Biliskner wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:If they can't verify, it's not a theory.
bye bye 'natural selection'
If you don't believe in evolution, that's fine, but natural selection does exist and can be proven to exist. You cannot say there is no such thing as natural selection, because it is happening all the time.
In fact, you Creationists should be using natural selection as argument against evolutionism because a large majority of mutations are detrimental and natural selection kills organisms with detrimental mutations.
Man, I think that's the first time an evolutionist has actually argued against evolutionism on behalf of a creationist. Sheesh.
rosborne979 wrote:But evolution itself is a system of belief - that we evolved. It is asserted and believed. It is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, therefore remains a guess, and evolution if it is to be maintained requires faith in that guess. It is a system of thought and belief.
Yes, but is has a number of facts taken from different sources all proving bits of it to be true.
If you want unequivocal proof for anything that occurs naturally in this world and a large number of different proofs, then prepared to be disappointed. Nothing in this world can be proven to be 100% true by science, so therefore if you want something to be proven 100% true in order for you to believe in it, then don't believe in anything.
Biliskner wrote:oooo... is that a knife stuck in the back?... noo... actually it feels more like it's in the kidneys.
**/invoking divinity**
You know, if I didn't know better, I could swear you weren't a Christian. The way you're acting just doesn't seem to be the way I envision Jesus to act.
Now animal testing, you know about animal testing? The theory behind that is that we all evolved from a common ancestor and that the organs developed pretty early on in evolution such that the organs of all animals are pretty similar with only a few changes that occurred after the evolutionary split. If evolution wasn't true, then all animal testing is redundant and useless, but clearly it isn't, because it's given us a pretty decent idea of what drugs would do to a human body.
You know what, though? I can't argue this anymore, because Creationists demand (for some bizarre reason) arguing for Big Bang Theory, the origin of life (which evolutionists insist has nothing to do with evolution despite Creationists thinking otherwise), arguing about fossils (which requires knowledge of geology), arguing about population genetics, arguing about gene mutations.
Taking into account the fact that proof of evolution (or microevolution at least, if you want to be pedantic) can be found through biochemistry, molecular biology, proteomics, DNA homologies, Linnaean system and so on, I can hardly do evolution justice with my limited biochemical knowledge.
So, I shall give you a challenge, which I haven't seen any Creationist meet so far.
Give me a piece of empirical, non-Biblical evidence that is positive proof for Creationism. Not negative proof that evolutionism is wrong, but positive proof that Creationism is right.
Yes, I realise that such a task is as impossible as the one set out by Kent Hovind (which requires you to prove the existence of God), but let's see you try. Anything that is true must have at least two pieces of positive proof and Evolution certainly has more than two.
