Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Kenisaw]

How would that be impossible? Kinda depends on the myth or claim wouldn't it? If, for example, there was a book that claimed that birds came before land animals, yet the entirety of the fossil record showed this to be false, then wouldn't that be discoverable, verifiable information that shows believing in their creation claim is a mistake?

If only that were the case in reality. Have you ever watched a debate with Kent Hovind? He is a master of post-hoc rationalizing his way around such inconvenient scientific truths.

Yes he is such a master. I fail to see where you've countered my statement however. Clearly his need for rationalizing "his way around such inconvenient scientific truths" shows that he does know about the truths. If he knows about the truths, we can state that it is NOT impossible for someone to discover their belief is falsifiable. I'm not saying that someone like Hovind wouldn't ignore it anyway, but we certainly cannot say it is impossible to discover that a belief is wrong. I think this you would agree with.

[bluegreenearth]

Yes he is such a master. I fail to see where you've countered my statement however. Clearly his need for rationalizing "his way around such inconvenient scientific truths" shows that he does know about the truths. If he knows about the truths, we can state that it is NOT impossible for someone to discover their belief is falsifiable. I'm not saying that someone like Hovind wouldn't ignore it anyway, but we certainly cannot say it is impossible to discover that a belief is wrong. I think this you would agree with.

I see where things became confused. My comment only applies to unfalsifiable beliefs. The example you gave was a falsifiable belief, even if the larger belief about divine creation is unfalsifiable. So, yes, I've always agreed that it is possible to discover if a falsifiable belief is false. The problem with people like Kent Hovind is that disproving any of their falsifiable beliefs doesn't do anything to disconfirm their overarching unfalsifiable beliefs.

[Fick1995]

About that skull evolution, it was just invented and it came in Times magazine that it is one of the greatest crimes in Human History. God created us not by evolution of Bigbang, there is no life in accident.

[Clownboat]

About that skull evolution,

Could you be more clear as to what you are talking about?

it was just invented and it came in Times magazine that it is one of the greatest crimes in Human History.

How did this crime get discovered?

God created us not by evolution of Bigbang, there is no life in accident.

Please show that you speak the truth as this site is for debate, not informing others about things you happen to believe.

[DrNoGods]

God created us not by evolution of Bigbang, there is no life in accident.

I'm guessing that English is not your native language, but can you elaborate on what "evolution of Bigbang" means? In physics, the "Big Bang" is a hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe based on observations of current expansion, and other things such as the observed cosmic background radiation, while evolution generally refers to the Theory of Evolution (TOE) which is an accepted theory for how life diversifies once it has formed (TOE says nothing about how life formed in the first place ... that is a different subject altogether). You've put the two unrelated subjects together in one phrase ("evolution of Bigbang") so it isn't clear what you are referring to.

By "there is no life in accident" do you mean to say that the origin of life is not an accident? If so, how do you know that it didn't happen naturally over a long period of time through the course of various chemical reactions in the presence of an atmosphere, water (oceans, rivers, etc.), light of various wavelengths (from the sun), electrical activity (eg. lightning, static electricity), etc.? We can't yet write down the specific steps that would have created the first living thing (and even the definition of that is not agreed upon), but we can't rule out that it did occur naturally without any divine input. It is an open scientific problem. If you believe a god created life, or the universe, which of the creation stories in the list from this article is the correct one, and why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

[Kenisaw]

Yes he is such a master. I fail to see where you've countered my statement however. Clearly his need for rationalizing "his way around such inconvenient scientific truths" shows that he does know about the truths. If he knows about the truths, we can state that it is NOT impossible for someone to discover their belief is falsifiable. I'm not saying that someone like Hovind wouldn't ignore it anyway, but we certainly cannot say it is impossible to discover that a belief is wrong. I think this you would agree with.

I see where things became confused. My comment only applies to unfalsifiable beliefs. The example you gave was a falsifiable belief, even if the larger belief about divine creation is unfalsifiable. So, yes, I've always agreed that it is possible to discover if a falsifiable belief is false. The problem with people like Kent Hovind is that disproving any of their falsifiable beliefs doesn't do anything to disconfirm their overarching unfalsifiable beliefs.

Gotcha. We were like two ships passing in the night.

On a side note: It is interesting that what constitutes "unfalsifiable" beliefs seems to be an ever shrinking list.

[We_Are_VENOM]

People, people..

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears.

The Bible say...

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Evolution say in Darwin 3:16 that, "Long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, reptiles evolved into birds, and once land dwelling whales migrated into the sea".


So, who do I believe? Well, when I go to the zoo, or local pet store...or of the handful of pets that I've had the pleasure of owning....what do I see? I see animals producing, "according to their kinds", just as the Bible says.

I don't see anything CLOSE to what Darwin or evolution says happens in nature.

Of course, the evolutionists doesn't see it either, so all they can say is, "well, thats because it takes so long for it to occur, it takes hundreds of millions of years for it to happen".

Well, at that point the evolutionist is relying on faith...the unseen...which is; religion'ish.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #37]

I don't see anything CLOSE to what Darwin or evolution says happens in nature.

Then you are in the minority because there is so much evidence to support Darwin's description that it has become a formal scientific theory. It is usually people who blindly believe ancient religious texts that don't accept evolution because it contradicts what their ancient holy books describe. They don't reject evolution for any scientific reasons, if they even bother to read up on how the theory has been confirmed over the many decades, but they reject it purely on religious grounds (ie. it contradicts the ancient myths and stories which are presented in the holy books as if they were fact). All it takes is a trip to the library, or some Googling, to get all the information you need to understand evolution at a basic level, and to see the mountains of evidence that supports it. The old religious tall tales have no such confirming evidence, yet people still believe that the stories are descriptions of actual events.

[Miles]

People, people..

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears.

The Bible say...

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

So, what's a kind?

Are bulldogs and chihuahuas different kinds? How about brown bears and black bears? Or grasshoppers and locusts?

Need a definition "kind," please.

.

[DavidLeon]

I'm mildly interested to know exactly how it is determined that the image is evidence of evolution. I can't see the image very well on my 30 inch monitor, or the larger version I found online. I ask because your testing is way off as far as what the Bible says. Though in the image I found the text on the Bible side has only to do with the Biblical kinds. So maybe someone could explain exactly how the one side is evidence for evolution on how the one side isn't. How was it determined that the Bible says bats are birds? etc.