Creation v Evolution argument can end

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Akragon

But what he wants to see as "evidence of evolution" would actually disprove evolution.

It's kind of ironic that what he wants to see disproves the thing he wants "evidence" for.

Coincidence? Hmm...

a reply to: Barcs

For entirely different reasons, i agree........this thread is a waste of electronic space.


I simply can't understand why the Mods don't take these down. Electronic space must be really dirt cheap.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Akragon

But what he wants to see as "evidence of evolution" would actually disprove evolution.

It's kind of ironic that what he wants to see disproves the thing he wants "evidence" for.

Coincidence? Hmm...

I highly doubt it.

He's either completely ignorant to what evolution is (possible)

Or

Know exactly what evolution is and is trying to find a way to disprove it (possible)

Or

He's just a religious fundementalist who thinks he's being clever (possible and, I would say, most likely)

a reply to: TonyS

Likely because people are free to share their opinion on this forum regardless of the validity of it...

We have a few flat earthers here too... but if they start stifling peoples opinion where would it end?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

The problem is, as i've said before... The OP is looking for Proof, not "evidence"

He wants to actually see something evolve for his evidence...

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing something "created" for evidence of Creationism

If he wanted proof he should have said so.

If he is looking for the theory of evolution to be proven then that simply won't happen. We have evidence that can be repeatedly observed, tested, etc... in support of evolution, but that does not prove it with 100% absolute certainty. Nothing is ever absolutely proven in science--that is not the goal of science, but rather to determine the strength of the evidence in support of the null hypothesis (i.e. the hypothesis set to be tested). If the evidence in support of evolution weakens, textbooks will be re-written to adjust accordingly. That is the beauty of science--it neither seeks to be correct or incorrect.

a reply to: logicsoda

Thats what i said a few pages back...

He actually wants proof and confuses the word with "evidence"

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

Thats what i said a few pages back...

He actually wants proof and confuses the word with "evidence"

That doesn't appear to be what he said, though... so that is irrelevant.

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

Thats what i said a few pages back...

He actually wants proof and confuses the word with "evidence"

That doesn't appear to be what he said, though... so that is irrelevant.

Well... IF you've read his replies in this and other threads its quite evident...

The OP has regularly been shown "evidence" ad Nauseam by numerous members...

This is the result every time

a reply to: Akragon

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing something "created" for evidence of Creationism

If I could prove abiogenic origin of hydrocarbon and show that the Earth's mantle does not contain Hydrogen, that would demonstrate that hydrogen is still being created. But I don't have the means to get down to the mantle to get a sample. But theoretically it's possible to prove creationism, but that depends on what the mantle contains or not.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

The problem is, as i've said before... The OP is looking for Proof, not "evidence"

He wants to actually see something evolve for his evidence...

Personally i wouldn't mind seeing something "created" for evidence of Creationism

Bingo. but see, you arent allowed to test gods or ask for demonstrations or they make an example of you. ...Lets make it happen.

lol... Not allowed?

I regularly poke that beast with no repercussions... aside from the occasional insult

that just requires a working knowledge of their book

a working knowledge of how their book of knowledge isnt working.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

Thats what i said a few pages back...

He actually wants proof and confuses the word with "evidence"

That doesn't appear to be what he said, though... so that is irrelevant.

Well... IF you've read his replies in this and other threads its quite evident...

The OP has regularly been shown "evidence" ad Nauseam by numerous members...

This is the result every time

I suppose I should have asked him if what he was wanting was "proof" and not evidence. Admittedly I, at times, find it difficult to infer whether or not a person is meaning what they are actually saying. He continually asked for evidence so I was giving him evidence. Had he asked for proof I would not have wasted so much time giving him all of the evidence of evolution.

EDIT: I don't see it as a waste, actually, as I bet at least one person learned something from the posts I have made. That is all I care about.

a reply to: logicsoda

thats how his threads work though... he's asking for "empirical" evidence...

Said key word actually implies "proof"... most seem to miss that and continue to argue the point which can't be shown

a reply to: logicsoda

Many here have been in the same discussion with Raggy for years....

Here we go Raggy visit the evidence here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Shed loads.

Read what people have to deal with.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or this...OMG this one...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I tip my hat to all of you who strive to educate but some just do not either understand or willfully choose to be ignorant of it because it interferes in their eyes with their religion.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

thats how his threads work though... he's asking for "empirical" evidence...

Said key word actually implies "proof"... most seem to miss that and continue to argue the point which can't be shown

Can you elaborate on how the word "empirical" implies "proof", please? Particularly how it implies proof in the context of the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

thats how his threads work though... he's asking for "empirical" evidence...

