Facts of vs Theory of Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Dinosaur, Jun 5, 2014.

  1. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I agree with your point. I simply wanted to point out that the theory of evolution has more bark than it does bite.

    As I said earlier, show me a fact for evolution and I'll show you how that fact supports creationism as well. The problem is that evolutionists(or the small portion of active researchers) actually do a great job finding "facts" supporting evolution. The science they do is solid. It's all verifiable, testable, it can make predictions and all that good stuff. I don't disagree with the actual science. I have a problem with the implications they make from these facts... the storytelling. That's were I believe they get it wrong. And that's where the laymen are suckered into believing the theory of evolution. They have trouble separating the actual science from the story that gives it meaning. It's a complicated religion based in science.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    From my Post #1
    It is my understanding that there has always been some controversy relating to the fossil record.

    It is also my understanding that DNA analysis is improving mainstream knowledge relating to the relationships between the various species represented by known fossils.

    Perhaps there are those here who be more comfortable if I had expressed the issue as follows.
    Ergo calling the pertinent fossils The Facts of Evolution does not seem to be improper semantics.

    BTW: I have never been more than a knowledgeable layman of evolution theory. I would not be suprised if some species similar to Eohippus is now considered the oldest know species considered to be part of the progression of species leading to the modern horse.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    OK. We share most of the same DNA with our most recent common ancestors (like chimpanzees and bonobos.) The further you go back (i.e. next most recent common ancestor are the primates) the less similarity you see. Not just active DNA, but the inactive "junk" DNA that doesn't serve any purpose in protein synthesis but does change at a predictable rate. That is evidence that we share ancestry with other animals.

    ?? What "storytelling" is going on? Evolution stands by itself.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There are lice species that only exist on humans. Please explain how human-specific parasites are part of God's glorious creation.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's the story that makes the predictions, guides the tests, etc. If they got it wrong, how does it work so well for so many thousands of researchers for so many years? Example: https://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/MacArthur's_Warblers.html

    Taxonomic relationships for many species of being were established a hundred years ago and more on macroscopic physiological grounds, and in many of these cases was without controversy - everyone agreed. After DNA was discovered, researchers found the the DNA relationships matched the uncontroversial taxonomic relationships, without regard to any other characteristics of the species involved including physical resemblance and geographical location. The DNA of a boxelder tree resembles not an ash, but a maple. The DNA of a hyrax resembles not a guinea pig, but an elephant. How does that support creationism?
     
  9. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I think the circumstantial evidence against the idea of this commonly characterized God is overwhelming, which is part of the reason why I am not the least bit religious.

    Interesting enough though, while the stories of religion may be false, or mostly false, this fact doesn't preclude divine inspiration of these stories and the possibility that there may be some truth purposefully hidden among the lies. God may be lying to us as part of what you call his "glorious" creation, or plan. In other words.... if God does exist, he may have a more complicated idea of "perfection".
     
  10. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    For the sake of argument, lets say that I agree that we share a common ancestor with the chimps. I would still insist that this "evolution" would only be possible because the DNA coding for both chimps and humans existed beforehand. In other words, this human DNA code didn't naturally come into being as is told by the theory of evolution.

    In the end, whether you or I am right, these "facts" of evolution are also facts of creation.
     
  11. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    How do you suppose that this research on ecological niches of some birds supports the idea that the language of DNA came into being by random interactions of chemicals?(edit: I realize that this is considered a separate field of study, but I find that believers in the theory of evolution assume a natural cause for this as well, and the two fields are intimately related to each other.)

    Common designer, common design. It is by no means proof of creation... but neither for evolution.
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I agree, God could be an asshole. The problem is, when you invoke a magic man that can do anything, it can also appear to explain anything. But this isn't the path to truth. If evolution is a perfectly adequate explanation, why appeal to the supernatural, which has no proof whatsoever?

    Secondly, how do you know evolution isn't God's plan, or an experiment? If you don't subscribe to a religion, but feel that God is possible and omnipotent, this is also a possibility.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2014
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,263
    What objectively observable predictions does creationism make?
     
  14. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    The concept of supernatural only applies in the minds those people who are indoctrinated into a very limiting, pre-fabricated belief system. There's no reason to create such an imaginary boundary line, especially one which has been consistently changing since the dawn of man.

