Evolution? How?

Just some thoughts on proving or disproving the existence of anything:

You can't prove that there are no jelly doughnuts on Mars, unless you obliterate the planet. Even then, someone could say, "Well, of course you can't find them, because you blew them up." The nature of logic allows for all variables within existence to be provable, but whether a variable exists or not the nature of logic does not allow to disprove its existence. For example: can you prove that there is no Pink Quarter with Elvis's picture on it? No, because no matter how much scientific evidence you give you could just be looking in the wrong spot. That's why I find it humorous that there are people out there who are absolutely convinced they have proved that God doesn't exist. The nature of logic will not allow God's existence to be disproven.

So here's my clain: There exists a pink quarter, with Elvis's picture on it. Prove that there is no such quarter in existence. Once anyone can disprove my theory that a pink quarter with Elvis's picture on it exists, then maybe that person will have a foot to stand on as far as saying that they can disprove God.

Someone in this thread recently said that science consists of theories that are tested over and over again until they are proven true. How can you possibly, scientifically prove the non-existence of God? If you cannot scientifically prove the non-existence of God, how can scientifically disprove creation?

Here is my argument: If you cannot disprove the existence of God, which logic will not allow for, then you cannot disprove the existence of His footprints. Think of such legends as the Loch Ness Monster or Big foot. (While these legends may seem ludicrous to some, because they have not seen these creatures, to others they seem logical based on such things as footprints). So if I make the claim that creation is a type of cosmic footprint that gives evidence of his existence, but you say that it proves something else (evolution), doesn't that require you to first disprove the existence of God in order to prove the existence of something else.

Here's what I'm getting at--If some hunters find tracks in the woods of Northern Washington, which are too big to even be a bears, that does not mean they belong to big foot. They could or they could not. But if one of those hunters believes in Big Foot and the other one doesn't, then the one who doesn't will say that those tracks are the result of a giant bear, but the hunter who believes in big foot will say they belong to big foot. One is right, one is wrong. Though neither theory can be disproven until absolutely all possible variables are uncovered. In the case of a pink quarter with elvis's picture on it that is imposible. In the case of the existence of God, that is impossible. Since it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, it is impossible to disprove the existence of creation; and since it is impossible to disprove the existence of creation, then just as it is impossible to prove or disprove where those tracks came from it is impossible to prove or disprove evolution.

None of this proves creation correct, but I am still baffled how evolutionists can be so convinced that they are right. They are the hunter who may or may not believe in big foot. They see the giant foot print and because they saw a bear they but never a big foot they automatically assume the empirical evidence of a bear must mean there is a bigger bear that made that print. That hunter never considers the fact that the failure to prove the existence of a big foot does not disprove the existence of big foot, and until the existence of big foot is disproven the theory that that foot print is the result of big foot is still a viable theory.

For more on why I think Evolutionists just don't think things through, and why I the theory of evolution is based on nothing more than pure speculation please visit my post 1965028. To give you an analogy--I see evolution as a giant sky scaper from a distance. You could tell me four toothpicks at the base of each corner of that sky scraper hold it up, but unless you can physiclly show me those tooth picks supporting that skyscraper you don't have a case. Now, you can give me all of the evidence you want. You can count all of the toothpicks in the world, and say that four are missing so they must be under that skyscraper, but that proves nothing. In the same way you can tell me the world resulted from a big bang (I am now alluding the toothpicks to the big bang), and you can give me all of the evidence you want, but until you can actually show me with a video camera it is all based on speculation. If you can't prove the big bang theory to me, why should I believe anything else that supposedly resulted from the big bang? You can give me all of the evidence you want, but it is all built on speculation.

So is evolution provable? Yes. But first you must disprove the existence of God. Because in order to prove evolution, you must prove that the evidence you give me is the result of evolution and not God. Since evolution and creation are both based on speculation, both are provable but neither can be proven. See evolutionist speculate that since they just saw a bear ten minutes before they saw the giant track of a bear there must exist an even bigger bear. But that is speculation. If one authority speculates, calls it science, teaches ten more people that his speculation is science, and those ten people each teach ten people that their speculation is science, you seen get a generation of people who assume that a theory based on mere speculation is absolutely scientific proof.



And again, none of this prove creation. It just proves that evolution is a theory.




Sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes, but I just don't care enough to change them.




One more thing. Please be advised that I just don't care enough anymore to take the written insults, so by the time I actually come back in here it will be several pages later. In other words, I will probably never see your insults; and even if I do, I just don't care. I am sure that makes many of you happy, as you prefer to rely on little more than group think to support your speculations as aboslutely scientific proof.



The................

Short and concise is good
Long and rambling is bad

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... [Snort] wha...? Oops sorry, almost dozed off there for a moment.

