The Demise of Evolution

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So the US was a pagan society before Darwin published Origin of Species? The Southern Baptist Convention--still the largest Protestant denomination in the US--was formed to provide Christian biblical justification for the institution of slavery. Are you saying that the Southern Baptists are pagans?

I never said that, and I am not prepared to go off topic by going down that track.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said that, and I am not prepared to go off topic by going down that track.

You did say the the theory of evolution was the justification for slavery, but people have always found a justification for slavery if they wanted, even Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

This is a common mistake that Christians make. They assume that because someone does not believe their holy book that they cannot understand it. You for example do not understand the Ninth Commandment. It is not a ban on lying. I did not say that you are lying.

Now this is a chance for you to demonstrate that you can reason logically. The Ninth Commandment is a ban on bearing false witness. It is not a ban on lying. If you say something about someone else that is false, even if you believe it, that is bearing false witness. What you said was not true. Now if you knowingly make a false statement about someone that is no only bearing false witness against someone, that is lying too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, the artist impressions are only there as an aid to those that do not fully understand the science.

So please name a valid "gap". No hand waving allowed.

And you do not know what is and what is not evidence. The concept is easy to understand. Why are you so afraid to discuss it?

 

[MIDutch]

I was trying to avoid having my post reported. Let me rephrase. Oscarr is spouting a very large load of infantile, uneducated, ill-informed tom-foolery and I was recommending ignoring his posts so that he gradually dries up and withers away. But there you go.

I understand and I understand why you suggest this course of action, but that has always been the case when debating die-hard creationists. I very much doubt Oscarr will dry up and wither away.

As I have said elsewhere, I've been "debating" creationists for a long time and on many different forums. Creationists using these "arguments" don't dry up and wither away, they take the silence as validation of their arguments, claim victory and go on to the next thread, or forum, and start all over again.

In my opinion, there is no value in debating creationists, the value is in presenting the empirical evidence and legitimate science to the visitors/lurkers/passers-by who may be reading these threads out of curiosity or a desire to learn. In my opinion, that is why it is so important to counter the "willfully told falsehoods" so many creationists spout.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is a common mistake that Christians make. They assume that because someone does not believe their holy book that they cannot understand it. You for example do not understand the Ninth Commandment. It is not a ban on lying. I did not say that you are lying.

Now this is a chance for you to demonstrate that you can reason logically. The Ninth Commandment is a ban on bearing false witness. It is not a ban on lying. If you say something about someone else that is false, even if you believe it, that is bearing false witness. What you said was not true. Now if you knowingly make a false statement about someone that is no only bearing false witness against someone, that is lying too.

All you have to do is to provide one piece of substantive evidence through the scientific method:
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

If you can't prove that one kind of animal or organism can change to another through evolution by the scientific method described above, then aren't you bearing false witness when you say that evolution is a scientific fact?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, the artist impressions are only there as an aid to those that do not fully understand the science.

So please name a valid "gap". No hand waving allowed.

And you do not know what is and what is not evidence. The concept is easy to understand. Why are you so afraid to discuss it?

That's easy. The gap is actual evidence of the different stages of the development over time of an ape to a human being, with photographs or complete skeletons of the different stages of ape-humans. A random ape-like skull, or an arm which could quite easily be that of a baboon, or a jawbone that could come from any animal such as a pig, would not suffice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you have to do is to provide one piece of substantive evidence through the scientific method:
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

If you can't prove that one kind of animal or organism can change to another through evolution by the scientific method described above, then aren't you bearing false witness when you say that evolution is a scientific fact?

I did. You ignored it.

And I also asked a question where you will prove that an ape can become an human being when you answer that question properly.

One of your main problems is your terminology. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. Like it or not you are still an ape. There was no change of kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's easy. The gap is actual evidence of the different stages of the development over time of an ape to a human being, with photographs or complete skeletons of the different stages of ape-humans. A random ape-like skull, or an arm which could quite easily be that of a baboon, or a jawbone that could come from any animal such as a pig, would not suffice.

This is not true. And besides your terminology is still wrong. You are still an ape. If you worded your claims correctly you might have more success.

