The Demise of Evolution

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

It is nothing new at all. The ancient pagan Greeks were evolutionists. Old news.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You know they are photos, don’t you?

I have already responded to that one. Proves nothing except that some are different types of ape skulls and some are different types of human skulls. No proof of intermediate ape-humans there.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

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.

I don’t get it. You keep ignoring the point that science does not prove things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

But like most creationists you only have an opinion and appear to be afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Logic as an emergent trait is not creating logic from nothing. I wish that you could make a logical argument. But all you can do is to post inanities.

Once again let's go over the concept of evidence. Scientists defined it rather well since they are human as well. They too sometimes make the error of incorrectly claiming "that's not evidence". Are you not at all curious to understand how they solved the problem?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don’t get it. You keep ignoring the point that science does not prove things.

I don't care. Evolution can't be proved. Therefore it is not a science. Creating stuff out of nothing is scientifically impossile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have already responded to that one. Proves nothing except that some are different types of ape skulls and some are different types of human skulls. No proof of intermediate ape-humans there.

Swimming in denial. Time to find a shorter river.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care. Evolution can't be proved. Therefore it is not a science. Creating stuff out of nothing is scientifically impossile.

LOL!! No science can be "proved" therefore evolution is science.

The word "proof" properly only applies to math. If you want to apply it to science you would need a qualifier, such as "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Evolution has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you will never understand how it has been "proven".

 

[Jimmy D]

No change of kinds? What? I dont know what that means but we're far above mere apes. There is a spiritual aspect to man, and a logical superiority as well, that you ignore, in favor of flawed theory that says we evolved from more primitive creatures. Truth is man can get pretty primitive even today. There are primitive cultures even today, but they are no less "evolved" than scientists are.

Flawed in what way?

 

[Kylie]

I did. I said its mindless. I dont wish to derail my comment.

No, you didn't answer my question.

I asked you if you thought evolution was random.

I did not ask you if you thought it was mindless.

There is a difference.

Now will you please answer my question.

 

[Kylie]

Similar is not human, and the absence of complete fossils and skeletons shows that this creature probably did not exist at all, but could be an invention of evolutionists made up of a few random bones which could very well be a combination of human and ape bones, cobbled together to make it appear that it could be the creature they are describing. They don't know whether the creature could walk on two legs or not, because there are no photos or videos of it; only an artist's impression of what it might be. But artists' impressions are not conclusive proof.

I'm willing to bert that you can't actually answer the question, because I don't think you know what "2D principal trabecular orientation in the sagittal plane" actually means.

Of course, if you want to prove me wrong, please tell me in simple terms what it means.

 

[Kylie]

Yes. It is a random development through time and chance. But it has never been replicated or tested by science, so no one knows how it happened, or even if it actually did.

Can random actions produce ordered results?

 

[Jimmy D]

I do, but you are trying to spin the word "proof". You must spin the idea that uncertain and changing theories are "proof"

You really should attempt to understand basic concepts if you want to be taken seriously. Please take a moment to read through this....



"The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and trueshould be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately."

"One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

NSTA News

(The National Science Teachers Association)

.................................


Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-

(National Centre for Science Education)

......................................

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

......................................

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

......................................

Karl Popper -

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".

......................................

Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford -

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about."

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

.......................................

National Science Foundation

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

LOL!! No science can be "proved" therefore evolution is science.
The word "proof" properly only applies to math. If you want to apply it to science you would need a qualifier, such as "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Evolution has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but since you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you will never understand how it has been "proven".

Here is an interesting video that gives a particular point of view about the different skull fossil record. I learned from it. It does come from a Creationist perspective, but at least view it and see how he approaches how the different skulls are grouped.

 

[roman2819]

At best there is only an appearance of design. The problem is that when one investigates life more deeply then it also becomes apparent that if there was a designer that he was an incompetent designer.

