• 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!

How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hang on amigo...your mouth is running ahead of your brain...are you now claiming science can explain the origins of life?

That's a new one...please reference the scientist where you got that idea from!
You misunderstood. Most of the steps necessary for abiogenesis are understood, but not all of them yet. That means that there is evidence for abiogenesis. It is not yet to the point of being a theory.

But you are dodging. You made this claim:

"The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence thst is overwhelmingly in their favour."

What is your evidence? What is your hypothesis? I do not know of any scientific evidence for creationism. I can give you evidence for the my claims, but you made your claim first and I asked for evidence for it first. You need to support your claim or if you cannot do that you must own up to your error. Then you can ask me for evidence.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
You misunderstood. Most of the steps necessary for abiogenesis are understood, but not all of them yet. That means that there is evidence for abiogenesis. It is not yet to the point of being a theory.

But you are dodging. You made this claim:

"The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence thst is overwhelmingly in their favour."

What is your evidence? What is your hypothesis? I do not know of any scientific evidence for creationism. I can give you evidence for the my claims, but you made your claim first and I asked for evidence for it first. You need to support your claim or if you cannot do that you must own up to your error. Then you can ask me for evidence.
You are barking up the wrong tree...I don't need to defend my position...I already have physical historical evidence that supports my timeline dating back more than 4500 years. I have DNA, archaeology, writings from ancient cultures, tmes and dates and places and people, I have the imposs9ble dilemmas that you face in trying to get a de evolving genetic code to replicate with increasing purity...which is the opposite way to what it actually is shown in research to be occurring with DNA information...

Again, I'm not the one who needs to prove...I've already got all of that in my favour.

The single biggest problem you have is explaining the beginning and proving it from your uniformitarianism guideline.

It is proven that human DNA is de evolving. Our raid drive system fail safe is a mirror type of raid system...and that is because we only have two parents and not 3.

Alternatively, If there was a pure master somewhere that could step in and replace all of the corrupted code from time to time ...ie resetting the cottupted information ...you might get somewhere, however what atheists have without a creator God is DNA copying according to the model of Chinese whispers..oh and extinction of the bad copies!
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
If something works better the odds are that it will replace the genes that are not as efficient. If it does not then the organism will be out competed and eventually the less efficient genes are lost. That is evolution. A positive change, that depends upon the environment.
Corruption of DNA code is not exclusively environmental

Where on earth did you get that from?

Even cancer research cannot explain why the corruption occurs in all cases. Yes sometimes it is environmental, such as smoking causing lung cancer, however many cancers have no apparent environmental cause...and to make your position even worse...some cancers are from problems in coding from previous generations that are also not shown to be caused by environmental factors.

Cancer is an example where I think your claim is false
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You are barking up the wrong tree...I don't need to defend my position...I already have physical historical evidence that supports my timeline dating back more than 4500 years. I have DNA, archaeology, writings from ancient cultures, tmes and dates and places and people, I have the imposs9ble dilemmas that you face in trying to get a de evolving genetic code to replicate with increasing purity...which is the opposite way to what it actually is shown in research to be occurring with DNA information...

That is not true. You made a claim. You claimed to have evidence. Now it is clear that you do not have any. And 4,500 years? Are you kidding me? Do you not realize how little evolution would occur in a mere 4,500 years?

So put up or shut up: Where is your evidence? Right now it looks as if you have none. I can see lots of logical fallacies but no evidence.
Again, I'm not the one who needs to prove...I've already got all of that in my favour.

No, you don't. That is the problem. All that you have are empty claims. When challenged all that you can do is run away. You said that you have evidence. Give me your best piece of evidence and we can go over that.
The single biggest problem you have is explaining the beginning and proving it from your uniformitarianism guideline.

No, that is not true either. Here is a simple analogy. Say that you had a friend that took a trip to your house from the other side of the country. He documents parts of his trip very well. Does he have to prove to you what he had for breakfast the day before his trip for that evidence to be accurate? Do you need to know his route to the starting point of his trip? In other words what grocery stores did he go to for food. Where did he buy his car from? How did he pay for his car? Do you need to know this to know that he took a trip to visit you and how he did it?

No, you do not need that information at all. We can know that life evolved and how it did so without knowing how it came about. Or how the universe came about. You are only demonstrating that you are desperate in your arguments.


It is proven that human DNA is de evolving. Our raid drive system fail safe is a mirror type of raid system...and that is because we only have two parents and not 3.

