Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Not sure what you mean. Please rephrase.
-
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!
A Challenge To All Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
I will make it easy---post the evidence for what you said.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
You said nothing in ToE has been proven.
The ToE is rather comprehensive and extensive, there are many facts, theories, and hypothesis in the complete theory. There are some that are not proven, but there are many proved concepts in it. To say that nothing is, is just hyperbole. Take for instance inheritable traits through genetic transference. You're suggesting that this is not true, that genetics is just simple supposition. And we know, for a fact, that this is not the case. Also, we know mutations are real. They do happen, without a doubt. And you're suggesting that this is not true either.
When it comes to prove any of these things to you, I deem it hopeless and futile because you have taken a stance of wilful ignorance about these things and nothing I say or give you would change your mind. You've decided that the evidence doesn't exist, so any evidence given, you will dismiss without even consideration. In other words, a complete waste of my time to even try.
gnostic
The Lost One
Whenever I bring examples of evolution, omega2xx would do two things:
- Ignore the examples, and change the subject, like the origin of life, which is abiogenesis, not evolution.
- Or he make irrational apologetic excuses for creation, about creation requiring creator or god can do everything, hence "god did it" mentality, without evidences to support his claims.
Clearly, he hasn't studied biology at all. And providing evidences is a waste of time, since he will dismiss it regardless if there are evidences for evolution.
Omega2xx preferred fables of talking serpents and talking donkey...and myths of angels with wings and four faces.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That seems to be quite common. Gish was an expert on changing topics in a debate to obfuscate and confuse what the topic was, and doing so rapidly that no one ever had a chance to respond. Hence the term "Gish Gallop".
And that's the only claim that can neither be shown to be true or not. It's a matter of belief to call for a creator manipulating all the mutations, and to me, that's okay, as long as the believer understands that it is just that. Even so, let's say there was a designer forcing the evolutionary path forward, it wouldn't debunk evolution at all. It's only a single part of the algorithm. We do know that there are both positive and negative mutations. If God was behind it, there wouldn't be any negative at all. So in best case, God is only influencing some of the mutations and evolution, and the rest is random, which means that "God-mutation" and "God-selection" would be only complements to the existing theory without removing a single bit of what's in it already. The theory holds up on its own, and if God is involved, it's just an addendum.
What befuddles me is remarks like "nothing has been proved", which is ludicrous. Especially when most creationists today have accepted what they call "microevolution". Micro-evolution is still a big part of the whole theory. So "nothing" would suggest that microevolution (being part of evolution as a whole) also should be dismissed. What about MRSA? Or BT resistant root worms? Or plastic eating bacteria? There's a whole slew of know species today that didn't exist (couldn't exist) before. Why would God create a virus 6,000 years ago with a gene to resist modern medicines, GMO, and oil products? And why would they suddenly reveal themselves and not when we started using pencillin or plastics? And why can we trace their mutations to existing virus, bacteria, worms, etc?
I'm okay if people think that God is behind the scene, pulling strings, but we wouldn't know either or, and it wouldn't remove anything from the theory of evolution even if true. But the whole notion of Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago is so backwards. Too sad. Anyway. No more soap box for me for today.
I've been in that boat myself. I used to be a young earth creationists a long time ago. My explanation is that it's so much easier to accept a simple story than to rely on information, knowledge, study, insight, mental process of thinking exerting too much energy, and such. It's not an easy task for most people to overcome the simple path of information and knowledge. It's like electricity and water, the shortest path with least resistance... And I think information, thoughts, insights, etc all follow the same principle. The easier (or simpler) story wins quicker.
That is a proven fact. Are you suggesting a change in eye color is evidence of evolution?
Mutations are another proven fact, but you can't offer one example of a mutation being the mechanism of a change of species. Keep in mind that time will not change the laws of genetics.
All you have done is offer the usual evo talking points and have not offered even one thing the TOE preaches that has been proven. You just said some have been proven. Name one, just one. If you want to use a link, don't post the link, post the evidence they offered.
Let me make it easy for you---post the evidence that support "natural selection," a standard evo doctrine.
Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. Blaise Pascal
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
It is part of the theory, yes. We did read about it and the three different genes and allele frequency for it in class. And you claim that it has not been proven.
Who says we have to prove mechanism of change of species. You said NOTHING was proven in the theory. The theory is extensive. It's huge. It contains many different parts. And you claim that not a single one of those parts in the theory was proven. Mutation is an integral part of evolution, and if "nothing" is proven in the theory, then mutation has not been proven to you.
It's your use of "everything", "all", "nothing" that is bothering me. There are many things proven in evolution, perhaps not all things, but I can for sure say that it's wrong to think that nothing has been proven.
--edit
Besides, as Shad is pointing out below, mutation is only one of the cogs in the wheel of how speciation works. Mutation, recombination, retroviral change, and other processes all are part of the process of allele variation, and then selection (of several different kinds) are part of selecting in the pool, and with separation (niche, ecological, physical, etc), and many generations, you will have a speciation (which can be seen in ring species for instance).
Sigh. You don't know what "nothing" really means, do you? To say nothing in the theory has been proven is hyperbole.
LOL! Darwin's finches and many, many more. (Banana, corn, many variations of virus and bacteria, ...)
The way evolution works is that there are variations in a genetic pool through mutations, retrovirus, or recombination through sex, and through selection (artificial, natural, sexual, genetic drift) certain genetic variations will statistically have more representation (proved through test of Hardy-Weinberg Equation), this results in changes in a species that over time will produce large enough changes that the newer generation is sexually incompatible with the original generation. This happens by dividing or splitting the genetic pool at some point, through different ecological niches or other factors which through the process above produce a speciation. All these parts here are parts of the theory, and you claim that not a single one of these have been proven (the meaning of "nothing"). And I'm only trying to make you understand that, sure, you might disagree on some of them, but you can't with a straight face claim that all of these components are suppositions and unproven.
