If macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it? (Please read OP before commenting)

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

HARK! said:
It does answer your question. When I come to the conclusion that what someone told me was false; I don't feel the need to replace that falsehood with anything, but the simple truth that it is false.

So just a cop-out then. Got it.

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

HARK! said:
The math doesn't seem to work.

For creationism? I know.

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

HARK! said:
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If macroevolution is true; prove it.

If the math works; prove it.

It is cool how the "confident" creationists do anything they can to avoid having to support their beliefs.

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

HARK! said:
You're shifting the burden of proof. Prove that macroevolution is is mathematically possible.

Start your own thread maybe? Stop polluting this guy's with your ducks and dodges?

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

zippy2006 said:
Hark is right. Your assumption is unscientific. If a theory is falsified then it must be discarded. It doesn't matter at all whether there is an available alternative.

A real scientist would, upon discovering that macroevolution is false, discard it and reply to your question, "Nothing." Or maybe he would have a suggestion about how to unify the data that macroevolution attempts to unify. But there is no scientific onus on him to do so. In science, falsification of a theory does not presuppose replacement of that theory.

So you cannot put your money where your mouth is, either. Got it.

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

NBB said:
Almost every part of your body has something in its design that 'considers/shares/takes in acccount' other parts of the body, almost like if someone intelligent made it or something... and then mix up the mind, how evolution could create appreciation for beauty, pondering about life and spiritual needs...

Fallacy of begging the question.

How evolution managed to do that, considering our bodies are more advanced than anything humans can do and evolution is a process so weak as explained by evolutionists compared to what processes humans make, but what humans make produce a lot less expectacular results.

Argument from incredulity.

When evolutionist say some creationists go with the 'argument from incredulity' I say i don't believe an ant can't lift a boulder either.

So you cannot support creationism, either.

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.

If macroevolution is found to be false, then something has to be replace it.

Feynman explained in one of his lectures essentially what you have laid out - got to replace it with something that better explains the data. Because one has to understand that falsifying a THEORY is not as easy as they seem to believe, since a theory is built upon lots and lots of evidence/data. It explains the data. I suspect that the folks who think they can toss out a claim about math or whatever and have falsified a theory probably think the word means the same thing in science as it does on their favorite sitcom, and don't realize that theories in science are not going to be falling victim to some malcontents on the internet..

tas8831 · Aug 3, 2021

zippy2006 said:
It is perfectly possible to just admit that you don't know. Indeed, that is a much better initial way to proceed after a theory is falsified than to concoct newfangled explanations.

Wow... I suspect creationists and ID mathemagicians really need to hear that.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 3, 2021

tas8831 said:
Feynman explained in one of his lectures essentially what you have laid out - got to replace it with something that better explains the data. Because one has to understand that falsifying a THEORY is not as easy as they seem to believe, since a theory is built upon lots and lots of evidence/data. It explains the data. I suspect that the folks who think they can toss out a claim about math or whatever and have falsified a theory probably think the word means the same thing in science as it does on their favorite sitcom, and don't realize that theories in science are not going to be falling victim to some malcontents on the internet..

Indeed - Imre Lakatos covered falsification in considerable detail in 'The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', particularly with respect to Popper's changing positions on it over time.

Ophiolite · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
The species of birds Darwin used that are called "Darwin's finches" were written about in the following way,
"These birds, although nearly identical in all other ways to mainland finches, had different beaks. Their beaks had adapted to the type of food they ate in order to fill different niches on the Galapagos Islands." These finches, because they had adaptations in their beaks helped pave the way for the theory of evolution, but the sad thing is they are just different sized beaks for different food sources, or an adaptation NOT an evolution of sorts

The relevance of Darwin's Finches to evolution is a historical one. They were important in helping Darwin to recognise the nature and mechanism of evolution. Today they represent less than 0.0000000001% of the evidence for evolution.

SeventhFisherofMen said:
The cool thing is I don't have to read your book to know it's wrong just like one doesn't have to study a fake bill to know what is true they just study the real currency.

Your open refusal to explore the competing evidence and your application of the Informal Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question are examples of why @Warden_of_the_Storm thinks you are not arguing in Good Faith. I agree with him. Where he abd I may differ is that I do not think you are consciously aware of what you are doing and why it is considered unacceptable. I think your intentions are sincere, but they are misguided.

pitabread · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
DNA is 1000 times more complex than a simple rolex, the comparison is just to show that if a simple watch found in the woods is enough to point to a creator then DNA found in our bodies is enough to point to The Creator.

That isn't how design is detected though.

We know that a watch found in the woods points to a creator because we have pre-existing knowledge of what watches are, who makes them, how they are made, etc.

We don't have any of that same information for living organisms in nature insofar as being created.

SeventhFisherofMen · Aug 3, 2021

pitabread said:
That isn't how design is detected though.

