"The Truth About PhD Creationists"

[LuisDantas]

That is not the silliest statement I have heard in the discussion of evolution vs Creationism, but it is in the top 5. Make that the top 3.​

Let me guess: you have just begun to learn about the idea of Creationism in the last hour or so?​

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's look at the first on ICR's associates list, he is typical:

Dr. Jason Lisle - an expert in the heliosphere of the Sun. But ... at the ICR he holds forth on an entirely unrelated subject, one that he has no expertise in or publication record for: the Starlight Problem. It's like turning to a car mechanic for information on Chaucer's sentence structure (or vice versa).

Of course. How else could he claim to be a Creationist who has any academic qualifications?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You need to post one, just one thing the TOE has ever proved.

That's like asking what has gravity proven. The Theory Gravity proves nothing: Actions prove the theory of gravity. The theory of evolution proves nothing: Genetic changes from one changes to the next, combined with things such as the fossil record, prove the theory of evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Note that at time 9:50 the creationist PhD says Embroyology, Big Bang Theory and Evolution are "Lies from the pit of Hell and its lies to people like me and all the people that were taught that from understanding that they need a saviour."

This is a prime example of what some people said in my church on multiple occasions. They'd come visit on a Sunday night or something like that, then they'd show some slides, slander all Scientists everywhere and then sell some books. They would plead that Evolution was a direct assault upon Genesis and an attempt to undermine Christianity. All the while they were themselves fighting against Christians and Christianity by doing this. Consider what kind of damage this does to believing students, discouraging them from learning not just Math or just Evolution but from learning logical thinking and it turns all of the wonderful tools of education into competition with God. Suddenly there's just no point to Science anymore and Psychologists are just Satan's flunkies. The whole evil process that these people perform upon congregations and churches is horrible and discourages students from learning.

What those people l did was wrong of course. Their basic mistake is to attack evolution from the Bible instead of from science. Evolution can be questioned by asking, how did this happen? What is the mechanism for a mutation and or natural selection that can cause a complete change of species. How can an offspring acquire a characteristic for which it parents did not have the gene for. That violates the proven laws of genetics.

How did a medium sized, dog-like land animal, doing quite well on land, get in the line of whales? That is absurd and unscientific, but it is necessary to link the 2 or evolution is exposed as the fraud it is.

Now if anyone can explain those difficulties I will jump the fence and beat the drum for evolution. If you can't, you need to jump the fence and beat the drum for "God did it."

 

[omega2xx]

That's like asking what has gravity proven. The Theory Gravity proves nothing:

What an unscientific thing to say. Jump out of a 5 story building and one PROVEN truth about gravitt will suddenly become apparent.

Actions prove the theory of gravity.

You just said, "theory of gravity proves nothing." Make up you mind.

The theory of evolution proves nothing: Genetic changes from one changes to the next, combined with things such as the fossil record, prove the theory of evolution. [/QUOTE]

Genetic changes are limited to the characteristics of the genes in the gene pool of the parents. the dominant gene for eye color will determine the color of the eyes of the offspring, but if neither parent has the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. Generics will not allow it.

Even many evolutionist have recognized the fossil record does not support evolution.

Here is a statement from Ernst Mayr, a one time professor of biology at Harvard.

"Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent...the discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Gould says basically the same thing.

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates, but after 100+ years you have none.

 

[Revoltingest]

.

"The truth about creationists with PhDs: Their diplomas exist for the sole purpose of inflating the credibility of the institutions that they represent."​

So, Humphreys seems to be a less than credible PhD physicist championing creationism. But are there any credible PhD physicists doing so? Or how about a notable PhD scientist of any stripe championing creationism?

.

He makes a compelling case.
But it would be better if his avoided the histrionic bigotry.

 

[omega2xx]

Let me guess: you have just begun to learn about the idea of Creationism in the last hour or so?​

Don't be silly. If you want to discuss the subject put in one a scientific basis, if you have not just learned about real science in the last hour or so. I probably learned about creationism before you were out of diapers. Also, even in high school I didn't drink the Darwin cool-ade offered by evolutionists.

 

[omega2xx]

Guess again, 'cause your response is clearly a guess. There are a handful of creationist PhDs who have actually published in their field. Working in industry, doing "research" and even teaching at "major" universities is not the coin of the trade, publications in refereed journals is the base metal and citations are the gold. Show me creationist "scientists" with such coinage in their pocket.

