Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

What in my post are you referring to as my opinion? I questioning the premise of your thread. Do you not have an interest in defending it?

 

Weird. I was quoting Natural Born. Not sure how it ended up attached as a reply to your post.

 

IS all you can do is criticize someone else's post? How about contributing something for a change. You continue to throw a flag, but don't say what rule was broken.

 

Once again another detractor with NOTHING to add to the conversation. Try to think for yourself, and write what you have found to bolster your claim, IF you can..

- - - Updated - - -

Debate the issue, not redirect.

 

My nomination for Post Of The Day!

 

It is not a theory based on the definition I provided in the OP. Provide an explanation why what I wrote is not what you believe. IF you are capable.

- - - Updated - - -

I presented a theory, can you debunk it? That is how it works.

 

Ahhh, now you got me laughin'.

 

Now I'm waiting. I showed you mine now show me yours.

 

What is the source for the bold-faced parts of the below? How was the equation created? I can make up nonsensical equations like that, too. Please explain how it was derived, or at the least, the source from which it was obtained.

 

I guess no one here understands how a debate works, it isn't playing gotcha, or wait to insult.

I actually thought I could have an intelligent adult debate here, I guess I am wrong.

 

But it is. A repeatable experiment that produces the same results over and over.

The Miller-Urey experiment.


LINK

What you cited were facts that do not exist. You said:

But provided no sources and as far as I know science has has come to understand no such thing. What else would you like me to say? I do not believe it because you made it up?

I thought we were gonna leave the insults out this time?

 

Do you have a source for these supposed probabilities? Or are we allowed to just start making stuff up? The probability of someone winning the lottery every day for ten years is much, much higher than what you've said. The probability of winning, say, the Powerball jackpot is 1 in 176,000,000, or 1 in 1.76 x 10^8. The probability of winning it on two successive tickets is 1 in (1.76 x 10^8 )^2, or 1 in 3.0976 x 10^16. So to surpass 10^27, that's just winning four times in a row (and that surpasses it by a lot). While that sounds ludicrous, there are people out there who have won lottery jackpots multiple times. So I don't know if you're helping your argument by misrepresenting probabilities, being vague, and providing zero sources.

 

He was quoting Natural Born. Are you the same person?

 

Experimental Archeology is very much experimental, most people are unaware of it...other archeological studies can be very observational but all at some point employ experimentation...chemistry, physics, and mimicry are all part of archeology...

 

Including me. What is that?

Oh, wait. Is that where people do things like try to replicate building the pyramids without the wheel? Or transporting/erecting Easter Island giant heads?

I also realized I meant to say "paleontology", not "archaeology".

 

No, but we had a dialogue in another thread in which he told me something along the lines of, "you have a middle school level of science."

- - - Updated - - -

Here's my take.

I'm usually not one to brag to random strangers who accuse me of being ignorant, but I can assure you I have much more than a "middle school level of science," as I have been enrolled in advanced biology and chemistry courses. I fully understand the scientific method, and I have not met a proponent of the theory of evolution who can disprove my point. I am not going to bash your point of view, and I am somewhat discouraged that you chose to do so. Regardless, I digress.

My contention is that since Darwinian evolution cannot be observed in today's world (not shown to me, at least), there is a faith aspect to the theory. Those who believe are basically relying on the biology professors and majors who have "worked with this theory" for years. Interestingly enough, said people's points of view are conflicting. In order to present something as fact, you need to have some sort of indisputable evidence. I'd also argue that Darwin's conclusions were formed irresponsibly. However, like you said, even if "evolution" is fact, that doesn't conflict with the belief in God. I'm just as much of a skeptic as any other student of science.

On a side note, I would argue that there are logical reasons for the existence of a deity, but I don't have the time nor the expertise to sufficiently explain it. I'd defer to the 5 Proofs of God's Existence, written by Thomas Aquinas. In your case, I suppose it would just serve as a support system for your faith.

I just want ONE example of INDISPUTABLE evidence of Darwinian evolution today. Then, I'll accept it as fact. That's all I'm saying.

 

Not to argue, I actually believe you put that well.
Explain why we have a residual tail, some are even born with one and it is usually removed at birth.
There are a whole list such as wisdom teeth, tonsils and the appendix, but explain the tail and I will leave it at that.

 

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Two newly competing species of lizard evolving to reduce competition:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41309/title/Rapid-Evolution-in-Real-Time/

Darwin's finches, as studied by later scientists:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/course/session4/elaborate_b_pop1.html

Yellow-bellied three-toed skink, in the process of moving from egg-laying to live births:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

Italian wall lizards evolve rapidly after being introduced to a new island:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

They have switched from a largely insectivore diet to a vegetarian diet, and have been developing the body structures to match -- notably a completely new gut, larger head and harder bite.

 

So you believe that:

30,976,000,000,000,000 =
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Is that correct?

 

Those are great scientific discoveries. Unfortunately, those aren't examples of Darwinian evolution. They're technically just adaptations; again, they're not examples of a "change of kinds," as Darwin concluded.

I'd like one valid, indisputable evidence of Darwinian evolution in today's world.

 

More or less, they try to reproduce and explain what they observe/find...

neanderthals were long thought to be unintelligent because of their crude tools...Experimental Archeologists attempt to reproduce what they find, it turns out their" crude" tools were very difficult to reproduce and highly efficient...neanderthal "glue" for binding spearpoints to the shaft was found to be extremely complex requiring a very sophisticated knowledge of controling fire/heat to produce...archeologists still haven't mastered the process...

Yeah paleontology is a different field of study, my daughter is an archeologist and gets annoyed when people think she does paleontology...

 

Thank you, I did try to remain as civil and factually consistent as possible. I truly appreciate it.

Quite frankly, that remains a mystery. I will happily do some research on the topic; again, I'm not skeptical of ADAPTATIONS, I'm skeptical of a "change of kinds" over time, as Darwin concluded.

 

evolution is the on going process of continous adaptations

 

Ahhh, there we go. I was waiting for someone to post something along those lines.

You're defining "evolution," not "Darwinian evolution."