Why this debate forum doesn't matter

[Phred]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. You don't worry that objects fall do you? No, of course not. That doesn't contradict your holy book.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

If you don't understand what you're talking about then don't.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

Creation is a religious concept that is based within the Bible. It is not observable or repeatable and according to your own statement that makes it not scientific. Isn't that right? However... what IS observable are the results of that creation. IF the world had been created as it was described in the Bible we would see the results. We don't. If there had been a global flood as described in the Bible we would see the results. We don't.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics. To me, this is a silly belief. Certainly not scientific in any real or useful sense of the word. The only evidence for it is that we can seemingly trace the event backwards to a point in time and space.

This is not evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution. This is all sorts of other scientific endeavors. Care to admit you don't know that? But... I do know that. I also know that it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. And, because in your ignorance it seems silly that doesn't matter to me. You state something, it's wrong and you expect that should matter? You'd need to be educated on all sorts of things be shown that you're wrong and all you'd do is fall back on the Bible anyway. Tell me why I should bother?

But from a theistic perspective, this is simply the place from which God spoke.

Nah... it's just how you manage to make your ignorance fit. Being ignorant is nothing to be proud of. Go on, pretend that you have a perspective. It's been long ago debunked and proven impossible. For a lot of reasons.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

As to my visualization of the big bang theory, nothing that science proposes is substantively different from a rock floating in empty space.

Yes it most certainly is! There were no rocks in this universe until millions of years after the singularity that brought forth this universe. Empty space (and for that matter, time) may not have even been a thing prior to this universe, but we may never know for sure.

You're just using sciency language to obscure that. So a hypothesized singularity which contained everything we now know as the universe suddenly blew up in violation of a known law of thermodynamics. But we have no idea where the singularity came from. It just was.

Pretty much - though "blow up" isn't an appropriate analogy... perhaps "inflated" would be better? As far as we can tell, there's been no violation of any law of thermodynamics either, let alone "Known"(??) ones... whatever they are...

 

[Phred]

OK then. Your scientific evidence in support of macroevolution will of course follow.

And, as predicted....

 

[pitabread]

OK then. Your scientific evidence in support of macroevolution will of course follow.

Actually what is going to follow is the usual eye-rolling I engage in every time a creationist issues this silly "challenge" of asking for evidence for evolution. Anyone truly interested in scientific evidence for evolution would have no trouble finding it given the multitude of books, journals, online resources, and even completely free university courses on the subject. Heck even a cursory glance through threads on this site will find plenty of people providing just what you ask for.

Sadly it's never an honest ask. It's just trying to start an argument.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, and thanks for actually answering instead of just going away.

As to my visualization of the big bang theory, nothing that science proposes is substantively different from a rock floating in empty space. You're just using sciency language to obscure that. So a hypothesized singularity which contained everything we now know as the universe suddenly blew up in violation of a known law of thermodynamics.

I know, you see "evolution" (which for you, I suppose, amounts to anything that science concludes which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis) as a lie. Since it is a lie, you need not be accurate about how you characterize it, or feel any need to use scientific language to describe it.

But we have no idea where the singularity came from. It just was.

Right.

A useful definition of God, for me anyway, is intelligence plus force plus directed will.What science has done is taken God and subtracted out intelligence and directed will.

That's nice. But the discussions in this forum are generally not about the existence of God, not about theism versus atheism. They are about a certain group of Evangelical Protestants with a political agenda versus everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics. To me, this is a silly belief. Certainly not scientific in any real or useful sense of the word. The only evidence for it is that we can seemingly trace the event backwards to a point in time and space.

But from a theistic perspective, this is simply the place from which God spoke.

No evidence? Sigh. I'll have to dig through to find my post,
There is no evidence for evolution?
What about the fossils we have found?
Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.
Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Plants?
Cycas is a gymnosperm but has circinnately coiled yound leaves, Ramanta and multiflagellate male gametes, features of fern.
It is pretty obvious how the sporophylls evolved. In pteridophytes, all plants are not even heterosporous. In angiosperms, the megasporophyll modifies to wrap around the megasporangium.
Algae follow a haplontic life cycle, gymnosperms and angiosperms follow a diplontic one. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are the transition states and follow a haplodiplontic life cycle.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.
Fungi
Fungal evolution is seen by changes in sexual reproduction. Oomycetes from gametes and at times, fuse gametangia. Zygomycetes just conjugate their gametangia. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes get rid of all that and just fuse two cells.
If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims.
For more information on transitional fossils, visit
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

Lets talk observation, frankly evolution is observed. I think someone posted a link to cases of speciation.
No, science does not require repeatability, it requires experimentation. You cannot repeat the big bang, the formation of mountains, and formation of a star, can you? So, that is incorrect.

