How can Evolution be falsified?

[PsychoSarah]

People don't go to hell because they don't believe.
They go to Hell because of their sin.
If you ever told a lie you're a liar.
If you ever took something that didn't belong to you you're a thief.
If you ever desired something another owned you're covetous.
If you've ever lusted after a woman other than your wife you're an adulterer.
If you ever hated anyone you're a murderer.
If you ever spoke ill of the deity you're a blasphemer.
If you ever said anything contrary to the Scriptures you're a false teacher.
If you've ever loved something more than God you're an idolater.
These sins follow you and will condemn you because you have no means of escaping them. Without Jesus, you are condemned by your own evil. You are not innocent. You aren't the victim of an unjust God. You're an unforgiven sinner. We're all sinners. The difference is, we have Jesus and we have forgiveness. Your sins haunt you and will never be free unless you are forgiven by through the blood of Christ. Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. That's why we glorify God who saved us from our own self-destruction.

There is only one way for a person to be forgiven for not meeting standards even the deity you worship doesn't (I am a jealous god, instances of anger, etc.), and that is belief.

Policing thought crimes in and of itself is immoral, because people can't control the random thoughts in their heads. Quick, don't think about killing someone... oops, you just thought of killing someone by reading that, you sinner.

Basically, thanks to how it is set up, belief is the only means not to be punished with hell, so any action the deity would take that would prevent belief or make it more difficult is actively sentencing more people to hell.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Disproven to whom?
The pastor of my church; a man who has spent much of his life studying the Scriptures; remains convinced that the Scriptures are correct.
Perhaps we didn't get the memo or read the report. What evidence was presented that disproved it?

Conviction of an inaccuracy doesn't make it accurate.

 

[USincognito]

Disproven to whom?

By the very people who set out to find support for it 200 years ago. That the earth is old and that that Flood never happened has not been in doubt by honest scholars for nearly two centuries.

The pastor of my church; a man who has spent much of his life studying the Scriptures; remains convinced that the Scriptures are correct.

That's nice, but I hardly expect a pastor to be up on science unless he actually is inclined to study it. Most Baptist preachers aren't.

Perhaps we didn't get the memo or read the report. What evidence was presented that disproved it?

I doubt you'll read this, but Adam Sedgewick was one of the foremost defenders of fluvial geology until it became clear to him that the Flood simply could not have happened. That was in the 1830s. It's amazing how many people who opine on this subject aren't even familiar with science from 190 years ago.
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002

 

[Daniel Marsh]

A species with a mixture of reptile-like and placental mammal-like features is some of the best evidence for evolution.

I do not see how, please explain, thanks

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not see how, please explain, thanks

He might be referring to the behemoth in the Bible, which is a dinosaur that has a navel.

Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I do not see how, please explain, thanks

Essentially, this is a living relic ( or transitional fossil) of the change between reptiles and mammals. This is a surviving repto-mammalian organism because it has features of both reptiles and mammals. Technically monotremes are of the Mammalian branch, but only just.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I can understand science claiming something doesn't exist; but is science in the habit of declaring creation "wrong"?

Is science making a moral judgment here?

<thought>....moral judgement?</thought>

Wrong in the sense of it doesn't reflect reality, not wrong in a moral sense. If you want a more clear word, use "incorrect" or "false".

.....Oh! OOOHHH! Moral! LOL! yeah, what PsychoSarah said!
my pop culture expression seems to have been lost in translation - Not even wrong - Wikipedia

 

[USincognito]

I do not see how, please explain, thanks

Eutherian (that is placental) mammals evolved from reptile like therapsids and before that synapsids. If you've ever seen the sailbacked "dinosaur" Dimetrodon, that's a synapsid and an ancient distant cousin of modern mammals.

Thus if we observe mammals that have a mix reptile-like characteristics (a cloaca and laying leathery eggs) and mammalian characteristics (hair and mammary glands) would they not be a transitional form and evidence that mamamls did evolve from earlier more reptile-like beings?

 

[KWCrazy]

Conviction of an inaccuracy doesn't make it accurate.

I know.
You are totally vested in the notion that there is no god.
85% of Americans know you are wrong.

 

[KWCrazy]

Policing thought crimes in and of itself is immoral, because people can't control the random thoughts in their heads.

