Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by futuretense
That stated, consider the following...........Humans have a genetic map that is 90% accurate to that of a flat worm (our earliest known fossil ancestor at this time) and 99.8% accurate to that of an Orangutan (our primate ancestor).......Humans show no direct genetic tree with all apes……..the chimpanzee and/or gorilla for instance branched off in different directions due to random environmental stimuli that to this day remain in their current development. Not all Orangutan’s evolved along the human route as well due to these various environmental impacts on both natural selection within the species……. and the evolution of extra species development as well.

This is the one argument that makes me laugh. I don't want to be rude to anyone but I could just as easily say that this closeness in genetic mapping proves intelligent design. We don't even know how far off this map you could go and have sustainable life.

Your response has merit when you consider the logical pretense of your assumption.........but then it would require more objective evidence of that intelligent creator rather than an assuming that being as the first cause agent.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by SN4FU

 

I point you to the lungfish. Long thought to be extinct, we have the fossils. Found to be alive and kicking. I have shown you the stones...... bones....... Fish.

Is that acceptable?

All you can prove with this argument is that a Lungfish exists. And its pretty much the same as it was. Actually now that I put it that way maybe that is more proof for creation than evolution. Go God

you created some really cool animals that didn't evolve and still exist today.

So basically, you won't except any proof other than crocoduck?

Very funny, but yes that is probably correct. This problem exists because we are taught assumptions as fact as young impressionable children. It is nearly impossible for most to separate the assumptions from fact. I don’t mind the debate, it actually strengthens my faith. I am just so tired of being told that because we observe evolution in one form that somehow that proves evolutionary theory as fact. You may have evolved from a common ape ancestor but I did not

I am also tired of being told how old the earth and universe are as fact. If everyone could say here is what I believe based on my assumptions prior to any statements I would be far less offended. I am not offended at the attack on my faith but the attack on my intelligence. I am very intelligent and my refusal to believe in the assumptions of science does not disqualify my intellect.

reply to post by futuretense


I know this statement means nothing to most of you. But the fact that I am, my child is, and the world around me exists is enough for me to believe in a higher being. I have studied several religions but the bible, not religion, captures my heart.

Maybe I’m just a lover but to know that God came to earth to spend time with his creation, show us the way, and prove life after death moves me in ways I cannot explain. It is truly spiritual. I only gained this after listening to the entire bible on audio. I recommend everyone try this with an open heart. It’s the greatest love story ever told. And I believe every word of it.

Originally posted by futuretense
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

In regards to the story of Noah’s ark……It is worthy to consider marsupials of Australia and other geospecific regional species. For instance, let's take a Duckbill platypus, Kiwi bird and/or the Koala bear........they are only found in one place on Earth.......the continent of Australia.

Regardless of where Noah and his family lived, once they gathered each species on the ark and then landed after the flood seceded, all those animals would appear in areas of the Earth at least within the continent he landed on……..unless the ark landed on the continant of Australia.

But then how would you explain species only found on……. say the islands of Hawaii?

There is little evidence to assume anyone could have loaded all the species for reproduction after the flood and then have them dispersed in such a geospecific region to the exclusions of all others by using an ark.

But I'm open to alternative suggestions if you have any.

Well, as I said I'm a fan of Noah not being the only group of humans saved. But remember according to the biblical account God's purpose was destruction of a corrupted race of man (ish)... He wasn't trying to destroy all life on this planet.

It was "40 days" of catastrophe. During which our only "witnesses" were locked up inside a box. This wasn't a simple rising of the waters. This was earthquakes, volcanoes, monstrous guysers, boulders and mountains flying around... Some of the critters, especially the aquatic ones could have migrated or been "encouraged" to hide out in safe(ish) spots. God being God he could simply have moved them or protected them if he wanted to.

