Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[BlueGreenEarth]

What almost everyone in this thread is failing to understand is the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims. Why is that important? Because, the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where no quantity or quality of evidence will ever prove a claim about the external world is true, but it is possible to disprove a falsifiable claim. Meanwhile, it is impossible for evidence of any kind to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim. This means that there isn't even a point in considering the evidence for an unfalsifiable claim because it will do nothing to rule-out or reduce its probability of being true or false. Accordingly, there is reasonable justification for accepting a falsifiable claim that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. There is no reasonable justification whatsoever for accepting an unfalsifiable claim because there is no way to ever discover it is true (or false).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What almost everyone in this thread is failing to understand is the difference between falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims. Why is that important? Because, the problem of underdetermination demonstrates where no quantity or quality of evidence will ever prove a claim about the external world is true, but it is possible to disprove a falsifiable claim. Meanwhile, it is impossible for evidence of any kind to prove or disprove an unfalsifiable claim. This means that there isn't even a point in considering the evidence for an unfalsifiable claim because it will do nothing to rule-out or reduce its probability of being true or false. Accordingly, there is reasonable justification for accepting a falsifiable claim that continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it. There is no reasonable justification whatsoever for accepting an unfalsifiable claim because there is no way to ever discover it is true (or false).

... I understood absolutely none of that.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

... I understood absolutely none of that.

Incredulity is not an argument. However, if you are looking for a more detailed explanation, I've created a new thread on this topic titled "The Falsifiability Criterion" that is currently waiting for approval.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Incredulity is not an argument. However, if you are looking for a more detailed explanation, I've created a new thread on this topic titled "The Falsifiability Criterion" that is currently waiting for approval.

My comment wasn't coming from incredulity. I literally could not understand anything of what you said and less what it has to do with the claim made in the video of the OP.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

My comment wasn't coming from incredulity. I literally could not understand anything of what you said and less what it has to do with the claim made in the video of the OP.

The problem is that the content of the video does not function to falsify the Theory of Evolution. Also, there have been arguments posted about the Theory of Evolution not being proven true by the available evidence. Those are fallacious arguments because science doesn't function to prove anything is true. Instead, it operates to test falsifiable claims for the purpose of ruling-out all those that are disproved by the evidence to leave the one that continues to survive all the tests designed to try and disprove it. The Theory of Evolution is accepted as the most reasonable explanation, not because scientists are asserting it has been proven true but because it hasn't yet been proven false despite the possibility. In comparison, claims about divine creation are unfalsifiable and cannot be proven or disproven by any quantity or quality of evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Theory of Evolution is accepted as the most reasonable explanation, not because scientists are asserting it has been proven true but because it hasn't yet been proven false despite the possibility. In comparison, claims about divine creation are unfalsifiable and cannot be proven or disproven by any quantity or quality of evidence.

Well-stated.

 

[1Tonne]

Describe the scientific evidence for God then. Have at it, because you'd do more than get a Nobel prize for it.

First, let’s be clear about what kind of evidence we're talking about. Science deals with observations, patterns, and cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world. While God Himself is not a material object to be tested in a lab, His fingerprints can be seen in what He has made, just as we infer intelligence or design in archaeology or forensics without directly observing the designer.

Here are a few examples of testable, observable evidence that point toward God, or at least, an intelligent cause beyond nature:
1. The origin of the universe
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning (confirmed by modern cosmology), so it requires a cause. That cause would need to be outside of time, space, and matter, immaterial, timeless, and powerful. That sounds remarkably like God.

2. Fine-tuning of the universe
The fundamental constants of physics (gravity, the strong nuclear force, etc.) are set at incredibly precise values. Even tiny changes would make life impossible. This is not just rare, it's statistically mind-blowing. Design is the most reasonable explanation.

3. Biological information
DNA is a coded language. All language comes from intelligence. We never observe information arising from random, unguided processes. It’s always the product of a mind. So why make an exception for the origin of life?

4. Consciousness and moral reality
Material processes can’t explain self-awareness, intentionality, or objective morality. If we are just matter in motion, why do we experience meaning, purpose, or the ability to choose right from wrong? These features of reality make more sense if we were made in the image of a conscious, moral God.

These are not gaps in knowledge, they’re positive indicators of design, purpose, and mind behind the universe. Of course, if someone defines science to exclude God from the start, then no amount of evidence will be “scientific” enough. But that’s a philosophical bias, not a scientific finding.

As for the Nobel Prize, I’m not in it for that. I'm in it because the truth matters.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First, let’s be clear about what kind of evidence we're talking about. Science deals with observations, patterns, and cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world. While God Himself is not a material object to be tested in a lab, His fingerprints can be seen in what He has made, just as we infer intelligence or design in archaeology or forensics without directly observing the designer.

