Evidence for theistic evolution

[PaulSacramento]

Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

For lay terms that will probably do.

If one can't grasp it THAT way, that part of it, then I don't think it is worth pursuing, know what I mean?

[Audie]

Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

For lay terms that will probably do.

If one can't grasp it THAT way, that part of it, then I don't think it is worth pursuing, know what I mean?

Like totally. Let alone the subtleties of, say, a "completely different" species.

[Kurieuo]

Did you just say "like totally". I don't know why I find that amusing.

[Audie]

Did you just say "like totally". I don't know why I find that amusing.

Whatever is clever.
I wonder if I could make it as a Valley Girl.

[Kenny]

I feel like I already gave you evidence for global floods and yet you just dismissed it,

What; you mean this?

"According to NOAA the average depth of the ocean is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet now if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land"

Well guess what; we didn't just level out the earth’s surface. So if you want to use that as evidence of a global flood, you need to first provide scientific proof that at one point the earth’s surface was temporarily leveled off.

So I say lets do it this way you provide scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves,not just change,but evolve.You provide evidence that life evolves and then I'll respond to it if it does or not and why.

*When a doctor does a throat culture by jamming a stick down your throat, he is checking to see what drugs your infection is susceptible to before treating you.

*On farms, insecticide will often become ineffective because the insects will evolve in a way that allows them to live with that particular insecticide.
*Weeds will often evolve resistant to herbicides in just a few years.

*Years ago a worldwide attempt to cure malaria was foiled because the mosquitoes evolved resistant to DDT.
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/085fast_evolution/

These are examples of evolution people deal with everyday. Now you might want to call it change, adaption, or whatever you want, but you don't get to change the meaning of words; weather you like it or not; those are examples of Evolution

Then I will provide scientific evidence for a global flood and explain why we do not need to add water to the earth for a global flood to have happened,which is a major argument against Noah's flood and is what you brought up about it.

I actually brought up about a half dozen arguments against the flood. I would hardly consider the water issue the major one, but it is a good start. Answer that one then we can address the others.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Evolution only addresses changes OBSERVED in nature ( in the case of past events it is based on interpretation of the historical data).
It does NOT address anything other than that.
People that say they don't see any evidence for evolution typically don't either understand the evidence AND how it relates to evolution or they expect those changes to be a certain ( like always leading to an improvement that is visible or noteworthy).

See, the example of the Finches is a good one because it shows two birds that basically look the same and are Finches BUT because they can't interbreed succesfully, are two different species.
Not that either species is "more evolved" than the other ( in the case of some superiority).

For some, it seems, that evolution should make it so that the evolved species is SO VERY different from the original that there is no way to see them but as VERY DIFFERENT things.

That is not the case.

Often I see those who dont know much on the subject talk about the how evolution should be able to but cant produce ENTIRELY different species.

Sheesh, a salamander is not entirely different from a gibbon.

That is why it is important to clear up when a species becomes another one, biologically speaking, and I have found that the easiest way is ( in lay man terms) to view in the reproductive way:
When one group or member(s) of a group has changed enough so as to not be able to breed successfully with its' original group ( but can obviously breed withing its own group) we have a different species REGARDLESS of appearance.

Here go all the way down the page to notes and read #2.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

You didn't understand what I wrote.
Talk origins? really?

No I do understand what you wrote and I understand that view but there is no evidence I know of to confirm it.I think you give them the benefit of the doubt and I don't based on evidence.Yes I used a link from talkorigins and it is dedicated to evolution that whole page I linked is evolution apologetics to me and yet eventhough they defend macro evolution,I see no real evidence to back up their beliefs about it.

[abelcainsbrother]

I feel like I already gave you evidence for global floods and yet you just dismissed it,

What; you mean this?

"According to NOAA the average depth of the ocean is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet now if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land"

Well guess what; we didn't just level out the earth’s surface. So if you want to use that as evidence of a global flood, you need to first provide scientific proof that at one point the earth’s surface was temporarily leveled off.

So I say lets do it this way you provide scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves,not just change,but evolve.You provide evidence that life evolves and then I'll respond to it if it does or not and why.

*When a doctor does a throat culture by jamming a stick down your throat, he is checking to see what drugs your infection is susceptible to before treating you.

*On farms, insecticide will often become ineffective because the insects will evolve in a way that allows them to live with that particular insecticide.
*Weeds will often evolve resistant to herbicides in just a few years.

