• 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!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why would you think that Genesis should not be read litrally? You do not believe in God and do not know him or His Word. You follow the religion that there is no God. You are free to believe as you wish. Mine says we all answer to God come judgment day.

Because it is obviously a myth. It does not matter if one believes in a God or not. And no, I do not follow any religion. You are calling Not Playing Football a sport. Most Christians do not believe the Genesis myths because they do not believe that God lies.

Of course it is. If you deny God's word and do not believe God than you have denied God himself. It is your religion that says the bible is a myth not mine. There is nothing hidden that shall not be made plain. You are free to believe as you wish we all answer only to God come judgment day.

The Bible does not even make the mistake of calling itself "God's word". And no, one cannot deny that which does s not exist. And pkease, remember the Ninth Commandment. Most atheists do not have a religion. That is your weakness. Also empty threats are very rude.

But, since you were rude first perhaps you can explain why you believe that God lies.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
@3rdAngel , would you care to get back to the OP of this post? Would you like to know how there are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none (at least that I know of and I am certain none that you can find) for creationism?
A good starting point is to understand what scientific evidence is in the first place. It is highly ironic the the poster that began this thread evidently does not understand the concept and appears to be very reluctant to discuss the topic. Perhaps he realized, all too late of course, that specifying "scientific evidence" may have been a mistake to make as a creationst.

All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes I did read your posts. You are trying to deflect what was posted earlier by making claims no one is making. Your belittling of others that do not hold your view is noted but does not support your claims. If your a Christian why do you not believe God's Word or how can you call yourself a Christian without believing God's word? Seem you have a little problem to consider here.
Maybe it would be a good idea for you to research what questions are and the difference between them and assertions? I asked questions. You seem to be doing what you can to avoid answers to reasonable questions.

I have not made any statements about the nature of my Christianity nor have I questioned anything about it here. I doubt seriously I would turn to you to start doing it, even if I were so inclined. You seem to be trying to persecute me for my beliefs rather than answer the questions. Just to be clear, a lot of what you are doing could be seen as personal attack and not supporting your case.

So just to be clear, you seem not to understand what a question is, you are not going to answer my questions from all the effort I have seen here and the main thrust of your response is going to be religious persecution.

So I can dismiss you then. Are we all good with that?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory.
At this moment, the origin of life in the context of science remains untested hypotheses and a growing body of evidence.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
What was there to address? You made a claim that begged for ridicule. Atheists do not use the fact that we are the product of evolution to deny the existence of a God. @Dan From Smithville is a Christian that accepts the theory of evolution and in no way at all uses that to argue against his God.

Some Christians make the error of reading Genesis literally. Refuting that version of "God" is not refuting God. This is a concept that may be difficult to understand. One does not need to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian. In fact it tends to make one a better Christian.
I asked some questions and the responses I have gotten back are puzzling, since they do not seem to address the questions and have all the appearance of responses to things that do not exist in the body of this thread.

I think it results in focusing on the messages of the Bible and not being sidetracked into deification of the Bible. Something that is prohibited by the Bible. Through that, one can strengthen the basis of their belief and be a better Christian.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory.
Your understanding of the sciences is a bit backwards. This is why understanding the basics is a must.

First off there is no more need to "justify" the theory of evolution than there is to "justify" gravity. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

Also there is no such thing as a "proven theory". At least not in a mathematical sense. If one goes by a legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then the theory of evolution has been proven many times over.

Science does not deal with proof. It deals with evidence. And currently there is only scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

Once more, would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
No you didn't you simply tried to twist what I posted to try and claim I was saying things I was not. Then with your friend you tried to belittle and redicule what was posted without addressing the post.



Not sure what you find hard to understand in what was posted in post # 362. If you are unclear about something that I have posted ask and don't assume or pretend I am saying things I am not. What is it that you do not understand as to what was posted?



So you are a Christian? As a Christian do you believe the bible is God's Word? If you do not how can you call yourself a Christian and deny God's Word? If you do not believe in God's word it seems you have more in common with unbelievers than believers don't you think? By default this would put you in the camp of the religion of the agnostic or athiest.