Which is exactly why we don't use gods as explanation for scientific problems, but let's proceed...

Here are a few examples of testable, observable evidence that point toward God, or at least, an intelligent cause beyond nature:
1. The origin of the universe
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning (confirmed by modern cosmology), so it requires a cause. That cause would need to be outside of time, space, and matter, immaterial, timeless, and powerful. That sounds remarkably like God.

This is a philosophical argument, not science. (and your properties of the cause are not ones that actual cosmologists would assign to the cause of the origin of our Universe).

2. Fine-tuning of the universe
The fundamental constants of physics (gravity, the strong nuclear force, etc.) are set at incredibly precise values. Even tiny changes would make life impossible. This is not just rare, it's statistically mind-blowing. Design is the most reasonable explanation.

The problem is that it just isn't true that the constants are that "finely tuned". The nuclear force can vary by a few percent without changing the basic set of stable nuclei and the main path to the nuclei (atoms) needed for the kind of life that we are. Gravity is only known to about 1 ppm, so we don't even know the value well enough to make the kind of "fine tuning" claim you make. Models of the evolution of the Universe, galaxy formation, star formation and evolution, orbital dynamics, etc. all operate within uncertainties in the value of G that are far larger than the "fine tuning" limits you claims and they all work just fine.

3. Biological information
DNA is a coded language. All language comes from intelligence. We never observe information arising from random, unguided processes. It’s always the product of a mind. So why make an exception for the origin of life?

DNA is not a "coded language". It is a molecule. Successful cells have other chemicals that react with the DNA molecule and with amino acids and other bits of chemicals (ribosomes, regulators, etc.) that results in proteins forming. There is no mechanism for inserting useful segments into the DNA to make specific proteins. Instead, accidental modifications alter the molecule and the proteins it forms that either enhance or decrease the viability of the organism. Even if we accepted the intentional design claim, one thing that DNA definitely isn't is a computer programming language. It operates on reactions, not algorithms.

4. Consciousness and moral reality
Material processes can’t explain self-awareness, intentionality, or objective morality. If we are just matter in motion, why do we experience meaning, purpose, or the ability to choose right from wrong? These features of reality make more sense if we were made in the image of a conscious, moral God.

Self awareness/mind is a useful property for the control center of a sophisticated animal. Morality, specific to the species, not universal at all, is a natural consequence of creatures living together in groups (groups need rules), and the failure to evolve basic morality appropriate to the lifestyle would result in failure of the species.

(Again half of this is some sort of philosophical argument, not a scientific one.)

These are not gaps in knowledge, they’re positive indicators of design, purpose, and mind behind the universe. Of course, if someone defines science to exclude God from the start, then no amount of evidence will be “scientific” enough. But that’s a philosophical bias, not a scientific finding.

Most of these "indicators of design" are either not what you claim they are or we have pretty good ideas how they work. A more thorough understanding of the current state of science would alleviate some of your percieved need to fill non-existent "gaps" with deities.

As for the Nobel Prize, I’m not in it for that. I'm in it because the truth matters.

I hope you eventually find some truth about science and nature.

 

[BCP1928]

3. Biological information
DNA is a coded language. All language comes from intelligence. We never observe information arising from random, unguided processes. It’s always the product of a mind. So why make an exception for the origin of life?

Biological information is Shannon information. If there is a message coded into it we don't know what it is and it has no relevance to the function of the DNA molecules.

 

[1Tonne]

The problem is that it just isn't true that the constants are that "finely tuned". The nuclear force can vary by a few percent without changing the basic set of stable nuclei and the main path to the nuclei (atoms) needed for the kind of life that we are. Gravity is only known to about 1 ppm, so we don't even know the value well enough to make the kind of "fine tuning" claim you make. Models of the evolution of the Universe, galaxy formation, star formation and evolution, orbital dynamics, etc. all operate within uncertainties in the value of G that are far larger than the "fine tuning" limits you claims and they all work just fine.

You're right that some constants, like the strong nuclear force, can vary slightly without breaking everything. But fine-tuning isn’t about just one constant. It’s about the combined precision of multiple constants that must fall within a very narrow range for life to exist.
Take the cosmological constant, it’s fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10¹²⁰. That level of precision isn’t trivial. Or the balance between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force, change them even slightly together, and you don't get stable atoms or stars.
Even many non-religious physicists admit the universe appears astonishingly fine-tuned. That doesn’t prove God, but it’s strong evidence for intentional design over chance or necessity. Ignoring that complexity doesn’t make it disappear.

