An atheists world (2)

[Subduction Zone]

Uh, those are operation sciences that can be tested, observed and repeated in the here and now. They have nothing to do with evolution theory. Absolutely nothing.

How little you know. What makes you think that evolution cannot be tested, observed, and repeated in the hear and now?

 

[Loudmouth]

Uh, those are operation sciences that can be tested, observed and repeated in the here and now.

Fossils can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

DNA sequences can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

Morphology can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

All of these are used as evidence for evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you think you would be punching the keys on a computer, posting messages that are sent in fractions of seconds, without the advancements made from scientific work to discover the technology to do so?

Didn't say it related to evolution, it related to scientific advancements.

 

[AV1611VET]

How little you know. What makes you think that evolution cannot be tested, observed, and repeated in the hear and now?

That doesn't mean you can daisy chain it back to abiogenesis, exclusive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fossils can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

DNA sequences can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

Morphology can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

All of these are used as evidence for evolution.

But you can't test missing links, can you?

You have to bridge them on paper, don't you?

 

[EternalDragon]

Fossils can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

DNA sequences can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

Morphology can be tested, observed, and repeated in the here and now.

All of these are used as evidence for evolution.

Show me a test where you change a fish into a tetrapod and we can then observe evolution. (Using only natural means of course. No intelligent intervention.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't mean you can daisy chain it back to abiogenesis, exclusive.

Not all of the way back, nor it is there any need to.

Does what a murderer had for breakfast 20 years ago have any bearing in his murder trial?

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me a test where you change a fish into a tetrapod and we can then observe evolution.

You don't observe the hypothesis in the scientific method, operational or otherwise. The test is to compare fossils. The hypothesis is that if lobe finned fish evolved into terrestrial tetrapods then there should have been species that had a mixture of features from lobe finned fish and terrestrial tetrapods. The observations are the repeatable measurements of fossils that can test the hypothesis for the change in lobe finned fish and early tetrapods.

Every step is in line with the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you can't test missing links, can you?

You most assuredly can. You can repeatedly measure their features, such as femur lenght or cranium size. These can be used to test hypotheses.

You have to bridge them on paper, don't you?

No. Why would we?

 

[createdtoworship]

And the video continues here. She also gets into the next book that gradyll referred to:

Eugenie Scott on ID, Creationism and Dover 6of7 - YouTube

I don't have volume but I doubt she has much to say about that later book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me a test where you change a fish into a tetrapod and we can then observe evolution. (Using only natural means of course. No intelligent intervention.)

That would not be evolution.

When you demand a test it has to be a reasonable test.

If you had any evidence for your side at all you might be able to be a bit more rigorous in your demands. Unfortunately for you you don't. And I really have to run. So four hours, evidence, let's go over it so you will see why we have it and you don't.

Spoiler alert, it is not evolutionists' fault that creationists have no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have volume but I doubt she has much to say about that later book.

It did not take that much to debunk your book.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does what a murderer had for breakfast 20 years ago have any bearing in his murder trial?

It would, if what he had for breakfast was a requirement for conviction.

 

[AV1611VET]

You most assuredly can. You can repeatedly measure their features, such as femur lenght or cranium size. These can be used to test hypotheses.

What features? it's a missing link.

And this is, in my opinion, one of the biggest differences in the evolution/creation debate:

Why are there missing links?

Evolutionist: Because they weren't preserved.
Creationist: Because they never existed in the first place.

 

[Loudmouth]

What features? it's a missing link.

How do you determine if it is still missing, and what is it supposed to be linking?

Why are there missing links?

Why do we find them so that they are no longer missing?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you determine if it is still missing, and what is it supposed to be linking?

I go with the term "missing," because it isn't there.

As to why it isn't there, as I said, it could be because it hasn't been found yet; or because it never existed in the first place.

Kinda like my Apple Challenge.

Evidence is missing, but in my opinion, it is missing because none was generated in the first place.

Why do we find them so that they are no longer missing?

Every one you find would generate two more missing links, albeit the sum total of the two gaps would be less (by one) than the single gap before the find.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Not according to the #1 Christian in the world. He says that if your myth is true it is true for everyone.

The number one christian in the world is the first fruits, Jesus. He said "believe in me and live"

 

[nuttypiglet]

I go with the term "missing," because it isn't there.

As to why it isn't there, as I said, it could be because it hasn't been found yet; or because it never existed in the first place.

Kinda like my Apple Challenge.

Evidence is missing, but in my opinion, it is missing because none was generated in the first place.

Every one you find would generate two more missing links, albeit the sum total of the two gaps would be less (by one) than the single gap before the find.

A group of 'experts' look at the fossils and decide what links with what. There is of course a lot of guess work involved, and a bucket of clay. What is missing? everything of course. Even the tree of the horse was quoted for decades but has dwindled and failed.

 

[nuttypiglet]

That would not be evolution.

When you demand a test it has to be a reasonable test.

If you had any evidence for your side at all you might be able to be a bit more rigorous in your demands. Unfortunately for you you don't. And I really have to run. So four hours, evidence, let's go over it so you will see why we have it and you don't.

Spoiler alert, it is not evolutionists' fault that creationists have no evidence.

but in half a million years you would expect to see SOMETHING happening. Hmm let me see, nope, nothing.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Do you sleep better believing that you don't need to sacrifice bulls to Zeus? Do you sleep better knowing that Santa Claus is not real so you don't have to worry about being put on his Naughty list? Or do you spend absolutely no time worrying about such foolish beliefs?

Which foolish beliefs? I don't believe in atheists.