Why do YEC Christians commonly challenge the theory of evolution, while...

[Subduction Zone]

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

I do have a question.

Since, the cameras are on, What evolution from one species into another one have been documented? Why have humans not evolved into a higher class?

I am pretty sure that you do not understand speciatiion. Speciation occurs when two populations no longer can breed with each other successfully. That has been observed many times:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Observed Instances of Speciation
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish

As to "evolving into a higher class", that is a strawman. Nothing evolves into a higher class. There is no such hierarchy. For example, you share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that ancestor was a Great Ape, you are still a Great Ape. You share a common ancestor with dogs and cats, that common ancestor was a mammal, you are still a mammal. What we see as we go back in our ancestry is that we are members of larger and larger groups. But no group is "above another". That is a rather meaningless phrase.

I am not sure of the science terms I used. It has been decades since I read a classroom science book.

All I know for sure is I am on planet earth and it was here before I got here. How God did it does not bother me. Since Moses was not at the day of creation, he had to get his information from somewhere. Be it a combo of using existing myths of the nations or revelation does not bother me. I like reading Ancient Near Eastern literature.

If you study the history of the Bible you will find that Moses was almost surely a fictitious character as well. Appealing to him does not do you much good. Christianity should not rely on Genesis. Literally interpreted it paints God as incompetent, cruel, and capricious. It can be used for lessons on faith, but if one puts too much stock in it it harms Christianity. There are countless Christians that do not read Genesis literally. It may be foundational for some Christians, that does not mean that it is so for all.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You do not understand the concept of falsifiability. The theory is falsifiable since it makes specific predictions and if those predictions fail so does the theory. Macro and micro are poor terms to apply to evolution. By their proper definition both have been observed, but since it is all evolution and there is no boundary between the two they are not used much any longer. Lastly just as there is both a theory of gravity and gravity is a fact the same can be said about evolution.

The theory of gravity can be tested - you can even predict that if you sit under an apple tree for too long an apple might fall on your head.

You'll have to explain it better because when I went searching for falsifiable definitions, the word predict wasn't there, though I can see what you mean by it, but not how it applies to evolution. Who has been able to predict a change from one species to another and then observe it happening and and repeat the experiment for others to see as well?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Of course, you have to do some real brain twisting to deny all the evidence...

Well if your brain can't cope with the subject you should probably read up on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of gravity can be tested - you can even predict that if you sit under an apple tree for too long an apple might fall on your head.

You'll have to explain it better because when I went searching for falsifiable definitions, the word predict wasn't there, though I can see what you mean by it, but not how it applies to evolution. Who has been able to predict a change from one species to another and then observe it happening and and repeat the experiment for others to see as well?

That life evolves is a prediction. Speciation has been observed countless times. Like most creationists it appears that you do not understand what you oppose. Speciation occurs when first two populations of the same species are separated somehow. Given enough time the two populations will no longer be able to interbreed. Meaning that at that point they are different species. Do you want examples? I could post links to endless examples of speciation.

Also it helps if you post comparative examples. An object dropping from a tree is akin to the fact that an offspring is not genetically identical to its parents. On an extremely small scale an apple dropping from a tree is gravity, and a child being different from its parents is evolution. Not only are your genes different due to being a mixture of your two parents genes, you have on the order of 100 mutations in the original DNA from your parents.

And experiments need not be repeatable. That is not in the scientific method.

The concept must be able to be tested with experiments. But that does not necessarily mean that the results have to be the same. It merely has to pass the experiment. This does not only apply to evolution, there are quite a few experiments that confirm a theory that can have different results from others. As long as an answer that comes back that refutes the theory then the experiment is a success.

By the way speaking of predictions have you heard of Tiktaalik?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if your brain can't cope with the subject you should probably read up on it.

There are many sources available. It also helps if a person understands the concept of evidence, I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept. If you understood the concept of evidence, and especially scientific evidence, the sort used in a scientific debate, you would understand that there are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote: "Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve."

I hope that you know that at the time of Mitrochondrial Eve there were thousands of other women. There was never was just one man and one woman. And of course Y-Chromosome Adam did not live at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

And experiments need not be repeatable. That is not in the scientific method.

The concept must be able to be tested with experiments. But that does not necessarily mean that the results have to be the same. It merely has to pass the experiment. This does not only apply to evolution, there are quite a few experiments that confirm a theory that can have different results from others. As long as an answer that comes back that refutes the theory then the experiment is a success.

If your testing could have different results, then how can you predict those results? Surely the different results have falsified your hypothesis.

Also both the discussions I have had in the past and good old Wikipedia indicate that repeatability is a factor in falsifiability. If you repeat the experiment and get a different result then clearly you have falsified your original hypothesis.

And just for the record: I don't oppose Darwinian Evolution, I just not convinced enough to be fully on board. I've also come across Tiktaalik - I even have the book on.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

There are many sources available. It also helps if a person understands the concept of evidence, I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept. If you understood the concept of evidence, and especially scientific evidence, the sort used in a scientific debate, you would understand that there are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black!

The number of times I've been told there is no evidence for God/Jesus/soul/miracles/demons etc. and pointed out that definitions of evidence do include things other than scientific evidence.

Also what is the issue here? There is no incompatibility with a Creator God and evolution. And as far as I understand it, the very existence of life cannot be explained by Evolution, which is why creation is a sound theory in its own right.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I hope that you know that at the time of Mitrochondrial Eve there were thousands of other women. There was never was just one man and one woman. And of course Y-Chromosome Adam did not live at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve.

Ah, that is more like it. I only pointed out Mitochondiral Eve as an aside, not as a particular argument.