We know that a watch found in the woods points to a creator because we have pre-existing knowledge of what watches are, who makes them, how they are made, etc.

We don't have any of that same information for living organisms in nature insofar as being created.

Bruh completely ignoring the Word of Truth does not constitute a lack of knowledge of how things were created rather than a complete inability to accept that The Bible specifically outlines who created what and how.

That'd be like if someone told you how to solve a math problem and then you ignored the method and claimed you didn't know how to solve the math problem.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
Bruh completely ignoring the Word of Truth does not constitute a lack of knowledge of how things were created rather than a complete inability to accept that The Bible specifically outlines who created what and how.

That'd be like if someone told you how to solve a math problem and then you ignored the method and claimed you didn't know how to solve the math problem.

This forum, and this thread, isn't for preaching.

SeventhFisherofMen · Aug 3, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
This forum, and this thread, isn't for preaching.

My response was preaching just as much as your claims of evolution even being a thing is preaching. It's just your preaching something different, still preaching something that requires faith to accept, the only difference is evolution is a false idea that people try really hard to accept.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
My response was preaching just as much as your claims of evolution even being a thing is preaching. It's just your preaching something different, still preaching something that requires faith to accept, the only difference is evolution is a false idea that people try really hard to accept.

No it's not. It's... it's really not. How is preaching to talk about science IN THE SCIENCE FORUM?

pitabread · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
Bruh completely ignoring the Word of Truth does not constitute a lack of knowledge of how things were created rather than a complete inability to accept that The Bible specifically outlines who created what and how.

The Bible does not specifically outline the what and the how, though. In fact, it's quite light on those details. I've learned this from repeated discussions with creationists where when I press for said details, it quickly becomes apparent how limited Biblical scripture is.

In contrast if I wanted to learn all about watch manufacture, I could learn all the details right down to how the original ores are mined and smelted.

Not the equivalent scenario at all, I'm afraid.

SeventhFisherofMen · Aug 3, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No it's not. It's... it's really not. How is preaching to talk about science IN THE SCIENCE FORUM?

sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Claiming that conversations about science according to this definition (the physical and natural world) regarding how the physical and natural world were created (in your opinion evolution, and in my opinion creationism) without including conversations of the Creator (in my opinion God and in your opinion a random explosion happening from nothing) is like saying we can talk about X topic but without any opinion other than my own, which is not how conversations are done.

Also keep in mind your post is in a Christian forum so why are you surprised a Christian is talking about Creationism and God lol

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Claiming that conversations about science according to this definition (the physical and natural world) regarding how the physical and natural world were created (in your opinion evolution, and in my opinion creationism) without including conversations of the Creator (in my opinion God and in your opinion a random explosion happening from nothing) is like saying we can talk about X topic but without any opinion other than my own, which is not how conversations are done.

Also keep in mind your post is in a Christian forum so why are you surprised a Christian is talking about Creationism and God lol

And you're not talking science. You're just quoting the Bible and preaching, and are adding nothing of value to the thread.

SeventhFisherofMen · Aug 3, 2021

pitabread said:
The Bible does not specifically outline the what and the how, though. In fact, it's quite light on those details. I've learned this from repeated discussions with creationists where when I press for said details, it quickly becomes apparent how limited Biblical scripture is.

In contrast if I wanted to learn all about watch manufacture, I could learn all the details right down to how the original ores are mined and smelted.

Not the equivalent scenario at all, I'm afraid.

Here's just one verse on the creation of man:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7

If someone was making pottery and they said "I made this pot out of clay and then fired it to harden it and give it purpose."

Would you say "How did you use clay?"
No it's widely understood that humans are capable of forming clay pots out of clay, we can just do it, and if we were as smart as God we would be able to understand it's possible for God to use dust to form man. As far as how they are alive it says God breathed the breath of life into man. Do you claim to know how complex the breath of life is? Do you not believe only because you don't have God's blueprints?

pitabread · Aug 3, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
Here's just one verse on the creation of man:

I'm well familiar with the creation story in Genesis, believe me.

No it's widely understood that humans are capable of forming clay pots out of clay, we can just do it, and if we were as smart as God we would be able to understand it's possible for God to use dust to form man. As far as how they are alive it says God breathed the breath of life into man. Do you claim to know how complex the breath of life is?

So what is the "breath of life"? How does it turn dust/clay into a living organism? What is the mechanism at work there?

I once tried building a statue and then breathed on it. It didn't turn into a living organism. What did I do wrong?

Do you not believe only because you don't have God's blueprints?

I don't believe it because 3000 year old poetry is not a satisfactory explanation for turning non-living things into living things.

If macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it? (Please read OP before commenting)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

You cannot fool Jesus

Well-Known Member

You cannot fool Jesus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You cannot fool Jesus

Well-Known Member

You cannot fool Jesus

Well-Known Member

Similar threads