For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[SLP]

Oh yeah; that's real convincing ... an hypothesis based on the theory/assumption that all extant organisms share a common ancestor. Typical Darwinist sophistry and pseudo-science.
Besides that, anyone can dream up an "evolutionary sequence" and claim that is how it happened, but it's just another Darwinist story.
Darwinists pull the same stunt with fossils - they put together what they claim is an "evolutionary sequence", but there's no way to test the hypothesis that the respective fossils represent biologically-linked descendents.

Furthermore, Darwinists need to not only explain how the "steps" evolved in terms of mutatons and natural selection, they also need to test those hypotheses. Otherwise they're jusy blowing smoke and telling pseudo-scientific stories.

"Evoltion is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented" - William Provine

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

Typical creationist - presenting itself as some sort of science expert while not being able to provide any specifics, nor any actual support for their preferred position. Of course, that is a given - there is no evidence for deities being real.
What is next from your bag of tricks? Darwin's death bed conversion? Haeckel's embryos?
'Not enough time'?

 

[Astrid]

That sounds fabricated .

Like the preacher who goes on about how he was the
Worst of Sinners, but then he found God?

 

[SLP]

Like the preacher who goes on about how he was the
Worst of Sinners, but then he found God?

Yup. And just as believable.

 

[Astrid]

Yup. And just as believable.

Likewise with those who advertise their credentials
as if that means their words have extra power.

Did you know I was Ms Hong Kong?
Anything I say about hair, makeup, or clothes is IT.

 

[Shemjaza]

Oh yeah; that's real convincing ... an hypothesis based on the theory/assumption that all extant organisms share a common ancestor. Typical Darwinist sophistry and pseudo-science.
Besides that, anyone can dream up an "evolutionary sequence" and claim that is how it happened, but it's just another Darwinist story.
Darwinists pull the same stunt with fossils - they put together what they claim is an "evolutionary sequence", but there's no way to test the hypothesis that the respective fossils represent biologically-linked descendents.

How about some specific examples?

You have accusations and your inconsistent attitudes to evidence and science.

Some of the most significant examples are the extinct hominid fossils... how do you explain them?

Because science has this wonderful thing called evolution that nicely explains the whole thing.

Furthermore, Darwinists need to not only explain how the "steps" evolved in terms of mutatons and natural selection, they also need to test those hypotheses. Otherwise they're jusy blowing smoke and telling pseudo-scientific stories.

Yeah, that's silly. (You are really loving using pseudo-scientific, aren't you?)

We have the mechanisms demonstrated repeatedly on a smaller scale and we make predictions based on that data to a larger scale.

If I photograph a car at 6 locations on a route driving on a highway, the fact that I didn't film it the whole way doesn't mean I have to acknowledge the "alternative fact" that the car was turning upside down and flying whenever it wasn't photographed.

"Evoltion is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented" - William Provine

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

"Some atheists think evolution supports atheism" doesn't explain why more people who accept evolution are Christian than atheist.

Do you have a response, or just bravado?

 

[Astrid]

How about some specific examples?

You have accusations and your inconsistent attitudes to evidence and science.

Some of the most significant examples are the extinct hominid fossils... how do you explain them?

Because science has this wonderful thing called evolution that nicely explains the whole thing.



Yeah, that's silly. (You are really loving using pseudo-scientific, aren't you?)

We have the mechanisms demonstrated repeatedly on a smaller scale and we make predictions based on that data to a larger scale.

If I photograph a car at 6 locations on a route driving on a highway, the fact that I didn't film it the whole way doesn't mean I have to acknowledge the "alternative fact" that the car was turning upside down and flying whenever it wasn't photographed.



"Some atheists think evolution supports atheism" doesn't explain why more people who accept evolution are Christian than atheist.


Do you have a response, or just bravado?

All gish, zero data. Nobody has ever come up with
one FACT contrary to ToE.

No sense playing rabbit hole with all the nonsense and
conspiracies.
Let our creationists attempt ONE fact for their case.
One.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody has ever come up with one FACT contrary to ToE.

Neat.

Sounds to me like ToE is unfalsifiable.

And therefore not science.

 

[SLP]

Neat.

Sounds to me like ToE is unfalsifiable.

And therefore not science.

"Not falsified" does not mean unfalsifiable.

You cannot possibly be that out of touch, can you?

 

[Astrid]

"Not falsified" does not mean unfalsifiable.

You cannot possibly be that out of touch, can you?

Its a prerequisit to creationism

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Neat.

Sounds to me like ToE is unfalsifiable.

And therefore not science.

Some of this will depend upon which approach within the Philosophy of Science we lean toward when "doing" science---do we go with Popper? Hempel? Do we go with Kuhn? Richard Feynman? ... Ken Ham?

There's an ongoing discussion and debate about the processes and nature of science and things like "the demarcation problem." It can get messy, especially when different fields of science require different processes, methods and types of analysis.

