1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    12 Nov '14 09:12
    There are a number of problems yecs have with evolution. while that is sad, when some of the problems stated stem from a poor understanding of science, it becomes sadded. and funnier.


    So i wish to institute a program: educate your yec.
    lesson 1: Evolutionism IS falsifiable.
    Directly from wiki:
    evolution is considered falsifiable because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. Several kinds of evidence could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating, or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.[53] Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed and has continued to confirm his central concepts.[55][56] Despite this, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified.[53] In contrast, creationist explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, because any result of an experiment or investigation could be the unpredictable action of an omnipotent deity
  2. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    12 Nov '14 10:321 edit
    Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.

    It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years later you realise you're in a very different body from how it used to be; you're old. Speciation is also a smooth, hardly noticable process on the surface, and then one day the difference between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
  3. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148428
    12 Nov '14 11:26
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.

    It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years l ...[text shortened]... e between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
    Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
    distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
    believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
    distant past.

    As far as I know no one dismisses the claims that people have about life
    today that are going to happen and do, it is what they say about what that
    means is where things fall apart.
  4. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Nov '14 11:51
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.

    It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years l ...[text shortened]... e between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
    "Speciation is also a smooth, hardly noticable process on the surface, and then one day the difference between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species."

    "Hardly noticeable process"? Then how do you know it happened?

    I've been around for 61 years and I noticed the process of aging. I have evidence from personal observation of the facts of my own existence.

    Where is the irrefutable evidence for this so called "process" of evolution? And I'm not talking about some quasi theory based on some microscopic mathematical equations. I'm talking about hard facts.

    Like the hard facts of direct observation of the irrefutable evidence of my own aging.

    Dawkins analogy is mythological!
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Nov '14 11:55
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    There are a number of problems yecs have with evolution. while that is sad, when some of the problems stated stem from a poor understanding of science, it becomes sadded. and funnier.


    So i wish to institute a program: educate your yec.
    lesson 1: Evolutionism IS falsifiable.
    Directly from wiki:
    evolution is considered falsifiable because it can ...[text shortened]... esult of an experiment or investigation could be the unpredictable action of an omnipotent deity
    Evolution is falsifiable?

    Then why believe it? 🙄

    Truth can't be falsified.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Nov '14 12:15
    Originally posted by josephw
    Where is the irrefutable evidence for this so called "process" of evolution? And I'm not talking about some quasi theory based on some microscopic mathematical equations. I'm talking about hard facts.

    Like the hard facts of direct observation of the irrefutable evidence of my own aging.

    Dawkins analogy is mythological!
    There is plenty of irrefutable evidence of evolution taking place. It does however require that you learn a little about it which is a little different from aging which most people understand intuitively.
    If you were to do just about any modern course in Biology you should be presented with many examples of evolution and its effects being observed directly.

    I would recommend you start here:
    YouTube
  7. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    12 Nov '14 12:222 edits
    Originally posted by josephw
    "Hardly noticeable process"? Then how do you know it happened?
    The first word is your clue. "Hardly noticable", not "not noticable". I.e. hardly noticable in real-time, but just as age is evident eventually, so is speciation evident after the fact.

    Leaving fossil record, homology, vestigial organs and so on aside, it's noticable in the genome alone. If we take the genome of all your children, they will all differ ever so slightly, both from each other and from you, but it will be clear that they all have the same father - you. The same method used to positively identify them as siblings can be used to tell that you and your cousins have a common grandad, even without knowing your grandads DNA. We can take the same approach back in time to say something of your ancestors thousands of years back (european, african and so on).

    Now, ask yourself, why would the rules suddenly change when you compare the genome of two species, and find that they too have commonalities that allows us to draw the same conclusion from the exact same kind of evidence, that they too had a common ancestor at some point in the more distant past? Why is religious woo-woo necessary to explain the same kind of evidence when it starts pointing to different species having common ancestors?

    Logic dictates that this is evidence for common descent, not unique creation. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of following the evidence to their only logical conclusion.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Nov '14 12:30
    Originally posted by josephw
    Evolution is falsifiable?

    Then why believe it? 🙄

    Truth can't be falsified.
    The word 'falsifiable' means that if it is false, it is possible to find evidence that it is false. Most of your religious beliefs are not falsifiable because even if they are false, it would not be possible to find evidence that they are false.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Nov '14 12:33
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
    distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
    believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
    distant past.
    Claims about the distant past are of course falsifiable. If I claimed that the earth was covered in ice from the time it was formed until 10 thousand years ago, that claim is falsifiable. You just need to find solid evidence that it was not covered in ice at some point in that time period.
  10. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    12 Nov '14 12:42
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I would recommend you start here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgHd6HKtvE
    Excellent link. I love these online lectures. When you get tired, just pause and come back later. Can't do that in live lectures. 🙂
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    12 Nov '14 13:28
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
    distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
    believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
    distant past.

    As far as I know no one dismisses the claims that people have about life
    today that are going to happen and do, it is what they say about what that
    means is where things fall apart.
    Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
    distant past are not things that can be falsifiable

    that's not what falsifiable means.

    a statement is falsifiable if there is a test that could be made that would prove some claims made by that statement false.


    evolution is falsifiable because read my original post and argue on what i stated, not babble incoherently.
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    12 Nov '14 13:30
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
    distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
    believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
    distant past.

    As far as I know no one dismisses the claims that people have about life
    today that are going to happen and do, it is what they say about what that
    means is where things fall apart.
    intelligent design is NOT falsifiable for example. as it stands today, you cannot devise a test that would prove that there isn't an intelligent created because no "intelligent designist" has ever defined what exactly is that intelligent original designer.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    12 Nov '14 13:31
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.

    It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years l ...[text shortened]... e between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
    yes, but let's keep to one lesson per thread, you shouldn't overload the poor yecs with too much information. please make another thread. i plan to make several more anyway.
  14. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    12 Nov '14 13:35
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    yes, but let's keep to one lesson per thread, you shouldn't overload the poor yecs with too much information. please make another thread. i plan to make several more anyway.
    Oh, sorry. 😳
  15. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    12 Nov '14 13:36
    Originally posted by C Hess
    The first word is your clue. "Hardly noticable", not "not noticable". I.e. hardly noticable in real-time, but just as age is evident eventually, so is speciation evident after the fact.

    Leaving fossil record, homology, vestigial organs and so on aside, it's noticable in the genome alone. If we take the genome of all your children, they will all differ ever ...[text shortened]... tter of belief, it's a matter of following the evidence to their only logical conclusion.
    "Now, ask yourself, why would the rules suddenly change when you compare the genome of two species, and find that they too have commonalities that allows us to draw the same conclusion from the exact same kind of evidence, that they too had a common ancestor at some point in the more distant past?"

    How does the commonalities of the genome of two species cause you to draw the conclusion that they had a common ancestor? As if to say there is cross fertilization of species. It's no mystery to me that all physical bodies have commonalities, but that doesn't cause me to think evolution is a valid argument for the existence of biological life.
Back to Top