It is possible to hold to a fairly literal reading of both Genesis and Mitochondrial Eve (see John Walton's The Lost World of Adam and Eve)

 

[ximmix]

The way you say it makes you sound like a spoilt teenager.

I agree, sorry about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your testing could have different results, then how can you predict those results? Surely the different results have falsified your hypothesis.

You are trying to form a black and white fallacy. You want tests to always have specific results. That is not what is needed to make a successful prediction. And no, different results do not falsify the hypothesis, why should they? As long as they fit in a specific range they do not do so. For example chimera, beings with parts from greatly separated lineages, cannot exist according to the theory of evolution. For example a Pegasus is not possible, it has the wings and feathers of a bird but the fur of a mammal. Both of those features evolved long after the split from the common ancestor. An appearance of such would falsify the theory.

Also both the discussions I have had in the past and good old Wikipedia indicate that repeatability is a factor in falsifiability. If you repeat the experiment and get a different result then clearly you have falsified your original hypothesis.

It can be,but at best you are misapplying the concept. Life repeatedly evolves. For anything complex it cannot evolve in the exact same way again. People make the mistake of thinking that evolution is a random process. There are random elements to it, but it is far from random. But those random elements do guarantee that exact results cannot be duplicated. We see quite a few very distantly related species that look like each other quite often. But they are not the same thing.

And just for the record: I don't oppose Darwinian Evolution, I just not convinced enough to be fully on board. I've also come across Tiktaalik - I even have the book on.

Then I would suggest learning some more, and that has to include the basics of science.

And I asked about Tiktaalik because that was a major transitional fossil found by applying predictions based upon geology and the theory of evolution. It was a prediction that panned out.

 

[ximmix]

Then I would suggest learning some more, and that has to include the basics of science.

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black!

The number of times I've been told there is no evidence for God/Jesus/soul/miracles/demons etc. and pointed out that definitions of evidence do include things other than scientific evidence.

Also what is the issue here? There is no incompatibility with a Creator God and evolution. And as far as I understand it, the very existence of life cannot be explained by Evolution, which is why creation is a sound theory in its own right.

Nope, not even close. Scientists realized that they are human and they are apt to say "That's not evidence" when it was just a prejudicial response. As a result they formulated a clear coherent definition of "evidence" . See my sig. That is copied from Wikipedia, but there are many other sources that say the same thing. To have evidence in the sciences one must first have a testable hypothesis. I have yet to see a creationist that can honestly say "If we see this I am wrong". The closest they come is to post a strawman version of evolution and claim if they see that they are wrong. That does no good because usually evolution would be wrong too if there "what if" was observed.

And no, creationism is not a theory. You can prove it yourself:

What reasonable test could possibly refute it?

 

[ximmix]

And no, creationism is not a theory. You can prove it yourself:

What reasonable test could possibly refute it?

That is the sign of a true optimist, to hope for a reply to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the sign of a true optimist, to hope for a reply to that.

No, it is more of a rhetorical question. I know he won't answer it, proving that creationism is not a theory. Sadly he will not know why that is the case.

 

[ximmix]

No, it is more of a rhetorical question. I know he won't answer it, proving that creationism is not a theory. Sadly he will not know why that is the case.

Yes that is true. And sad at the same time.

 

[BigV]

How God did it does not bother me.

It doesn't bother you and fellow Christians, but ONLY when the evolution is discussed.
Mention God and miracles in a math class, and even fellow Christians will persecute you.

 

[BigV]

The theory of gravity can be tested - you can even predict that if you sit under an apple tree for too long an apple might fall on your head.

Yes, and also if you step out of a boat in a relatively deep body of water, you would sink. You can test it. However, Christians claim that Jesus and Peter did not experience sinking. In fact, they were walking on the surface of deep water!

And, as a bonus, Jesus basically lifted off into (presumably) into space after hanging out after his physical bodily resurrection from the dead. And Jesus did all of this thousands of years ago, before rocket technologies, as we know them today, even existed.

According to the science of Christianity, gravity can be suspended and people can walk on the surface of deep water.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Yes, and also if you step out of a boat in a relatively deep body of water, you would sink. You can test it. However, Christians claim that Jesus and Peter did not experience sinking. In fact, they were walking on the surface of deep water!

According to the science of Christianity, gravity can be suspended and people can walk on the surface of deep water.

Christianity is not a science, it is a religion. And you are correct, it can happen. Though having said that, there is clearly a reason why writers thought it was a miracle. If science says that people will sink if they step onto water, then it is just agreeing with what everyone has observed since before even the Bible was written down.

If walking on water was normal, then all of the disciples would have stepped out of the boat, Peter wouldn't have had any doubts and would have jumped out and run to Jesus.

So clearly Christians were and are no different to everyone else. That the miraculous happened as highly unusual, not normality. I've come across only one other case of it happening in all my years of Christian belief (Mel Tari's Like a Mighty Wind about the Indonesian Revival).

I really think you should listen to John Lennox talk about miracles and how there is no problem with them happening.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Nope, not even close. Scientists realized that they are human and they are apt to say "That's not evidence" when it was just a prejudicial response. As a result they formulated a clear coherent definition of "evidence" . See my sig. That is copied from Wikipedia, but there are many other sources that say the same thing. To have evidence in the sciences one must first have a testable hypothesis. I have yet to see a creationist that can honestly say "If we see this I am wrong". The closest they come is to post a strawman version of evolution and claim if they see that they are wrong. That does no good because usually evolution would be wrong too if there "what if" was observed.

And no, creationism is not a theory. You can prove it yourself:

What reasonable test could possibly refute it?

Now I'm still trying to get my head around your definition of falsifiability and how it applies to evolution.

In order for Evolution to be falsifiable there must be some statement which, if true, would prove Evolution false.

What statement is that?