Said key word actually implies "proof"... most seem to miss that and continue to argue the point which can't be shown

Can you elaborate on how the word "empirical" implies "proof", please?

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

One can not observe something that takes millions of years to happen...

Though again, im not a scientist... Perhaps we can observe evolution happening...

You'll have to talk to other members who know more of the subject then myself...

This subject is far from what i prefer to debate

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

thats how his threads work though... he's asking for "empirical" evidence...

Said key word actually implies "proof"... most seem to miss that and continue to argue the point which can't be shown

Can you elaborate on how the word "empirical" implies "proof", please?

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

One can not observe something that takes millions of years to happen...

Though again, im not a scientist... Perhaps we can observe evolution happening...

You'll have to talk to other members who know more of the subject then myself...

This subject is far from what i prefer to debate

Observation or experience does not necessarily imply proof of evolution, though... that is why these observations are recorded and attempted to be replicated--the keyword there is information but is neutral as to whether or not it is proof of something. It could be seen as evidence of evolution, but not proof.

Also, evolution does not necessarily take millions of years. One can view the lifespan of bacteria in as little as 20 minutes in a lab culture. Think of how many generations could be observed over a short length of time like four days. That equates to 360 generations of bacteria that could theoretically be observed in four days.

a reply to: logicsoda

Perhaps... but again this is what the OP is actually asking for...

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.
If you dont want to, please dont, if you think its a waste of time posting evidence, please dont

If we have empirical evidence there can be no assumptions.

A bird with longer wings, a fly with a special adaptation, its not proof as far as I am concerned, it may well be to you and I accept that.
Micro evolution just doesnt hold enough weight in my opinion.

A cricket with gills, that would be something, a baby human with gills, yeah, that would be something as well

Proof... Hidden behind the veil of the word "evidence"

Also why i posted the video of a fish seemingly learning to walk

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: logicsoda

Perhaps... but again this is what the OP is actually asking for...

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.
If you dont want to, please dont, if you think its a waste of time posting evidence, please dont

If we have empirical evidence there can be no assumptions.

A bird with longer wings, a fly with a special adaptation, its not proof as far as I am concerned, it may well be to you and I accept that.
Micro evolution just doesnt hold enough weight in my opinion.

A cricket with gills, that would be something, a baby human with gills, yeah, that would be something as well

Proof... Hidden behind the veil of the word "evidence"

Also why i posted the video of a fish seemingly learning to walk

Understandable, and I've already addressed that.

well said, op…

I assumed the theory of evolution was legit for the longest time, even after realizing that Jesus Christ is Lord I still held to it…

now, even Hawking is saying their is probably an Intelligence behind the creation...

the more you dig on this topic the more obvious it becomes…

my current fave:

Genetic ENTROPY

yt: Prof. John Sanford on Genomic Entropy
youtu.be...

Geneticists:
Dr. Crow: we are inferior to caveman.
Dr. Knodrashov: no human geneticist doubts man is degenerating.
Dr. Lynch Even assuming a lower mutation rate, we are degenerating at 1%-5% per generation.
Implies a young Creation and as with DNA complexity, theory of evolution is unlikely.

Average cell in 15 yr old - up to 6,000 mutations per cell. (all your cells are different)
Skin cell in 60 yr old - up to 40,000 mutations
Mutations primary cause of aging and death.
“...little potential for substantially increasing the upper limit of human life span.” (upper limit: 120 yrs)
--Michael Lynch (Population Geneticist)
50% reduction in sperm count in men.

Around 100 new mutations per generation.

Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project, converted to Christ partly due to the data he found working in genetics.

“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;”
Heb 1:10-11


“Intelligence must have been involved...”
--Dr. Antony Flew, 2004 (speaking about DNA complexity and his new-found belief in God. Dr. Flew was the author of “Theology and Falsification”, and was the foremost atheistic scientific writer of 20th Century)

a reply to: logicsoda

at this point, now that we are in the "days of noah" and genetic manipulation can probably do a lot of crazy stuff, not even hybrids and "trick pony" fish would convince me of evolution… where are all the hybrids that should have existed before the 20th Century? there should be lots of animals crossing over…

anyway, top "evolutionists" now resort to "punctuated equilibrium" because they cannot explain the sudden explosion of life in the fossil record… which, imo, is really the record of the flood and all the critters that got destroyed… which is why they find bells and tools within seems of coal and such…


this vid of former professor of evolution Dr. Veith knocks it out of the park in dismantling the science:

Amazing Discoveries - The Fossil Record Speaks - By Walter J. Veith
youtu.be...