How can Evolution be falsified?

[AV1611VET]

Thank you once again for pointing to the evidence for evolution. The very fact that you can connect the dots is evidence for evolution.

Except you have to draw lines between vast areas of missing dots.

Any child can do that.

They can even train elephants to draw.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except you have to draw lines between vast areas of missing dots.

You just said that you connect the dots. The dots are the evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thanks for playing.

The answer is in the name.

The locals had been talking about it for decades if not centuries.

You talk about something long enough, and eventually scientists will show up to investigate and test their theories.

Like they did in WW2.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

I am not vested in the notion, did you forget that I hope to convert? I am immensely biased in favor of any possible evidence for deities or an afterlife, yet people still have failed to convert me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Answer me this: is it or is it not possible for a person to get into heaven without a belief in god without, say, dying as a baby or some other such situation? If the answer is no, my statement still stands in terms of your own personal beliefs.

God did not create Hell for man. God created Hell for Satan and his angels (demons).

Irrelevant, given that the deity sentences people there anyway. If the deity you worshipped truly didn't want anyone to go to hell, it wouldn't force anyone to go against their will, nor have it be something as shallow as belief be the determinant. Also, unless you think Satan and his angels have a means set up to redeem themselves, there's really no reason to send them to hell either; just destroy them.

Many, maybe even most will go there, be consumed by the fire and be destroyed because of their sin and non belief.

The latter is never a fully conscious choice, if it were, I wouldn't be an atheist, and depending on what you consider to be sin, that also might not be a fully conscious choice. If people genuinely didn't want to have a relationship with this deity, why not have a middle place for them to go rather than torture them?

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.

You act as if I haven't prayed on at least a weekly basis for belief or a sign since I was 13. Most people would have probably stopped trying by now, but I am very desperate.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you've ever lusted after a woman other than your wife you're an adulterer.

Adultery is to lust after another man's wife. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

 

[joshua 1 9]

yet people still have failed to convert me.

My grandmother did not convert until she was 100 years old. Her last year could have been her best because she finally had the peace of God in her life.

 

[KWCrazy]

Nobody is telling Him He can't. But if He did, it would easily be identifiable as not a product of evolution.

What do you call a platypus?
It has no family that will admit to it.

 

[USincognito]

What do you call a platypus?
It has no family that will admit to it.

Actually it has an order.
Monotreme - Wikipedia

 

[KWCrazy]

Answer me this: is it or is it not possible for a person to get into heaven without a belief in god without, say, dying as a baby or some other such situation? If the answer is no, my statement still stands in terms of your own personal beliefs.

Romans 2: 12 For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. 13 For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous. 14 For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused.
That passage deals with those who have never been given the law but who act in a good an moral way. It doesn't say anything about rejecting the existence of God. I would say that in your case, since you've been given the information and reject it, that you won't be extended the latitude of those who never heard the law.

If the deity you worshipped truly didn't want anyone to go to hell, it wouldn't force anyone to go against their will,

You get to Hell because of your will, not God's.

Also, unless you think Satan and his angels have a means set up to redeem themselves, there's really no reason to send them to hell either; just destroy them.

Extreme sins receive extreme punishment.

You act as if I haven't prayed on at least a weekly basis for belief or a sign since I was 13. Most people would have probably stopped trying by now, but I am very desperate.

I have no idea what you do. However, if you want to learn about God, find a good church; preferably one small enough where you can go talk to the minister. I could talk to you about God but I'm pixels on a message board. You need to sit down one on one with someone who can walk you through he Bible and show you step by step how the Bible validates itself.

 

[Jimmy D]

I enjoyed page 6, very informative with some excellent examples of why nested heirachies demonstrate evolution (which I notice no one attempted to refute).

This page... not so much.

Save the preaching for church.

 

[AV1611VET]

Save the preaching for church.

See you there then?

 

[Jimmy D]

See you there then?

I'm surprised that you go to church.

 

[xianghua]

Please explain how Dr. Shubin was able to find T. roseae, if not using ToE.

look above: he isnt.

 

[xianghua]

What cats have wings with similar anatomy to birds? Show us.


its a theoretical question.


