Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

It is philosophically accepted throughout civilization that a "negative" cannot be proven. One can only fail to prove a hypothesis.

Why if we only use 10% of our brains doesn't it shrink to what we use? if males have no purpose for nipples why doesn't evolution just take them off? See, every time in nature something isn't needed, evolution takes it off like no legs on snakes... But with us, some of those rules don't apply. Maybe we were engineered and someone tapped into our evolution and pushed us in the right direction... sort of.

reply to post by flyingfish


No hypocrisy here. Not once did I sate anything other than facts as facts. I always state what fact is and what belief is. It is the evolutionist that tries to state beliefs as facts. Maybe some creationists try and shove their views on the world but that is not me. I simply refuse to believe in the majority of assumptions needed to accept evolution as an answer for intelligent beings. I base my belief in what is fact mixed with faith. I have provided plenty of scientific evidence for my argument.

Anything that is fact should be easily written for all to understand. Using bigger words to say the same thing in no way makes it more scientific. I am sorry you feel that way. Some of the smartest people I ever met have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by colin42


The problem we have is we can't prove anything. I have provided many, many links and some others have also that prove that evolution is not the only answer. Creationism is plausible weather you believe it to be or not.
Maybe you would be more willing to see the flaws in the evolution if I was one of these guys.

www.christiananswers.net...

Or at least stop attacking the intelligence of all creationist by stating how much more likely your assumptions are correct compared to mine. Apparently they don’t agree with you and many of them did the research.

How would you expect to get anything else from me? If I try and say my assumption is better than yours, most evolutionists will turn me off and assume that I am illogical and stupid with a blind faith. I am none of those. I simply choose to look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion. You first need to accept creationism as a logical argument before the discussion begins.

For colin42 if you can, by the evidence I provided, accept that at minimum I make an intellgent argument than I am sorry for grouping you in with the rest. I am not sure this board is filled with many people who truly appreciate both views as I do.

Originally posted by Kicking2bears

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SN4FU

 

I point you to the lungfish. Long thought to be extinct, we have the fossils. Found to be alive and kicking. I have shown you the stones...... bones....... Fish.

Is that acceptable?

All you can prove with this argument is that a Lungfish exists. And its pretty much the same as it was. Actually now that I put it that way maybe that is more proof for creation than evolution. Go God

you created some really cool animals that didn't evolve and still exist today.

The reply was to a request to show that fossils were even once living animals or as he put it bones. Nothing more

hint : the best part of this (quasi-silliness) is at the end of my post...

Okay, I've had a thought... just a premise... no scientific evidence... probably ludicrous and going to be laughed at... but anyhow here goes... it's a series of what-if's that could explain dinosaur bones...

1. what if ancient man was at least as intelligent as modern man.
2. what if "giants" or "nephalim" really did exist.
3. what if (just like our modern civilization) ancient man rose to a pinacle of engineering and technology
4. What if (unlike modern civilization) ancient man built all of his technology to be environmentally friendly and biodegradeable.
5. What if ancient man were also involved in gene spliceing.
6. What if ancient man has been around pretty much since the beginning in one form or another.
7. What if after wipeing out the giants, ancient man decided to combine giant/nephalim dna with his favorite meal of brontosaur steaks etc... which allowed for the unusual size (both large and small) of many dinosaurs.
8. What if ancient man were an expert in disposal of human remains (remember environmentally friendly and biodegradeable) and that's why we haven't found much evidence to support them being around at the same time.

Another supposition based on many of the same premises:

What if he considered dino' skeletons art only ancient man was so good at producing his art that thousands, millions or billions of years later they look and act like fossils.

Maybe he didn't figure out microscopes and he wanted a good look at what the inside of a bone looked like therefore he needed to grow the creature large enough to see with the naked eye...

Even in this day and age lab experiments can get loose... and maybe he didn't care... just because we try to practice strict experimental protocals doesn't mean they've been around forever...

Oh yeah, and what if mankind in all his ancient, highly evolved, biodegradeable wisdom decided that he wanted to get to all that water which was in the underground oceans... What if he caused the great flood by triggering seismic events in just the wrong place or places...

You will love this bit...

And this Noah guy and his cohorts around the globe were the ATS-ers of the time... trying to warn everybody that useing that ancient version of HAARP could lead to a catastrophe of epic proportions...

I know, it's silly and unproveable, but it is a logic chain with tons of supposition and no evidence. But if 98% of the worlds population dies out and the only people left are ATS-ers... I wonder what stories we would invent to tell our ancestors? Would they be a mixture of facts and myths or would we have the courage to "deny ignorance"?

