Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I await RL's take on this phenomenon.

0 Replies

farmerman, RL is the phenomenon!

0 Replies

And in the same sense don't tell me there is no proof for creation.

Neither point can be proved.

Around you go in a never ending circle.

I'll stand outside and watch the silliness.

0 Replies

Scott777: And in the same sense don't tell me there is no proof for creation.

There is no proof for "creation." If you have evidence, please share it with us.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

And in the same sense don't tell me there is no proof for creation.

Neither point can be proved.

Around you go in a never ending circle.

I'll stand outside and watch the silliness.

The weight of evidence from many different disciplines of science rest with evolution.

Outside Bible myth, what supports Creationism?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

The weight of evidence from many different disciplines of science rest with evolution.

Please provide verifiable and repeatable proof of evolution that can be done in any type of environment without the aid of any type of intelligent being man or god.

You can't.
Therefor just as I can not prove creation, you can not prove evolution.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

xingu wrote:
The weight of evidence from many different disciplines of science rest with evolution.

Please provide verifiable and repeatable proof of evolution that can be done in any type of environment without the aid of any type of intelligent being man or god.

You can't.
Therefor just as I can not prove creation, you can not prove evolution.

Science doesn't have to. The only source of a God designing or creating humans is from ancient myths. One might as well demand science provide verifiable and repeatable proof that Zeus didn't exist or aliens didn't build the pyramids.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

. One might as well demand science provide verifiable and repeatable proof that Zeus didn't exist or aliens didn't build the pyramids.

Proof that Zeus doesn't exist. Twisted Evil

Proof that aliens didn't build the pyramids. Twisted Evil

Please do. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

If you want me to have any respect for creationism you had better come up with something more than Bible myth; otherwise that's how I will treat it; the same way I treat Zeus and Osiris.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

If you want me to have any respect for creationism you had better come up with something more than Bible myth; otherwise that's how I will treat it; the same way I treat Zeus and Osiris.

Please read my post in

How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

Page 18.
The long post.

0 Replies

Evolution isnt a phenom that has a "proof". It rests on the available evidence to deduce that it, as an explanation offers so much more than anything else.

Quote:

herefor just as I can not prove creation, you can not prove evolution.

. Its worse than that, you cannot provide even a spoonful of evidence(scientific evidence) that supports the conclusion that Creation is at work. Thats the difference between the two.
Because of the evidence from the Fossil record, genetics, the age of theearth, biogeography, and the relationships among genomes of homologous animals separated by distance, stir in the evidence that hundreds of years of selective breeding in animals reveals that these animals diverge to the point where they dont "return" to a parental type anymore because the STR genes have diverged significantly . IF RL has chickened out, then you explain how a system of evidence or data supports Creation when the subject of biogeographic distribution of organisms is discussed?

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

xingu wrote:
The weight of evidence from many different disciplines of science rest with evolution.

Please provide verifiable and repeatable proof of evolution that can be done in any type of environment without the aid of any type of intelligent being man or god.

You can't.
Therefor just as I can not prove creation, you can not prove evolution.

Therein is the question of what is repeatable proof of evolution?

One might ask for verifiable and repeatable proof that if you add one pebble at a time to a pile eventually you will have a pile of one million pebbles. It is not necessary to get a million pebbles in the pile to have substantial proof that adding pebbles would eventually reach a pile of one million nor would you have to build 7 piles of a million to meet the "repeatable" portion of proving it would occur.

That then leads to your requirement that it be done without the aid of an intelligent being. Science has no such requirement for evolution. Science only wants to know if the process achieves the result. With a pile of pebbles, it matters not whether an intelligent being piles them or if they fall naturally by some force of nature. In both cases the addition of pebbles leads to the same result. The same is true of evolution, it mattes not whether there is some supreme being guiding it or not, the process doesn't change and the slow repetition leads us to conclude the results.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL, how is the concept of species biogeography consistent with Creationist thinking? Id really like to hear about whether the two can compliment each other.