If you read the biblical account and follow the word for word translations you find that it is almost as if much of the earths water was retained in giant underground oceans... (as an example Imagine a swimming pool with a thick layer of clay on top... and then drop a motorcycle into it from 300 feet up... stuff is going to fly everywhere...) In those days the earth was "enshrouded in mist"... and i think it said something about "the fountains of the deep" erupting.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

We also have many cave painting showing man hunting and the animals they hunted. It amazing that something so big would be missing from this record.

www.genesispark.com...

Dino Drawings. Based on your statement the Bible must be right again. All the answers in one book, and you keep reading all those assumption books, I mean science books sorry.

Mixing mythology with biology isn't a clever idea...people also used to believe and paint in mermaids

Whenever creationist provide facts, you are free to call them mythology if you like but they exist and are facts. You have no scientific way to prove that your interpretation is better than mine. If it doesnt fit your assumption than it must be discarded.

Now wait a second isn't that what you keep telling the creationist to stop doing. LOL

Please read this post I made last page.

post by NewAgeMan

If we consider a downward causation and a reverse arrow of time, we are forced to consider a new type of intelligent design, not in terms of a God standing apart from the universe turning knobs and dials like some sort of wizard of oz, but one who dove into and who informs his own creation, from top to bottom, and back up again, like two pyramids (star of David?) in an eternal wellspring of life meeting life and of life informing life, as an emanation of the Absolute by a process of intelligent subtraction, in order to make possible varied experience, yes from rock, and mineral, to plant, animal, and then to human (self awareness). What we see then, is an evolution towards consciousness, like a plant growing toward a light.


Science without religion is lame, and
Religion, without science, is blind.

reply to post by sacgamer25


So basically you want to create your own fantasy world that doesn't have to be based on logic/rationality or objective evidence. That's ok...as long sa you realize it's a BELIEF and not based on anything remotely similar to objective evidence. Without objective evidence, and your "hypothesis" has none, it's not really credible.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

We also have many cave painting showing man hunting and the animals they hunted. It amazing that something so big would be missing from this record.

www.genesispark.com...

Dino Drawings. Based on your statement the Bible must be right again. All the answers in one book, and you keep reading all those assumption books, I mean science books sorry.

Mixing mythology with biology isn't a clever idea...people also used to believe and paint in mermaids

Whenever creationist provide facts, you are free to call them mythology if you like but they exist and are facts. You have no scientific way to prove that your interpretation is better than mine. If it doesnt fit your assumption than it must be discarded.

Now wait a second isn't that what you keep telling the creationist to stop doing. LOL

There's a difference. Those wall paintings show what humans BELIEVED back then, which isn't necessarily based on reality. Take mermaids for example, or those who believed the earth to be flat. Those guys made paintings too, but that doesn't mean the earth is flat for example. It just highlights peoples' belief based on compared to today limited knowledge.

Something like sedimental evidence on the other hand, or DNA, is not showing a belief. They are showing concrete, testable, and verifiable things. A global flood for example would leave scientific evidence other than just human stories.

reply to post by MrXYZ

You must admit however, that the objective reality which surrounds you, and the varied complexity of forms, and well everything, must be considered evidence of SOMETHING!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So basically you want to create your own fantasy world that doesn't have to be based on logic/rationality or objective evidence. That's ok...as long sa you realize it's a BELIEF and not based on anything remotely similar to objective evidence. Without objective evidence, and your "hypothesis" has none, it's not really credible.

The problem we have is I don't believe that your evidence is logical or rational. With the number of assumptions that need to be made support your evidence it is remarkable that they call this a theory. Every piece of the theory is filled with assumptions. My BELIEF only has one assumption. Myself and others have provided scientific evidence, real scientific evidence, that supports that my conclusion is at least as logical as yours.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You must admit however, that the objective reality which surrounds you, and the varied complexity of forms, and well everything, must be considered evidence of SOMETHING!

If you're talking about biodiversity, that's the result of evolution

If we move from a materialist monist (matter alone is primary) paradigm or worldview, to a monistic idealist (consciousness, not matter, is primary), then the whole creation may be viewed as one made by consciousness, for consciousness.