What I'm saying is that you can reject parts of evolution as much as you want, but to dismiss the whole theory by claiming that nothing in it has been proven, that's just ignorant.
??? What does that have to do with anything? I don't despise religion. That's not why I know evolution is true. What I despise is to use religion as an excuse for lazy thinking.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Some eyes colours are mutations. Mutation is used to support evolution.
A single mutation does not result in a new species. Your question is irrelevant
Peppered moths and resistant bacteria are two examples
Since there are multiple religions which have mutually exclusive claims this quote is mistake in thinking. Namely as Pascal only considered his own religion to be an actual religion.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
One more thing. This is what the opening post for this whole thread says: "MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.
* As in, convince the non-creationist. "
So... by asking for evidence for evolution in any aspect is the only method to prove creationism, I'd say the creationists have failed to make a convincing case for their belief.
* As in, convince the non-creationist. "
So... by asking for evidence for evolution in any aspect is the only method to prove creationism, I'd say the creationists have failed to make a convincing case for their belief.
Not only has it not been proven, it is impossible. Eye color is determined by the gene pol o the parents but it NEVER results in a change of species. That is like saying the offspring of a poodle and bull dog is a different species.
You must have a mechanism that cause the species to change. If you can't show the mechanism, evolution can't be proven. This is why it is stll call a theory after 100+ ears.
If it so wide and extensive, it should make it easy to give one example of something the TOE preaches that has been proven. Give me just on example of a mutation changing the species. If homo sapian parents have an albino child, what species is the child?
Instead of you keep telling me something has been proven, give me an example
In ring species, the salamnders remained salamanders. Where is the evolution?
And all you are doing is blowing smoke. Why wont you give me one exampe
SDaying it, doesn't prove it. and FYI the finches remained finches. How is that a change of species.
yawn. Rhetoric is not evidence.
Unless you can provide ONE example, guess who is ignorant.
??? What does that have to do with anything? I don't despise religion. That's not why I know evolution is true. What I despise is to use religion as an excuse for lazy thinking.[/QUOTE]
I have not used religion, so why do you mention it?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
People that don't understand the theory of evolution (or anything for that matter) probably shouldn't talk about it. Lest they fancy looking foolish.
Shad
Veteran Member
You asked an erroneous and irrelevant question as you have no idea what you are talking about.
Actually it can. I have provided examples in other comments you can look up.
Again due to your ignorance of the subject my point went completely over your head. You asked for an example of natural selection not specialization. I provided it.
No one of the many objections to Pascal's argument is that he only considering his religion and his God. Nothing more.
I have asked a question you can't answer, proving you don' know what you ar talking about.
Not interest. If you could you would haved put it in the post.
All you did was given an opinion with absolutely no scientific evidence. It is clear that you do not understand "scientific evidence." Let me help you out---It ain't opinions.
Still true
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Evolution is about changes of traits over time through generations. Speciation is only one aspect (even if it's the grand conclusion) of the theory. Variation of the gene pool and selection of the genes is a major part of the theory.
1. The mechanism is that there are copy errors in the DNA. Duplicate genes, changes to synonymous codons, and so on, all of it has been documented and studied.
2. A theory is the explanation to the facts and evidence. It's not a guess or hypothesis. It's the conclusion you infer from the facts that you have presented. It will always be called theory, even 100,000+ years from now, because that's how the scientific community label a model that explains the facts.
The theory is not just about specation, but about changes of the genes. Speciation is the grand conclusion of the theory, but it's not just single that part. You're mistaking a single (however important) conclusion from the whole theory and say that nothing has been proven.
Read about Gregor Mendel and the Mendelian Inheritance. He performed many experiments to show inheritance and discovered the dominant and recessive traits. Watson and Crick discovery of DNA, and all the following research showing how inherited traits are transferred in genes. And so on. Search, read, study these things and you'll see that nothing of it is just guesses or suppositions.
The incompatibility between the ends of the ring shows how speciation begins.
Changes in the gene pool is a major factor in the theory, and according to you NOTHING has been proved in the theory. You still don't understand what "nothing" means.
Since the species changed, it is a change in the species.
You're the one using rhetoric by saying "nothing has been proven." That's rhetoric.
Because it's useless and outside of the point of this thread. This thread is about YOU providing evidence for CREATIONISM. Not for US providing evidence for EVOLUTION. The ball is in YOUR corner to provide facts, evidence, arguments, and proof, but you're only resorting to attacking evolution.
You said, "Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. Blaise Pascal"
So you're the one mentioning it, and I responded to it.
The way I see it is that God could have potentially used evolution as the method to create. It's becoming a trend in game construction to procedurally generate planets, buildings, cities, animals, landscape, etc simply because no human can sit for a million years creating 8 sixtillion planets. It's easier to produce an algorithm that creates it for us. Evolution might be God's right hand for creation, just like Genesis says how God commanded the oceans to bring forth life. Evolution is God's handiwork. It's God's procedural generation of life. So why reject it?
One day I hope I remember that evolutionist NEVER offer any evidence to support the TOE.
Have a nice day.
Janet Waters
Member
The classical notion of the Creation (taken from the Bible)---was that the earth was originally organized and formed from pre-existing material (eternal matter) and these "ingredients" were reorganized and formed into the sphere that we now know.
It wasn't until the Dark Ages that the Latin concept of "creatio ex nihil" (meaning the creation was made out of nothing) came to be. Insidently the idea that the earth was flat also came out of the Dark Ages---even though earlier generations and cultures were sea-faring travelers who traveled AROUND the world and back.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
I think that the world was created from 'nothing'. It makes sense, actually.