But this evidence does what you claim it does not. All you have is a denial of that evidence and the reasonable conclusions out of what you want to be believe and not proof of your own to say otherwise.
-
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!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Then you deny that you have no ancestors beyond the ones that there are records for? If you did not see them, according to your logic, they did not exist.
Evidence is not forced into the model of evolution to get some predetermined outcome. If the evidence did not fit, an explanation other than the present theory would have to be devised and the present theory modified or discarded.
And of course, all change in life is not sudden. I cannot imagine how someone that has looked at the world, even without any training or expertise, could come to the irrational and completely wrong idea that all change in life is sudden. It makes no sense.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
lol, you're funny. is about all I can say now.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
and so it goes.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Ah, once again -- there IS no evidence of evolution occurring by "natural selection," or any other way, chemicals combining or exploding do not prove, advance, or back up the theory.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are sadly wrong. And you seem to know it. Why repeat an obvious falsehood?Ah, once again -- there IS no evidence of evolution occurring by "natural selection," or any other way, chemicals combining or exploding do not prove, advance, or back up the theory.
Is it your claim that not being aware of specific ancestors over the last 2,000 years means that those ancestors did not exist?lol, you're funny. is about all I can say now.
The theory of evolution is not about chemical reactions or explosions, so I am unsure of what you mean by that. Chemical reactions and explosions would certainly not be evidence in support of a theory that is not about chemical reactions and explosions, but that is obvious.Ah, once again -- there IS no evidence of evolution occurring by "natural selection," or any other way, chemicals combining or exploding do not prove, advance, or back up the theory.
However, there is evidence for natural selection. Denying it will not make it go away and certainly doesn't address that evidence in any meaningful way.
I have posted experimental evidence demonstrating natural selection. Both the Lenski and Barret experiments are prime examples of evolution and selection at work.
I'm OK that you want to reject science, but it seems to me that it is more than that for you. It seems that you want others to reject it too. I cannot given the evidence and reasoning that is used in supporting the theory of evolution. I have to tell you that your rejection of science is not evidence that the science should be rejected or that it fails in some way.lol, you're funny. is about all I can say now.
Given the evidence and God-given senses, I cannot accept a literal translation of Genesis, even though I believe in the message as allegory.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Here is a reminder. Scientific evidence has a very specific definition. This was set up not because of evolution, but because scientists are human and some will deny obvious evidence. To cure that they came up with:
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.
All you have to ask yourself, or your protagonist is does the observation support the concept and is the concept falsifiable.
The theory of evolution is falsifiable. We can go over ways that it could possibly be shown to be wrong.
And here is why fossils are evidence for the theory. A transitional fossil is any fossil that has traits of both an older form of that life and traits of a more modern version of that life. If the theory of evolution was true we would expect to see all sorts of transitional fossils and we do. That is why fossils are evidence for evolution. Transitional forms exist.
By the way, transitional does not mean "ancestral". We cannot be sure if one species was an ancestor of another, but we can be very sure that they existed somewhere close to the line of descent of both old and new species.
Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.
All you have to ask yourself, or your protagonist is does the observation support the concept and is the concept falsifiable.
The theory of evolution is falsifiable. We can go over ways that it could possibly be shown to be wrong.
And here is why fossils are evidence for the theory. A transitional fossil is any fossil that has traits of both an older form of that life and traits of a more modern version of that life. If the theory of evolution was true we would expect to see all sorts of transitional fossils and we do. That is why fossils are evidence for evolution. Transitional forms exist.
By the way, transitional does not mean "ancestral". We cannot be sure if one species was an ancestor of another, but we can be very sure that they existed somewhere close to the line of descent of both old and new species.
Ah, once again -- there IS no evidence of evolution occurring by "natural selection," or any other way, chemicals combining or exploding do not prove, advance, or back up the theory.
There is no evidence that you have anything to back up your claims.
I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of your claim that fossils do not support evolution..