Just think about viruses mutating. To see this is to see evolution happening right before your eyes. So don't say you can't prove evolution (that's basically what you said because you can't disprove (or prove) the existence of God.)

Undone, your argument is undone. There is no question of disproving creation or gods - what evidence there is - by the best available data - proves the Big Bang, and evolution, beyond reasonable doubt, while no available data suggest any plausible alternative. Follow along here - no available evidence contraindicates the naturalist proposition and no available evidence supports the creationist/ID-iot proposition. There is no reasonable doubt pertaining to the naturalist proposition, there is no forensically valid, academically sound support, reasonable or otherwise, for the creationist/ID-iot proposition, or for any other metaphysically dependent and/or referential religionist proposition.

To challenge an evidence-laden proposition without producing evidence contraindicative of that proposition and/or its foundational evidence but rather by posing specious, uninformed, empty objections to the propostion at dispute is a fool's errand. The creationist/ID-iot quarter has produced no proof whatsoever - of anything - all that is offered by proponents of the creationist/ID-iot proposition is sophistry, misinterpretation, misconstrual, misdirection, and superstition.


Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

timberlandko = patience beyond the call of duty

Am I seeing a YEC bemoan the lack of progressive thought in another member?
How very bizarre.

If you cannot scientifically prove the non-existence of God, the opposite is also true, is it not? Therefore, you cannot scientifically prove that God exists. You have therefore admitted that the concept of ID is not science, because it requires the concept of a God, which cannot be proved to exist or not exist, as you have so clearly stated.

However, Evolution is more true than ID, because there is more evidence suggesting it is true. There is a fossil record that shows the sort of transitions you would expect if Evolution were true, you can see genetic diversity and similarities within different species that would be there if Evolution were true... and so forth and so forth.

Evolution is more true than ID and Creationism, because the evidence states that. It is not equal to those three. They are not equal theories, because two of them (the latter two) aren't theories at all. They're not even hypotheses as someone pointed out. They're merely ideologies.

Here's what I'm getting at --If some hunters find tracks in the woods of Northern Washington, which are too big to even be a bears, that does not mean they belong to big foot. [MESSAGE CUT SHORT TO SAVE SPACE] One is right, one is wrong. Though neither theory can be disproven until absolutely all possible variables are uncovered.[/quote]

Wrong, neither hunter has a theory. They have hypotheses based on one particular piece of evidence. This analogy is really irrelevant, because it cannot be compared to Evolution, which has more pieces of evidence than just the one footprint.



I've told you before, because the evidence shows that Evolution is more true than the other two "theories". The evidence can be seen through genome projects, which show similarities between vital genes, suggesting common ancestory. It can be seen through physiology, how the most vital organs are similar throughout the animal kingdom. They can be seen through fossil records that show transitory species. They can be seen via living species, comparing seemingly related animals.

You may think that's not very much, but it's a lot when you consider how many animals there are. Comparing all the animals is a big feat, in itself.



Said the pot to the kettle. (Or is the other way round?)



Rubbish. By your logic, no one can be found guilty of murder, because no one was there at the scene of the crime except for the murderer himself. This Universe is a huge "Murder Mystery Novel". The evidence we show is the evidence that can be held up in a court case to say, yes, Evolution is responsible.



Now, you're going all over the place. You don't need to disprove the existence of God in order to prove Evolution. (You yourself said the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, which would mean that Evolution isn't provable, so you're beginning to contradict yourself).

Evolution is the how, not the who. We don't care about the who. God is the who, if you're a Christian. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the who, if you believe in that sort of thing. Evolution is how, not who.

When people can get that through their thick skulls, perhaps we wouldn't have this Creation/ID vs. Evolution debate.



This sentence suggests to me that you don't know the difference between Evolution and ID.

Evolution states that all of current life came about through mutations selected for by natural selection. It does not state who or what is behind Evolution. In the Evolution thinking, any gap in our understanding merely means we haven't found all the answers yet.

ID states more or less the same thing, except it focuses on the who. ID states that any gap in our understanding of Evolution proves that someone was behind Evolution. That is not true.



Which is more than be said for ID and Creationism, which are not scientific theories, not hypotheses and not fact.



So, you won't see our evidence or counter-arguments either. How disingenious of you.



Do you know why Evolution needs a lot of people arguing for it to support it? I'll tell you, though I don't know why I should bother, because you've stated above that you'll never see this.

Evolution is a very large subject. In order to defend it, you must know a lot about genetics, physiology, taxonomy, geology and biology. In order to defend against Creationists, who love to use physics and chemistry as well, you must know a lot about that as well.

It is not easy to know everything about all these subjects. Every scientist you come across specialises, and even then, they don't specialise in the broad subject, they specialise within the subject itself on some minute part of it.