It is not a guess. your guess is based on a preconceived idea. Why don't you back it up with your source?

 

[omega2xx]

Argument from authority. Having a degree does not equate what they claim is true.

OK then don;t claim it for those who preach evolution.

And has yet to publish anything that can pass scrutiny of his peer hence why he writes books as these are not reviewed.

Are you really that ignorant of the peer review process. No so called scientific journal will ever post an article that mentions creation or even God.Several ICR scientists have had articles pubilshed in peer-reviewed journals when he subject was about science.

People do not question their qualification but competence.

PHD creation scientist are just as qualified as any PhD evolutionist.

Proof is math and logic not science.

What a low and incorrect view of science you hold. Are you really suggesting that science has not proved there is more than one blood type? Are you really suggesting that science has not proved that all living things have DNA? Google "Nobel prizes" and see how many of them were give for opinions.

Science supports many ideas that many treat as 100% true.

Many treat something as 100% true because real science has proved the idea. Science has not proved anything in the TOE, not one.

No as this would be a deductive stance. Since science has not explored all of the universe this is an inductive view or simply mistake on your part.

It is amusing that the only response I ever get from evolutionists, is that I don't understand science. Yet they can't offer one thing science has proven that supports evolution. Want to be the first?

"All life we have discovered has DNA" There are viruses that use RNA rather than DNA so even your statement is in error.

How doo you know that is true?



Johannes Fibiger and his spiroptera was shown to be wrong. Maybe you should do research before making grand claims...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What an unscientific thing to say. Jump out of a 5 story building and one PROVEN truth about gravitt will suddenly become apparent.

As I said, that "jump out of a five story building" is what proves gravity. The theory of gravity explains what will happen, but it is the jump that proves is.

Even many evolutionist have recognized the fossil record does not support evolution.

The vast and bulk majority to do indeed accept the fossil record as evidence for evolution.

Here is a statement from Ernst Mayr, a one time professor of biology at Harvard.

"Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent...the discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Gould says basically the same thing.

Most organisms do not fossilize. How would we find a continuous and unbroken line?

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates, but after 100+ years you have none.

Given evolution is an ongoing process that will continue as long as life does, every fossil is an "intermediate" between one species and another.

 

[omega2xx]

My source is a lifetime of experience as a scientist and scientific program manager.

You should know better than to offer yourself as the source for what you say. You are obviously extreemly biased. FMI what is your PhD in?

No, most all of the people associated with the ICR are hacks that could not cut it in the real science world.

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. All of them have a PhD in a scientific discipline and are more qualified than you are. All of them have either taught in a major university, worked in private industry or done research for the government or private industry. Would a major university accept your resume to become a staff member?

Few to none have the publication and citation record of a successful scientist. I was small potatoes, but I had more than 70 publications going back to 1972, a good citation index and even a few papers that are considered "seminal" and are cited to this day. And most of my career was spent in administration, think what real scientists' records look like!

Teh usual evo straw man. Several on the ICR staff have had articles accepted by peer-review. They were on sciencne, not on creationism, which arf put in the round file as soon as God is mentioned.

Let's look at the first on ICR's associates list, he is typical:

Dr. Jason Lisle - an expert in the heliosphere of the Sun. But ... at the ICR he holds forth on an entirely unrelated subject, one that he has no expertise in or publication record for: the Starlight Problem. It's like turning to a car mechanic for information on Chaucer's sentence structure (or vice versa).

Lisle's explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with six day creation only a few thousand years ago consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically". On that basis alone we can see his PhD is useless to him. Most of Lisle's points begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything. It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a competent scientist would do. So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist in another field altogether, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't scientific. Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism.

In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis. He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals" - quite a backtrack from his earlier blog posts that seemed to indicate that he was actually doing original research himself. Lisle responded to the "pre-publishing" critics (hilariously overusing the word "embarrassing", and never really naming any critics specifically) by basically saying people should have an open mind until they read the paper. Despite pimping and hyping his publication on the AiG blog, he was noncommittal to the idea of a "non-technical writeup".
(with thanks to rationalwiki).
In science the best thing you can do to make a reputation with the least energy output is to falsify someone else's work. So much for the "good ole boys" network. That is simply not how things work. Do you want to retire to a life of ease, the accoades of your colleagues and the love of beautiful women? Should be easy for you do to, simply falsify the ToE and go pick up you Nobel and your Macarthur. You (and your fellow travelers') inability to do so proves that you just don't have the right stuff to pull it off. If you wait to come back when you do, I expect we'll never hear from you again.
Not accepted, not suggested.
The whale case is so complete and open and shut at this stage that it is hardly worth discussing, there'a no controversy there.