 

[Need answers]

What a strange comment to make. I have been a Christian almost my entire life and a scientist for over 50 years and I have never witnessed a scientist telling a deliberate lie. I have seen a few who were wrong and when it was explained to them they readily retracted their mistake. I was about to say that scientists were more truthful than the POTUS but that would be to insult scientists. So I won't say that.

So when you become a doctor you become morally perfect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So when you become a doctor you become morally perfect?

That was not his claim.

In the sciences honesty is a must. If one is caught lying in research one's career is over. It is permissable to be wrong. That cannot be avoided. But lying is not allowed. Except at creationist sites. Those scientists have been corrected so many times that it is hard to see how they cannot be lying at times. Perhaps they are merely severely mentally ill, but there really is no excuse for many of the articles that one sees from AiG.

 

[pitabread]

Show me, one piece of scientific evidence that one organism or creature has evolved from one kind to another, even a bacteria changing into an amoeba. Remember that true science has to be the result of direct investigative observation, testing, replication or photographs showing the developmental stages.

Artists' impressions and diagrams consisting in the belief that it "probably" or "possibly" or "might have" or "seems to" happen that way is not scientific proof.

Two things to deconstruct here:

1) The term "kind" has no biological relevance. Furthermore, extant species do not evolve into one another (so no, a modern bacteria would not evolve into a amoeba). I suspect this is a misconception of the process of evolution due to unfamiliarity with the science involved.

2) You've already coming up with rationalizations to dismiss anything you don't want to look at by invoking arbitrary criteria by which you are apparently judging science. Even though it's clearly apparent you don't understand how science works, as is evidenced by your continued usage of the word "prove" in the context of scientific inquiry.

If you had an honest interest in learning about the Theory of Evolution and the evidence which supports it, I have an entire thread dedicated to that with various free courses full of information: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

Though I suspect that you will elect not to take advantage of such resources. Such has been my experience with creationists.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is not true. And besides your terminology is still wrong. You are still an ape. If you worded your claims correctly you might have more success.

You can't provide any proof that any of us are actually apes. So your assertion has no foundation in fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't provide any proof that any of us are actually apes. So your assertion has no foundation in fact.

I can provide endless evidence. But since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences then you have no moral grounds to demand evidence.

Would you care to learn what is and what is not evidence? It does not apply just to evolution, the definition applies to all of the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And @Oscarr , there is reason that all honest judges have found for the theory of evolution when there is a court case between it and creationism. Judges are experts in evidence and can see that there is evidence for evolution and none for your beliefs. Even a conservative Christian judge ruled against creationism when a case was presented to him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Two things to deconstruct here:

1) The term "kind" has no biological relevance. Furthermore, extant species do not evolve into one another (so no, a modern bacteria would not evolve into a amoeba). I suspect this is a misconception of the process of evolution due to unfamiliarity with the science involved.

2) You've already coming up with rationalizations to dismiss anything you don't want to look at by invoking arbitrary criteria by which you are apparently judging science. Even though it's clearly apparent you don't understand how science works, as is evidenced by your continued usage of the word "prove" in the context of scientific inquiry.

If you had an honest interest in learning about the Theory of Evolution and the evidence which supports it, I have an entire thread dedicated to that with various free courses full of information: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

Though I suspect that you will elect not to take advantage of such resources. Such has been my experience with creationists.

I'm not coming up with any rationalizations at all. All I am asking is for you people to provide just one little item of evidence that proves the evolutionary process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not coming up with any rationalizations at all. All I am asking is for you people to provide just one little item of evidence that proves the evolutionary process.

And once again you confirm that you do not understand the scientific method.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not coming up with any rationalizations at all. All I am asking is for you people to provide just one little item of evidence that proves the evolutionary process.

I just pointed you to a bunch of educational resources on the subject, which includes the evidence for evolution.

The onus is now on you to take advantage of them.

 

[Need answers]

I'm not coming up with any rationalizations at all. All I am asking is for you people to provide just one little item of evidence that proves the evolutionary process.

 

[MIDutch]

I'm not coming up with any rationalizations at all. All I am asking is for you people to provide just one little item of evidence that proves the evolutionary process.

To the satisfaction of one who will never be satisfied.