The Demise of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

But I know that you cannot provide answers - only what you believe to be true - and this will be no better than what I believe, except that I have historical material that is more straightforward and believable than your set of beliefs on which you base your faith. So there is nothing you can add that is superior. All you will be able to do is to try and attempt to convert me to your belief system in the same way a Mormon or JW will try, and none of them have got anywhere with me, so the chances that you will are very slim indeed.

That is a false claim. Ask proper questions and you will get answers.


Once again you do not know. You only believe. Please learn the difference between the two. Now you may not allow yourself to learn. I cannot force you to do that, but the vast majority of your questions have been answered.

 

[Speedwell]

But I know that you cannot provide answers - only what you believe to be true - and this will be no better than what I believe, except that I have historical material that is more straightforward and believable than your set of beliefs on which you base your faith. So there is nothing you can add that is superior. All you will be able to do is to try and attempt to convert me to your belief system in the same way a Mormon or JW will try, and none of them have got anywhere with me, so the chances that you will are very slim indeed.

You believe you have historical material.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Then you were not paying attention or you did not understand the debate. Even the mass majority of Christians realized when Ham showed that he could not reason logically and rationally. This video has the clip, start it at 4:50. Listen to Ham and then listen to Nye. This was the question where Ham admitted in so many words that he did not understand science, reason, or logic:

The fact that you have to try and discredit me shows that you have no substantive answers to support what you believe by just sheer faith and not on the basis of fact.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Consciousness seems to be an inevitable emergent property of a sufficiently complex nervous system.

Seems to be... In other words you are saying it might be but you are not certain. You could go further and say that you definitely believe that it is, then you would be exercising faith in what you believe is the case.

You see, this is what evolutionists do. They say, it seems that this is the way things originated, but we are not quite sure because it cannot be scientifically proved without observation, replication or testing, so, we have to believe that it happened this way because there is no better explanation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Wrong again, and a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Just because you do not understand something it is improper to claim that others do not understand something.

This is why I offered to go over the scientific method with you. A concept that you do not understand since you got yours from a bogus source.

Oh? How can you quote the Commandments to me when you don't believe that God exists and that the Commandments are in a book that you don't believe in? You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel in trying to find answers to my questions, because the fact is, you have no substantive answers at all, just a set of beliefs that you are basing your faith in. You can't prove that I am lying, which is just the same that you can't prove that what you believe in is the truth.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is what creationists keep telling themselves, but unfortunately for them, that's not the reality.

Evolution is a legit science to the point that it even has real-world applications (yes, even common descent has real-world applications). Of course, creationists often deny this as well because the idea of a evolution being "a belief system" and evolution having real-world application causes too much cognitive dissonance.

Hence creationists are forced into a never-ending spiral of reality-denial.

Show me any scientific study through observation, replication, and testing that evolution is a definite scientific fact. Any scientist, whether evolutionist or creationist, knows that for something to be a science it has to be proved through the scientific method. Otherwise it is just a belief system outside of science. To have something produced by nothing through time and chance is unscientific, because it is scientifically impossible. Show me any example, just one, where something has been created out of nothing through scientific experiment using the scientific method.

 

[Speedwell]

Show me any scientific study through observation, replication, and testing that evolution is a definite scientific fact. Any scientist, whether evolutionist or creationist, knows that for something to be a science it has to be proved through the scientific method. Otherwise it is just a belief system outside of science. To have something produced by nothing through time and chance is unscientific, because it is scientifically impossible. Show me any example, just one, where something has been created out of nothing through scientific experiment using the scientific method.

Why should we? You can knock down your own straw man. You don't need our help.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Which gaps are you specifically referring to?

Any evidence that one kind of organism has actually changed to another kind. Or such as the artist impression that the blue whale evolved from a land-based four legged creature, or the other artist impression that shows the development of an ape to a human being. If you can produce a series of photographs showing how this development happened, this will be proof for me - that would be observation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Perhaps the gaps in his knowledge. Far too many creationists appear to reason based upon "If I do not understand it it is not right".

The gaps are filled in by artists' impressions about what might have happened, but no substantive proof through actual observation or photographs can be given to show the gradual development over time of, say, a four legged creature to a blue whale, such as depicted in some evolution books.

