Part 3 "Can you prove Evolution?"

[josh1anderson]

I am putting out a chalengedl to any one that can show me that Evolution is true!

I dare you.

From http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=194110

 

[Randy-]

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

etc.

 

[Reason]

@josh1anderson

 

[Kludge]

How much money can I win?

 

[Theocrat]

The Elite Esteem "Evilution"

Proponents of the "New World Order" can prove evolution...works for their own selfish and sinister goals.

Didn't the Declaration of Independence state that all men were evolved equal? Oh, I forgot. It said all men were created equal. If evolution is true, nature neither knows nor cares about equality of rights, and those involved in the "New World Order" just love that, since they're more evolved than most people in the world...

 

[Dieseler]

Proponents of the "New World Order" can prove evolution...works for their own selfish and sinister goals.

Didn't the Declaration of Independence state that all men were evolved equal? Oh, I forgot. It said all men were created equal. If evolution is true, nature neither knows nor cares about equality of rights, and those involved in the "New World Order" just love that, since they're more evolved than most people in the world...

I'm definitely sold on those God given inalienable rights.
Sure beats the heck out of NWO serfitude.

 

[Danke]

How much money can I win?

A trip to the Bahamas (if you repay me for my phone bill).

YouTube - Supermac18 - YOU WON A FREE TRIP!

 

[idiom]

If we are the product of intelligent design, then how come we don't have enough middle fingers?

 

[torchbearer]

you can prove some parts of evolution- but not every single step without doubt.
we are making an educational guess based on a lot of puzzle pieces. Some parts of the picture has more pieces so we can see some parts better than others.

 

[PaulaGem]

I am putting out a chalengedl to any one that can show me that Evolution is true!

I dare you.

From http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=194110

Do you understand the concept of "theory"? Since you'd have to have a wayback machine to "prove" evolution, scientists realize that "theory" is the best way to deal with this idea.

I don't care if you believe it's true or not... If the scientists are gaining insight into the genetic changes that have occurred through history by applying this theory it is valid.

If you are so stuck on your religion that you can ignore the scientific progress that has been made by using this "theory" as a model for scientific study - WHO CARES?

 

[LATruth]

I'll make it easy, I wont ask for proof of "god", just prove Jesus existed...

Please don't cite scripture as proof.

 

[dr. hfn]

bacteria and viruses evolve. small changes build up over time to create big changes.

 

[Mesogen]

Proponents of the "New World Order" can prove evolution...works for their own selfish and sinister goals.

Didn't the Declaration of Independence state that all men were evolved equal? Oh, I forgot. It said all men were created equal. If evolution is true, nature neither knows nor cares about equality of rights, and those involved in the "New World Order" just love that, since they're more evolved than most people in the world...

Men do not evolve. Species do.

 

[pacelli]

I'll make it easy, I wont ask for proof of "god", just prove Jesus existed...

Please don't cite scripture as proof.

good luck on that.

Walter C. McCrone, et al, (see Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin) discovered red ochre (a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages) on the cloth which formed the body image and vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, used to represent blood. The actual scientific findings reveal the shroud as a 14th century painting, not a two-thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image. Revealingly, no Biblical scholar or scientist (with any credibility), cites the shroud of Turin as evidence for a historical Jesus.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Lets get that one out of the way before it gets started.

 

[Theocrat]

Of Mice and Men

Men do not evolve. Species do.

What is a species, and are you saying that men are not part of a species? Since species change, I guess so do our rights. But if that's true, then we really don't have any rights. If that is the case, then the NWO elitists still have justification to use evolution dogma for their own personal goals of trying to enslave what they deem are lesser evolved species.

 

[Theocrat]

Oh No You Didn't

I'll make it easy, I wont ask for proof of "god", just prove Jesus existed...

Please don't cite scripture as proof.

You don't like the Bible, so therefore, it should not be used as proof for Jesus's existence?! Are you kidding me? That is one of the silliest fallacies in existence today, known as "guilt by association".

Prove to me that cells exist, but don't use a microscope to prove it. That is exactly how you've just reasoned. Thank you for stacking the deck.

