But the evidence is robust, and there are no alternative explanations.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
The fossil record, comparative genomics, and human chromosome 2 contradict you, as does the scientific community at large.
The evolution of man from a common ancestral great ape is settled science. You might as well argue against gravity or the germ theory of disease, also settled science.
Furthermore, as has been already pointed out to you, proof is not relevant to your own beliefs, so demanding it of others to justify theirs is insincere and implies a standard for yourself that you do not hold.
Skwim
Veteran Member
What is the definition of a "kind"?
As I've pointed out several times on RF, proof is only relevant in math, logic, and liquor, so don't look to science to do any such thing. However, what science does have are theories. In science a theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. In other words, theories arise out of confirmation and reconfirmation. And the neat thing about them is that they may be rejected or modified if they don't fit new empirical findings. And this is how the science community understands any pronouncement of theory, no matter how strongly stated it may be: it's not carved in stone. Trouble is, lay people don't understand this. They think scientific theory is like their uncle George's theory that the Kennedy assassination was carried out by the Mafia; a theory he is convinced is fact. Science NEVER regards its theories as fact, but only "a well-substantiated [falsifiable] explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Source: Wikipedia
And this is exactly how science understands macroevolution; a concept of the origin of diversity of life on earth grounded in theories that have so far stood up to all challenges brought against them. Want to show that macroevolution is wrong? then go after its supporting theories, because simply challenging science to prove its conclusion won't get you the time of day.
.
Last edited:
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Cats, dogs, humans, monkeys. Those are different kinds. It's something that doesn't take a Ph.D to figure out.
I don't care what you've pointed out. I do care about what's been proven. Macroevolution, as taught in US public schools has not been proven. It's speculation based on assumption. That's all it is.
Skwim
Veteran Member
So. . . . . .
Pumas
Lions
Jaguars
Cheetahs
Tigers
Bobcats
Ocelots
Servals
etc. etc.
are all the same kind?Lions
Jaguars
Cheetahs
Tigers
Bobcats
Ocelots
Servals
etc. etc.
In other words,
.
Last edited:
Didn't you read Skwim's post? Science doesn't prove things. The germ theory, heliocentrism and a spherical Earth haven't been proved, either. If all you accept is proof you'll believe in nothing.
If you don't accept that small changes can accumulate into large changes, how do you explain human origins?
If you're proposing magic poofing you'd better have some positive evidence (I'm not even asking for proof).
Criticism of the ToE, by the way, does not count as evidence of poofing.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
So. . . . . .
Pumasare all the same kind?
Lions
Jaguars
Cheetahs
Tigers
Bobcats
Ocelots
Servals
etc. etc.
In other words,
.
Well, you're on the right track.
I can hear you. That's the problem. I'm hearing talk and not seeing any proof.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
If you have to ask those questions you need to pay more attention to my posts.
Skwim
Veteran Member
FROM POST 23:
"As I've pointed out several times on RF, proof is only relevant in math, logic, and liquor, so don't look to science to do any such thing."
.
Last edited:
What you call macroevolution is what scientists call evolution, and it is settled science. The objection of creationists like the objections of all other lay people including me are irrelevant. Kinds is not a scientific concept.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I don't look to you to point things out for me. I also don't think you know what your talking about most of the time except when you post pics meant to be humorous like some small child.
Again, if you can't prove God or His word is wrong I won't listen to your speculations and opinions.
You have everything you need to prove macroevolution happened if it did, yet you can't prove it. You should be able to prove it to at least 99.9% accuracy given all the DNA evidence out there. But you can't. Not that you won't but you can't.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Not interested in that spiel. The objections of all scientists to creation are irrelevant to me in the same way that you reject creation.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Hmm... I guess ICR doesn't exist?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Misunderstood
Active Member
I want to go back to time for a bit. One of the other things I feel that some of the sciences has wrong is some of the time lines. The time lines may be right, but it would be a different timeline than we now use our basis for time.
I have read that time is slowing down, so a billion years some time earlier would not be the same as a billion years now. Also I have read (not Christian sites) that the universe could be much younger than it is thought to be. It is thought that in just a fraction of a second the universe aged billions of years. During it initial expansion everything would have been expanding so rapidly it would have been aging, but time would be stopped. For now I will leave that part and go on.
As I mentioned last night, the earth would have had to become stable and in a condition for life. Remember the sun was much smaller 4.5 billion years ago and not nearly as hot. Then would life even be possible to start on it own as we have not be able to come up with a valid theory we can prove yet. And if it is possible for life to start on it own, when would it start since it would have been pretty cold here 4.5 billion years ago? So life does get started, and it starts evolving, would it have had time to have evolved to the point it now? Remember, science also puts in a few extinction events along the way. I guess if that is your only theory than it must be enough time, because we are here so it must be right. But, I think the evolution theory needs to be reworked some to make it work.
I will be back on evolution hopefully tomorrow.
I have read that time is slowing down, so a billion years some time earlier would not be the same as a billion years now. Also I have read (not Christian sites) that the universe could be much younger than it is thought to be. It is thought that in just a fraction of a second the universe aged billions of years. During it initial expansion everything would have been expanding so rapidly it would have been aging, but time would be stopped. For now I will leave that part and go on.
As I mentioned last night, the earth would have had to become stable and in a condition for life. Remember the sun was much smaller 4.5 billion years ago and not nearly as hot. Then would life even be possible to start on it own as we have not be able to come up with a valid theory we can prove yet. And if it is possible for life to start on it own, when would it start since it would have been pretty cold here 4.5 billion years ago? So life does get started, and it starts evolving, would it have had time to have evolved to the point it now? Remember, science also puts in a few extinction events along the way. I guess if that is your only theory than it must be enough time, because we are here so it must be right. But, I think the evolution theory needs to be reworked some to make it work.
I will be back on evolution hopefully tomorrow.
What would constitute a proof of macroevolution in your mind?
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Which specimen are you referring to and when was the find published? (This would be something, indeed, given that--until now, it seems--we have only seen a sudden appearance of feathers in the fossil record and a total lack of anything in the record that resembles a half-scale half-feather suggesting a true transition.)
Skwim
Veteran Member
Boy, if this isn't some the silliest stuff to pop up on RF this year I don't know what is. It certainty isn't worth further comment.
.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
That is as silly as trying to maintain that a short stroll and a long hike are not both the result of walking.