If there were cats with anatomically identical wings to that of birds then it would falsify evolution. It could not be convergent evolution.

why?

Yeah, there is a limit.

where is the limit? can you put your finger on?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

lol!

Cars and trucks don't fall into nested hierarchies.

Not even single models of a single manufacturer falls into nested hierarchies.

Nested hierarchies are a TERRIBLE way to design productlines if done on purpose.

 

[KWCrazy]

I
Save the preaching for church.

News flash: This is a Christian website.
It's not an atheist website.
Although there is a creation/evolution discussion area, it is not an evolution website.
Christians accept the Bible as the word of God, so that when we read "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" we know that is exactly what happened. When we read of the six day creation and how God rested on the seventh day as a pattern for how man should live we accept that as well. We engage our disbelieving, lost and stubbornly opinionated friends to remind them that there is one true God; to reiterate to them that evolution is a lie from the father of lies; and to support our wavering brothers that yes, our God is Lord of the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

first: evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy either

It does.

(convergent evolution for example)

Convergent evolution also falls into nested hierarchies.
Take sight, for example. That's a traight that evolved a couple dozen times independently.

The eyes of humans do NOT fall into a nested hierarchy with the eyes of insects.
On the branch of humans though, all creatures have the same type of eyes. We all share a blind spot, 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

Nope, for the reason explained above.
Both a bat and a bird has wings, but they do NOT fall into a nested hierarchy. These are independent developments. Only developments coming from the same ancestry will fall into a nested hierarchy. That's kind of the whole point of a nested hierarchy.......................

There is no reason why we would expect a designer to give vertebrates a blind spot in their eyes, while an octopus doesn't have that problem.

In evolutionary context, this however makes perfect sense.

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

No need to go to imaginary cats with wings.

We HAVE a mammal with wings. It's called a bat.
We also have mammals that live in the sea and look like fish to the uneducated eye, like whales and dolphins. They don't have gills though... they have lungs.
And they don't swim by horizontal body movement like actual fish or like the motion a crockodile's body makes while walking... Nope, it swings by moving its body in vertical fashion. Up and down. Just like land-walking mammals do.

It's a spine thingy.

Nested hierarchies. It works.

 

[KWCrazy]

Cars and trucks don't fall into nested hierarchies.

Nested hierarchies are among the machinations of man.
We group animals and plants into categories and then subcategories according to their characteristics and then say, "Look! This proves evolution." Indeed not. It proves that we studied enough about each species that we can chuck it into a slot based on our notion of how things came about. Wait... this bat is a strange bird. It shares characteristics of a flying mammal. Voila! A transition between birds and mammals!

No, sorry. It's a bat.

We aren't seeing common descent at all. We see a common Creator creating similar creatures from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life to serve many unique purposes. The classification is man made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nested hierarchies are among the machinations of man.

No they aren't.

We group animals and plants into categories and then subcategories according to their characteristics

Indeed. And when doing so, their characteristics fall into a nested hierarchy / branching tree. It didn't have to be that way. It just is.

and then say, "Look! This proves evolution."

Actually, it's more like "this is consistent with what evolution theory predicts it should be"

It proves that we studied enough about each species that we can chuck it into a slot based on our notion of how things came about

No, you are mistaken. While you had it correct the first time around.
We don't "chuck it" into classifications based on "our notion of origins". Instead, we "chuck it" into classifications based on the characteristics of the species.

And the resulting classifications happen to be consistent with our notion of origins of diversity.
Again, it didn't have to be consistent with the predictions of evolution theory. But it is.

Wait... this bat is a strange bird. It shares characteristics of a flying mammal. Voila! A transition between birds and mammals!

LOL!!!! What??? No, a bat is a mammal. It's not any more related to birds then any other mammal. And its wings are entirely different from bird wings.

You must be confusing it with how the bible seems to classify bats...

We aren't seeing common descent at all. We see a common Creator creating similar creatures from the same elements at the same time with the same blueprint for life to serve many unique purposes. The classification is man made.

We see no such thing. What we see is a nested hierarchy consistent with an evolutionary history.