Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[dust1n]

I mean proof. I do not mean conjecture based on assumptive reasoning and method.

Speaking of, I still await:

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

How did you go about testing this hard fact?

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasfnon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

How did you go about testing these two facts?

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

How did you go about testing these two facts?

4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

How did you go about these two facts?"

 

[First Baseman]

After looking up the word fact and actually comprehending it, you can start with the facts below.

You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Many Christians agree to believe in creation based on the same evidence. Your "agreement" is an argument from authority, fallacious.

1. You have a conclusion drawn from no reliable premises. Fallacious.
2, 3, 4. Same.

 

[outhouse]

Here are 7 abiogenesis theories. This article is dated Feb., 2015. You are quite wrong, sir.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/abiogenesis-7-scientific-theories-origin-life-one-new-one/

You quoted a non credible source.


They are hypothesis and its not up for debate no matter how much you quote mine


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

According to the panspermia hypothesis,



As you noticed the lack of credibility in your source that claims it is a theory when credible sources claim it is a hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you really don't understand it then you have no business is such an argument. I have discussed this for years with atheists and this is the first time one told me he didn't understand it.

Google it up. Youll figure it out.

I understand the scientific theory of evolution. Scientists don't use terms like "kinds" when talking about evolution. Creationists do that. And like I said, I've yet to meet a creationist who can give me a definition of the word. I've seen plenty of atheists asking the same question over and over with no answer. Take some time and look around the forum, I promise you'll find it.

So please provide a definition of the word "kind" and perhaps you could answer the question I asked you in the first place:

Why do you consider dogs and cats to be different kinds but wolves and dogs to be members of the same kind? What criteria are you using to make these determinations?

 

[dust1n]

If you really don't understand it then you have no business is such an argument. I have discussed this for years with atheists and this is the first time one told me he didn't understand it.

Google it up. Youll figure it out.

Which one is the dog?

 

[outhouse]

Many Christians agree to believe in creation based on the same evidence. Your "agreement" is an argument from authority, fallacious.

1. You have a conclusion drawn from no reliable premises. Fallacious.
2, 3, 4. Same.

I'm sorry but you don't get a say so here for anything.

WITHOUT CREDIBLE SOURCES

 

[SkepticThinker]

I mean proof. I do not mean conjecture based on assumptive reasoning and method.

There is no proof in science, save for mathematics. Evidence is what you need.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which one is the dog?

Thank you.

 

[First Baseman]

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

Your claims about scientists are unsubstantiated creationist nonsense. Frances Collins is a Christian who happens to be a scientist who accepts evolution based on the available evidence and rejects young earth creationism for lack of evidence.

Creationism isn't taught in science and isn't considered a scientific theory because it has not been demonstrated to meet standards of testing and substantiation that evolution (and all other scientific theories) has stood up to over time. All this evidence you keep asking for has been provided, hence the reason evolution is a scientific theory. If creationism can ever do that, it can then be considered a scientific theory and can rightfully be taught in science classrooms.

Abiogenesis is mandatory for any evolutionary theory without a creator. So evolution is directly dependent on abiogenesis. Or are you agreeing with me that a creator must exist?

My opinions are just that, my opinions. So are your scientists' opinions. Opinions prove nothing.

 

[outhouse]

. So are your scientists' opinions. Opinions prove nothing

I'm sorry but you don't get a say so here for anything.

WITHOUT CREDIBLE SOURCES

 

[dust1n]

Thank you.

No, seriously, I need help!

Which is a dog and which is a jackal?

 

[First Baseman]

Speaking of, I still await:

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

How did you go about testing this hard fact?

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasfnon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

How did you go about testing these two facts?

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

How did you go about testing these two facts?

4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

How did you go about these two facts?"

I never said I had tested them. They simply aren't testable. But the testator is quite reliable since He was there when it happened and is the perfect God Almighty. None of your scientists were there. They are simply playing guessing games.

 

[outhouse]

I never said I had tested them. They simply aren't testable. But the testator is quite reliable since He was there when it happened and is the perfect God Almighty. None of your scientists were there. They are simply playing guessing games.

Rhetoric.

I'm sorry but you don't get a say so here for anything.

WITHOUT CREDIBLE SOURCES

 

[Ouroboros]

Abiogenesis is mandatory for any evolutionary theory without a creator.

No, it's not.

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) doesn't have abiogenesis, while it actually supports evolution.

"Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution."

So evolution is directly dependent on abiogenesis.

It doesn't if God created evolution on purpose to produce species that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Abiogenesis is mandatory for any evolutionary theory without a creator. So evolution is directly dependent on abiogenesis. Or are you agreeing with me that a creator must exist?

No, it isn't. That's like saying we can't know gravity exists without assuming someone created it.

We know gravity exists. We know evolution happens.

My opinions are just that, my opinions. So are your scientists' opinions. Opinions prove nothing.

Science isn't about opinions. It's about evidence. Scientific theories are about what evidence best fits the available facts.

You can have all the opinions you want but it doesn't change the evidence. Nice job completing ignoring my last paragraph and instead talking about opinions rather than evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, seriously, I need help!

Which is a dog and which is a jackal?

Are they the same kind?? I don't know.

 

[First Baseman]

I'm sorry but you don't get a say so here for anything.

WITHOUT CREDIBLE SOURCES

You are quite unreasonable. You can't prove anything so why do you keep claiming anything is a fact?

I provided you with a brilliant credible resource which you rejected out of hand because you don't agree with it. Your resources of academia do not prove your assumptions yet you act as though they do.

I get a say so because I happen to have a right to say so.

 

[outhouse]

Which is a dog and which is a jackal?

Those are all dogs!

You have dem baby dogs and you have dem big dogs.

And no amount of education and knowledge or does dirty scientist can change my mind!

 

[dust1n]

I never said I had tested them. They simply aren't testable. But the testator is quite reliable since He was there when it happened and is the perfect God Almighty. None of your scientists were there. They are simply playing guessing games.

Oh, so when you said:

If you'll read further on that site you'll see that science substantiates Genesis. It isn't taught in science classes because academia has rejected creation.

God has provided all the hard facts I need.

earlier today, you simply just made those things up? Or do you just hold contradictory positions when it's convenient?

 

[outhouse]

You are quite unreasonable.

HA HA good one, if that isn't calling the kettle black.

I provided you with a brilliant credible resource which you rejected out of hand because you don't agree with it. Your resources of academia do not prove your assumptions yet you act as though they do.

I get a say so because I happen to have a right to say so.

Rhetoric.

I'm sorry but you don't get a say so here for anything.

WITHOUT CREDIBLE SOURCES