I am glad is typical---He earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado.

Lets see you falsify "after it kind." Then you will become famous and rich. I have ignored most of this post because it is just silliness and
originates in your preconceived bias.

Whales derived from dogs? Where did you ever get that from? Pakicetus (the first whale), was not derived from the canidae, it was nothing like a dog.

I didn't say from dogs. I said dog-like. Packitecus look more like a dog than a whale. Since whales have fins and a blowhole and indohyus nor packicetus has neither, they are not whales. It is inconceivable that anyone would think a land animal, surviving very well on land would develop into a sea creature where life might not be so safe. Where is the phony doctrine of natural selection when you really need it?

I hate to burst your bubble, actually I enjoy it. but pictures do not say how it happened. You need some real science for that and you have none that will explain how it happened.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What those people l did was wrong of course. Their basic mistake is to attack evolution from the Bible instead of from science. Evolution can be questioned by asking, how did this happen? What is the mechanism for a mutation and or natural selection that can cause a complete change of species. How can an offspring acquire a characteristic for which it parents did not have the gene for. That violates the proven laws of genetics.

The biggest mistake is for them to drum up business by calling church secretaries and telling them that their ministries are threatened by Science. Its a con. The basis of the con is to present a Scientific appearance while slandering people in Science and saying that they are wholesale biased, mislead, confused and opposed to the Bible. Then they get invited to do a demonstration in the church where they sell books and ask for memberships in ICR and donations to support them and make Science into a boogeyman.

How did a medium sized, dog-like land animal, doing quite well on land, get in the line of whales? That is absurd and unscientific, but it is necessary to link the 2 or evolution is exposed as the fraud it is.

Now if anyone can explain those difficulties I will jump the fence and beat the drum for evolution. If you can't, you need to jump the fence and beat the drum for "God did it."

I can see that whales exist, and they have physical attributes in common with mammals. Then I can ask myself why there are oceanic mammals and where they could possibly have come from. At that point I gather ideas about it and begin testing those ideas. That is all I can do, and that is all that Scientists are required to do.

Following that process of observing, gathering ideas and testing them (Science) is not an attack on the Bible or faith. Its an exploration of nature. Consider this analogous scenario: My awesome mother dies horribly. Now I am faced with regret over her painful death, yet the Bible says God is merciful. Should I then deny that her death was painful, long and horrible? That is, should I get all Creation-scientix about it? Does my Scientific knowledge of the pain my mother experienced oppose the Bible's statement that God is merciful? Well this is the same thing as saying that Science (observation of nature and testing ideas) is somehow opposed to the Bible. Its the same silly claim. As a human being I have to both accept my mom's painful death and the statement that God is merciful and reconcile them for myself -- not deny that mom died painfully. My knowledge of her death is not due to a lack of faith on my part.

 

[omega2xx]

As I said, that "jump out of a five story building" is what proves gravity. The theory of gravity explains what will happen, but it is the jump that proves is.

I am not going to quibble over this. You say gravity has not been proven and you say it has.

The vast and bulk majority to do indeed accept the fossil record as evidence for evolution.

WE do no determine truth by majority. Gould is your most famous fossil expert. If you reject what he says, it indicates you are not willing to look at the problem with an open mind.

Most organisms do not fossilize. How would we find a continuous and unbroken line?

True but irrelevant. We have to work with what we have and we have millions of fossil and noteven one intermediate one.

Given evolution is an ongoing process that will continue as long as life does, every fossil is an "intermediate" between one species and another.

That every fossil is an intermediate is the saddest thing one can try to use in a o of the fossil record. It is a recent invention when it became obvious the fossil record does not support evolution.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You need to post one, just one thing the TOE has ever proved.

I know you don't think you're using the wrong terminology, but you're using the wrong terminology...