The "life is designed" argument is also a blasphemous one since it is equivalent to calling God incompetent. There are many traits that could have been designed much much better. Evolution does not work on "perfect" evolution works on "good enough" and sometime the compromises that are forced upon it by its nature are the cause of extinction of various species. But let's not anthropomorphize evolution. It is simply a description of what happened and why. Just as gravity is a force that explains the motion of the planets, evolution is a 'force' that explains why life is as we see it today.

It is not true to say that God's design is not perfect.

After sin enter creation, creatures die and extinction happens. But that does not mean God's design is flawed. God is large enough to let people and creatures live by free will. In this thread, I heard critics say extinction means God's design in flawed, such way of thinking is limited, narrow and human. God is timeless, He works on a different level . People exist for a generation (or two - if you live too long, God bless you for that), we are limited in our views. Yes, we make advancements in science and technology, but in the end, we are still limited.

Having read most of the postings since @Oscarr joined in, I have one question for you and others who do not believe in the proof that Bible offers or do not believe that God is creator:

What proof do you have about the origin of life? If you claim that some molecules and cells come together and life gradually grow, what proof do you offer? You try to refute biblical proofs (historical, archaeology, some science), and other substantial evidence around us, but what proof do you have about how life begin and change to the millions of lifeforms and ecosystem now?

Do you have more proofs than the Bible? I can confidently say no. Honestly, all those vague Big bang theory and more vague theories about cells transformation, which are all far far from even understood - they are not proofs But yet critics like to believe these stuff somehow are quite credible.

I can direct the same question to the critics of God and Bible in this thread: Where is the proof that life happen and change on its own without a Designer?

 

[Kylie]

It is not true to say that God's design is not perfect.

After sin enter creation, creatures die and extinction happens. But that does not mean God's design is flawed. God is large enough to let people and creatures live by free will. In this thread, I heard critics say extinction means God's design in flawed, such way of thinking is limited, narrow and human. God is timeless, He works on a different level . People exist for a generation (or two - if you live too long, God bless you for that), we are limited in our views. Yes, we make advancements in science and technology, but in the end, we are still limited.

Having read most of the postings since @Oscarr joined in, I have one question for you and others who do not believe in the proof that Bible offers or do not believe that God is creator:

What proof do you have about the origin of life? If you claim that some molecules and cells come together and life gradually grow, what proof do you offer? You try to refute biblical proofs (historical, archaeology, some science), and other substantial evidence around us, but what proof do you have about how life begin and change to the millions of lifeforms and ecosystem now?

Do you have more proofs than the Bible? I can confidently say no. Honestly, all those vague Big bang theory and more vague theories about cells transformation, which are all far far from even understood - they are not proofs But yet critics like to believe these stuff somehow are quite credible.

I can direct the same question to the critics of God and Bible in this thread: Where is the proof that life happen and change on its own without a Designer?

God's design was flawed since he left it vulnerable to sin.

 

[roman2819]

Your claim that evolution is "just a belief" appears to be just a belief.

However, what proof do you have about the origin of life? If you say there is no God that created or designed, then you imply that some molecules and cells come together and life gradually grow, what proof do you offer? You try to refute biblical proofs (historical, archaeology, some science), and other substantial evidence around us, but what proof do you have about how life begin and change to the millions of lifeforms and ecosystem now?

Do you have more proofs than the Bible? I can confidently say no. Honestly, all those vague Big bang theory and more vague theories about cells transformation, which are all far far from even understood - they are not proofs But yet critics like to believe these stuff somehow are quite credible.

I can direct the same question to the critics of God and Bible in this thread: Where is the proof that life happen and change on its own without a Designer?

 

[Kylie]

However, what proof do you have about the origin of life? If you say there is no God that created or designed, then you imply that some molecules and cells come together and life gradually grow, what proof do you offer? You try to refute biblical proofs (historical, archaeology, some science), and other substantial evidence around us, but what proof do you have about how life begin and change to the millions of lifeforms and ecosystem now?