There you go again. Who said accepting science is a denial of God?



It seems you have read it but did not understand it that is why you are providing irrational responses.
What is your objection to the statement that the theory of evolution is the scientific answer to the evidence?
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
He is? Dan, did you hear that? As a Christian you are using evolution to argue against your God. Frankly I am shocked by such behavior:eek:
I have heard it and from someone claiming that I am one not reading the posts. Not only is it silly, it is incorrect and not something I have ever done on here or elsewhere. It is a statement without one shred of supporting evidence, but that has always been the trend for those opposed to science.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I would say partially tested. Parts of the process have been tested, but not all of the processes. In other words it is still an unsolved problem. I think we will definitely agree there.
Yes. It remains an unsolved problem and we do not know the answer. It is unknown if a scientific explanation can be found, even if there is one to find, but much will be learned along the way. Knowledge about the origin of life is growing regularly now.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I would say partially tested. Parts of the process have been tested, but not all of the processes. In other words it is still an unsolved problem. I think we will definitely agree there.
I was thinking in terms of specific hypotheses and not about the validity of considering the possibility of the idea. Certainly, there is no reason that it could not have occurred naturally.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have heard it and from someone claiming that I am one not reading the posts. Not only is it silly, it is incorrect and not something I have ever done on here or elsewhere. It is a statement without one shred of supporting evidence, but that has always been the trend for those opposed to science.
I know. It must get tiresome to be accused of not being a True Christian™. Oddly enough these same Christians will often argue that Christianity is the world's largest religuon, except by their standards it isn't.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes. It remains an unsolved problem and we do not know the answer. It is unknown if a scientific explanation can be found, even if there is one to find, but much will be learned along the way. Knowledge about the origin of life is growing regularly now.
And odds are that we will never know the exact path to life. Right now it appears to be not only possible, but there may be more than one pathway to life.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I know. It must get tiresome to be accused of not being a True Christian™. Oddly enough these same Christians will often argue that Christianity is the world's largest religuon, except by their standards it isn't.
It does get tiresome. It almost makes me wonder about the faith of people that do that. Then there is the entire issue of deifying the Bible.

If Christians are only Christians that behave the way they do, they have reduced the numbers of Christians through redefinition by a standard that is not even true.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
And odds are that we will never know the exact path to life. Right now it appears to be not only possible, but there may be more than one pathway to life.
It does appear to be the case. Not that it should be surprising in retrospect. Potentially entirely different kinds of life might be possible under difference conditions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It does get tiresome. It almost makes me wonder about the faith of people that do that. Then there is the entire issue of deifying the Bible.

If Christians are only Christians that behave the way they do, they have reduced the numbers of Christians through redefinition by a standard that is not even true.
I think that they are actually the "weak in faith" that they complain about. If every word of the Bible is not true in the way that they want it to be true then they cannot believe it.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that they are actually the "weak in faith" that they complain about. If every word of the Bible is not true in the way that they want it to be true then they cannot believe it.
That is the way I see it. All it would take is for one word to be shown to be in error and their entire belief structure would fall apart. Imagine, one word holding your world together. Not a pretty picture.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution. Science in itself is constantly evolving for this reason what we may find as evidence and proof today within science can be proven false tommorrow. Even within science itself there are many conflicting evidences for the questions and hypothesis that have been promoted that scientists argue between themselves as being true or not true through experimentation.

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion. Most scientists are specialists in speicfic scientific disciplines. Now who has the big picture and understands the origin of life? No one in this thread so far from what I have read has put up a single bit of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and the origin of life. That is why it remains to be a theory as it is unproven and provides no evidence to support or define the origin of life.

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory.

First, you do not prove evolution you support it with evidence that is the way of science. At least there is evidence for evolution - there is neither proof or evidence for the creation myth.

Second, science is always challenging itself and correcting inaccurate conclusions. THAT is its greatest strength thus our understanding of the universe increases instead of remaining stagnant. How well does challenging the creation story go for you.