Not that it really matters, but science applies Theories, like the Theory of Gravity - or Germ Theory - to our everyday life in attempts of answering questions that arise from daily observation. "Hey... I wonder why the Sun rises and sets everyday. Could there be some force that keeps the Earth and the Sun connected?" Or, "Man, I wonder if my overuse of antibiotics will somehow apply an artificial environmental pressure on certain pathogens, leaving only super resistant successive generations to dominate human illnesses..."

Those theories have been applied, made predictions, and "proven" things about the world around us. So too has Evolutionary Theory.

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

• Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
  
  
  
• Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
  
  
  
• There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
  
  
  
• In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
  
  
  
• It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
  
  
  
• From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
  
  
  
• In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
  
  
  
• Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
  
  
  
• In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
  Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The TheoryThis challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
  
  
  
• Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
  The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
  
  
  
  
• A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
  
  
  
• The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
  This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
  
  
  
  
• An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
  Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
  
  Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
  
  It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

 

[omega2xx]

The biggest mistake is for them to drum up business by calling church secretaries and telling them that their ministries are threatened by Science. Its a con. The basis of the con is to present a Scientific appearance while slandering people in Science and saying that they are wholesale biased, mislead, confused and opposed to the Bible. Then they get invited to do a demonstration in the church where they sell books and ask for memberships in ICR and donations to support them and make Science into a boogeyman.

I said it was wrong. Why are you still harping on it?

I can see that whales exist, and they have physical attributes in common with mammals. Then I can ask myself why there are oceanic mammals and where they could possibly have come from. At that point I gather ideas about it and begin testing those ideas. That is all I can do, and that is all that Scientists are required to do.

I can look at land mammals and see they exist. I see none of them have fins or a blowhole. Then I ask myself, how could they get such unique characteristics from parents that not have a gene for those characteristics, Then I tell myself, they couldn't, that would violate the laws of genetics. So I conclude those whales had a mommy and a daddy that were whales and did not come for a land animal.

But I don't stop there, I wonder why a land animal surviving very well on land would ever become a sea creature where the environment at first would be very hostile to it survival. I finally conclude that the story of whale evolution should start with "one upon a time," and end with "and they live happily ever after." That is the only thing that makes sense and keeps alive the fairy tale about natural selection.

Following that process of observing, gathering ideas and testing them (Science) is not an attack on the Bible or faith.

When discussing evolution, I never mentions the Bible. I try to keep is on the evidence that support evolution,

Its an exploration of nature. Consider this analogous scenario: My awesome mother dies horribly. Now I am faced with regret over her painful death, yet the Bible says God is merciful. Should I then deny that her death was painful, long and horrible? That is, should I get all Creation-scientix about it? Does my Scientific knowledge of the pain my mother experienced oppose the Bible's statement that God is merciful? Well this is the same thing as saying that Science (observation of nature and testing ideas) is somehow opposed to the Bible. Its the same silly claim. As a human being I have to both accept my mom's painful death and the statement that God is merciful and reconcile them for myself -- not deny that mom died painfully. My knowledge of her death is not due to a lack of faith on my part.

It is not even close. Your mothers pain an death did not come from God, but from Adam. God put man in a perfect world, but sin changed it. If this life is all there is,, you are right, but in that case God does not exist. God show us mercy by providing another perfect world and tell us how to get there. If people ignore that, who is to blame. In heaven their will never be any pain---Rev 21:4.

I know what is is like to lose a loved one; I have felt your pain and sill do. and understand your reluctance to believe a merciful God would allows that. However, it makes my faith even more important, knowing when I die, I will see them again.

 

[omega2xx]

I know you don't think you're using the wrong terminology, but you're using the wrong terminology...

Not that it really matters, but science applies Theories, like the Theory of Gravity - or Germ Theory - to our everyday life in attempts of answering questions that arise from daily observation. "Hey... I wonder why the Sun rises and sets everyday. Could there be some force that keeps the Earth and the Sun connected?" Or, "Man, I wonder if my overuse of antibiotics will somehow apply an artificial environmental pressure on certain pathogens, leaving only super resistant successive generations to dominate human illnesses..."

Those theories have been applied, made predictions, and "proven" things about the world around us. So too has Evolutionary Theory.

