How can Evolution be falsified?

[USincognito]

Well, even Darwin said his whole theory would fall apart if they found out cells were more complex than they thought they were back in his day. Come to find out, they're infinitely more complex.

1. He never said that.
2. Infinitely?

 

[USincognito]

How can Evolution be falsified?

I think the fact that in nature there are no observations of species developing into higher species would falsify it.

What do mean by "higher species"?

 

[USincognito]

Too bad that's an assumption.

Ah "assumption". The Creationist magic word meant to poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke, but when the smoke clears the evidence remains, and remains unaddressed.

 

[USincognito]

Why is free will important? Would you even know if you didn't have any free will?
Also an all-knowing creator directly contradicts free will, but I don't want to open the can of worms.

Let's try and stay on topic and ignore red herrings from these folks.

 

[USincognito]

Back to the OP, there are literally millions of potential observations that could falsify evolution.
- A Triassic T-rex or Devonian whale.
- Birds with wings, arms and legs.
- Lizards with mammary glands.
- Plants with melanocytes.
- Lobsters with vertebrae.
- Primates being closer genetically to sloths than rodents.

 

[USincognito]

Present this mystical fossil record.

I don't accept, or deny Evolution. Certain aspects are undeniable, while others are largely speculation.

Why do so many Atheist carry themeselves as these grand scholars?
The passive aggressiveness in your comment is blatant, but what would you expect from a man who literately believes in a universe out of nowhere, kind of like... magic... ain't it.

So many Atheist just say, and never seem to present.
But always call on those who do the same, like hypocrites.

So you're a hypocritical narcissist, just from what I can see in your replies.
Typical Atheist prick.

Great. We get it. You've had bad experiences with atheists on the Internet and you want to take it out on them by proxy, here in what you consider a safe space.

The problem is not only are violating the rules against flaming, but you're off topic for this thread and this subforum.

 

[Loudmouth]

Seems to me Atheist have never sufficiently answered the question either.

Look at the post above yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

Present this mystical fossil record.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

Or will you reject any fossil no matter what it looks like?

 

[AV1611VET]

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

I'm sure even you guys don't make that distinction based on a single fossil.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sure even you guys don't make that distinction based on a single fossil.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

 

[AV1611VET]

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

It would have to belong to Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would have to belong to Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

Cognitive dissonance is causing you to dissemble. Let's try the question again.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cognitive dissonance is causing you to dissemble. Let's try the question again.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

That question is easy to answer from my perspective; but so full of irony from yours, I'm sure you won't be able to accept it.

The fossil would have to have the DNA of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

It would be ironic, in that it would take the fossil of a man, not a chimp, before I would consider evolution valid.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fossil would have to have the DNA of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

That's not a morphological feature. Want to try again?

What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

It would be ironic, in that it would take the fossil of a man, not a chimp, before I would consider evolution valid.

A transitional fossil would be an anatomically modern human? Do you even understand what a transitional fossil is?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not a morphological feature. Want to try again?

Now you're moving the goalpost.

You went from "what features" to "what morphological features."

And your question isn't even a valid one, since it assumes a single fossil can have features that point back to common ancestry.

In any event, what you're overlooking is the fact that finding Jesus' body would pwn Christianity and we would become miserable people like you guys.

1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

And I would be forced to accept evolution, since I would have to drop the belief that what you guys call "transitional fossils" were actually human beings that were judged with God's "wonderful plagues" that altered their bone structures.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

THIS IS A MOD HAT
THIS IS A MOD HAT
THIS IS A MOD HAT
THIS IS A MOD HAT
THIS IS A MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a major clean-up.

Its easy to get passionate about such a hot topic, but things are getting a bit too heated. If you feel yourself getting frustrated, please walk away from the computer and come back when you feel you can post more calmly.

Please try to keep your posts focused on the topic of discussion, and avoid making personal negative remarks.

Flaming - Flaming and Goading

● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.

Additionally, Christian Forums is a "PG" rated website. We have many younger users, elderly users, clergy, and pious Christians who desire a clean and bright forum experience devoid of profanity, vulgarity or explicit content.

Several posts in this thread have been removed for vulgarity or profanity. All members are asked to review this rule carefully:

Vulgarity and Profanity ​

Please do not post, or link to, violent, disturbing, graphic, or sexually explicit images or text. Profanity or foul language is not allowed. This includes using punctuation, symbols, or acronyms to bypass the profanity filter. A few non-censored words are found here.

Members are urged to review these and other rules. Continued violations may result in warnings being issued or the permanent closure of this thread.​

END OF MOD HAT
END OF MOD HAT
END OF MOD HAT
END OF MOD HAT
END OF MOD HAT​

​

 

[USincognito]

Rabbit fossil in the Cambrian.

Widespread and easily detectable violations of the twin nested hierarchy. For example, multiple species with three middle ear bones and feathers, or hair and forward facing retinas. At the DNA level, finding mammals with exact copies of jellyfish genes not found in reptiles would falsify evolution.

Back to the OP, there are literally millions of potential observations that could falsify evolution.
- A Triassic T-rex or Devonian whale.
- Birds with wings, arms and legs.
- Lizards with mammary glands.
- Plants with melanocytes.
- Lobsters with vertebrae.
- Primates being closer genetically to sloths than rodents.

Anyone? I was just reading threads in the Creationism subforum last night and saw the claim that evolution is not fasifiable last night. Any Creationist reading here want to address these lists of potential falsifications?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you're moving the goalpost.

You went from "what features" to "what morphological features."

That's what I mean by "what features".
What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as evidence for humans evolving from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

And your question isn't even a valid one, since it assumes a single fossil can have features that point back to common ancestry.

Then what in the world is a transitional fossil? When creationists ask to see a transitional fossil, what are they asking for?

 

[ronandcarol]

How can Evolution be falsified?
Can you falsify something that is false to start with?

ronandcarol

 

[USincognito]

How can Evolution be falsified?
Can you falsify something that is false to start with?

ronandcarol

Do you have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation or are you just here toss stink bombs?