Why evolution isn't scientific

[pitabread]

I mean, this has been REPEATEDLY explained to you. It's starting to seem that you are just deliberately ignoring it now.

"Starting to"? That's an understatement.

 

[xianghua]

No it doesn't. You don't know enough about evolution to explain how it works.

so far we have seen the opposite...

 

[Roland Pires]

It can't be proven. That's not the way science works. It's up to you to find evidence which will dis-prove the theory. That's how science works--it's based on inductive logic. Confirming evidence does not "prove" a theory it only confirms it, and the theory is then held provisionally until evidence comes along which contradicts it.

Do you have any real evidence that a species is been found to have existed before its supposed precursor? That is the evidence which will "test" the theory of evolution.

With reference to fossils, Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British museum (natural history) was asked by Luther D Sunderland why no evolutionary transitional fossils were included in Patterson’s book entitled “Evolution”. In a personal letter to Sunderland, Patterson wrote (excerpt from the letter)

. “I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” The reasons is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test”

If there were any intermediate fossils we should see numerous ones not a few which could be misinterpretations or fakes.

A recent study on mitochondria DNA on animal species found that 9 out of 10 species on Earth today including humans came into existence at the same time about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Perhaps they speculate that about 200,000 years ago some catastrophic event wiped the slate clean. By analysing the bar code in the mitochondria DNA for 100.000 species they discovered that all the animals and humans emerged at the same time and with little change as most mutations are neutral and not enough to result in any great change. It was also discovered that species have very clear genetic boundaries.


https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html


Another problem for the evolutionary theory is that it depends on invalid extrapolations. While it is possible to selectively breed cattle for the best beef or milk production or in the case of poultry for maximum egg production, we do not see these changes leading to the creation of new species.

In nature, finch speciation can be observed but again finches remain finches and from this observation it cannot be concluded that from the original life form which supposedly arose from non-life, all the genetic variety we see today somehow materialised, whether by mutations or natural selection.

In the link below, Dr Lee Spetner analysed the mutations that occur in bacteria and concluded that there would have to be a long series of beneficial mutations for it to have any effect in the population, but not even a few of them have been observed in the genetics laboratories in the world.

While the debate centers on the inability of the bacteria to acquire any new information, with his conclusion that it is not possible, this is still a long way in suggesting that mutations can produce the genetic variety of all life.

https://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.php

 

[Bungle_Bear]

With reference to fossils, Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British museum (natural history) was asked by Luther D Sunderland why no evolutionary transitional fossils were included in Patterson’s book entitled “Evolution”. In a personal letter to Sunderland, Patterson wrote (excerpt from the letter)

. “I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” The reasons is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test”

Perhaps if you thought about what is being said here you'd understand that he's not saying "there are no intermediate fossils". He's being honest in saying we cannot categorically say that this particular fossil species is a direct ancestor of later species. It's a concept so many creationists struggle with.

Another problem for the evolutionary theory is that it depends on invalid extrapolations. While it is possible to selectively breed cattle for the best beef or milk production or in the case of poultry for maximum egg production, we do not see these changes leading to the creation of new species.

Straw man arguments are not a problem for ToE.

 

[Kylie]

so far we have seen the opposite...

We have seen you try to use your imagination as evidence against evolution. We have seen you provide no actual evidence whatsoever against evolution.

All you've done is talk about a fantasy of 200 million year old bear fossils. Reality does not follow your fantasy. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And as I have said before, if you can actually produce a fossil bear that is 200 million years old, evolution will NOT be able to explain it!

 

[the iconoclast]

What is the "available body of facts" that that statement would be based on, showing it true or valid?


And note the word "facts". It does not say "claims" or "anecdotes".

Hey hey dh

Lets get on the same page.

Facts - a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Lets keep it simple and start with one thing that is known about God.



Romans 1:19-21
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

To prove is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

To know is to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

What think you?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

For example, you can have a personal relationship with me because I can provide objective evidence I exist.

Hey hey my proud atheist friend, im back!!!

Lets say my argument is you do not exist and i refuse to believe. I could be talking to ai, your brother or husband, maybe all matter is an illusion or this is a frequent hallucination?

Lets compare the proof of a Being you do not think exists and you - a being i believe does not exist.

How do you prove to me - with objective evidence - you exist ie you are in fact a human being who is physical and can be known?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey dh

Lets get on the same page.

Facts - a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Lets keep it simple and start with one thing that is known about God.



Romans 1:19-21
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The bible reflects what is believed about god. Not what is known.
I asked for facts. Not beliefs and/or religious claims from religious books.

