The Demise of Evolution

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You have just rule yourself out if the scientific method. Nothing is proved- scientific conclusions are always tentative. That’s why a creationist is by definition not a scientist.

Direct observation is the starting point. Something has to be seen to happen. Because no one has observed it, and there is no actual proof that it actually did happen, there is nothing in the scientific method that can be used to form a hypothesis. What has actually happened is that the theory was formulated first, and then aspects of the scientific method have had to be "shoe-horned" to try and fit the preconceived theory.

 

[Need answers]

Gravity is mindless.

Not the creation of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not the creation of it.

Yeah, pretty much. The Earth does not think all that much when it pulls you down.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What do you think of the significance of this image.

Google Image Result for https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg

It is an artist's impression of different kinds of skulls - some ape and some human. Once can only determine which are which by careful close examination and comparison with modern ape and human skulls. Just making a judgement on an artist's impression proves nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Direct observation is the starting point. Something has to be seen to happen. Because no one has observed it, and there is no actual proof that it actually did happen, there is nothing in the scientific method that can be used to form a hypothesis. What has actually happened is that the theory was formulated first, and then aspects of the scientific method have had to be "shoe-horned" to try and fit the preconceived theory.

This is simply wrong. This is Ken Ham's false version of the scientific method. When you use failed sources you lose the argument. There is nothing in the scientific method about direct observation.

And you are still misusing the word "proof".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didnt say that. However i'll comment. Random things can happen by a mindless accident or by designed creation. What does something being random or not prove?

By dodging a reasonable question you did.

And your statement has a huge error in it so your question cannot be answered as asked. There is no evidence of a "designed creation". There is a reason I always try to get creationists to understand that concept of evidence. It is the only way that they can learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is an artist's impression of different kinds of skulls - some ape and some human. Once can only determine which are which by careful close examination and comparison with modern ape and human skulls. Just making a judgement on an artist's impression proves nothing.

Nope, those are not an artist's impression. Nice dodge. Try again.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not the creation of it.

If gravity is subjected to the scientific method we can see that it can be observed, tested, replicated, and therefore a reliable hypothesis can be gained from it. The hypothesis can be further tested, and a conclusion can be reached about how it works.

 

[Larniavc]

Science proves things that are provable.

No it doesn’t. You have been told this on this thread at least five times.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Nope, those are not an artist's impression. Nice dodge. Try again.

But any proof of intermediate ape-men has to be established by comparing those skulls with those of modern types of apes, and modern human skulls. It would not surprise me that the ape skulls would be identified as different types of apes, as totally different from the skulls of different types of humans. There will be no evidence at all of any skulls that are a combination of the two.

 

[Larniavc]

Actually, if Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historic account, then the rest of the Bible is meaningless, and there is no Christian gospel.

Wow. In one fell swoop you have disproved the entire Christian faith.

Did you mean to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If gravity is subjected to the scientific method we can see that it can be observed, tested, replicated, and therefore a reliable hypothesis can be gained from it. The hypothesis can be further tested, and a conclusion can be reached about how it works.

And we can do the same with evolution. Along with evidence we need to work on your understanding of "observation". We can observe evolution in the fossil record for one place. There are others as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But any proof of intermediate ape-men has to be established by comparing those skulls with those of modern types of apes, and modern human skulls. It would not surprise me that the ape skulls would be identified as different types of apes, as totally different from the skulls of different types of humans. There will be no evidence at all of any skulls that are a combination of the two.

No, that is not the way that it is done. You clearly do not understand anything of the sciences.

You should be trying to learn instead of repeatedly telling us how little you know.

 

[Need answers]

Yeah, pretty much. The Earth does not think all that much when it pulls you down.

But God who created gravity does.

 

[Larniavc]

There are primitive cultures even today, but they are no less "evolved" than scientists are.

Correct. Your point?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No it doesn’t. You have been told this on this thread at least five times.

I have spent two whole days (quite a fun activity during lock down) seeking just one item of proof that shows beyond doubt that one creature has or can evolve into a totally different creature through the evolutionary process. But after all that, no one is able to do that.

Actually, several months ago I had the same debate with evolutionists and asked the same question about proof, and no one then was able to show me just one small item of proof. So I believe that no one can provide any substantive proof at all, so I remain unconverted to evolution in any form it may take. So if you can't provide substantive actual proof then you might as well give up.

 

[Need answers]

By dodging a reasonable question you did.

And your statement has a huge error in it so your question cannot be answered as asked. There is no evidence of a "designed creation". There is a reason I always try to get creationists to understand that concept of evidence. It is the only way that they can learn.

I differ in opinion. I think that creation itself must have been designed and not mindless. You cant create something from nothing. To create logic from illogic is not logical.

 

[Larniavc]

Direct observation is the starting point. Something has to be seen to happen. Because no one has observed it, and there is no actual proof that it actually did happen, there is nothing in the scientific method that can be used to form a hypothesis. What has actually happened is that the theory was formulated first, and then aspects of the scientific method have had to be "shoe-horned" to try and fit the preconceived theory.

Science does not prove things. But you have proved that you will refuse to learn something new.

You have refused to acknowledge that science does not prove things. That’s on you.

 

[Need answers]

Science does not prove things. But you have proved that you will refuse to learn something new.

You have refused to acknowledge that science does not prove things. That’s on you.

Likewise, you refuse to admit that God could have created things. You cant believe anything new.

 

[Larniavc]

It is an artist's impression of different kinds of skulls - some ape and some human. Once can only determine which are which by careful close examination and comparison with modern ape and human skulls. Just making a judgement on an artist's impression proves nothing.

It is an artist's impression of different kinds of skulls - some ape and some human. Once can only determine which are which by careful close examination and comparison with modern ape and human skulls. Just making a judgement on an artist's impression proves nothing.

You know they are photos, don’t you?