A question from a creation website

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
The following question has been posted on a creation website: "...tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years..." What is it?

"Unequivocal proof"? Surely another example of why those involved with creationism certainly are NOT involved with science!
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,050
9,608
47
UK
✟1,141,465.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Where did all the 'evidence' come from? :scratch:
Well if you believe in God, you believe the stuff comes from God. And if so the question arises that if said stuff continually demonstrates an old earth and evolution then logically and reasonably one can say the earth is old and evolution was gods mechanism for developing life. Unless you believe in young earth creationism and god fooled the entirety of science with false data. Possible but it would speak of a very different god than many ascribe to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well if you believe in God, you believe the stuff comes from God. And if so the question arises that if said stuff continually demonstrates an old earth and evolution then logically and reasonably one can say the earth is old and evolution was gods mechanism for developing life. Unless you believe in young earth creationism and god fooled the entirety of science with false data. Possible but it would speak of a very different god than many ascribe to.

I'm an OEC. I believe the geologic record shows more ruin/restoration (re-creation) than evolution. Each layer looks to me to be a new start with little or no evidence of gradual transition either in the fossil record or the geological record. Genesis One, and the flood account are also ruin/restoration events.
 
Upvote 0

Poor Beggar

Everything is everywhere.
Aug 21, 2015
565
265
45
Arizona
✟9,600.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The following question has been posted on a creation website: "...tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years..." What is it?
Watch how they define evidence. In science it should be direct observation. So we should see genotypes change due to new information, not just an expression of previously hidden phenotypes. Also, we should see the original event that started life continue to replicate on a constant basis. Whether that event is lightning resulting in "goo" or crystals producing organic functioning--we should see it continuously happening. If it only happened once it wouldn't be verifiable and wouldn't be science. It also never would have produced enough simplistic life forms to have survived all the environmental exposures so as to reproduce generation after generation until they could evolve into more complex species. Anything happening frequently enough for that kind of survivability would be happening again and again all around us--not some random one time event. That notion alone points to God!
 
Upvote 0

Poor Beggar

Everything is everywhere.
Aug 21, 2015
565
265
45
Arizona
✟9,600.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The following question has been posted on a creation website: "...tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years..." What is it?
I guess ultimately I'd also have to say that I have no problem with people who don't buy into the Genesis account of creation. My problem is people who present a philosophical theory as a scientific theory. Like it or not, science has a defined process and that process involves direct observation. Therefore, by the nature of scientific methodolgy, not everything falls under "science". It just doesn't. Until someone directly observes evolution happening, it's a scientific hypothesis--and no amount of writings and musings within the scientific community will change that. None of those things takes the place of the scientific method.

And that's okay. It's okay for it to be a philosophical theory rather than a scientific one. But let's admit that.
Some people are going to say, "But if you understand evolution, you'll realize it can't be observed!"

Sure. But that makes it unverifiable and therefore not a scientific theory, but a philosophical one. Which, again, is fine. But we need to just admit that.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
People have already mention the ERVs that show that we and the other apes have a common ancestor.

I'll tackle the 'ages of millions of years'. When we look at two different ratios of two different isotopes in different meteorites with different compositions found in different places, we find that the data falls on a line. As does a point derived from particular earth rocks with the right chemistry.

figure8.jpg


Either it is a ridiculous coincidence that all of these points fall on a line, or this is evidence that radiometric dating methods are valid, and they indicate that the age of the earth (and solar system) is roughly 4.55 billion years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Watch how they define evidence. In science it should be direct observation. So we should see genotypes change due to new information, not just an expression of previously hidden phenotypes. Also, we should see the original event that started life continue to replicate on a constant basis. Whether that event is lightning resulting in "goo" or crystals producing organic functioning--we should see it continuously happening. If it only happened once it wouldn't be verifiable and wouldn't be science. It also never would have produced enough simplistic life forms to have survived all the environmental exposures so as to reproduce generation after generation until they could evolve into more complex species. Anything happening frequently enough for that kind of survivability would be happening again and again all around us--not some random one time event. That notion alone points to God!

Firstly, evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, but the diversification of it.

Secondly, the idea that, because something happened once, it can't be verified, is silly. How do you think forensic science works?

You have some misunderstandings about what it means to 'observe' something in science. It doesn't have to be 'direct'

You have some misunderstandings about what 'observation' in science means. You don't have to see it happening right in front of you in order to know it happened or has happened or will happen. You observe the data.
 
Upvote 0

Poor Beggar

Everything is everywhere.
Aug 21, 2015
565
265
45
Arizona
✟9,600.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Firstly, evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life, but the diversification of it.

Secondly, the idea that, because something happened once, it can't be verified, is silly. How do you think forensic science works?

You have some misunderstandings about what it means to 'observe' something in science. It doesn't have to be 'direct'

You have some misunderstandings about what 'observation' in science means. You don't have to see it happening right in front of you in order to know it happened or has happened or will happen. You observe the data.
For the "theory" to stand it would indeed require life to come from no-life. No matter incremental you make it, at some point something that wasn't alive became alive, according to the "theory". It can't be avoided.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Poor Beggar

Everything is everywhere.
Aug 21, 2015
565
265
45
Arizona
✟9,600.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You have some misunderstandings about what 'observation' in science means. You don't have to see it happening right in front of you in order to know it happened or has happened or will happen. You observe the data.
This is erroneous. Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause. I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
This is erroneous.

Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause.

Untrue. If that were the case, we couldn't even do most of physics. We've never even observed an atom splitting. We've never been farther than a few miles under the Earth, but we know the compisition all the way to the core. We've never seen Pluto make a full trip around the Sun, but we know how long it takes.

I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_05

Observations yield what scientists call data. Whether the observation is an experimentalresult, radiation measurements taken from an orbiting satellite, an infrared recording of a volcanic eruption, or just noticing that a certain bird species always thumps the ground with its foot while foraging — they're all data. Scientists analyze and interpret data in order to figure out how those data inform their hypotheses and theories. Do they support one idea over others, help refute an idea, or suggest an entirely new explanation? Though data may seem complex and be represented by detailed graphs or complex statistical analyses, it's important to remember that, at the most basic level, they are simply observations.

You have an ovely simplistic view of what 'observation' means.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
For the "theory" to stand it would indeed require life to come from no-life.

It requires no such thing. If the first life were created by a deity, and all the biodiversity we see today evolved from that created common ancestor, then the theory of evolution would be unchanged. Even Darwin left the door open for supernatural origins.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"

No matter incremental you make it, at some point something that wasn't alive became alive, according to the "theory". It can't be avoided.

The theory only deals with living organisms.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
That's what he's asking for. The evidence.

That's what we provided.

Not effects that "appear" to point to a presupposed cause.

Facts that fit the predictions of a scientific theory are evidence. That's what the word means.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I guess ultimately I'd also have to say that I have no problem with people who don't buy into the Genesis account of creation. My problem is people who present a philosophical theory as a scientific theory. Like it or not, science has a defined process and that process involves direct observation.

We observe DNA sequences. We observe fossils. We observe physical characteristics in species. These are the observations that we use to test the theory.

Until someone directly observes evolution happening, it's a scientific hypothesis--and no amount of writings and musings within the scientific community will change that.

To be more precise, evolution is a theory since it is an overarching model that is used to produce specific and testable hypotheses. Nonetheless, we all gladly admit that evolution is a theory. It is also worth pointing out that atoms, gravity, and germs are also theories. Theory is the highest any idea gets in science, and we are quite happy with evolution being a theory.

None of those things takes the place of the scientific method.

The entire goal of the scientific method is to produce hypotheses and theories.

It's okay for it to be a philosophical theory rather than a scientific one.

Evolution is a falsifiable and testable theory, which makes it scientific.

Sure. But that makes it unverifiable and therefore not a scientific theory, but a philosophical one. Which, again, is fine. But we need to just admit that.

We can verify the theory by seeing if genomes and the morphology of living and fossilized species fit the predictions made by the theory. That's how the scientific method works.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Watch how they define evidence. In science it should be direct observation.

Are these observations?

Physical features found in species, physical features found in fossils, DNA sequences of genomes, placement of ERV's in genomes, observations of retroviruses inserting into genomes, random mutations with respect to fitness, and the natural selection of alleles in specific environments.

I count those as observations, and they are the observations we use to test the theory of evolution.

So we should see genotypes change due to new information, not just an expression of previously hidden phenotypes.

Do you think chimps could suddenly give birth to fully modern humans? Or, do you think that chimps and humans are different because the DNA sequence of their genomes is different?

Also, we should see the original event that started life continue to replicate on a constant basis.

Nowhere in the scientific method do you observe the hypothesis. Observations and hypotheses are two different things.
 
Upvote 0

crjmurray

The Bear. Not The Bull.
Dec 17, 2014
4,490
1,146
Lake Ouachita
✟16,029.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Private
This is erroneous. Scientists may be trying to operate this way, but will come to bad conclusions. Observing effects simply won't guarantee you've come to appropriate conclusions regarding cause. I learned this as a five year old shaking my Christmas presents to try to figure out what was inside. It's the same principle. Observation as a word actually means observation.

Feel free to go down to your local PD and tell the detectives they aren't doing their jobs correctly.
 
Upvote 0

Poor Beggar

Everything is everywhere.
Aug 21, 2015
565
265
45
Arizona
✟9,600.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Feel free to go down to your local PD and tell the detectives they aren't doing their jobs correctly.
No....that's not the same. Unless they get something like video (direct observation) or a confession, the court case is going to involve having to convince the jury that the conclusions the PD came to are in fact correct. The jury may not be convinced.

This "jury" isn't.

I hope you don't believe our legal system simply throws people in prison because the "Scientist Police" have determined they're guilty.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
No....that's not the same. Unless they get something like video (direct observation) or a confession, the court case is going to involve having to convince the jury that the conclusions the PD came to are in fact correct. The jury may not be convinced.

What is forensic evidence?

From where I sit, forensic scientists use observations made in the present to test hypotheses of what happened in the past. Are you saying that this is not valid evidence?

This "jury" isn't.

The real question is whether your doubt is reasonable.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional? What genetic evidence would you need in order to accept the theory of evolution? Or is there no evidence that you would ever accept?
I hope you don't believe our legal system simply throws people in prison because the "Scientist Police" have determined they're guilty.

I hope you realize that the court doesn't require the forensic scientist to put the jury in a time machine so they can observe the crime first hand.
 
Upvote 0