The only person here that is disingenious is you, attacking everything under the sun without full prior knowledge of it.

No. You make the claim, you prove it. Evolutionist base their claim on evidence. Your making a claim based on no evidence and telling us to disprove it.


You can't prove the non-existence of God any more than you can prove the existence of God. Hence God is neutral; he's taken out of the equation until there is evidence to show his existence or non-existence.

Here's another point. Let's, for arguments sake, say God exists. Do you have any evidence that he created the universe? That he created all life on earth? How do you know that Big Bangs don't happen on a continuing basis; that is, there are an infinite number of universes caused by Big Bangs, each with their own separate God?

Evolution is a fact, not theory, that is supported by different disciplines of science. Every fossil find adds to the picture of and supports evolution.

In evolution there are a lot of questions to be answered but that is what science is suppost to do; ask, seek and find. No fossils of humans were found with dinosaurs. No dinosaurs were found with saber tooth tigers. Until that happens you don't have any evidence for creationism or ID. So if you want to make the claim of ID you have to prove it. You have to give the evidence that supports your claim in the same manner that science gives evidence to support evolution. Until you can do that you argument is empty and meaningless.

Science deals with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolute proof.

You are talking about absolute proof, which is a philosophical endeavor, not a scientific one.

We can't prove absolutely that there isn't a teacup orbiting pluto, be we all know damn well that there's no teacup orbiting pluto. See the difference in absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, please, don't give them more fuel than they already have. Evolution is a scientific theory and a fact. We must repeat ourselves over and over again until they all realise that "Evolution is just a theory" is not a valid argument.

undone. To actually get it on your level, science doesnt bother with mythology one way or the other. Its a counterproductive exrcise that adds nothing.
Youre trying to imply a coequal status for the "truths" of Creation and you want science to do your heavy lifting. Whys that I wonder?Could it be that most IDers or Creationists have no clue where to begin their quest?

If you read the "Creationist Scientific Literature" you will see that it focuses exclusively on trying to discredit Evolutions data, it has never produced anything (that wasnt later proved to be a fake) that was a positive proof of Creation or Irreducible Complexity or evidence of "Intelligence".

You are just blowing smoke and your trying to get away with it.

Has anyone ever seen a virus mutate into anything other than a virus?

Has anyone ever seen a seed turn into a tree in just one day, without going through the normal stages of growth and change in between?

Your statement above is just as meaningless as asking for a seed to change into a tree in a day. It doesn't work that way, evolution doesn't work that way, and nobody ever claimed it did.

We can observe a seed grow into a tree.

And when it does, it has not changed from one type of organism to another. It's just a young stage of development compared to a more advanced stage of development of the SAME kind of organism. (Like comparing infant with adult. Do we say that the infant 'evolves' and becomes an adult?)

No wonder you believe in evolution if you think it's analogous to a seed becoming a tree. I can't believe you would put this analogy forward. I don't think you really believe this, do you?

Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

Nice tactic, Chumly.

'You're not a very good Christian if you dare to disagree with me.'

Do you really think anyone will take this seriously?

rl, you're a real hoot. Virii are no more likely to mutate into something other than virii than are trees likely to mutate into something other than trees. However, virii do exhibit observeable mutation, both random and adaptive, and virii are not alone in this; microbic organisms, among them many pathogens, are observed to mutate as well.

It is to be noted humankind has sought evidence of a deity for something on the order of a dozen millenia, fruitlessly, producing only postulates and assertions, while the search for evidence of evolution, begun barely 2 centuries ago, has generated a swelling avalanche of confirmatory data, the evidence supporting the proposition piling up exponentially while absolutely nothing contraindicative has been discovered.

New breeds of dogs and cats, new patent roses -- oh, dear, humans have got to stop fiddling around with the seeming randomness of natural selection. How come there isn't a giraffe with a lion's head? Watching too many Japanese sci-fi flicks is really bad on the ole noggin.

So ya givin' up, eh?

timber and fm-

You're only coming on here to make a fresh start with the easy stuff.

fm wrote-



And I showed you on wande's thread how a scientific mind would approach the Prometheus myth. I suppose that might be different for "science" which you make sound a bit like Walmart or Docker's Union.

A scientific mind would look for some buried wisdom in a long lasting myth as if it was a sort of distilled essence of previous human experience.And allowing it might not be wisdom as well. If he allowed his subjectivity free choice he would no longer be a scientist.

But there are a lot of people who think that stealing the secrets of the gods is a possible danger and nobody can prove they are not right. If I think they are wimps it has nothing to do with it. They are resisting GM crops and cloning and stem cell research and a host of other wierd and wonderful scientific Promethean activities.



12 millenia is a mere eye blink.I doubt it being much more than a couple of paces in a marathon.