. I'm more interested in making sure I have coffee.)( I do believe in god and hope whereever I go there's coffee)

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by colin42

 

I can show how evolution is a belief system based upon greater amounts of faith than believing in the Bible's account of creation.

But then I would be telling to deaf ears and blind eyes, as those who are rooted into the evolutionary belief
become willfully ignorant of real facts.

Their faith in a system of unprovable theories if unshakable as they love the flesh more than the spirit.

No you can't. You can only show how little you actually know of evolution and try to debunk it based on a faulty definition of it. If you address the actual science behind it, you'll end up realizing that evolution did indeed happen, regardless of whatever nonsense you will bring up. Nobody in this entire thread has addressed the actual evidence behind evolution. They only make hasty generalizations. There is no objective evidence of a creator or process of creation. There are TONS of pieces of evidence for evolution. That's the simple fact of the matter, regardless of what your ego is telling you.

reply to post by Varemia

That's because if you think that's the definition of evolution, you're an idiot.

Species never just "change" into another species. It's too gradual to ever be seen as such. when Reptiles were first beginning to exhibit traits now attributed to Mammals, scientists didn't look at the fossils and say, "aha, this has evolved into a mammal!"

This isn't Pokemon. Evolution is just minor change over time adding up to large change after hundreds and thousands of minor changes.

But if this were true wouldn't we have thousands if not millions of species connecting other species?

While we sit here with 0.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by colin42

 

I can show how evolution is a belief system based upon greater amounts of faith than believing in the Bible's account of creation.

But then I would be telling to deaf ears and blind eyes, as those who are rooted into the evolutionary belief
become willfully ignorant of real facts.

Their faith in a system of unprovable theories if unshakable as they love the flesh more than the spirit.

Might I suggest that you step outside of the belief box for a moment and attempt to understand that faith is not required when evidence is present.
Might also ask you to understand the difference between the rigidity of belief and the evolution of science as we learn more about who we are, our place in the universe and where we came from.

Science(true for all branches of research) = A willingness to change when new evidence presented or found.
Belief=No change, evidence not required.

reply to post by Barcs


Ah barcs?
That is not entirely true.
You even posted a web site that you stated showed many accounts of speciation, after reading through that site I posted to let you know that the arthur actually said he could find very little written accounts of speciation but people BELIEVED there were many accounts though they couldn't tell you where.
I think the site was "talk origins" and it was section 3 of the speciation page.
Quad

reply to post by Noncompatible

Science(true for all branches of research) = A willingness to change when new evidence presented or found. Belief=No change, evidence not required.

Oops, seems that you may have forgotten one........

Belief in Science = A willingness to change or overlook new evidence when presented or found.
Quad

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by colin42

 

I can show how evolution is a belief system based upon greater amounts of faith than believing in the Bible's account of creation.

But then I would be telling to deaf ears and blind eyes, as those who are rooted into the evolutionary belief
become willfully ignorant of real facts.

Their faith in a system of unprovable theories if unshakable as they love the flesh more than the spirit.

But I have asked throughout this thread and just a few posts up for people not to tell me how wrong you think evolution is but to explain diversity without it.

Again another post ignoring the topic just to try to tell me evolution is wrong. I've heard that already and in this thread I really am not interested. With respect, preach your hatred of evolution to someone else in another thread who wants to ape a monty python sketch. Clinic of arguments

So you are so sure evolution is nothing more than a false belief, please as this is the topic explain to me the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution. Explain it.