I'm not very well informed about the big bang, but I would guess a bunch of scientists would have enough brains to realize a law was being violated. Why don't you tell it to them? It would help science.
I've said it many times, biological evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe and life as we know it. Learn something about evolution before debating. It's like saying that this microwave is not showing me a youtube video. Unrelated.
EDIT: Thinking about a bit more, how is it a violation of the first law of thermodynamics? I don't know general relativity which seemingly deals with it, but I doubt you know too.

 

[Theodoric]

Yep, you're right, my apologies - I guess you haven't been here too long to see the thousands of statements and their corrections before so let's re-examine:

Have you seen the numerous sites on evidence for evolution?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent​

then Berkeley has a wide range of laypeople articles on understanding evolution

Understanding Evolution <== this links to everything below

Welcome to Evolution 101! <== Primer
Understanding Evolution Resource Library <== Contains a number of links such as:

What is the evidence for evolution?
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
​

so now the question is, will you read these links? Maybe come back and ask questions on anything you're not sure about?

Sure. Evolution is observable and repeatable - in fact, so much so that it's a Theory all on its own, probably the most well supported Theory in all of Science.

No, it is not even addressed by the science because of the lack of any verifiable evidence whatsoever.

No they don't.

same to me too.

Agreed.

and all the observations and evidence that correlates to a very dense and very hot singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago from the best science we have right now. The Big Bang model of cosmology has provided quite a number of predictions. From Big Bang Confirmed Again, This Time By The Universe's First Atoms :

"If anything could throw the Big Bang into crisis, it would be if a truly pristine sample of gas disagreed with the predictions of how the elements should turn out. But everything lines up so incredibly well, between the theory of what we should observe just three-to-four minutes after the Big Bang and the observations we make billions of years later, that it can only be considered a remarkable confirmation of the most successful theory of the Universe ever. From the smallest, subatomic particles to the largest cosmic scales and structures, the Big Bang explains an enormous suite of phenomena that no other alternative can touch. If you ever want to replace the Big Bang, you're going to have to explain some tremendously disparate observations, from the cosmic microwave background to Hubble expansion to the first atoms in the Universe. The Big Bang is the only theory that can get us all three, and now it's gotten them to greater precision than ever before."​

What verifiable evidence do you have for this asserted extra layer of unexplained and unexplainable mystery that causes more questions than it answers?

First, I do respect your effort and integrity in answering my post. Second, I simply don't have the time, energy, or interest to continue this discussion any further. I believe the so-called "big bang" happened largely as science has described, I was flippant with the "rock" imagery to kind of poke fun at the idea of mindless evolution.

As to your final question, "What verifiable evidence do you have for this asserted extra layer of unexplained and unexplainable mystery that causes more questions than it answers?", that's by far the best thing you've asked so far.

What I have is this: everywhere you look in the universe you see design, purpose, and order. Look at a spider crafting a web. That's a computer program, there's nothing random about it. I think that design does not evolve out of cosmic sludge given time plus chance. It requires a designer. And the denial of that does not come from science facts, it comes from a fallen desire to rebel against God. We simply don't want God to exist so that we don't have to answer to Him. And man's science facilitates that rebellion and so replaces God with "an image made like corruptible man."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

First, I do respect your effort and integrity in answering my post. Second, I simply don't have the time, energy, or interest to continue this discussion any further. I believe the so-called "big bang" happened largely as science has described, I was flippant with the "rock" imagery to kind of poke fun at the idea of mindless evolution.

As to your final question, "What verifiable evidence do you have for this asserted extra layer of unexplained and unexplainable mystery that causes more questions than it answers?", that's by far the best thing you've asked so far.

What I have is this: everywhere you look in the universe you see design, purpose, and order. Look at a spider crafting a web. That's a computer program, there's nothing random about it. I think that design does not evolve out of cosmic sludge given time plus chance. It requires a designer. And the denial of that does not come from science facts, it comes from a fallen desire to rebel against God. We simply don't want God to exist so that we don't have to answer to Him. And man's science facilitates that rebellion and so replaces God with "an image made like corruptible man."

Hmmm, really?

What is the design, purpose, and order that requires the Acanthamoeba to exist? Meet the parasite that can burrow its way into the human eye

What is the design, purpose and order for the trillions upon trillions of black holes throughout this universe?

What is the design, purpose and order for bone cancer?