Do you have more proofs than the Bible? I can confidently say no. Honestly, all those vague Big bang theory and more vague theories about cells transformation, which are all far far from even understood - they are not proofs But yet critics like to believe these stuff somehow are quite credible.

I've offered information about how replicating molecules can get the process started. I've described it in the following posts...

Thin layer of silt proves flood

The Creationist Corner

What would falsify creationism?

Criteria for determining design

I can direct the same question to the critics of God and Bible in this thread: Where is the proof that life happen and change on its own without a Designer?

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution. Here's a good place to start. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[roman2819]

If I was living at the time and I tried to describe an army tank, I'd probably say something like:

And I saw a great metal box moving across the land, unstoppable and relentless. Its walls were thick, and no spear or arrow could penetrate it, and swords bent and broke on its sides. A great beam like the trunk of a tree emerged from the top, pointing out at the thing's enemies like a spear, and there was a great boom like thunder, a flash of flame, and a great stone was flung with such force that it could kill a thousand men who were so far from it that they could not even see it.​

But like I said, you saw the passage about horses with lion heads and spewing flames and interpreted it to mean army tank, and now you've convinced yourself that you can't possibly be wrong. But it describes a guy with a flamethrower riding a motorbike while wearing a helmet much better.

Obviously, like many people, you do not appreciate that religious manuscripts are written using few words. A novelist will write as elaborately as you do. If the scribes f BIble write like you, teh BIble would be 10,000 pages. Even your detailed descriptions didn't resemble armour tanks either. Trunk of a tree? ... sounds odd and confusing; many words doesn't always help. You havent describe the locust yet, can you do better?

Religious manuscript from Orthodox religious of mid-east and east (which the Bible is part of) are written in a few words. They combine both literal and figurative (which you may not like). I said before, Genesis says God create day by day, but it does not means 24 hour day. Day figuratively means a stage of time. Scriptures won't delve into details of creation, and even if it does, critics will ask for more.

Don't always use today's modern perspective to read Scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is an interesting video that gives a particular point of view about the different skull fossil record. I learned from it. It does come from a Creationist perspective, but at least view it and see how he approaches how the different skulls are grouped.

I am not wasting my time with foolish and dishonest people. I can tell you that he is wrong. Do you realize that fossils can be dated? You seem to think that there are some sort of "assumptions" when it comes to fossils. What you do not realize is that a claim of "assumptions" puts the burden of proof upon you.

There is no informed and honest opposition to the theory of evolution. That is because creationists tend to be cowards when it comes to their ideas. Are you brave enough to learn? Is your faith strong or weak?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not true to say that God's design is not perfect.

After sin enter creation, creatures die and extinction happens. But that does not mean God's design is flawed. God is large enough to let people and creatures live by free will. In this thread, I heard critics say extinction means God's design in flawed, such way of thinking is limited, narrow and human. God is timeless, He works on a different level . People exist for a generation (or two - if you live too long, God bless you for that), we are limited in our views. Yes, we make advancements in science and technology, but in the end, we are still limited.

Having read most of the postings since @Oscarr joined in, I have one question for you and others who do not believe in the proof that Bible offers or do not believe that God is creator:

What proof do you have about the origin of life? If you claim that some molecules and cells come together and life gradually grow, what proof do you offer? You try to refute biblical proofs (historical, archaeology, some science), and other substantial evidence around us, but what proof do you have about how life begin and change to the millions of lifeforms and ecosystem now?

Do you have more proofs than the Bible? I can confidently say no. Honestly, all those vague Big bang theory and more vague theories about cells transformation, which are all far far from even understood - they are not proofs But yet critics like to believe these stuff somehow are quite credible.

I can direct the same question to the critics of God and Bible in this thread: Where is the proof that life happen and change on its own without a Designer?

You have it so backwards. If God's creation was perfect the Adam and Eve story would have never happened. It is a self refuting story.

And pointing out blatant flaws in the Bible is not criticizing God. If anyone is criticizing him it is the creationists that unknowingly call God incompetent and evil. Creationism is a blasphemous concept.