    I believe that evolutionists have been brainwashed into seeing only black and white; supernatural and natural. ie. "If there is a God, then it would have to be the silly one popularized in religion." "If there is a soul, then it would have to be the kind created by this silly God". But those aren't your only options. For example, I find it reasonable to believe that consciousness is all there is, and that the physical world is just an imagining. This concept is no more "supernatural" than believing the inescapable premise that anything exists at all, physical or not. The existence of existence is downright scary when you really think about it.... it makes no sense.
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You think solipsism is a possibility, that we could be just brains in jars, so why couldn't God have set up evolution to work as science has revealed? Show me how that's not possible.
     
  16. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I'm glad you asked.

    I believe that [my idea of] creationism predicts the degradation of species over time, rather than the opposite.

    Creationism predicts an aesthetic quality to lifeforms, rather than a garbled mess.

    Creationism predicts a diverse range of lifeforms all interconnected and balanced for mutual survival.

    Creationism predicts that DNA language is much more complex than previously thought.

    Creationism predicts that new organs or appendages can never be created by artificially breeding dogs, for example.
     
  17. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Your right.

    The science of the matter is limited and allows for many stories to explain the unknown portion of it. It really comes down to faith and guesswork.

    In the end, evolutionists have more faith in the honesty of their peers than they do themselves, and even further faith in the faith and guesswork of these "honest" men of science.
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's precisely the opposite of the truth. A plausible story is just the beginning of science. Yes, there are unknown portions, there probably always will be, but the basics are well established. But I get it, if you don't know the first thing about science, you will always be confused about it's methods and chalk it up to things like faith and dishonesty, things that the scientific method was specifically designed to counteract.
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,879
    How would you test that prediction? What standards would you use to distinguish degradation from "the opposite"? That is, how would you define "degradation" of species?

    (By the way, you do understand that the theory of evolution doesn't predict any direction, either degradation or the opposite, don't you?)
     
  20. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I admit that would be a tough prediction to scientifically test for, especially without complete understanding of DNA language, and the ability to monitor it's application in the test subjects .... a time machine may be necessary as well.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,656
    No, scientists regularly question their peers. That's what "peer review" is. And they constantly try to prove each other wrong, since disproving a theory like evolution would mean, at the very least, a Nobel prize and tenure at any university they chose.

    In that case, the existence of the platypus, the star-nosed mole, slime molds, malaria etc prove that evolution, rather than creationism, got us where we are today.
    That pretty much proves creationism wrong right there.
    Again, that's evolution, not creationism.
    Google "idiaturus macrotis." It's a flying squirrel that is evolving a new appendage (a wing.)
    The first sentence does not support the second. Evolution is possible because there is DNA coding that supports it (like the HOX complex.) This supports the theory of evolution.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,616
    Little lice clergymen and their little lice scriptures probably point to the existence of big fleshy (and tasty!) human beings as evidence that the Creator created the universe specifically for lice.
     
  23. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    matthew809

    Degradation? What a useless and irrelevant concept. So slime mold is less "degraded" than humans(other than to slime mold, I guess)? Or Australopithecus was less "degraded" than modern humans? Funny how we see steady "progress" over time, from simple to quite complex. Is a bigger, more capable brain a "degradation"?(only if you don't bother using it)

    Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder and life is not a garbled mess.

    Ecology-a diverse range of lifeforms all interconnected and balanced for mutual survival.

    "Creationism predicts that DNA language is much more complex than previously thought."
    Previously thought by whom, Creationists? Well, considering Creationists don't know much about genetics, it's probable they are in a constant state of surprise(and retreat and regrouping).

    "Creationism predicts that new organs or appendages can never be created by artificially breeding dogs, for example."

    Your number and arrangement of appendages were inherited by you from a fish with legs. Every creature with bones got them from the same source. You have the same arrangement of bones a turtle has. It is a pretty good system and therefore unlikely to change for no reason. But snakes and whales have discarded those bones they no longer need or use. And snakes have poison glands, you don't, something is flawed in your logic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is an artist's conception of the first known true fish with a notochord(Metaspriggina walcotti), it lived about 500 million years ago and it(or a similar species)is the great, great, great...great grandpa of every single creature on Earth that has a backbone and skeleton. Including you.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page