Really where? Once again, changes are not "de evolving". In fact there is no such thing. And what the frack is a "raid drive system"? Are you making another poor analogy?
Alternatively, If there was a pure master somewhere that could step in and replace all of the corrupted code from time to time ...ie resetting the cottupted information ...you might get somewhere, however what atheists have without a creator God is DNA copying according to the model of Chinese whispers..oh and extinction of the bad copies!
I see you are using a poor analogy. One again, no. You are making the mistake of thinking of humans as a goal. This poor argument is refuted by the simple fact that we are a result. We are not a goal. You are making a strawman argument again.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
If something works better the odds are that it will replace the genes that are not as efficient. If it does not then the organism will be out competed and eventually the less efficient genes are lost. That is evolution. A positive change, that depends upon the environment.
Corruption of DNA code is not exclusively environmental

Where on earth did you get that from?

Even cancer research cannot explain why the corruption occurs in all cases. Yes sometimes it is environmental, such as smoking causing lung cancer, however many cancers have no apparent environmental cause...and to make your position even worse...some cancers are from problems in coding from previous generations that are also not shown to be caused by environmental factors.

For example, my mother had breast cancer, a close family friend had breast cancer, and my wife has had breast cancer, however, my wifes mom died of melanoma.

None of the above cancers are related to each other case.

My mother in laws case was absolutely environmental. However,

The breast cancer of my mother was estrogen-based and so was that of my wife. The professor who was involved in the research program my mother was part of after her treatment...which went on for a few years afterward, along with other researchers on the same medical panel studying breast cancer, all maintained that there was no specific environmental reason for her breast cancer. It was simply a failure with the information copying process, cells did not replicate exactly as it should and eventually something went wrong such that cancer started growing. The same appears to have been the case with my wife (although we are only going by what the oncologist and her specialist have said to us verbally).

Cancer is an example where I think your claim is false.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Corruption of DNA code is not exclusively environmental

Where on earth did you get that from?

Even cancer research cannot explain why the corruption occurs in all cases. Yes sometimes it is environmental, such as smoking causing lung cancer, however many cancers have no apparent environmental cause...and to make your position even worse...some cancers are from problems in coding from previous generations that are also not shown to be caused by environmental factors.

Cancer is an example where I think your claim is
I did not say anything about the corruption of DNA. You are not following along.

And once again, you do not get to demand answers without answering questions yourself. Where is your evidence?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
This is going to be a short thread. I am just curious to see if any of our creationist members can come up with the correct number.

I have extreme doubts.
Not a creationist but the Theory of evolution will never be more than a theory. The problem is that the theory itself is not provable. Random changes that can not be predicted are sorted out by nature so that only the beneficial survive. There is no way to prove random or unpredictable results. There is no way to determine that they a beneficial until years after the result. So you will always have to use the past to prove the present and it is not duplicatable. Scientific proofs have to be duplicatable, meaning they have to be predictable and not have random features. This is not just for evolution look at all the scientific theories and you will see the same they are not yet duplicatable for various reasons. This does not mean they aren't scientific or true just that they will not be a proof until we can duplicate them.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Here we go again...DNA is the best evidence for evolution.

The most modern claim of support for evolution is RNA is it not?

Unfortunately even that one has significant instability issues thst demonstrate evolution wont work

The reality is that this area is in fact the area where creationist have by far, the strongest evidence that is overwhelmingly in their favour.

One of the biggies here is information. There is no chance that throwing even a bunch of letters on a page randomly will ever result in useful code that can do something. Every example of information in the living cell tells us someone had to code it.

As a test, can you provide an laboratory example where genetic information/code has spontaneously appeared from a bunch of even the correct combination of chemicals (oh and note we are jumping a step by providing those chemicals in the first place)

One of the more recent acknowledgements among science is that aliens did in fact come down to the primordial soup and throw a few suitable ingredients into it for evolution to commence.
Common sense tells us through life's observations that all material items tend to change over time and genes are material objects. Therefore, evolution is just plain old common sense.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not a creationist but the Theory of evolution will never be more than a theory. The problem is that the theory itself is not provable. Random changes that can not be predicted are sorted out by nature so that only the beneficial survive. There is no way to prove random or unpredictable results. There is no way to determine that they a beneficial until years after the result. So you will always have to use the past to prove the present and it is not duplicatable. Scientific proofs have to be duplicatable, meaning they have to be predictable and not have random features. This is not just for evolution look at all the scientific theories and you will see the same they are not yet duplicatable for various reasons. This does not mean they aren't scientific or true just that they will not be a proof until we can duplicate them.
I see, not a creationist, but still a science denier.