And this is the direction that modern science is now headed.

Atheists, take note.

reply to post by MrXYZ

What you define as a random, mindless evolution - can be redined, as a conscious, creative act by God (see my posts).

reply to post by MrXYZ



Well I agree those other creatures are not in the bible and the dinosaur is. So the source that I'm using for fact vs myth only talks about creatures that we know were real.

Based on your argument man is not real because all those drawings were myth.

And scientific evidence has already been given to support a flood.

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So basically you want to create your own fantasy world that doesn't have to be based on logic/rationality or objective evidence. That's ok...as long sa you realize it's a BELIEF and not based on anything remotely similar to objective evidence. Without objective evidence, and your "hypothesis" has none, it's not really credible.

The problem we have is I don't believe that your evidence is logical or rational. The number of assumptions that need to be made support your evidence it is remarkable that they call this a theory. Every piece of the theory is filled with assumptions. My BELIEF only has one assumption. Myself and others have provided scientific evidence, real scientific evidence, that supports that my conclusion is at least as logical as yours.

"My" evidence is testable and verifiable...it's the very prerequisite of scientific method. We can accurately PREDICT outcomes based on the theory, and predicting future outcomes like this wouldn't be possible if the theory were wrong. Hell, we're using the theory in modern medicine.

And no, I'm afraid nothing posted so far in this thread serves as proof for any of the claims you guys make. You either fill gaps in knowledge (aka "something had to make it") with magic (aka god), or post examples of what people BELIEVED back then...which as should be abundantly clear, isn't necessarily how reality really was. Again, take mermaids as an example...

Evolution itself can be used to prove God - provided we don't have to take the Bible word-for-word literally.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

What you define as a random, mindless evolution - can be redined, as a conscious, creative act by God (see my posts).

Evolution isn't all random. Mindless maybe, given that we have ZERO evidence of intelligent intervention, but definitely not entirely random. Just look at different species adapted to their environment, and then trace their ancestors back in time and you can correlate it with their environment. The giraffe is a good example of that...

reply to post by MrXYZ

(I specifically kept my descriptions vague knowing that somebody would bite. Congrat's, you win todays prize of 500 points and a star in the ongoing ATS hopers vs haters debate.)

(I meant that ironically in an attempt to defuse the anger which you seemed to be demonstrating. If you are not angry I pre-emptively apologize for insinuating such.)

tbh, I can tell you didn't even skim over any of the links. But that's okay... you weren't the one asking for evidence. Here is a little better summation of the points I was requested to discuss.

The fossilized trees were a point that supports the idea of large plants being uprooted and tossed about the earth in a sudden rapid fashion.

The post about large formations (such as the Grand canyon) happening rapidly was actually about an event that was witnessed, documented and is still being studied which happened in Texas in 2002 when a dam broke. It created a landscape which is remarkably similar to the Grand Canyon... only smaller.

And you know what these prove? Not nothing, but not much... They simply prove that there are fossilized trees around the world that were all deposited at around the same time in history... and that if a Dam breaks in Texas it can create a landscape which is similar in appearence to the Grand Canyon.

I think what really bothered you was a creationist (ish) who took a few hours of his day and provided some scientific evidence that was linked together with presumptions and assumptions (i.e. theories).

But isn't that exactly the method that Evolutionist use? All the geological evidence by itself proves is that things happened in places sometime in the past. Everything else is what you Believe that it means. It's okay to have faith my friend. Your religion doesn't have to be the same as mine.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well I agree those other creatures are not in the bible and the dinosaur is. So the source that I'm using for fact vs myth only talks about creatures that we know were real.

Based on your argument man is not real because all those drawings were myth.

And scientific evidence has already been given to support a flood.

But we have objective evidence proving that man exists...when it comes to dinosaurs that's simply not the case, at least not during a time when humans were alive.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Please take the time to read my posts on this thread, starting last page - thanks!