 

[EgwaTlvdatsi]

Hoo boy...Threads like this seem so silly to me. IMHO it's religion vs religion vs religion vs religion. One can state that God created the universe in such a manner that man was created through evolution via a mathematical sequence and hypothesis that god put into experimentation millenia ago...Again, the anarchists can state, well, what they state...

But to be honest, it's kind of fun watching you all argue monotonously with the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

However, I'll say my bit, in a questioning format...

Pros.

What can "Gods" purpose of having a little over 300 different kinds of sharks?
Why, out of the hundreds of different kinds of sharks are there only three that eat tiny animals and have very tiny teeth?
What are all the implementations that we could utilize the 300 or so different carnivorous plants? We once upon a time used Buttorworts, natural to canada, to churn butter...
What is "Gods" purpose of making Aymara's lungs bigger, and if this is because of the high altitude in which they live, then why doesn't the native people who live on the Tibetan plateau have the same features?

Cons.

Why isn't there a vegetarian snake?
Why do trees grow 'against' the gravitational force of the Earth?
Why do we not have tails anymore?


Why oh why oh why...Pffffffft...

Lets just say you all are right, nobody's wrong...There, no need to argue, ...

 

[Mesogen]

What is a species, and are you saying that men are not part of a species?

Individual organisms do not evolve.

They don't even adapt.

They may acclimate, but they do not evolve.

(caveat - this applies to organisms that sexually reproduce, asexual reproduction is a whole other ball of wax)

Since species change, I guess so do our rights.

Huh?

But if that's true, then we really don't have any rights.

Rights are just ideas. They don't exist anywhere but in people's heads.

If that is the case, then the NWO elitists still have justification to use evolution dogma for their own personal goals of trying to enslave what they deem are lesser evolved species.

Slavery, even chattle slavery, was well in effect before evolution was even conceived.

Hell, slavery is fully sanctioned in the precious infallible Bible.

And do you think George W Bush is in with the "NWO elite"?

Didn't he want "Intelligent Design" to be taught in public schools?

 

[Objectivist]

@josh1anderson

The thread ended at the posting above.

 

[nate895]

Microevolution is an observed fact. I believe, given the account of creation where the Lord said that he created "kinds" (as opposed to specific species and subspecies), that most species and subspecies are the result of the laws of natural selection, genetic variation inherent in the original "kind," and mutations. However, no genetic mutation has ever been observed as to increase genetic information, which is absolutely necessary for advances in complexity. Also, the law of biogenesis dictates that life must come from life, and cells are incredibly complex as to make it beyond imagination that they came about by chance. To say something like that is to say that it is possible for a tornado to go through a junkyard and assemble a jumbo jet, which is impossible (meaning, it stretches credulity well beyond the breaking) even if the junkyard had all the prerequisite parts and otherwise proper conditions.

Most scientists engage in historical "science" when they speak of how one kind beget another (i.e., dinosaurs became birds). They could never prove their assertions, even if they found a fossil with them all lined in a row the way naturalist evolutionists said they evolved. What is presented as the science of evolution, is actually an interpretation of the past from an atheistic naturalist worldview. They have come to that perspective for a variety of reasons, but most likely because they believed what their college professors told them about evolution is logical and true. Many do not understand that all logic is based on at least one assumption (an axiom). Most modern scientists believe that everything that is true can be observed, and since we cannot observe God, he either must not be there, or there must be another explanation of the past until we can observe him. Therefore, they subscribe to such theories as macroevolution and big bang to explain our origins. However, I subscribe to a different axiom.

I believe from the start that Proverbs 1:7 is true:

7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

I do not need anyone to prove this to me. To me, much of the world makes sense through this one sentence. Another axiom I subscribe is the non-aggression axiom, through which I see the political world. Back to Proverbs 1:7, because I believe this, I believe the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Because I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, I believe the Earth (and the universe in observed time as opposed to calculated time) was created in the six days of creation week. Therefore, when I see scientific evidence, I interpret it in that light. I fully admit to this. When I see the rock layers with fossils, I see the global catastrophic flood of Noah. When I hear dragon legends, I hear dinosaurs in the time of man. Naturalists do not see this because they do not subscribe to my axiom. I do not see what naturalists see in the fossil record because I do not subscribe to their axiom.