When it comes to geographic distribution of species, evolutionists always used to enjoy mentioning marsupials because 'they are only found in Australia(and THAT , somehow , was convincing proof of evolution)' ---

--- but marsupials are now known to have lived on nearly every continent, so we don't hear that one too much any more.

What exactly is your current 'smoking gun' proof these days with regard to geographic distribution?

In other words, which critter lives in a place that 'only evolution can explain' ?

0 Replies

The Darwin finches.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
RL, how is the concept of species biogeography consistent with Creationist thinking? Id really like to hear about whether the two can compliment each other.

When it comes to geographic distribution of species, evolutionists always used to enjoy mentioning marsupials because 'they are only found in Australia(and THAT , somehow , was convincing proof of evolution)' ---

--- but marsupials are now known to have lived on nearly every continent, so we don't hear that one too much any more.

What exactly is your current 'smoking gun' proof these days with regard to geographic distribution?

In other words, which critter lives in a place that 'only evolution can explain' ?

So you're answer is that there is no substantial geographic distribution?

0 Replies

I believe the Darwin finches is a very good introduction to bird evolution even though scientists may disagree as to the sub-groupings. It clearly deliniates the different kinds of finches based on their food source.

http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

With a pile of pebbles, it matters not whether an intelligent being piles them or if they fall naturally by some force of nature.

And what force in nature would count them? Only intelligence could count them. And that's a bit iffy according to some philosophers.

0 Replies

rl said

Quote:

When it comes to geographic distribution of species, evolutionists always used to enjoy mentioning marsupials because 'they are only found in Australia(and THAT , somehow , was convincing proof of evolution)' ---

This is a total bullshit statement based upon ignorance of what science said. Weve known that marsupials existed in almost every continent before we knew about continental drift (but they exist almost EXCLUSIVELY in Australia indicating that , somehow, Australia became separated freom a mainland faunal assemblage of placentals ). After Colbert published his work(in the 50's) on the evolution of vertebrates did we tyhen begin to understand that biogeography was helpedalong by a series of mobile, not static , landmasses. So that original species can "raft away" a s they diverge freom an ancestral type . However, homologous marsupials that act like lions and dogs and even cats , only live in Australia, where the "raft" has been floating away for the longest time since marsupial (and monotreme) divergence.

So far you havent been able to score any evidence by trying to present false assumptions.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Do you deny this?
Now, since youve already stipulated to selective interbreeding Cant you understand that there may be a multivariation of naturally derived traits that define a whole slew of new sub- species, each one with maybe 40 or 50 traits in common.They could all be nicely interbreeding until time or the environment weed out the intermediates. Here weve got new functions from old structures and, in enough time, weve got entirely new gene compliments.

I know theres a lot for you to disagree with, Im sure youll give it a go.

Where's the new species' in your scenario? They all interbreed.

What he said was if you had species Xa and they could interbreed with sub-species Xb and a new subspecies branched off of Xb called Xc but Xc couldn't breed with Xa, if Xb died off you'd be left with Xa and Xc who couldn't interbreed.

Xb is the intermediate species FM was referring too.

And obviously, this is a very simplistic example.

No, what he said was they were ALL interbreeding.

I read his post wrong, what I'm referring to is different than what FM is talking about.

So, what's wrong with my scenerio RL? Doesn't that show how species could develop, yet still allow for interbreeding?

OK, so in your scenario where not all are interbreeding (which is different from FM's where they were all interbreeding), you stated that varieties a , b and c are all subspecies of X, correct?

So are you asking that if b dies, shouldn't c be reclassified as no longer a member of species X ?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

So far you havent been able to score any evidence by trying to present false assumptions.

So tell us your[/i] assumptions.

Otherwise your question about biogeography is pointless.

Unless you can give a scenario where creation and geographical distribution are wholly incompatible, then you are grasping at the air.

Which critter lives in an area that 'only evolution can explain'?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know