You aren't punished for random thoughts, you are punished for your desires. Longing for another woman (or guy) is committing lust in the heart. Just a double look does not. Imagining some nasty person's name on a headstone is not the same as dwelling on the notion of killing them.
The evil thoughts you feed are the ones that devour your soul.

Basically, thanks to how it is set up, belief is the only means not to be punished with hell, so any action the deity would take that would prevent belief or make it more difficult is actively sentencing more people to hell.

God did not create Hell for man. God created Hell for Satan and his angels (demons). Many, maybe even most will go there, be consumed by the fire and be destroyed because of their sin and non belief. Some will linger there for eternity because of the weight of their sin. This need not include you, Jesus said in Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." That means that you don't have to exasperate yourself looking for God. He is trying to be part of your life. Whether you accept Him or reject Him is your call.

 

[xianghua]

Sure, as soon as you explain if Dr. Shubin successfully used the ToE to predict where he would find Tiktaalik, or if he was just lucky.

the tiktaalik are not even in the right geological age:

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not see how, please explain, thanks

The theory of evolution proposes that placental mammals had reptile-like ancestors. Finding species with a mixture of mammal and reptile features is evidence for the theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

the tiktaalik are not even in the right geological age:

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Tiktaalik may be the wrong age to be a direct ancestor of living tetrapods, but that doesn't stop it from being a transitional fossil and evidence for the theory of evolution. Transitional and ancestral are two different things.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Tiktaalik is most likely a collateral lineage in which the transitional features were preserved.

 

[xianghua]

The theory of evolution proposes that placental mammals had reptile-like ancestors. Finding species with a mixture of mammal and reptile features is evidence for the theory.

the id model also predict "missing links" between a designed objects: for example: a commercial car is a missing link between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

the id model also predict "missing links" between a designed objects: for example: a commercial car is a missing link between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

However, the ID model does not propose a nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution does predict a nested hierarchy. The fact that we observe a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not ID.

To use our current example, the theory of evolution predicts that we should see species with a mixture of reptile and mammal features. At the same time, the theory predicts that we should NOT see species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. ID makes no such predictions. In an ID model, a reptile to mammal "missing link" is just as likely as a bird to mammal "missing link".

 

[KWCrazy]

Essentially, this is a living relic ( or transitional fossil) of the change between reptiles and mammals. This is a surviving repto-mammalian organism because it has features of both reptiles and mammals. Technically monotremes are of the Mammalian branch, but only just.

Or maybe it was made that way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or maybe it was made that way.

Yes, made that way by the natural process of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

However, the ID model does not propose a nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution does predict a nested hierarchy. The fact that we observe a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not ID.

To use our current example, the theory of evolution predicts that we should see species with a mixture of reptile and mammal features. At the same time, the theory predicts that we should NOT see species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. ID makes no such predictions. In an ID model, a reptile to mammal "missing link" is just as likely as a bird to mammal "missing link".

first: evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy either (convergent evolution for example). as for the second claim (we should NOT see species with a mixture of bird and mammal features) i can say the same thing: if we will find a species that is a mix of a bird and a mammal features it will "solve" by convergent evolution. for example: if we will find a cat with wings we can claim that wings evolved twice (in borth birds and mammals).

 

[Loudmouth]

first: evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy either (convergent evolution for example).

Convergent evolution is a perfect example of a nested hierarchy. Convergent adaptations are not homologous, they are analogous. They fit quite nicely into a nested hierarchy.

So you are wrong from the start. There is a nested hierarchy, and ID can't explain it. Evolution can explain it.

as for the second claim (we should NOT see species with a mixture of bird and mammal features) i can say the same thing: if we will find a species that is a mix of a bird an a mammal features it will "solve" by convergent evolution.

That's not convergent evolution.

for example: if we will find a cat with wings we can claim that wings evolved twice (in borth birds and mammals).

A "wing" describes a function, not an anatomical feature. As you can see, the wings of a bird and bat are not homologous. They are analogous.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Or maybe it was made that way.

Well, we know it wasn't, so No. There's an entire continent of Marsupials in Australia that more or less had the continent to themselves for millions of years before humans got here about 40,000 years ago. Kangaroos, Wallabies, Koalas, Platypus, Wombats, Tasmanian Devil and Tasmanian Tiger (Tiger is currently extinct - but I'm holding out we can revive them through genetics one day), Bilbys (<==Seriously, these are like cute, rat sized kangaroos!!)...