Not even the most eminent, qualified evolution academics in the world can show just one item of evidence to show the gradual development of one kind of organism or animal to another. All they can show is development within the same organism or animal through genetic changes.

So the substance of evolution is based on pure guesswork based on faith in the belief system, and the lie is that it is presented to the world as fact when not even the foremost academic scientists can provide proof of it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You believe you have historical material.

Yes. There is a history book, as reliable as any other history book which people believe to be historical fact. Actually there is only one surviving manuscript that describes the life of Julius Caesar, and we believe the historical record to be absolutely true, yet for this book there are 25,000 surviving manuscripts that all say the same thing, so according to plain logic, that historical record has to be even more reliable.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. There is a history book, as reliable as any other history book which people believe to be historical fact. Actually there is only one surviving manuscript that describes the life of Julius Caesar, and we believe the historical record to be absolutely true, yet for this book there are 25,000 surviving manuscripts that all say the same thing, so according to plain logic, that historical record has to be even more reliable.

No, it just means that the book was more popular.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why should we? You can knock down your own straw man. You don't need our help.

You have to knock my comments down because you have no answer for them.

 

[MIDutch]

Any evidence that one kind of organism has actually changed to another kind. Or such as the artist impression that the blue whale evolved from a land-based four legged creature, or the other artist impression that shows the development of an ape to a human being. If you can produce a series of photographs showing how this development happened, this will be proof for me - that would be observation.

Odd that you don't require the same sort of evidence for what you accept as fact.

 

[Speedwell]

You have to knock my comments down because you have no answer for them.

I certainly see no need to defend claims that science doesn't make.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have to knock my comments down because you have no answer for them.

You have been given outline answers which you either ignore, misinterpret, or fail to understand. Since I am not responsible for your education and had no hand in the lack of it, I shall leave to your self-imposed darkness. It's altogether too murky for my taste.

 

[pitabread]

Show me any scientific study through observation, replication, and testing that evolution is a definite scientific fact. Any scientist, whether evolutionist or creationist, knows that for something to be a science it has to be proved through the scientific method.

Several things to deconstruct here:

1) Evolution itself is simply the change in populations of biological evolution over time. That is the fact of evolution; it is based on direct observation of populations of organisms.

2) The Theory of Evolution is the explanation that explains this fact (e.g. it explains how populations of biological organisms change over time).

3) Science doesn't "prove" anything. Rather explanations are formulated and supported by evidence, until a better explanation with greater explanatory power comes along.

To have something produced by nothing through time and chance is unscientific, because it is scientifically impossible. Show me any example, just one, where something has been created out of nothing through scientific experiment using the scientific method.

This has nothing to do with biological evolution and appears to be a strawman of your own construction. If you don't even know what evolution is then you're doubly not in a position to pass judgement on whether it's a belief or valid science.

 

[MIDutch]

You have to knock my comments down because you have no answer for them.

That's what creationists have been saying about science for almost 200 years (going way back to when geologists, who were often Christian clergy, were discovering that the Noachian flood never happened).

Science has plenty of answers. It's not the fault of science if creationists refuse to hear (understand) them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, it just means that the book was more popular.

It may be because the book contained a very logical historical record that was believed to be true right up to the late 19th Century.

What about this one? The only record of a star being born is presented as being viewed through a telescope as a series of images showing its development from a cloud of cosmic gas to an actual star. What was discovered was that it was never viewed through a telescope at all, but was a computer simulation programmed to show what the formation of a star might look like. In fact, the images were just in the guy's computer, made up by him, and nowhere else. It is a fact that although supernovas have been viewed through telescopes, not one instance of a star being born has ever been observed directly through any telescope.

But the scam was that the computer guy made people believe that the images of the star being born were viewed directly.

 

[pitabread]

You have to knock my comments down because you have no answer for them.

Your claim that evolution is "just a belief" appears to be just a belief.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You have been given outline answers which you either ignore, misinterpret, or fail to understand. Since I am not responsible for your education and had no hand in the lack of it, I shall leave to your self-imposed darkness. It's altogether too murky for my taste.

The accusative "you" messages show a lack of substantive answers to anything I have said so far.