1. They were check the math, astrology and pyramids from the Mayans, Sumerians, and Egyptians. Some people say aliens did this to avoid recognizing this.
2. I believe we have as much skeletal evidence for giants as we do skeletal evidence for early human development.
3. Check answer 1 they did.
4. No they did not, they actually left more evidence than we would likely to leave if an extinction event happened tomorrow.
5. Not sure that is relevant.
6. If the earth is 6000 years old yes. Check previous posts for scientific evidence that supports a young earth.
7. Not sure that is relevant.
8. Same as number 6. Your old earth is a theory with assumptions.

I have only one assumption, God. If science cannot prove something than I will always side with God.

. 1 Corinthians 1: 19
For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing

reply to post by sacgamer25

I base my belief in what is fact mixed with faith. I have provided plenty of scientific evidence for my argument.

I disagree, creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

reply to post buy vedathruth
There is no journey back home unfortunately.
There is no option but to know.
The soul is imprisoned into the material world - a place of suffering.
Believe me you have no idea.

Veda says there are 8.4 million different life forms existing in the Universe.
Out of that ONLY ONE has the power of intellect, and that is humans.
Only humans have the means to break the chains.

The rest of life forms are nothing but punishment (what you call hell).
Humans commit sins due to not knowing (and sometimes knowingly).
Each sin has corresponding punishment.

God never forgets, and never forgives.

The idea of a kind God is a myth.


hmmm, Im going back to the arrogant label I threw at you before. You remind me of fundamentalist christians who will not believe anything but what is written in the bible. I've read many of the vedas, studied/travelled in India, yadda yadda yadda. AND the one thing that was given to me in the years I travelled around over there, by a sadu somewhere near the beginning of the gange's that I believe came close to being the best truth I have so far found, was never believe you know everything, except everything as a truth and be prepared that your own preconceived ideas about life might be wrong. Oh and don't limit the IS, it dosnt like it! (that one comes out of a richard bach book)
your ideas work for you, thats great
don't tell me Im wrong simply because you find they don't match with your ideals about everything

reply to post by Jademonkey2k
I can prove evolution isnt true in one sentance......
If all humans evolved from monkeys.......why are there still monkeys?
Peace and love all



Ummmm. Different species of monkey that ain't around anymore? Or... not all the monkeys suddenly evolved/mutated/whatever. Or... aliens mixed their DNA with some monkeys and made us hybrid types. "We Are Borg"

reply to post by chevyfireball


Lol are you serious? There are hundreds of different species of cats, dogs, insects, fish, primates, ... Although I agree genetic manipulation of protohumans quite possibly occurred in the past, there is still plenty of evidence for natural evolution within species, which occurs over long periods of time. ETs, God, whatever you want to call it, didn't create every single life form on earth. I say, realistically, you need to be able to accept both, not one exclusively over the other.

Originally posted by latinomztsin
Why if we only use 10% of our brains doesn't it shrink to what we use? if males have no purpose for nipples why doesn't evolution just take them off? See, every time in nature something isn't needed, evolution takes it off like no legs on snakes... But with us, some of those rules don't apply. Maybe we were engineered and someone tapped into our evolution and pushed us in the right direction... sort of.

Or maybe if every human female died tomorrow some males would start to turn into females which sometimes actually happens in the animal kingdom if the environment reduces the number of females. Not saying it would but it just might be the case as well. So nipples might be like those spare parts you get in a model kit.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

I base my belief in what is fact mixed with faith. I have provided plenty of scientific evidence for my argument.

I disagree, creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

Quantifying belief in God to a non believer would not sound like an explanation. I said earlier my reason for believing in God is I am, my child is and everything around me exists. There is only one logical way to reason this to me, God. Not one time has science shown that even a single protein can form on its own.

I would say evolution is not an explanation it’s a serious of assumptions that leads to a guess. Actually it is even worse. It’s a guess that began without any real scientific evidence by an atheist who didn’t want to believe in God. From that first guess every bit of evidence provided by evolutionists is assumed to prove evolution. Most of the findings that evolutionist claim prove evolution can also be used to argue for intelligent design.

It is unnecessary to continue to discuss this with you as your mind is closed. My mind is open but you cannot provide me with the proof I would need to change my mind.

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
I can prove evolution isnt true in one sentance......


If all humans evolved from monkeys.......why are there still monkeys?


