Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You think any soft tissue can last 65 million years. Collagen survival is less than 1 Million years.
 
buffalo said:
We can move this to another thread. Galileo was wrong. Heliocentrism is wrong. There are two left. Acentrism and geocentrism. The irony of acentrism is we can make the earth the center if we wish.
Click to expand...
No. Geocentrism was wrong because it is not an inertial frame of reference. Heliocentrism was right because it is an inertial frame of reference. Acentrism is not a theory but is a made-up philosophical concept for the purpose of legitimizing the failed theory of geocentism.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
I have just started. I said I would go through these one by one since you didn’t care for a list.

You still have not/will not answer a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...
I would happily dispute anything on your list, without prejudice.
buffalo said:
Do we agree? (that this proof for evolution has failed?) yes or no
Click to expand...
No. Why? Because if evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another, and that is wrong, then nothing explains the data. You would have to propose a competing theory.

Nothing would explain why I have certain kinds of skin disease in my family and my wife doesn’t.

Here is some of the proof of evolution:
  1. Thousands of human fossils and fossils of homo erectus, floresiensis, heidelbergensis, neanderthalis etc prove there was gradual change, culminating in humans.
  2. human genetics proves we are closely related to other primates
  3. the distribution of these species (location of these related species is no coincidence, considering isolated regions of the earth)
  4. dating of fossils and artifacts is highly accurate and has proven the timeframe
 
Last edited:
The dating is not accurate. Just because we have animals with similar body plans does not mean we are related to them at all. I know artists and 3-D rendering. Put an ape body plan next to a human’s. A few adjustments here and there and the similarities in genetics are fully explained. Humans are special creations made to be in communion with God. Animals? No.
 
Aloysium said:
It sounds as though you might be dismissive of Genesis.
Click to expand...
I’m not dismissing Genesis. I believe applying the principles of Dei Verbum alone to Genesis illustrate that Genesis is a collection of oral traditions all haphazardly put together. The book is not one genre or even really one text. Some of the stories are best regarded as being like Jesus’ parables. Others are obviously less so, but the fact remains that there are two creation accounts that are not compatible with each other if you interpret them literalistically. Of course, we learn this accounts often not through the bible, but through children’s bibles that change the stories to make them fit and thus condition us to gloss over the problems.
Not everyone posting against evolution is rejecting science. Quite the contrary, it is bad science that grates on the nerves.
Click to expand...
Declarative statements are not an argument.
 
anon65111186 said:
Here is some of the proof of evolution:

Thousands of human fossils and fossils of homo erectus, floresiensis, heidelbergensis, neanderthalis etc prove there was gradual change, culminating in humans.
Click to expand...
That only proves they existed.
It does not prove modern humans came from them.
 
Exactly right. Having a similar body plan to apes does not prove we have a ‘common ancestor’ with apes or alleged other human ancestors.
 
Right again. I know artists and 3-D rendering. Put an ape body plan next to a human’s. A few adjustments here and there and the similarities in genetics are fully explained. Humans are special creations made to be in communion with God. Animals? No.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
anon65111186:
Here is some of the proof of evolution:

Thousands of human fossils and fossils of homo erectus, floresiensis, heidelbergensis, neanderthalis etc prove there was gradual change, culminating in humans.
Click to expand...
That only proves they existed.
It does not prove modern humans came from them.
Click to expand...
But they have pictures showing how we came from them.
 
The sun is NOT the center of the universe as Galileo claimed. If we want to play acentrism, it could be.

You are onto something though with your frame of reference reference.
 
So you are sticking with the position that the formerly junk DNA is a positive proof for evolution?
 
vz71 said:
That only proves they existed.

It does not prove modern humans came from them.
Click to expand...
It proves the existed, but comparison shows they had cumulative changes, each generation carrying what the previous had, plus some for each generation.

Comparison works the same way for them as it does for DNA tests on ancestry.com, just like I can tell if your grandfather is related to you by comparing your DNA and characteristics.

There is nothing subjective about DNA, fossil records and measurement of bone size, the composition and structure of anatomy. There is little room for subjectivity in this kind of science, they don’t gather data according to qualitative (subjective) methods. It is nearly all quantitative (objective) methods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top