Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[sjastro]

I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.

I stopped around the 17-18 minute mark when Berlinsky started talking rubbish about the Australian wolf.
No such animal exists, the closest is the Australian dingo which was introduced to the mainland around 3500 years ago by humans in the final mass migration to the continent before European settlement.
The dingo is not a wolf and is a different species to both wolves and dogs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I stopped around the 17-18 minute mark when Berlinsky started talking rubbish about the Australian wolf.
No such animal exists, the closest is the Australian dingo which was introduced to the mainland around 3500 years ago by humans in the final mass migration to the continent before European settlement.
The dingo is not a wolf and is a different species to both wolves and dogs.

I was only one or two minutes after that. It didn't sound right. (I was also reading some text at the same time, seeing if he'd say anything interesting -- he didn't.) I didn't think Australia had any native placental mammals.

 

[sjastro]

I was only one or two minutes after that. It didn't sound right. (I was also reading some text at the same time, seeing if he'd say anything interesting -- he didn't.) I didn't think Australia had any native placental mammals.

We do have native placental mammals which are unique to Australia such as the Spinifex hopping mouse.

​

When the dingo was introduced into Australia it was a far more effective predator which led to extinction of marsupial predators on the mainland such as the Thylacine and Tasmanian devil.
Tiger quolls survived on the continent.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We do have native placental mammals which are unique to Australia such as the Spinifex hopping mouse.

​

Is this mouse they call Maud'dib? (asking for my friend, Usal)

 

[Shemjaza]

If a God or an alien race intelligently designed life, you could just as likely expect to see the same similarities. It's not proof of anything Darwinian.

Fundamentally untrue.

The point about the genetic evidence for evolution is that it indicates a branching tree structure of species... which would not be predicted by any kind of designer.

For example if a car designer discovers a new recipe for creating tires then it would be implemented accross the whole line, not developed separately and independently for trucks, vans and cars as we see in living species.

It's not the fact of similarity it's the pattern of similarity.

Instead of going into the usual talking points that get discussed in this forum, I'll just say this - I read On the Origin of Species and the most striking thing about it is that Darwin says nothing about the origin of species, except for the chapter where he doubts that his idea is possible. The title of the book is basically clickbait, although one of the most influential instances of clickbait in the modern world.

It appears you have misunderstood the title of the book... that's a poor start.

It's about the origin of species, not of life.

Darwin was describing the triggers that caused life to diversify not the origin of life itself.

Be careful when you examine quotes taken from the Origin of Species, several Creationist organisations have promoted dishonest and misleading quotes.

If you want more detail why I don't believe it you can listen to this:

I'll take some time to have a look over the video when I have time... but I am very skeptical due to its subject having a history of involvement in extremely dishonest publications in the past.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was only one or two minutes after that. It didn't sound right. (I was also reading some text at the same time, seeing if he'd say anything interesting -- he didn't.) I didn't think Australia had any native placental mammals.

We have a lot of bats.

 

[Astrid]

I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.

Of course. What yec doesn't think he knows
more than every scientist on earth?

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course. What yec doesn't think he knows
more than every scientist on earth?

While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about. )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about. )

You've made some good points. We do need to keep in mind that each person has value in and of themselves. They also, at least potentially, have something to bring to the table of humanity. Maybe they're YEC and don't have much to contribute to science, but they're great plumbers, electricians, beauticians, grocers, farmers, or they have skills in one of an assortment of other inherently valuable occupations. On some level, we all need each other (or most of us do, anyway).

And you're right to point out that we should all be circumspect and avoid Epistemological Trespassing, an anti-intellectual incursion which not even Human Freedom validates. On the other hand, it's not always an easy thing to help people recognize where their own Dunning-Kruger Boxes end and where the nose of other people's authentic Knowledge begins.

 

[Astrid]

While the Dunning-Kruger effect is displayed extensively when YECs speak of evolution, we must remember that each of those individuals likely has one or more skills, or area of expertise, wherein they could walk all over us, as individuals. I try to keep that in the forefront of my mind and recognise those fields in which I am not just ignorant, but profoundly ignorant. When I come into contact with such fields I either step away, because they hold no interest, nor listen carefully till I have learned enough to start asking questions. What I don't do is start telling people they don't know what they are talking about or calling them liars. (I reserve that sort of behaviour for fields where I do know what I'm talking about. )

As noted, brains are to be used.

We, many of us at least, have been in
settings inwhich some individual would
hold forth on some topic known well to
all present except the fool talking.

I don't want to be that person!

It's not just " a man" who's got
to know his limitations!

 

[AV1611VET]

What yec doesn't think he knows more than every scientist on earth?

Any atheist who thinks science can soon know the mind of God?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

SOURCE

 

[Hans Blaster]

We have a lot of bats.

I wondered about that and thought about being more specific to "land mammals" (or lammals, as we should call them ), but if I wasn't quite correct it gave the sane Australians a chance to correct my impression.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Any atheist who thinks science can soon know the mind of God?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

SOURCE

You seem to have an amazing ability to recognise allegory and figures of speech, and other times it just sails right over your head.

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton, I feel I have to ask:

If anyone did show you evidence for evolution being true, would you accept it as such?

If the evidence was sufficient, yes I would.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If the evidence was sufficient, yes I would.

Fair enough.

Now, just continuing with this line of though: since the theory of evolution as it currently stands is taught across the world, especially in the Western world, then the amount of evidence for it must be somewhat sufficient for many people to say that they accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[Chesterton]

I got about half way through, but Berlinsky is has no better critques than Kent Hovind, he just sounds more educated (because he is). The arrogance of the man oozes through in every minute. At his core, he seem to just believe he is smarter and therefore more informed than actual biologists.

An ad hom attack is not a response to argument. But it's funny you mention it - I've actually heard him admit he's arrogant. I don't recall ever hearing that from any of the Four Horsemen. Hitchens might have been the most arrogant man on the planet. Anyway, among many other endeavors he did serve as a research assistant in the Department of Biology at Columbia University.

 

[Chesterton]

Fair enough.

Now, just continuing with this line of though: since the theory of evolution as it currently stands is taught across the world, especially in the Western world, then the amount of evidence for it must be somewhat sufficient for many people to say that they accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact. Do you agree with this statement?

No I do not agree with that statement.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I do not agree with that statement.

Why do you not agree with it?

 

[Chesterton]

Why do you not agree with it?

I'm honestly confused. Why on Earth would you think that just because something is widely taught that makes it a fact?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm honestly confused. Why on Earth would you think that just because something is widely taught that makes it a fact?

Please don't answer my question with another question.

Why do you not agree with the statement I made in post #155?