DNA is not a "coded language". It is a molecule. Successful cells have other chemicals that react with the DNA molecule and with amino acids and other bits of chemicals (ribosomes, regulators, etc.) that results in proteins forming. There is no mechanism for inserting useful segments into the DNA to make specific proteins. Instead, accidental modifications alter the molecule and the proteins it forms that either enhance or decrease the viability of the organism. Even if we accepted the intentional design claim, one thing that DNA definitely isn't is a computer programming language. It operates on reactions, not algorithms.

DNA isn’t just a molecule; it stores information in a specific, functional sequence, like letters in a sentence. That’s why scientists call it a genetic code. Yes, chemistry is involved, but chemistry alone doesn’t explain the origin of the information.
We never see meaningful information arise by accident; it always comes from intelligence. That’s why DNA is strong evidence for design, not random chance.

Self awareness/mind is a useful property for the control center of a sophisticated animal. Morality, specific to the species, not universal at all, is a natural consequence of creatures living together in groups (groups need rules), and the failure to evolve basic morality appropriate to the lifestyle would result in failure of the species.

(Again half of this is some sort of philosophical argument, not a scientific one.)

If self-awareness and morality are just evolutionary tools, then they’re not actually true, just useful. But we don’t live that way. We believe some things are truly right or wrong, regardless of survival value. That points to a moral law above nature, not just a product of it.
And yes, this is philosophical, but so is your claim. Science describes what is, not what ought to be. As soon as we say something should be a certain way, we’ve stepped into moral and philosophical territory.

Biological information is Shannon information. If there is a message coded into it we don't know what it is and it has no relevance to the function of the DNA molecules.

Shannon information measures data quantity, but functional biological information is about specific sequences that produce meaningful outcomes, like building proteins. In DNA, the sequence matters because it directs function. That’s not just random data, it’s specified, functional information, which we only ever see coming from intelligence.

 

[River Jordan]

Shannon information measures data quantity, but functional biological information is about specific sequences that produce meaningful outcomes, like building proteins. In DNA, the sequence matters because it directs function. That’s not just random data, it’s specified, functional information, which we only ever see coming from intelligence.

My genome is different than your genome. Which of the two has more information, and how did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem is that the content of the video does not function to falsify the Theory of Evolution. Also, there have been arguments posted about the Theory of Evolution not being proven true by the available evidence. Those are fallacious arguments because science doesn't function to prove anything is true. Instead, it operates to test falsifiable claims for the purpose of ruling-out all those that are disproved by the evidence to leave the one that continues to survive all the tests designed to try and disprove it. The Theory of Evolution is accepted as the most reasonable explanation, not because scientists are asserting it has been proven true but because it hasn't yet been proven false despite the possibility. In comparison, claims about divine creation are unfalsifiable and cannot be proven or disproven by any quantity or quality of evidence.

That is significantly easier to understand, thank you. And I agree with it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First, let’s be clear about what kind of evidence we're talking about. Science deals with observations, patterns, and cause-and-effect relationships in the natural world. While God Himself is not a material object to be tested in a lab, His fingerprints can be seen in what He has made, just as we infer intelligence or design in archaeology or forensics without directly observing the designer.

@Hans Blaster has already gone through these but I might as well since it's a response to me, but you're not starting strong with an unevidenced claim.

1. The origin of the universe
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning (confirmed by modern cosmology), so it requires a cause. That cause would need to be outside of time, space, and matter, immaterial, timeless, and powerful. That sounds remarkably like God.

Unevidenced claim and circular reasoning.

2. Fine-tuning of the universe
The fundamental constants of physics (gravity, the strong nuclear force, etc.) are set at incredibly precise values. Even tiny changes would make life impossible. This is not just rare, it's statistically mind-blowing. Design is the most reasonable explanation.

Unevidenced claim, circular reasoning and special pleading as well.

3. Biological information
DNA is a coded language. All language comes from intelligence. We never observe information arising from random, unguided processes. It’s always the product of a mind. So why make an exception for the origin of life?

Just flat out wrong, as has been pointed out many times on this forum that A) no Creationist making this claim can actually explain what information is regarding DNA, and B) also a case, again, of special pleading.

4. Consciousness and moral reality
Material processes can’t explain self-awareness, intentionality, or objective morality. If we are just matter in motion, why do we experience meaning, purpose, or the ability to choose right from wrong? These features of reality make more sense if we were made in the image of a conscious, moral God.

Special pleading and a flat out philosophical argument.

These are not gaps in knowledge, they’re positive indicators of design, purpose, and mind behind the universe. Of course, if someone defines science to exclude God from the start, then no amount of evidence will be “scientific” enough. But that’s a philosophical bias, not a scientific finding.