Nothing in the sciences is proven. And in the sciences a theory is as good as it gets. A scientific theory is if anything above a law in the science. You are conflating the lay use of the word theory with the scientific one. In the sciences theories explain facts. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains those facts.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
I did not say anything about the corruption of DNA. You are not following along.

And once again, you do not get to demand answers without answering questions yourself. Where is your evidence?
i updated my last post and you missed the update...here is the answer to your quoted question for evidence concerning my claim. (you are the one who introduced dna into this thread btw...go back and read your own posts)

Now the extension of my last thread and evidence for my statement...

For example, my mother had breast cancer, a close family friend had breast cancer, and my wife has had breast cancer, however, my wifes mom died of melanoma.

None of the above cancers are related to each other case.

My mother in laws case was absolutely environmental. However,

The breast cancer of my mother was estrogen-based and so was that of my wife. The professor who was involved in the research program my mother was part of after her treatment...which went on for a few years afterward, along with other researchers on the same medical panel studying breast cancer, all maintained that there was no specific environmental reason for her breast cancer. It was simply a failure with the information copying process, cells did not replicate exactly as it should and eventually something went wrong such that cancer started growing. The same appears to have been the case with my wife (although we are only going by what the oncologist and her specialist have said to us verbally).
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
i updated my last post and you missed the update...here is the answer to your quoted question for evidence concerning my claim. (you are the one who introduced dna into this thread btw...go back and read your own posts)

Now the extension of my last thread and evidence for my statement...

For example, my mother had breast cancer, a close family friend had breast cancer, and my wife has had breast cancer, however, my wifes mom died of melanoma.

None of the above cancers are related to each other case.

My mother in laws case was absolutely environmental. However,

The breast cancer of my mother was estrogen-based and so was that of my wife. The professor who was involved in the research program my mother was part of after her treatment...which went on for a few years afterward, along with other researchers on the same medical panel studying breast cancer, all maintained that there was no specific environmental reason for her breast cancer. It was simply a failure with the information copying process, cells did not replicate exactly as it should and eventually something went wrong such that cancer started growing. The same appears to have been the case with my wife (although we are only going by what the oncologist and her specialist have said to us verbally).
Cancer has little to nothing to do with our discussion. It does not help you. You are conflating that for existing life the genome has a purpose. But we were discussing evolution which is about how the genome changes for populations. Those are two rather different topics. You can only confuse yourself by mixing the two.

Now what is your evidence? It appears that you do not even understand the concept. In the sciences the standard is scientific evidence. Scientific evidence consists of:

Observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. That means to even have evidence you first need at the very least a scientific hypothesis.
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
And in the sciences a theory is as good as it gets

Tell me, if scientific theory is as good as it gets...please explain how it is that the theories keep changing?

Is the universe 13.7 billion years old or is it now in excess of 20 billion years old?

Secondly and this i think is a much bigger problem...

Is the big bang theory now on the verge of being tossed out because the discovery of background microwave radiation is showing that no matter which direction we measure its wavelength from, it appears that everything in the outermost reaches of that spectrum is the same distance from us? If the background radiation is showing similar distance from the earth to outmost reaches of the measurable spectrum, and the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth 4.54 billion years old...how can the earth be about 1/3 of the way along the universe's timeline?

Do you not see a problem in time for the age of the earth in light of the above? (pardon the pun)

If we are 1/3 of the way along the universal timeline as proven by observational science on the ground here, and yet the background microwave radiation says we are for all intents and purposes equidistant from the outmost reaches of that spectrum, then the earth must be much closer to the origins of the big bang than 1/3 of the way out along the timeline!

The above supports the biblical model ie that the universe is timeless like God is, and the earth is relatively young...ie less than 10,000 years
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Scientific proofs have to be duplicatable, meaning they have to be predictable and not have random features. This is not just for evolution look at all the scientific theories and you will see the same they are not yet duplicatable for various reasons. This does not mean they aren't scientific or true just that they will not be a proof until we can duplicate them.
I had to respond to this part separately. That is because it is extremely wrong. There are no such things as "scientific proof". Science is evidence based. And it is scientific evidence that needs to be repeatable. And guess what? The scientific evidence for evolution is repeatable. Scientists go to great lengths to make sure that it is. Here let me quote Wikipedia, but I could find many other sources that say the same:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[

The theory of evolution and its hypotheses are scientific. They can be tested. The hypotheses, that tend to explain the details are tested every day. Some of the hypotheses fail which means that a different explanation has to be found. But many do not fail. There is no "proof" of a hypothesis. It is merely not shown to be wrong after testing. Gravity is not proven. It has merely never been shown to be wrong. Though some hypotheses had to be reworked. The simplest of hypotheses, that things fall down, is refuted by helium balloons. So a deeper understanding is required. The same happens with all of the sciences. Aspects of evolution have been proposed and refuted, but many are still in existence with only minor changes. And the overarching theory is still valid and is testable.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Tell me, if scientific theory is as good as it gets...please explain how it is that the theories keep changing?