What is the design, purpose and order for childhood leukemia?

Also, when you said this:

OK then. Your scientific evidence in support of macroevolution will of course follow.

then have said evidence provided, you respond with this:

I simply don't have the time, energy, or interest to continue this discussion any further.

you became yet another Creationist hypocrite of the highest order.

 

[pitabread]

We simply don't want God to exist so that we don't have to answer to Him. And man's science facilitates that rebellion and so replaces God with "an image made like corruptible man."

The above statements show a misunderstanding of both atheism and science.

 

[Theodoric]

Not a hypocrite, really. That's the most honest thing I've said. This is not a subject that even interests me all that much, I shouldn't have jumped into it, and I have no desire to spend my afternoon researching the Acanthamoeba so I can fail to persuade you in a debate.

My sincere apologies for starting something that I have no desire to continue. So, you win. Bask in the glory.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not a hypocrite, really. That's the most honest thing I've said. This is not a subject that even interests me all that much, I shouldn't have jumped into it, and I have no desire to spend my afternoon researching the Acanthamoeba so I can fail to persuade you in a debate.

My sincere apologies for starting something that I have no desire to continue. So, you win. Bask in the glory.

...

 

[Hieronymus]

PS: If you would like some evidence for evolution, look at taxonomy, or ask me, I'll paste the post I made a long time ago.

Stupid drawing.
Made by someone who is either ignorant, biased, naieve or has an axe to grind.
It's plain scoffing.

 

[Hieronymus]

And, as predicted....

...you ain't got none...

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Not a hypocrite, really. That's the most honest thing I've said. This is not a subject that even interests me all that much, I shouldn't have jumped into it, and I have no desire to spend my afternoon researching the Acanthamoeba so I can fail to persuade you in a debate.

My sincere apologies for starting something that I have no desire to continue. So, you win. Bask in the glory.

Well, you should've known we would use examples to debate, there's only so much theory takes you to.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Stupid drawing.
Made by someone who is either ignorant, biased, naieve or has an axe to grind.
It's plain scoffing.

It's a stupid drawing I agree but it speaks the truth in such a way that I won't have to write a thousand words.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's a stupid drawing I agree but it speaks the truth in such a way that I won't have to write a thousand words.

Stupid drawing because it's a lame depiction of a lame perception of reality.
Sure, there are people who only read the Bible, and there are scientists who discover many things about living nature, but the don't necessarily contradict.
It will however contradict for sure, when science is only seeking for naturalistic theories regarding the origins of things such as living nature.
But apparently it is an easy way for you to dismiss the Bible or Christians, so that you don't have to use your own words or thoughts or assessments.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Stupid drawing because it's a lame depiction of a lame perception of reality.
Sure, there are people who only read the Bible, and there are scientists who discover many things about living nature, but the don't necessarily contradict.
It will however contradict for sure, when science is only seeking for naturalistic theories regarding the origins of things such as living nature.
But apparently it is an easy way for you to dismiss the Bible or Christians, so that you don't have to use your own words or thoughts or assessments.

Yes most bible-readers and scientists don't necessarily contradict each other. Which is why the picture includes the word creationists, because then their ideologies clash.
Yeah, it's an easy way, you think I'm made of time? I don't have all day to write an essay when this picture represents the same thing.
Do you want me to put the picture into words?

 

[Speedwell]

Stupid drawing because it's a lame depiction of a lame perception of reality.
Sure, there are people who only read the Bible, and there are scientists who discover many things about living nature, but the don't necessarily contradict.
It will however contradict for sure, when science is only seeking for naturalistic theories regarding the origins of things such as living nature.
But apparently it is an easy way for you to dismiss the Bible or Christians, so that you don't have to use your own words or thoughts or assessments.

It dismisses neither the Bible itself, nor Christians generally--only a particular view of the Bible favored by some Christians.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes most bible-readers and scientists don't necessarily contradict each other. Which is why the picture includes the word creationists, because then their ideologies clash.

Or is it science being disingenuous because they refuse to acknowledge the possibility / probability of intelligent design and creation?

[
Yeah, it's an easy way, you think I'm made of time?

I think you don't take the time.

 

[Speedwell]

Or is it science being disingenuous because they refuse to acknowledge the possibility / probability of intelligent design and creation?I think you don't take the time.

So are you supporting creationism or ID? From the scientific standpoint, the possibility of creationism has already been eliminated and requires no further acknowledgement. Scientists acknowledge the (remote) possibilty of ID but so far science has not been presented with a coherent, properly formulated theory, nor any credible evidence.