rojse
RF Addict
Exactly our point. Theory of Evolution has much more proof than what gravity does.
-
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!
The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
Exactly our point. Theory of Evolution has much more proof than what gravity does.
MSizer
MSizer
WRONG!
Have you forgotten about John Endler? His experiments are brilliant, and show evolution of wild guppies in less than one human lifetime (within a couple of years actually)
And what about Lenski? His work is genius too. Don't you think he deserves a bit of recognition for proving evolution in test tubes?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Let's see, so in a test tube, billions of years of evolution by common descent was recreated?
Alceste
Vagabond
No, that was done by DNA mapping.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Poor argument MoF.
If I go out this AM and find snow on the ground and there was none when I came in last nite I CAN deduce it snowed. And even no one on the whole street can say they saw it snow and even if the weather prediction was for clear skies I can see the evidence. I need nothing more.
It is called reasoning MoF. You should try it every now and again - for a change.:sad4:
MSizer
MSizer
No, but the process by which it occured can be demonstrated very clearly.
If your doctor told you that you needed a pill or else you would die of a certain condition within an hour, would you say to him "but just because this pill has always worked before, how can you be so sure it will work for me. No, I'm not convinced doc. I'm not taking that stupid pill."
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
ragordon168
Active Member
since its a test tube i'll assume it was bacteria he worked with so not really a few million years of evolution. just a few hundreds generations in a few weeks.
MSizer
MSizer
Exactly - in fact, he had his incredible discovery at around generation 27 thousand. That's equivalent to going back over a million years for humans.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
Besides I have already given you evidence -as have others - of species evolving in the last 100 yrs.
Your only objection is that these new species were the same "kind" as their ancestors. But you can't define "kind" so how can you determine if any particular organism is a particular "kind." You can't. You have definition to use.
Your ENTIRE objection is theological not scientific.
What is s-o-o hard about simply saying in your mind theology trumps science and you just don't CARE what the evidence is?
Your only objection is that these new species were the same "kind" as their ancestors. But you can't define "kind" so how can you determine if any particular organism is a particular "kind." You can't. You have definition to use.
Your ENTIRE objection is theological not scientific.
What is s-o-o hard about simply saying in your mind theology trumps science and you just don't CARE what the evidence is?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
If you are asking that science take the supernatural into account, that's exactly what you're doing. Only you're too ignorant to even realize it.
Since you understand gravitational theory, can you explain it to us? I have trouble with the idea of a curvature in the space-time continuum. Can you clear that up for me?
But what we can do is look for evidence--that's one of those assumptions you were referring to earlier, the assumption that we can use evidence to learn about the world.
Furthermore, we can actually observe new species evolving in real time, in the lab and the field. I believe several examples have been offered in this thread.
The first part of this sentence is one of the few honest and coherent things you've said. The second half is a lie, pure and simple. I should keep track of the lies you've told in this thread. Or maybe I should be charitable and assume you're ignorant and misinformed.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Bacteria replicate rapidly, so that their evolution can be observed in real time.
ragordon168
Active Member
history of earth can be determined thanks to mineral records. we know the approx. age of earth thanks to crystals that were formed realatively soon afterwards.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes, that's one of MoF's problems, in addition to all of Biology, he has to reject all of Geology and a bunch of other fields, but he just loves science...to death.
ragordon168
Active Member
any science that is not wrong in some way MoF?
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
Creation Science, of course!
<---Suddenly very sad.
<---Suddenly very sad.
you do realize that the cat slightly differs genetically from it's parent? imagine genetic changes over millions of years, would you expect to see drastic changes?
MSizer
MSizer
And within a few thousand years, one plant has been bred into kale, broccoli, brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, cauliflower and cabbage.
MoF, would you say that cauliflower and brussel sprouts are obviously of the same "kind"?
And did you know that molecular genetic testing shows that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than other reptiles?
Did you know that molecular genetic testing has shown that lungfish are more closely related to humans than the common american perch or sunfish?
How about the fact that whales (including dolphins) are more closely related to hippos than to any fish?
How does creation explain the molecular genetic relations between these various "kinds" of animals?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
MoF, since you can't define "kind," it's like you're saying, "Evolution only happens within a bleepmorp. I don't know what a bleepmorp is."
It's hard to know what on earth evidence would support or disprove such a hypothesis, because we don't know that they hypothesis is. In science, the first step is to formulate a clear, understandable hypothesis. Then we use the hypothesis to make predictions and see whether they come true or not. ToE did this, which is why it's accepted. (More to follow.) Can you clearly state your hypothesis so we can set up some predictions and compare how our two competing hypotheses do?
It's hard to know what on earth evidence would support or disprove such a hypothesis, because we don't know that they hypothesis is. In science, the first step is to formulate a clear, understandable hypothesis. Then we use the hypothesis to make predictions and see whether they come true or not. ToE did this, which is why it's accepted. (More to follow.) Can you clearly state your hypothesis so we can set up some predictions and compare how our two competing hypotheses do?
MSizer
MSizer
Or what about the fossil of Puijila, the walking seal? How do you explain an animal that is apparently "designed" for both land and water?
Or what about the fact that some turtles breath oxygen from the air through their nostrils and from water through their asses?
Or what about the half shelled "Odontochelys semistestacea" which has a shell under it's belly, but no carapace? Seems to me a turtle with only a shell on the bottom side would probably swim near the surface of the water only; no? If not, then what good is a shell if it doesn't surround your body? Or maybe, just maybe, since it lived 220 million years ago, it might have been a transition stage to what we see today as turtles?
Or what about the fact that some turtles breath oxygen from the air through their nostrils and from water through their asses?
Or what about the half shelled "Odontochelys semistestacea" which has a shell under it's belly, but no carapace? Seems to me a turtle with only a shell on the bottom side would probably swim near the surface of the water only; no? If not, then what good is a shell if it doesn't surround your body? Or maybe, just maybe, since it lived 220 million years ago, it might have been a transition stage to what we see today as turtles?