Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Ouroboros]

First and foremost, evolution is not a science. It's a religion that thinks it is science. What have we been talking about all these posts lol?

Very funny... don't quit your day job.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I accept people become biologists, but question whether evolution is a field of science. It sounds more like religion and philosophy.

It depends on what people accept as "evolution." They may accept natural selection.

Biology doesn't work without evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are they called evolution biologists, evolution anthropologists, etc?

Are they scientists that end up proving Darwin and ToE was wrong?

Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed and form hybrids more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled “web of life.”

The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification.

"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

It is interesting to note, too, that Darwin, evolution’s best-known advocate, when advancing his theory of evolution, had his own doubts about mankind’s origin and indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations.

They're call "anthropologists" and "paleontologists."

Darwin would probably be blown away if he were still alive today to see how far we've come with his theory since he first proposed it. The genetic evidence alone would probably blow his mind.

 

[Ouroboros]

Biology doesn't work without evolution.

Or modern medicine.

Or agriculture!

Even big corporations like Monsanto have figured out that they can't beat evolution in nature, but have to start playing along. Root worm now resistant to BT toxin in the GMO corn at places where they totally disregarded buffer zones (refuges of non-GMO corn).

Hmm... evolution doesn't work? Then why does it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/14/5141
http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

 

[Ouroboros]

Biology doesn't work without evolution.

And chemistry as well.

Plastic eating bacteria exists today. It evolved. Now, there are plans to use them for breaking down plastic in the dumps.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/does-newly-discovered-bacteria-recycle-plastic/

Where did this plastic eating bacteria come from? The ark? God created it before plastic existed just so he could introduce it in 2016? Eating a man-made material just because it's fun. Why didn't God let them out of the ark 30-40 years ago when plastic was becoming a problem in the landfills?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or modern medicine.

Or agriculture!

Even big corporations like Monsanto have figured out that they can't beat evolution in nature, but have to start playing along. Root worm now resistant to BT toxin in the GMO corn at places where they totally disregarded buffer zones (refuges of non-GMO corn).

Hmm... evolution doesn't work? Then why does it?

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/14/5141
http://www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

That's just adaptation!

Kinds!

Irreducible complexity!


Just kidding. Good links.

 

[Ouroboros]

So... we have all the research and evidence that supports evolution, and still, the only "evidence" presented in this thread to support creationism is quote with opinions from Gish et al or quotes from ancient holy books.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's just adaptation!

Kinds!

Irreducible complexity!


Just kidding. Good links.

LOL! Yeah. That's the most likely response. I'll get. Doesn't matter that the DNA has changed, in accordance with the predictions of the theory. Basically, the creationist response is:

It's not evolution through mutation of the DNA, but it's adaption through mutation of the DNA. Hah!

 

[Ouroboros]

The evolution of corn: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

Is known, for a fact, because we can compare DNA from old corn and modern corn.

And the evolution of corn shows that evolution doesn't have to be slow, it can be fast. Only 5 genes differences between teosinte and edible corn.

Besides, we also can see by comparing corn and many other plants over time (can especially be observed in bacteria) that the DNA can contain a lot of garbage, or left-overs. The size of a DNA doesn't tell the complexity of the life form.

 

[McBell]

James Bond has got it going on in this thread!

You honestly think so?
I mean, he has had his *** handed to him left and right this thread....

 

[First Baseman]

You honestly think so?
I mean, he has had his *** handed to him left and right this thread....

That depends on perspective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That depends on perspective.

Not really. Whether or not someone has lied or gotten their facts wrong isn't a matter of perspective - it's a matter of facts.

 

[First Baseman]

Not really. Whether or not someone has lied or gotten their facts wrong isn't a matter of perspective - it's a matter of facts.

Yep. I like his facts.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I accept people become biologists, but question whether evolution is a field of science. It sounds more like religion and philosophy.

It covers, and/or is covered by wide range of fields but is not a field itself. However being a field of science itself is irrelevent.

It depends on what people accept as "evolution." They may accept natural selection.

True. However by only picking one part of the theory it isn't evolution at all. Just as if I were to accept that a definition of a cat is "a four legged animal" and start calling my dog a cat.

I was referring to the acceptance of the theory at an organization level such as RCC.

 

[McBell]

That depends on perspective.

Fair enough.
However, I prefer a perspective based on reality.

To each their own I guess.

 

[McBell]

Yep. I like his facts.

You really need to look up the definition of the word "fact".

Humpty Dumpty is not your friend if you wish to maintain your credibility.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yep. I like his facts.

You mean like the facts he quotes about Darwin's statements that were taken out of context? The fact he claimed that the anthropic principle states that life is the "end goal" of the Universe? The fact that he intentionally missed out passages in the Bible that didn't fit (or entirely contradicted) the Big Bang theory in his exhaustive explanation of how the Big Bang theory fits "perfectly" with Genesis? The fact that he repeatedly dodges questions that challenge his claims? The fact that he has lied about the opinions of scientists such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse and Richard Dawkins? The fact that he rarely supports any of his claims with anything other than creationist websites? The fact that he claims evolution is not just a biological science and is somehow related to the origin of the Universe? The fact that he claims science has ruled-out God?

Are these the facts you prefer?

 

[viole]

Sorry, totally inadequate like Darwin as a scientist.

Darwin felt the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of ‘extreme perfection and complication’ could be solved. From The Origin of Species:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

So he tosses out hypotheses to point out how it could happen.

Complex things are stubborn facts.

However, the evidence shows that advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, a trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that ‘dates’ back to the Cambrian period of about 540 million years ago.

The

Sorry, totally inadequate like Darwin as a scientist.

Darwin felt the seemingly insurmountable problem of the evolution of what he called an organ of ‘extreme perfection and complication’ could be solved. From The Origin of Species:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

So he tosses out hypotheses to point out how it could happen.

Complex things are stubborn facts.

However, the evidence shows that advanced vision appears almost at the very beginning of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, a trilobite, is a very complex faceted compound eye that ‘dates’ back to the Cambrian period of about 540 million years ago.

The fossil evidence shows that from the beginning of the fossil record eyes are very complex, highly developed structures. We also have ‘living fossils’, animals that have remained virtually unchanged since very early in history. University of Salford biologist, Laurence R. Croft, wrote that the ‘precise origin of the vertebrate eye is still a mystery. The fascinating thing about the evolution of the eye is its apparent sudden appearance. Specifically, the fossils show that vision originated ‘in the early Cambrian’, which Darwinists put at ‘some 530 million years ago’.

Anyone have fossils of giraffes to show their long necks evolved?

So, do you agree that there was no human being 530 millions years ago?

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

You really need to look up the definition of the word "fact".

Humpty Dumpty is not your friend if you wish to maintain your credibility.

Well, most of what you believe is assumed to be fact but not proven to be actual fact at all. Oops, kind of shot yourself in the foot there, pal.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL! Yeah. That's the most likely response. I'll get. Doesn't matter that the DNA has changed, in accordance with the predictions of the theory. Basically, the creationist response is:

It's not evolution through mutation of the DNA, but it's adaption through mutation of the DNA. Hah!

They're totally different, why can't you see that!?