*Years ago a worldwide attempt to cure malaria was foiled because the mosquitoes evolved resistant to DDT.
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/085fast_evolution/

These are examples of evolution people deal with everyday. Now you might want to call it change, adaption, or whatever you want, but you don't get to change the meaning of words; weather you like it or not; those are examples of Evolution

Then I will provide scientific evidence for a global flood and explain why we do not need to add water to the earth for a global flood to have happened,which is a major argument against Noah's flood and is what you brought up about it.

I actually brought up about a half dozen arguments against the flood. I would hardly consider the water issue the major one, but it is a good start. Answer that one then we can address the others.

Ken

What I said about the depth of the oceans is true.I do not have to prove the earth's surface was level,you said we would need to add water to the earth but my evidence shows there is enough water on the earth for a global flood.I'm giving evidence for a global flood.This could be demonstrated on a computer simulation proving there is enough water on this earth for a global flood over the tallest mountains on land.I realized this while reading Psalm 104:5-9 then looking for scientific evidence for it and I found it.


I do not deny the evidence you gave for evolution because life can adapt and survive hostile environments but explain to us how the insects evolved because they are the same kind of insect as before the insecticide was added,the same thing with the plants,you say they evolved,I say there is no evolution happening at all.The evidence you presented shows us that dinosaurs could never evolve to be birds,yet this is presented as the truth by scientists,despite the lack of evidence.

Explain how they evolved I will remind you that evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving into another kind of life and yet this is not happening,so you must weaken the meaning to just change in order to accept it evolved but it is semantics to show life can adapt then claim it evolved when it is the same kind of life as before.The bacteria example I gave above shows life can adapt but it does not evolve.

My evidence for a global world wide flood is stronger evidence.

[Kenny]

What I said about the depth of the oceans is true.I do not have to prove the earth's surface was level,

Yes you do! Because unless the earth’s surface is level, we don’t have enough water for a global flood thus your argument fails.
Care to try again?

I do not deny the evidence you gave for evolution because life can adapt and survive hostile environments but explain to us how the insects evolved because they are the same kind of insect as before the insecticide was added,

True! A mosquito that has evolved is often still a mosquito. The fact that you are unaware of this proves the point I made previously that most people who dismiss evolution are ignorant of it.

I will remind you that evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving into another kind of life

No it has not. Evolution has never been restricted to “species change”.

My evidence for a global world wide flood is stronger evidence.

Until you can provide scientific proof that the Earth’s surface was level, your argument will continue to fail.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

No I do understand what you wrote and I understand that view but there is no evidence I know of to confirm it.I think you give them the benefit of the doubt and I don't based on evidence.Yes I used a link from talkorigins and it is dedicated to evolution that whole page I linked is evolution apologetics to me and yet eventhough they defend macro evolution,I see no real evidence to back up their beliefs about it.

You have no understanding of evolution and every time you post you make that very clear.
That you are ignorant of the fact of how little you know and understand about it AND refuse to learn, speaks volumes.

[Audie]

No I do understand what you wrote and I understand that view but there is no evidence I know of to confirm it.I think you give them the benefit of the doubt and I don't based on evidence.Yes I used a link from talkorigins and it is dedicated to evolution that whole page I linked is evolution apologetics to me and yet eventhough they defend macro evolution,I see no real evidence to back up their beliefs about it.

You have no understanding of evolution and every time you post you make that very clear.
That you are ignorant of the fact of how little you know and understand about it AND refuse to learn, speaks volumes.

It is an unfortunate thing to see. The beginning of wisdom, they say, is to get a grasp on how little you know.

Our friend there has nothing to contribute to the discussion as it is.

[abelcainsbrother]

No I do understand what you wrote and I understand that view but there is no evidence I know of to confirm it.I think you give them the benefit of the doubt and I don't based on evidence.Yes I used a link from talkorigins and it is dedicated to evolution that whole page I linked is evolution apologetics to me and yet eventhough they defend macro evolution,I see no real evidence to back up their beliefs about it.

You have no understanding of evolution and every time you post you make that very clear.
That you are ignorant of the fact of how little you know and understand about it AND refuse to learn, speaks volumes.

