Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

[Arikay]

Yes, I too would like to know about this mechanism. Maybe you can start a new thread explaining exactly what limits speciation.

The theory that man evolved from an amoeba is, of course, bunk. I will not dispute that.

However, there is no reason to disbelieve in speciation. All species can speciate within certain parameters as set out within their genetic code.

 

[Arikay]

Again, show us your evidence to back up the claims and accusations.

Hmm, I guess science could not prove you were born, since I doubt it is repeatable in the lab, Oh well, sorry, science says you dont exist.

A Parable:
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him).

Visit any forum and it doesnt take long to see atheists patting themselves on their backs for their superior rationality but resorting to argument ad hominem and changing the subject rather than confront the evidence.

You should not confuse evolution with science.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

Only in your wildest fantasies.


Here's a tip: Cite a specific quote and then demonstrate why it is not accurate.

 

[-Jae-]

Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!)

This proves that you know **** about evolution and how it works.Im too tired to explain right now, but im sure the others here will rip it to shreds

 

[bevets]

You should not confuse evolution with science.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

Hmm, I guess science could not prove you were born, since I doubt it is repeatable in the lab, Oh well, sorry, science says you dont exist.

In stark contrast to evolution, there are human witnesses that can attest to my birth.

 

[bevets]

This proves that you know **** about evolution and how it works.Im too tired to explain right now

Im sure you are. Pleasant dreams.

 

[Ampmonster]

how did humans evolve emotion? or sin for that matter?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

In stark contrast to evolution, there are human witnesses that can attest to my birth.

How do you know they're not part of the Grand Atheist Conspiracy (TM) and that you weren't grown in a test tube?

(Of course, that's just a cover for the fact that the world is nothing more than an elaborate computer simulation run by machines. Which in turn, is a cover for the fact that THAT world is controlled by Iggy, the magic Elf.)

 

[-Jae-]

Im sure you are. Pleasant dreams.

One last question: Could you give me your definition of evolution?

 

[Arikay]

You never said anything about witnesses, you said "repeat in lab"
So your witnesses dont work. However, if they do work, then that means evidence can be brought in that shows an event happend in the past, in which case, evolution has plenty of that.

You should not confuse evolution with science.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.




In stark contrast to evolution, there are human witnesses that can attest to my birth.

 

[SirKenin]

Perhaps you can explain something to me. It's something I've never really got an answer to from a creationist.

If you accept that two groups of organisms can become reproductively isolated, then the mutations in one gene pool will not be transferred to the other. So, the genetic difference between the two groups will increase.

What mechanism do you propose to prevent this difference from becoming arbitrarily large?

Ever seen a human with purple eyes? Green hair? Six fingers? There's a good reason for that.

 

[Philosoft]

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history?

One way might be to use the actual scientific method instead of your straw-version:

1) Observe and record.
2) Form a hypothesis.
3) Make predictions that follow from (2).
4) Test the predictions from (3).

Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

Science does not lay claim to exclusive explanations. You must understand this, lest your entire argumentative foundation collapse due to a basic inaccuracy.

In stark contrast to evolution, there are human witnesses that can attest to my birth.

Evolutionary mechanisms are observed in labs daily.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine​

​

Argument from Consequences -> invalid. A belief or premise cannot be shown to be true or false based on the consequences of holding said belief or premise.​

If evolution is true, it is true regardless of the consequences.​

If evolution is false, it is false regardless of the consequences.​

The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. ~ Arthur Keith

​

False. It is indeed permitted to the modern seeker to believer in the actions of a supernatural agent. Science merely cannot measure whether such a belief is true or false. (This is in contrast to a belief in the consequences of a supernatural agent's actions. That is, if the belief has measurable consequences (e.g., a global Noah's flood), then it can be shown to be false. Positing that Angels push the planets around Sol such that planetary motion adhere to what we perceive as the laws of gravity cannot be shown false.)​

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin

This is arguing from the particular to the general (if I weren't so lazy I'd look up the name of the logical fallacy.) Because a small group of polemicists make statements that God is an unacceptable idea, does not mean in any way that evolutionists in general are obliged to buy such bilge. To refute, we merely point to the numbers of evolutionists (theistic and atheistic, both) on this board alone that have constantly refuted the idea that evolution requires such a silly belief.​

Tinker​

 

[Philosoft]

Ever seen a human with purple eyes? Green hair? Six fingers? There's a good reason for that.

Yes, there is. Those mutations (if such things are even conceivable) have either never occurred or never propagated.

 

[wblastyn]

Bevets, what do scientists claim evolution is?

 

[revolutio]

Well this is humurous.

I always did despise metaphors, they are almost always misused.

 

[bevets]

Evolutionary mechanisms are observed in labs daily.

A Parable:
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You should not confuse evolution with science.

And you should not confuse evolution with atheism.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Science can be applied to historical events. Supernova only occur once, but does that mean they can't be studied scientifically?

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history?

We don't need to repeat pre-history to study it. What we do is make observations about the present, and apply those observations to historical evidence.

In the case of evolution, we observe it occuring today and can observe the mechanisms for evolutionary change. In order to apply it to a historical context, all we have to do is assume the laws of physics are the same today as they were in the past.

Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.[/i]

You're arguing a strawman. First of all, given the dynamics of real-world conditions, it is impossible to replicate any evolutionary pathways exactly the same as have already occured. Nature just doesn't work like that.

Second, we have physical evidence that a transition from reptiles to birds took place (both from the fossil record and comparitive antomy of existing species).

 

[wblastyn]

Ever seen a human with purple eyes? Green hair? Six fingers? There's a good reason for that.

How about humans with tails?

 

[tcampen]

You should not confuse evolution with science.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

Not long ago, even micro-evolution (genetic change within species) was rejected by those adhering to a theological view of biological diversity. The evidence forced them to accept micro-evolution. Then those same types of people rejected Macro-evolution (evolution from one species into another), but now Macro-evolution has been observed, predicted and repeated both in nature and in the lab, and very well documented. So many of the creationists are realizing they have to accept that evolution can create a new species due to the overwhelming strength of the evidence. Now, the argument has shifted to rejecting how a reptile evolved into a bird, because we've "never seen it happen."

Scientific principles can be tested without having to replicate the whole theory in its entirety as you suggest. The fossil record, molecular biology, genetics (and many other disciplines) all working together provide compelling evidence of evolution's history. While it is more indirect than personally seeing an ancient reptile evolve into a duck, it is no less good science, with a proven track record of reliability far exceeding any other methodology used to understand our natural world.

Yes, science is elaborate, but not a hoax.

 

[bevets]

You should not confuse evolution with science.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

You never said anything about witnesses, you said "repeat in lab"
So your witnesses dont work. However, if they do work, then that means evidence can be brought in that shows an event happend in the past, in which case, evolution has plenty of that.

A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. ~ Charles Darwin