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

• Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
  
  
  
• Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
  
  
  
• There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
  
  
  
• Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
  
  
  
• In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
  
  
  
• It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
  
  
  
• From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
  
  
  
• In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
  
  
  
• Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
  
  
  
• In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
  Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The TheoryThis challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
  
  
  
• Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
  The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
  
  
  
  
• A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
  
  
  
• The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
  This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
  
  
  
  
• An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
  Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
  
  Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
  
  It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

I never reply to post that long. If you want me to discuss it, break it up into smaller sections. I will comment on your last comment. Pakicetus did not live in fresh water, it was a land animal, and fresh water fish, cant live in salt water.

 

[omega2xx]

He makes a compelling case.
But it would be better if his avoided the histrionic bigotry.

Omitting his bigotry would not make his claim and better. He needs scientific facts and he has none. Those with facts present them. All others just blow smoke, trying to hide that FACT.

 

[Revoltingest]

Omitting his bigotry would not make his claim and better.

It's about intent.
To change minds, it's counter-productive to be offensive.

He needs scientific facts and he has none.

Perhaps you missed them.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I never reply to post that long. If you want me to discuss it, break it up into smaller sections. I will comment on your last comment.

You asked for examples in this thread multiple times. I provided a short list, and a link to them, and you complain about the length of the post? That doesn't seem very genuine, does it?

In fairness, I suppose, you wanted someone to show you just "one thing" that evolution has ever gotten right. So we can just focus on the "one thing" that you bothered to respond to.

Pakicetus did not live in fresh water, it was a land animal

It was an amphibious cetacean. Calling it a land animal, is either an understatement or a blatant inaccuracy - neither is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/220/4595/403
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3692104
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20545/full

and fresh water fish, cant live in salt water.

Again with the half-statements...Why do you do that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euryhaline
http://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq1a.html

Now... I wonder if there are any evolutionary explanations as to why these things are the way that they are. I wonder if any predictions have every been made using evolutionary theory to help bridge the gap between one organismal function and another. I wonder if those predictions have ever been "proven" to be accurate. I wonder if any other alternative idea to biology can make such predictions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can look at land mammals and see they exist. I see none of them have fins or a blowhole. Then I ask myself, how could they get such unique characteristics from parents that not have a gene for those characteristics, Then I tell myself, they couldn't, that would violate the laws of genetics. So I conclude those whales had a mommy and a daddy that were whales and did not come for a land animal.

But I don't stop there, I wonder why a land animal surviving very well on land would ever become a sea creature where the environment at first would be very hostile to it survival. I finally conclude that the story of whale evolution should start with "one upon a time," and end with "and they live happily ever after." That is the only thing that makes sense and keeps alive the fairy tale about natural selection.

Look at land mammals and see none of them have fins. Ask yourself how they can get characteristics from parents without the gene. Then come up with testable ideas to explain it and then test the ideas. That will be scientific. In your description you have skipped coming up with ideas to explain the observations and to test the ideas that you have, so you are not using a scientific method.

When you "Wonder why a land animal surviving very well on land would ever become a sea creature where the environment at first would be very hostile to it survival" you are not proceeding from observations to testable ideas. The idea you have put forward is that there is nothing to investigate, but to call it Science you should then come up with ways to test that idea. Science means observing, then producing ideas to explain and then testing thoroughly. If you would conclude that "That would violate the laws of genetics" then you must test that idea first and ask "Can genes change?" "How can I test whether genes can change or not to make sure that I am making a repeatable conclusion?"

It is not even close. Your mothers pain an death did not come from God, but from Adam. God put man in a perfect world, but sin changed it. If this life is all there is,, you are right, but in that case God does not exist. God show us mercy by providing another perfect world and tell us how to get there. If people ignore that, who is to blame. In heaven their will never be any pain---Rev 21:4.

I know what is is like to lose a loved one; I have felt your pain and sill do. and understand your reluctance to believe a merciful God would allows that. However, it makes my faith even more important, knowing when I die, I will see them again.

I am not arguing about God's mercy. The creation-scientix like error in the reasoning which I want to point out the fallacial conclusion that "The Bible says God is merciful and therefore my mom could not possibly be in pain." It is denial of observations of real life based upon a authoritative interpretation of the Bible. It is saying "I refuse to accept what my senses are telling me." It is not scientific. It is argument from an authority, like was done in the Middle Ages in Europe where people refused to accept that Earth went around the Sun.