Peace and love all

No you can't and what's more you obviously do not understand the most basic concept of evolution. Sorry but you're question proves it.
Darwin never once said we come from monkeys or apes for that matter ( though we are a member of the great ape family) Darwin said the we share a common ancester. Thats means that monkey and humans split along the evolutionary path long before either found its present form but we had the same begining

reply to post by latinomztsin


Because evolution is a continuous gradual process and we are not at the end of it. Eventually we will lose our appendix - eventually. There are species of sea birds with useless vestigal wings - in time they will either lose those or they'll be streamlined for swimming. But right now we can only see the current state of evolution, and bound as we are by a consciousness that's designed for a life of decades, rather than millions of years, the slow march of the process is hard to appreciate.

reply to post by FlyingSpaghettiMonster


Personally I think your theory about the flying spaghetti monster is easier to believe than evolution. To believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster I have to make 1 assumption.

Evolution I have to except the many, many assumptions that are made by people who think they are right. Isn't that exactly what you hate about Creationist?

Originally posted by latinomztsin
Why if we only use 10% of our brains doesn't it shrink to what we use? if males have no purpose for nipples why doesn't evolution just take them off? See, every time in nature something isn't needed, evolution takes it off like no legs on snakes... But with us, some of those rules don't apply. Maybe we were engineered and someone tapped into our evolution and pushed us in the right direction... sort of.

Well, first, we don't use only 10% of our brains, that is at worst a complete myth, and at best a misinterpretation of the real truth, which is that we may only use a small percentage at a time.

Secondly, nothing in evolution states that a useless function has to be wiped off. It is only going to be lost in the very long term if it is a significant enough hindrance so as to affect chances of survival.

Humans are a little different too, because we have evolved such intelligence that we actually protect the weak and help them survive where otherwise they wouldn't, if left to their own devices. This is true for the disabled and handicapped, as well as the physically and genetically weak, we allow them to survive, so their negative traits are passed on and not removed by natural selection.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
For all the people saying "aliens" did it. Could i ask you if aliens created humans who created the aliens?

For all the people saying "god" did it. Could i ask you if god created humans who created god?

I have one heartfelt request.

Can people who don't clearly understand evolution, and have not studied and read at least 3 respected, modern books on the subject, please stop stating that "evolution must be false because of XYZ" based on something they either thought up based on lack of knowledge, or read or some shoddy creationism website?

Is that such an unreasonable thing to ask?

There is just no excuse for these ridiculous statements about us "coming from monkeys" and "if we come from apes why are there still apes", and "evolution is just a theory".

At the very, very least, read this very basic introduction before commenting:

www.talkorigins.org...

On assumptions.

If I have the parts of a jigsaw puzzle but no idea what it is of. How many parts do I need to put together before I can, with confidence say that the puzzle shows the Eifel Tower?

Science has worked hard to verify where the parts of the puzzle fit. Others have tested the parts to check the fit is correct and not forced into place and continue to check as each new part is discovered.

I agree some of the parts not in the puzzle may be missing so I may not be aware of a Citron passing on a road or a bird flying by but that does not mean I will not fit those parts in time or that the picture is anything other than the Eifel Tower. A few parts may have put in the wrong place and later changed but it is still the Eifel Tower.

On Creationism

This appears to work in reverse. You have what you believe is the picture and then try to make the parts of the puzzle fit.

I thank those that have provided links but when following them this becomes very evident and so I lose interest very quickly. Yes some good points are made but within no time at all I am asked to hammer home pieces of the puzzle when I know they do not fit.

Explain Biodiversity without referring to Evolution

This is what I asked in the OP and it still has not been addressed and much of what I see here is creationists attacking evolutions evidence or talking about how life started.

We are quite happy that we have the parts of the puzzle that show the picture is of evolution. Passersby look and say ‘oh look evolution.’ Even if they are not aware of the work it took to place the parts of the puzzle.

Creationists so far appear to be saying because some parts are missing we cannot say ‘Eifel Tower’.

So I ask again for creationists to show us their puzzle. Explain how you verified the parts fit without Evolution or pointing to the picture you are trying to build.

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
I can prove evolution isnt true in one sentance......


If all humans evolved from monkeys.......why are there still monkeys?


Peace and love all

If all Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

reply to post by sacgamer25


Your claims of assumption are being misused.
Creationists sometimes misuse the ambiguity to their own advantage, trying, for example, to include cosmological change as part of the theory of evolution. This is gross ignorance, deliberate dishonesty, or both.
Scientific results are tested. This has two very important consequences..
First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results.
Second, published ideas that the evidence does not support will get rejected, especially in times or places with different cultural biases.

Creationists find what they want to find. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, it is clear why you are stuck on the assumption idea, you are very highly motivated not to see it. Scientists, on the other hand, welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along.