Because we keep learning new stuff.
Is the universe 13.7 billion years old or is it now in excess of 20 billion years old?

Still 13.7 billion years old.
Secondly and this i think is a much bigger problem...

Is the big bang theory now on the verge of being tossed out because the discovery of background microwave radiation is showing that no matter which direction we measure its wavelength from, it appears that everything in the outermost reaches of that spectrum is the same distance from us? If the background radiation is showing similar distance from the earth to outmost reaches of the measurable spectrum, and the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth 4.54 billion years old...how can the earth be about 1/3 of the way along the universe's timeline?
What? I do not understand the problem. Why is it a problem for you that the Earth is a third of the age of the universe?
Do you not see a problem in time for the age of the earth in light of the above? (pardon the pun)

No. I do not.
If we are 1/3 of the way along the universal timeline as proven by observational science on the ground here, and yet the background microwave radiation says we are for all intents and purposes equidistant from the outmost reaches of that spectrum, then the earth must be much closer to the origins of the big bang than 1/3 of the way out along the timeline!

What? I am sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
The above supports the biblical model ie that the universe is timeless like God is, and the earth is relatively young...ie less than 10,000 years
No, it only shows that you appear to be very confused. And what is the "Bible model"? I have never heard of one single model. And how would you test it? What possible test based upon its predictions could possibly refute it?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I had to respond to this part separately. That is because it is extremely wrong. There are no such things as "scientific proof". Science is evidence based. And it is scientific evidence that needs to be repeatable. And guess what? The scientific evidence for evolution is repeatable. Scientists go to great lengths to make sure that it is. Here let me quote Wikipedia, but I could find many other sources that say the same:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,[

The theory of evolution and its hypotheses are scientific. They can be tested. The hypotheses, that tend to explain the details are tested every day. Some of the hypotheses fail which means that a different explanation has to be found. But many do not fail. There is no "proof" of a hypothesis. It is merely not shown to be wrong after testing. Gravity is not proven. It has merely never been shown to be wrong. Though some hypotheses had to be reworked. The simplest of hypotheses, that things fall down, is refuted by helium balloons. So a deeper understanding is required. The same happens with all of the sciences. Aspects of evolution have been proposed and refuted, but many are still in existence with only minor changes. And the overarching theory is still valid and is testable.
I would disagree. As you example with gravity there is no to know in the future if all creatures will still follow an evolutionary path. It is still the theory of Evolution after all.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I see, not a creationist, but still a science denier.

Nothing in the sciences is proven. And in the sciences a theory is as good as it gets. A scientific theory is if anything above a law in the science. You are conflating the lay use of the word theory with the scientific one. In the sciences theories explain facts. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains those facts.
If your read my post you I said it was still scientific and true. Not a scientific denier but a realist. The theory of evolution will always be a theory. As a side it is not really that important again mutations are random and beneficial has to many definitions and if we could create mutations that were beneficial we could create our own evolution which goes against the theory.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I would disagree. As you example with gravity there is no to know in the future if all creatures will still follow an evolutionary path. It is still the theory of Evolution after all.
And Newton's Law of gravity was supplanted by the Theory of General Relativity. Theories outrank laws. And yes, we can show, just as one can show with ballistics of where a missile will land, that life will continue to evolve. One question, why do you think that it would stop evolving? All of the mechanisms that drive evolution are still in place. They are not going anywhere.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If your read my post you I said it was still scientific and true. Not a scientific denier but a realist. The theory of evolution will always be a theory. As a side it is not really that important again mutations are random and beneficial has to many definitions and if we could create mutations that were beneficial we could create our own evolution which goes against the theory.
How would humans taking a hand in their own evolution go against the theory? That makes no sense.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
And Newton's Law of gravity was supplanted by the Theory of General Relativity. Theories outrank laws. And yes, we can show, just as one can show with ballistics of where a missile will land, that life will continue to evolve. One question, why do you think that it would stop evolving? All of the mechanisms that drive evolution are still in place. They are not going anywhere.
You can show where a missile will land but you can not define how even one evolutionary trait was arrived at. When was the mutation, what was the mutation, what made the mutation beneficiary. You can speculate and get scientific consensus but that is it. Pick any feature of any creature and define it from start to finish.
 
Top