I don't see how you can say that for I have been asking for evidence life evolves and yet nobody is giving any to correct me.I'm going by the evidence used for evolution but explaining despite them saying it evolved,it did'nt.I do not go on what scienntists say so much,I go by the evidence they use to support it and no life evolves in their evidence,so I don't believe them when they say it did.I focus on the evidence,not what they say happened.Anybody can do this.Focus on what their evidence shows and proves,not so much on what they say happened,the evidence does the talking.This is how I approach everything I have ever studied or researched.I zone in on what the evidence shows.

[abelcainsbrother]

What I said about the depth of the oceans is true.I do not have to prove the earth's surface was level,

Yes you do! Because unless the earth’s surface is level, we don’t have enough water for a global flood thus your argument fails.
Care to try again?

I do not deny the evidence you gave for evolution because life can adapt and survive hostile environments but explain to us how the insects evolved because they are the same kind of insect as before the insecticide was added,

True! A mosquito that has evolved is often still a mosquito. The fact that you are unaware of this proves the point I made previously that most people who dismiss evolution are ignorant of it.

I will remind you that evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving into another kind of life

No it has not. Evolution has never been restricted to “species change”.

My evidence for a global world wide flood is stronger evidence.

Until you can provide scientific proof that the Earth’s surface was level, your argument will continue to fail.

Ken

It did not evolve because it remained a mosquito,so no evolution happened at all,it only adapted and evolution has always been about "species change "and your denials is telling.Admit it dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds based on your evidence that only proves life can adapt.I think you accept life adapting is life evolving but the problem is it is not evolving,saying it evolved because it adapted is a trick.Like I said Bacteria adapted to grow and thrive right in radiation and yet you say it evolved?Bacteria living in radiation is no different than the insects and mosquitos or the plants that adapted in the evidence you brought up.

[abelcainsbrother]

I started this thread with good intentions to be changed based on scientific evidence life evolves but if we go back through and look for evidence I think that evidence for evolution is about being ignorant about evolutution and being offended and taking it personally that another disagrees with you about evolution,declarations it is true,that change is evolution and variations in reproduction plus the fact life can adapt is evidence life evolves.

How am I to know I was wrong and you are right about evolution without evidence life evolves? I'm not at all convinced that a christian should be willing to accept evolution and have to not take the bible literally in order to accept it without evidence life evolves.I'll stick with reading the bible literally and rejecting life evolves based on the evidence in science.

Dinosaurs perished when the former world perished anyway so there is no way they evolved into the birds in this world,there was a gap of time too between the former world and this world and this is why in Genesis 1 God made the life in this world "after his or their kind" it says this for a reason,but is overlooked.

[Kenny]

What I said about the depth of the oceans is true.I do not have to prove the earth's surface was level,

Yes you do! Because unless the earth’s surface is level, we don’t have enough water for a global flood thus your argument fails.
Care to try again?

I do not deny the evidence you gave for evolution because life can adapt and survive hostile environments but explain to us how the insects evolved because they are the same kind of insect as before the insecticide was added,

True! A mosquito that has evolved is often still a mosquito. The fact that you are unaware of this proves the point I made previously that most people who dismiss evolution are ignorant of it.

I will remind you that evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving into another kind of life

No it has not. Evolution has never been restricted to “species change”.

My evidence for a global world wide flood is stronger evidence.

Until you can provide scientific proof that the Earth’s surface was level, your argument will continue to fail.

Ken

It did not evolve because it remained a mosquito,so no evolution happened at all,it only adapted and evolution has always been about "species change "and your denials is telling.

You are wrong. I gave you examples of Evolution; I even provided a link that supports my claim. Do you have anything (other than your personal POV) that supports your claim? Or are you content with burying your head in the sand insisting what science calls evolution is not evolution?

Ken

[Kenny]

I started this thread with good intentions to be changed based on scientific evidence life evolves but if we go back through and look for evidence I think that evidence for evolution is about being ignorant about evolutution and being offended and taking it personally that another disagrees with you about evolution,declarations it is true,that change is evolution and variations in reproduction plus the fact life can adapt is evidence life evolves.

If you see flaws in Evolution; what is stopping you from publishing your findings, and becoming world famously known as the man who disproved evolution

How am I to know I was wrong and you are right about evolution without evidence life evolves?

What evidence have you been looking at?

I'm not at all convinced that a christian should be willing to accept evolution and have to not take the bible literally in order to accept it without evidence life evolves.I'll stick with reading the bible literally and rejecting life evolves based on the evidence in science.

Even the Pope accepts evolution! And the Vatican called creation “blasphemous”.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2014/1 ... #.VJ1W_psA

Ken