And it's also a philosophical bias to try and insert God into naturalistic science when there is no way to study God via naturalistic science.

As for the Nobel Prize, I’m not in it for that. I'm in it because the truth matters.

No, what matter is that your interpretation of the Bible is not thrown into doubt.

 

[1Tonne]

My genome is different than your genome. Which of the two has more information, and how did you reach that conclusion?

The amount of raw data (Shannon information) might be similar, but what matters is the functional information, the sequences that actually do something useful, like building proteins. Both our genomes contain vast, specified information that works, and that’s the point: functional, meaningful sequences like this don’t arise by chance. They point to design, not random origin.

1. The origin of the universe
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning (confirmed by modern cosmology), so it requires a cause. That cause would need to be outside of time, space, and matter, immaterial, timeless, and powerful. That sounds remarkably like God.

Unevidenced claim and circular reasoning.

It’s not circular, it’s a logical argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is backed by both philosophy and modern cosmology (like the Big Bang). The conclusion naturally leads to something beyond space, time, and matter, which fits the description of God. Dismissing it as “unevidenced” doesn’t refute the logic.

2. Fine-tuning of the universe
The fundamental constants of physics (gravity, the strong nuclear force, etc.) are set at incredibly precise values. Even tiny changes would make life impossible. This is not just rare, it's statistically mind-blowing. Design is the most reasonable explanation.

Unevidenced claim, circular reasoning and special pleading as well.

Once again, it’s not circular or special pleading, it’s an observation many physicists (even non-theists) acknowledge: the universe’s physical constants fall within an extremely narrow range that allows life to exist. That’s evidence, not assumption.
Design is one possible explanation, alongside chance or necessity. Dismissing design out of hand isn’t science, it’s a philosophical choice.

3. Biological information
DNA is a coded language. All language comes from intelligence. We never observe information arising from random, unguided processes. It’s always the product of a mind. So why make an exception for the origin of life?

Just flat out wrong, as has been pointed out many times on this forum that A) no Creationist making this claim can actually explain what information is regarding DNA, and B) also a case, again, of special pleading.

A) Information in DNA refers to the specific, functional sequences that direct the building of proteins. It’s not just random data, it’s ordered instructions, like a recipe.
B) It’s not special pleading, we’re simply applying the same reasoning used everywhere else: whenever we see complex, functional information, we infer intelligence. Why make an exception for DNA?

4. Consciousness and moral reality
Material processes can’t explain self-awareness, intentionality, or objective morality. If we are just matter in motion, why do we experience meaning, purpose, or the ability to choose right from wrong? These features of reality make more sense if we were made in the image of a conscious, moral God.

Special pleading and a flat out philosophical argument.

Yes, it’s a philosophical argument because science can describe brain activity, but it can’t explain why we’re conscious, or why we experience moral obligations. If everything is just atoms and chemistry, where do "right" and "wrong" come from? Appealing to a moral, conscious Creator isn’t special pleading, it’s offering a coherent explanation for things materialism can’t account for.

These are not gaps in knowledge, they’re positive indicators of design, purpose, and mind behind the universe. Of course, if someone defines science to exclude God from the start, then no amount of evidence will be “scientific” enough. But that’s a philosophical bias, not a scientific finding.

And it's also a philosophical bias to try and insert God into naturalistic science when there is no way to study God via naturalistic science.

It is a philosophical issue. But that works both ways. If science rules out God by definition, then it’s not following the evidence wherever it leads, it’s restricted by a worldview. I’m not inserting God into science, I’m recognising that some features of reality point beyond nature, and science shouldn't be forced to pretend otherwise.

 

[Larniavc]

My comment wasn't coming from incredulity. I literally could not understand anything of what you said and less what it has to do with the claim made in the video of the OP.

They are saying if you cannot attempt to establish that something is not so (e.g. God existing) it probably isn’t; because how could ever tell if it was so or not?

 

[Larniavc]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Evidence please.

 

[Larniavc]

Even tiny changes would make life impossible.

Evidence please.

 

[Larniavc]

DNA is a coded language.

No it isn’t. Write a poem in DNA.

 

[Larniavc]

Material processes can’t explain self-awareness, intentionality, or objective morality.

Evidence please.

 

[1Tonne]

Evidence please.

Evidence please.

Evidence please.

Happy to offer evidence when there's genuine interest, but just repeating "Evidence please" after every sentence isn’t a real argument. It shows a lack of respect. It's important to engage with the reasoning behind the claim, not just demand “evidence” without listening.
I’d rather spend time with the others in this discussion who are interested in actual conversation.