The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: edmc^2

I have to agree how they rig the debate with false parameters, the prime example is them dividing Abiogenesis up from macroevolution based on scientific semantics that they enforce to make it so much easier to defend their concept of how life came to be on our planet.
They claim it's science classifications that they alone get to define, watch somebody post something restating the official stance against the total concept that we are suppose to be discussing, it happens every single time like a broken record....we know, you have told us 1000 times.....we just 100% disagree.

Yes, it’s funny that only people who are trained to do science in the very precise manner that needs to be taken are considered experts in their fields, and those who do not understand, and cannot coherently explain what the proper methodology consists of are dismissed as ignorant.

It’s so unfair that people who did not study a specific discipline and meet the requirements to be considered an expert, are not taken seriously when they claim that observable and reproduceable events are somehow fake.


Because why would we base our reality on observable and testable experiences when we have a multitude of ancient books written by stone builders and goat herders that directly oppose what we can observe and test today?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: richapau

I don’t defend creation, it’s a faith, a belief
I asked for empirical evidence of the science of evolution

Show me the science that proves evolution, you win the argument with empirical evidence

Not moaning at me

Watch some Kent if you want science of creation

LOL! That's like saying "Watch some Martha Stewart if you want science of the combustion engine"

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: edmc^2

I have to agree how they rig the debate with false parameters, the prime example is them dividing Abiogenesis up from macroevolution based on scientific semantics that they enforce to make it so much easier to defend their concept of how life came to be on our planet.

WTF? Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. How are you still repeating this lie from decades ago? They are completely difference processes which happened independently of one another. One is a group of hypotheses, the other is a theory. Evolution isn't the origin of life. How do you still not grasp this? They separate it because it's SEPARATE!!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: richapau

I don’t defend creation, it’s a faith, a belief
I asked for empirical evidence of the science of evolution

Show me the science that proves evolution, you win the argument with empirical evidence

Not moaning at me

Watch some Kent if you want science of creation

LOL! That's like saying "Watch some Martha Stewart if you want science of the combustion engine"

Significantly better than anything I have been offered by the evolutionists, significantly better than you saying that Darwin theory written 150 years or so ago is even remotely still relevant and in line with anything related to science

Akin to watching Darwin give birth to Hulk Hogan your faith Barcs🤣🤣😁

a reply to: Barcs

How can you not see that they are related, oh of course, it hurts your argument

4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question).

No...theories are tested, and repeated observations that support one another become facts borne from scientific methods.

5. Players (proponents of evolution theory) are already favored by the judges. Players (proponents of evolution theory) themselves are the judges.

Peer review is never perfect, but it sure is better than having a dance competition among soup makers to determine who makes the best soup.

6. Proponents of Creation are rejected as kooks and Luddites.

The arguments offered by creationists are invalid because most of the position is faith-based. It has nothing to do with science.

7. Proponents of evolution are widely recognized as authorities on the subject - especially by the scientific community that is widely populated by evolutionists.

Hence no soup-contest dances.

8. No journals or studies done by proponents of creation are accepted as valid in major universities. In other words, you can't use these publications.

See #6.

9. Majority of evolutionists are atheist. Majority of atheist are proponents of evolution.

Faith has no place in scientific methods because science is based on repeated observations of repeated outcomes.

10. Scientific academia is mostly under the supervision of proponents of evolution.

See #6.

How all this is not crystal clear to everyone is precisely what makes the universe so interesting and entertaining.

The young man in this vid presents some compelling information about his journey from devout Christianity to atheism.

Take a look. I *guarantee* you will not go to hell simply by watching it. How can I guarantee that, you ask?

If you truly believe in a just and loving God--who gave you eyes and ears--He will not condemn you to the fires of hell simply because you observed or heard something contrary to Christian teaching.

originally posted by: Barcs
WTF? Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. How are you still repeating this lie from decades ago? They are completely difference processes which happened independently of one another. One is a group of hypotheses, the other is a theory. Evolution isn't the origin of life. How do you still not grasp this? They separate it because it's SEPARATE!!

Evolution requires an abiogenesis event. Yes they are different, as many people know, but you seem to lord it over people when you think they make the semantic mistake, but in the end evolution requires something to have created the initial conditions (abiogenesis).

