Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

Everyone's already agreed the theory of evolution isn't infallible, so I guess you can go?

Yup, guess so.

 

[Extraneous]

Your main unsupported point. You don't explain the logic underlying your conclusion.

O my near sighted brother, why do you not see what is right in front of your eyes? Im sure you think the same about me however. It seems like a futile debate altogether. Have a good day. I actually have things to do today, for a change.

 

[Armoured]

O my near sighted brother, why do you not see what is right in front of your eyes? Im sure you think the same about me however. It seems like a futile debate altogether. Have a good day. I actually have things to do today, for a change.

You keep saying the same vague thing over and over, and then accuse us of short sightedness when we ask you to explain it? Whatever. We have the fossils, we win.

 

[Shemjaza]

You keep saying the same vague thing over and over, and then accuse us of short sightedness when we ask you to explain it? Whatever. We have the fossils, we win.

And the DNA.

 

[bhsmte]

So you admit that ToE is far from being the truth of mans origin?

Put words in others mouths much?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So you admit that ToE is far from being the truth of mans origin?

So's Law

 

[TLK Valentine]

Im not attacking, im only shedding light on a fact. Its an observation. We are all pone to denial, and its human fallibility. I never once asserted that i was perfect. Its not an attack, its an observation.

Why dont i post it? Why should i? You will not see it anyway, it will only turn into a circus instead,

We accept your surrender.

 

[JackRT]

I would be perfect if only I could get over my excessive humility.

 

[Nithavela]

Another thread won, and no one the wiser.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think i do understand. I also think that perhaps you are in denial about ToE fallibility and ToE assumptions that have been made by Toe Scientists.. They called it junk because they didn't understand it purpose, later however they began to see that it did indeed have a purpose. This is the case with the human appendix as well. Both these examples demonstrate how ToE often builds theory on assumption rather than proper scientific observation.

You misunderstand what Project ENCODE found. They found that there was some very minor functionality of some of the genome that was thought to be worthless. But we can show that much of the genome is worthless. Broken gene really do not do anyone any good. Luckily they do not do you any harm either. You have countless broken genes in your genome. ERV's are also inactive, and that is very very lucky for you. If all of the ERV's in your system worked you would die extremely quickly. That many viruses in each and every cell of your body would quickly take them over and shut them down.

I can understand science getting things wrong, because scientists are but mere men who are peering into an ocean of mystery. However my point is that they are fallible and are attempting to look millions of years onto the past, and have demonstrated that they are far from actually doing so. If they would just admit that ToE is fallible and has many problems, then i would not be so critical of their theory, however they seem to be arrogantly asserting that they can see millions of years into the past and teach the rest of us about mans origin.

But you don't understand and that is the problem. The fact that you can't understand the science is not a valid excuse for believing what is known not to be true. Of course the ToE is fallible, but your book written by imperfect and uneducated (by today's standards) men is even more fallible.

I suppose I could believe in the Easter Bunny if I really forced myself too, but that would not be a reasonable belief. If you can't understand the science then you can't refute it. And most creationists will not let themselves understand.

Look at you, you are afraid to answer a simple question honestly. You know that you are wrong so you run away from a reasonable question:

Are you more or less complex than an amoeba?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand scientific assumption which is apposed to actually observation.

No you don't. Scientists are not allowed to assume. Where do you think that they made an assumption? I have found that when creationists do not understand how a particular step is done in science they call it an "assumption".

You should not use the word "assume" when you are the one that does not understand.

 

[Extraneous]

Yes, you guys won alright. Enjoy your prize.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, you guys won alright. Enjoy your prize.

Well evidenced reality typically wins when logic and reason are involved, yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you guys won alright. Enjoy your prize.

Instead of attacking what you don't understand you should try to learn. There are countless, probably the majority of Christians, that accept the theory of evolution. You do not need to believe the obviously false parts of your Bible to be a Christian. In fact saying that you must only weakens your religion, it does not make it stronger.

 

[bhsmte]

Instead of attacking what you don't understand you should try to learn. There are countless, probably the majority of Christians, that accept the theory of evolution. You do not need to believe the obviously false parts of your Bible to be a Christian. In fact saying that you must only weakens your religion, it does not make it stronger.

Makes sense, but, well evidenced reality is too painful for some to acknowledge. When this is the case, they manufacture their own reality.

 

[juvenissun]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

A much better way is to study his textbooks together with him and tell him what is a reasonable alternative.
In fact, what is he going to learn are mostly basic sciences. In most case, it does not touch the idea of evolution directly. Evolution is an idea on the very background of sciences which he is going to learn. It won't take that much trouble to identify it. I would say that the content of science courses would be OK in 95% of the time.

Teach your kids to learn the scientific FACTS and SKILLS, but carefully evaluate the "theory" behind those facts.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolution is an idea on the very background of sciences which he is going to learn.

Actually, it's the foundation of biology. Not just some background idea. Nothing makes sense in biology without it.

Teach your kids to learn the scientific FACTS and SKILLS, but carefully evaluate the "theory" behind those facts.

Do you know what theory means in the scientific context?

 

[bhsmte]

There are some pretty serious issues with your theory.

And one good thing about science is the scientists. The way the cycle goes is that if you discover something new that repudiates previous discoveries, you get to be famous and they give you a prize, keeping in mind that Ptolemy is still fighting Copernicus in some people's minds.

And most scientists do want the truth to prevail, although it's counter-intuitive that Chinese paleontologists can look at the Cambrian period and say "Darwin might have been wrong" while western paleontologists look at the same evidence and do backflips to try to shoehorn the data into their extant paradigm.

In this case, however, the lack of simplicity at the fundamental level of life is a serious, serious obstacle to your theory.

The TOE, has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny and has only gotten stronger with the discovery of DNA. Even a devout Christian like Francis Collin's (physician and geneticist), speaks to how powerful the evidence to support evolution has become. If you can scientifically show the theory to be wrong, you will be one of the most famous people in the world, so knock yourself out.

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

 

[DogmaHunter]

Doesn't actually prove anything,

It proves that there are things in the DNA that make no difference whatsoever and thus unecessary.

and it surely doesn't diminish my skepticism concerning mans ability to discern his own origin via scientific methods.

You are not being skeptical. Having objections to a scientific theory based on religious beliefs is not what being skeptical means.

If anything it only supports my conclusion that man is far from being able to discern such a difficult mystery.

Your personal incredulity is not an argument against any scientific field.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No thats not correct at all. You cant refute my observations concerning the fallible nature of ToE

What "observations"?
Every "objection" you have posted here, was based in ignorance of the theory and the evidence in support for it on every occasion.

, therefore you want to refute my character.

Being uninformed or misinformed on a topic is not a character flaw.
And pointing it out is not a personal attack.

I believe that is a logical fallacy of some kind, on your part.

No, it isn't.