To prove is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
To know is to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

What think you?

I'll add that knowledge is demonstrable. Otherwise it's just a belief.

So, how about that "body of available facts"?
Note again: facts. Not "beliefs".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey my proud atheist friend, im back!!!

Lets say my argument is you do not exist and i refuse to believe. I could be talking to ai, your brother or husband, maybe all matter is an illusion or this is a frequent hallucination?

Lets compare the proof of a Being you do not think exists and you - a being i believe does not exist.

How do you prove to me - with objective evidence - you exist ie you are in fact a human being who is physical and can be known?

Cheers

Set a date and time and meet up in person.
Do a skype video call.
Ask for a picture while holding today's paper.

 

[xianghua]

We have seen you try to use your imagination as evidence against evolution

are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

And as I have said before, if you can actually produce a fossil bear that is 200 million years old, evolution will NOT be able to explain it!

you are welcome to believe it. i showed the opposite.

 

[Speedwell]

are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

Only if it shows evidence of intentional manufacture. "motorness" is not evidence of design.

you are welcome to believe it. i showed the opposite.

No, you only made up a story.

 

[xianghua]

No, you only made up a story.

are yous aying that we cant push back bear evolution?

 

[Roland Pires]

Perhaps if you thought about what is being said here you'd understand that he's not saying "there are no intermediate fossils". He's being honest in saying we cannot categorically say that this particular fossil species is a direct ancestor of later species. It's a concept so many creationists struggle with.


Straw man arguments are not a problem for ToE.

Darwin's special theory was based on what was observed such improvement of live stock, but this was extrapolated to the general theory that all species descended from a common ancestor.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Darwin's special theory was based on what was observed such improvement of live stock, but this was extrapolated to the general theory that all species descended from a common ancestor.

That's not how it happened. Darwin did not base his theory on improvement of livestock.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey my proud atheist friend, im back!!!

Lets say my argument is you do not exist and i refuse to believe. I could be talking to ai, your brother or husband, maybe all matter is an illusion or this is a frequent hallucination?

Lets compare the proof of a Being you do not think exists and you - a being i believe does not exist.

How do you prove to me - with objective evidence - you exist ie you are in fact a human being who is physical and can be known?

Cheers

I could find out your address, travel to your house, grab you and shake you by the shoulders.

 

[Kylie]

are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U




you are welcome to believe it. i showed the opposite.

Yeah, the flagellum is not evidence for design. Evolution explains it. Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

 

[Kylie]

are yous aying that we cant push back bear evolution?

Not to 200 million years.

 

[the iconoclast]

Set a date and time and meet up in person.

Do a skype video call.

Ask for a picture while holding today's paper.

Hey hey dh


Skype is not an adequate solution as im still in a position that i do not know if im engaged with the actual @Kylie. A picture can be fabricated.


I agree, we could set a date, a time and meet. In this scenario someone would have to establish a meaningful contact. We could prove or know of kylies existence by initiating.

If i wanted to prove kylies existance or have her be known to me, I would have to seek her would i not?
I would have to initiate contact?

The bible reflects what is believed about god. Not what is known.

I asked for facts. Not beliefs and/or religious claims from religious books.

Hey hey dh

Well we will need to first define the word facts.

Facts - a thing that is known or proved to be true

To prove is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

To know is to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

Do you disgaree with this definition ie facts, a thing that is known or proved to be true?

What definition would satisfy you?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I could find out your address, travel to your house, grab you and shake you by the shoulders.

Hey hey kylie Hahaha nice!

Lets not forget that i want to prove your existence and not the other way round.

So, i could find out your adress and I could travel to your house. I- if inclined to and and with the appropriate consent - could grab you and i should be able to shake you by your shoulders.

If i refuse to believe you exist. Why wouldnt you come to me?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey dh


Skype is not an adequate solution as im still in a position that i do not know if im engaged with the actual @Kylie. A picture can be fabricated.


I agree, we could set a date, a time and meet. In this scenario someone would have to establish a meaningful contact. We could prove or know of kylies existence by initiating.

If i wanted to prove kylies existance or have her be known to me, I would have to seek her would i not?
I would have to initiate contact?



Hey hey dh

Well we will need to first define the word facts.

Facts - a thing that is known or proved to be true

To prove is to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

To know is to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

Do you disgaree with this definition ie facts, a thing that is known or proved to be true?

What definition would satisfy you?

Cheers

Just make your point already and stop dragging it out.