Whether the ToE is unfalsifiable or not in the several fields which the theory draws together and explains, it can still be subject to a future paradigm shift if enough evidence pushes some aspects of it in another epistemic direction. So, the ToE is science; it's just not what you're thinking of as science.

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy

 

[AV1611VET]

"Not falsified" does not mean unfalsifiable.

You cannot possibly be that out of touch, can you?

How do you ascertain the difference without tests?

And even if you do test, you know how science can only go so far due to its myopia.

To say the Flood has been falsified, but evolution hasn't is, in my opinion, slanted.

The more you guys brag and boast that evolution is the most rock-solid theory since gravity, the more I'm going to point out that evolution isn't science.

And for that matter, falsify gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a prerequisit to creationism

I'll actually agree with this, since I'm willing to admit that creationism does not entail science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether the ToE is unfalsifiable or not in the several fields which the theory draws together and explains, it can still be subject to a future paradigm shift if enough evidence pushes some aspects of it in another epistemic direction. So, the ToE is science;

It sounds to me like what you're saying is:

"We will consider the theory of evolution as science, until such time as it isn't."

Am I right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It sounds to me like what you're saying is:

"We will consider the theory of evolution as science, until such time as it isn't."

Am I right?

No, not quite. The way I'd say it is: We will consider the theory of evolution as science as long as we understand what "science" is first, and THEN we look at evidences of the world in modes that comport with what we think science is. In other words, the conception of science comes first; then our engagement and naming of evolutionary processess comes along after that.

It's not the other way around (i.e. It's not: "Oh, I like monkeys, so let's see if we can relate all of biological life with that idea and preference." )

With that said, here's the upshot for the other "we" here, AV, with the other "we" being you and me:

In my view, whether or not the ToE is true has little or no direct conflict with the separate, general idea of biblical revelation, the essential nature of the Bible, and the nexus of Jesus of Nazareth fulfilling the prophecies that are laid out in the pages of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

As you've said, Creationism isn't science. I agree. And Evolution isn't prophecy.

Either way, God is looking to save us and change us for the better. And, with that, Happy Passover/Easter.

JESUS IS RISEN !!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Either way, God is looking to save us and change us for the better. And, with that, Happy Passover/Easter.

Thank you, my friend!

And a Happy Easter to you as well!

JESUS IS RISEN !!!

JESUS IS RISEN INDEED !!!

 

[Buzzard3]

That sounds fabricated. But then, creationists tend to go with what they know.

The late, great paleontologist,S.J. Gould, believed the Cambrian explosion took only five million years:

"Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion within FIVE MILLION YEARS. Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by FIVE MILLION YEARS of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes can scarcely be read as a predictable, inexorable or continuous trend toward progress or increasing complexity." (from "The Evolution of Life on Earth", A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article.
October, 1994. brembs.net)

 

[Shemjaza]

The late, great paleontologist,S.J. Gould, believed the Cambrian explosion took only five million years:

"Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion within FIVE MILLION YEARS. Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by FIVE MILLION YEARS of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes can scarcely be read as a predictable, inexorable or continuous trend toward progress or increasing complexity." (from "The Evolution of Life on Earth", A SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article.
October, 1994. brembs.net)

Yet again, what's your point?

Do you think it's real?

Do you think the timelines are real?

Do you think the animals found there are real?

 

[Buzzard3]

And yet you write like one, act like one, use the same "arguments' that they do...
Amazing how that works.

I'm not a YEC. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests the universe and earth could be billions of years old and that life on earth could have begun billions of years ago.

What I don't accept is Darwinian folklore, which says the history of life on earth is the result contiguous process of biolgical evolution, the mechanisms of which are understood and described by the Modern Synthesis.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yet again, what's your point?

Do you think it's real?

Do you think the timelines are real?

Do you think the animals found there are real?

Yes, I believe the Cambrian explosion and its animals were real and I accept the timelines as estimated by science.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not a YEC. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests the universe and earth could be billions of years old and that life on earth could have begun billions of years ago.

What I don't accept is Darwinian folklore, which says the history of life on earth is the result contiguous process of biolgical evolution, the mechanisms of which are understood and described by the Modern Synthesis.

So what's the barrier? What's the system?

You keep throwing around dismissive terms like folk-lore and pseudo-science, but have basic misunderstandings of terms and classifications in biology.

Evolution is a demonstrated system that trivially works on a small scale in time and change.

This same system is consistent with the evidence of it being active on the large scale in both time and change.

The same mechanisms can be demonstrated to work in simulations and within different types of change and inheritance like software or engineering.

So if you want to claim scientific support, you have to demonstrate a problem with the conclusion from evidence... any kind of specific point that isn't justified.

Your personal incredulity, religious convictions and mistaken ideas are not evidence.