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You will wait because there is no evidence that fossils support evolution. The fact that dna may be similar in various compositions of living matter does not mean they evolved. So there's nothing to show because there is nothing to show of fossils that these things evolved. It is all supposition. That's not hard to understand, but it is if one is convinced that all things happened as a result of evolution, re "natural selection" or survival of the fittest. Per evolutionary means. Nothing to show that life evolved. I can keep mentioning it, and you can keep saying I'm not proving it, but we all must decide. And I've decided that science has not determined that life evolved in any case. It's all -- conjecture.
It is evidence and not supposition. I have explained how it is evidence along with explanations from others.
You may believe it is conjecture, but you cannot demonstrate it to be so. For someone wanting to reject the theory or science, that is no problem. But for anyone wanting to convince others to reject science, it is a big problem.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Please -- that's part of the idea. What IS truth, as Pilate asked Jesus. And what did Jesus answer? Meantime, once I 'saw' that evolution is not proved, and that there are big holes in the theory such as elements coming together, interaction, eventually becoming lions, trees, fish, humans, I realize that while there are chemical compounds, elements, it does not mean that life progressed by means of evolution. There's that big hole. The hole is that which shows, in part, that DNA evidence, while similar, is not the same in bonobos and humans, even if it's said to be a small difference. Still not proof. of -- evolution.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The theory is supposition. The evidence pushed into the theory is something else.
DNA has nothing to do with the fossil record.. I'm just going to assume you have no idea what you are talking about and it's nothing more than preaching.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
By the way, the sun stays in the sky. That's proof that there is a sun. I walk out of the house. That's proof that I walk out of the house. It's not conjecture. It's not theory when I give my address. I don't live in my home theoretically. But if someone wants to say it is theoretical -- <smile> -- ok, that's ok. I am not going to argue if I don't see it, does it mean it's not really there. Or really there. There's proof and there's proof. And unless I want to go into la-la-land, with One Step Beyond, it's over semantically for me.
Just as there is no proof OR evidence that gorillas and humans evolved from an "Unknown common Ancestor." So, guys, be well.
Just as there is no proof OR evidence that gorillas and humans evolved from an "Unknown common Ancestor." So, guys, be well.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
evidently scientists believe there is a relationship. Anyway, have a good one.
Attached is a link to a couple of papers discussing the coevolution of a predator and its prey.
The garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis is a predator of the newt Taricha granulosa. Where their ranges co-exist, the snakes use the newt as a food source. In response to selection by predation, a means to deter predation on the newt species has evolved. These newts have adapted to produce a deadly neurotoxin called tetrodotoxin. Tetrodotoxin is the same toxin found in some puffer fish that makes eating fugu so dangerous. In turn, the snake has evolved resistance to the neurotoxin. This is often described as an evolutionary arms race in the sense that the defenses that evolve in a prey species select for the evolution of responses to those defenses in the predator species.
Research on the predator-prey relationship demonstrates that garter snakes have evolved resistance to the toxin, while at the same time, newts are adapting to the predation by increasing the quantities of the toxin they produce. This empirical evidence demonstrates evolution in action.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05945.x
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.712.5935&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis is a predator of the newt Taricha granulosa. Where their ranges co-exist, the snakes use the newt as a food source. In response to selection by predation, a means to deter predation on the newt species has evolved. These newts have adapted to produce a deadly neurotoxin called tetrodotoxin. Tetrodotoxin is the same toxin found in some puffer fish that makes eating fugu so dangerous. In turn, the snake has evolved resistance to the neurotoxin. This is often described as an evolutionary arms race in the sense that the defenses that evolve in a prey species select for the evolution of responses to those defenses in the predator species.
Research on the predator-prey relationship demonstrates that garter snakes have evolved resistance to the toxin, while at the same time, newts are adapting to the predation by increasing the quantities of the toxin they produce. This empirical evidence demonstrates evolution in action.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05945.x
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.712.5935&rep=rep1&type=pdf