Third, people have given evidence for evolution if you read carefully as for abiogenesis "origin of life" that is a separate subject as already pointed out.

Fourth, humans are replicating life all of the time and the offspring have a new genetic composition which is not identical to the parents. (half from each so new combination)
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Why would you think that Genesis should not be read litrally? You do not believe in God and do not know him or His Word. You follow the religion that there is no God. You are free to believe as you wish. Mine says we all answer to God come judgment day.



Of course it is. If you deny God's word and do not believe God than you have denied God himself. It is your religion that says the bible is a myth not mine. There is nothing hidden that shall not be made plain. You are free to believe as you wish we all answer only to God come judgment day.
Which god or goddess are we going to answer to. There are so many.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Religious deflections and tangents are very common with this subject.. which proves again the religious nature of the theory of common descent.

And, since the Believers in common descent seem unaware of the core arguments for their beliefs, i will be glad to post and examine them, as well.

Assumptions, assertions, obfuscating techno babble, and, of course, pretended Intellectual superiority are the main 'proofs' for common descent, but occasionally a feeble attempt is made to allude to actual science.. it makes the Believers feel better and superior to those with alternate beliefs. But, if you examine the scientific evidence with scrutiny and skepticism, the airtight science they claim is flawed.. based on myriads of assumptions, and arguments of plausibility.

Here is another argument, that the True Believers think proves common descent is 'settled science!'

Time and Mutation

This is the argument that, 'given enough time, anything is possible!' It is the primary support for abiogenesis, or the belief that life spontaneously generated itself, in a distant primordial ooze. It is an argument of probability.

1. Mutations happen.
2. Given enough time, a mutation could have happened, to cause a verticle change in the genome, to create a new genetic architecture.
3. Millions of years are suggested, as the facilitator.

..with no validity, no verification, fraught with assumptions, and surrounded by contrary evidence. No mechanism is defined, no observation possible, no explanation as to HOW time can somehow magically enable an unknown, unobservable, untestable, event. 'It just happened!', they assert without any scientific methodology, 'with enough time, anything is possible!'

But to calculate odds, for any statistical premise, the parameters of the event must have some measurable probability. It is not enough to cling to infinite possibility, when the event that is alleged has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it can happen, at all. Shrouding it in 'millions of years!', is a smoke screen, when in actual fact, there is NO EVIDENCE that increasing complexity can, did, or will happen. It is a belief.. a leap of faith to explain our origins through naturalism.

No structural changes in a genome have ever been observed, so time is suggested as a system of change.

But time has no mechanism of change. It is a passive factor, that only supports degradation, as entropy returns all matter and energy to simpler forms.

Add to that the far fetched notion that you had 2 genetic mutations, at the same time, with both male and female mutants to allow propagation of this new species, and the speculation becomes laughably absurd.

Mutations happen all the time. They are almost always deleterious, with negative consequences for the organism. A few are neutral, but there is no scientific way that structural changes in the genome can be explained by mutation. Adding time is a bluff.. wishful thinking to hide the impossibility of the imagined process.

'Given enough time, anything is possible!', cries the Believer in common descent. But it is not observable, repeatable, or even possible, by scientific methodology. It is an imaginary belief, nothing more.

A short summary of the central problems:
1. Lower levels of diversity tend to spell extinction of a particular haplogroup.
2. As the tips of a haplotree extend, the diversity decreases. Increasing complexity and diversity is NOT observed, but the opposite.
3. Some low diversity organisms, like sharks and cockroaches, continue for extended generations, with mimimal changes in their levels of diversity.
4. There is no evidence, of increasing genetic information, in any isolated haplogroup. They either have the traits needed to survive, or they don't.
5. Mutation is not a mechanism for structural genetic change. There is no evidence of mutation 'creating' new phylogenetic species, adding genes, chromosomes, or any additions to the genome.
6. Natural selection is only observed at the micro level, and is assumed or extrapolated to the macro level.
7. Macro 'natural selection', IS 'universal common descent'. It is not a mechanism for it. Rephrasing the theory as 'proof!' of itself is circular reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top