Intelligent design would be an all-in-one package, because whatever started life, would have finished it to completion. This is exactly what we see with biological systems - complete systems that could not have culminated in a step-by-step process due to the interdependence of the pieces. I realize you don't understand what this means, but I say it for others who may be reading with an objective mind.

a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. Whatever conditions are required for life to form have not been figured out. It may need dark Matter to kick off the reaction. Maybe we will find out one day. It is believed that there are only a few hundred tons of it our solar system. In other words really rare. Other galaxies are teeming with the stuff.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: edmc^2

I have to agree how they rig the debate with false parameters, the prime example is them dividing Abiogenesis up from macroevolution based on scientific semantics that they enforce to make it so much easier to defend their concept of how life came to be on our planet.

WTF? Abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. How are you still repeating this lie from decades ago? They are completely difference processes which happened independently of one another. One is a group of hypotheses, the other is a theory. Evolution isn't the origin of life. How do you still not grasp this? They separate it because it's SEPARATE!!

See I called that exact response, thank you for doing it.

a reply to: cooperton

Said to Barcs

I realize you don't understand what this means, but I say it for others who may be reading with an objective mind.

This is exactly what the OP is talking about, but I am still not sure if they really honestly 100% believe it, or if they are perpetually projecting this scientific dogma because they are intellectually smart enough to understand that to concede this one point for pure scientific intellectual honesty, it would lead to their eventual defeat with science and math as the only basis. Belief or faith in God would have zero to do with it, if I was on the other side that possibility would scare me too.
So what happens is scientific propaganda which is the equivalent of fake news, you know the type where CNN is saying they are broadcasting live from the middle east, when really they are behind a blue/green screen in Atlanta.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution does not require an abiogenesis event. Origins might have been kicked off by an intelligent designer (though not even an iota of evidence yet that suggests a higher power), and if that were the case, evolution would still hold true.

The process of evolution does not care about the genesis event... whether natural or super-natural.

An objective mind realises that your second paragraph is nothing but an Appeal to Complexity fallacy, without a single discernible, logical fact. Oh, and a belittling comment in your last sentence... very mature.

Fail at logic once again.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

Evolution does not require an abiogenesis event. Origins might have been kicked off by an intelligent designer (though not even an iota of evidence yet that suggests a higher power), and if that were the case, evolution would still hold true.

The process of evolution does not care about the genesis event... whether natural or super-natural.

An objective mind realises that your second paragraph is nothing but an Appeal to Complexity fallacy, without a single discernible, logical fact. Oh, and a belittling comment in your last sentence... very mature.



Fail at logic once again.

Nope, that is just your perspective of how you want to see it, your the one that is failing at logic.

a reply to: edmc^2

Many of the points you raise are just as equally applicable to the alternative point of view.

As it stands evolution is by far the best explanation we have.
It's not set in stone and its continually developing as new discoveries are found.

You talk about no empirical evidence for evolution....well where is the empirical evidence for creationism or even intelligent design?

As an aside; how many creationists are also flat earthers, believe the earth is only 10,000 years old or so and that dinosaur fossils were placed there deliberately by 'God' as some sort of test?

I don't know if there's a God, and to be honest I don't really care.

Every bit of evidence I've ever seen or read or watched or whatever leads me to think that evolution has a far better chance of being proven true than creationism....please, please try and prove otherwise.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Where did my perspective or logic fail?

That the genesis event could have been natural or super-natural (we don't know yet, no definitive proof either way)? That regardless of how life originated, there are then natural processes, that effect the progression of life (could be evolution, or an alternative that you have never suggested), which is separate to how that life began?

That his second paragraph is totally and completely an Appeal to Complexity fallacy?

All seem logically sound points to me. Can you point out where my flaw in logic is exactly?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

An objective mind realises that your second paragraph is nothing but an Appeal to Complexity fallacy, without a single discernible, logical fact. Oh, and a belittling comment in your last sentence... very mature.

An appeal to complexity is the argument that because someone doesn't understand something, therefor it is not true. That's not what I'm doing at all. I understand the theorized mechanism of evolution and realize it is not possible from what is exhibited in a lab.

1) There are no complete missing links between supposed ape-like creatures and humans (all samples are fragments, extremely sparse. Especially if these supposed transitional species were roaming the earth for millions of years you would think we would have found at least 1 full skeleton by now, as we do with dinosaurs)

2) dinosaurs co-existed with humans, soft tissue and red blood cell fragments found in t-rex bones, and carbon dating dinosaurs determining them to be less than 40,000 years old... indicating that the secular-sponsored timescale is way off, not allowing an unfathomable amount of time to pull off the evolutionary miracles.

3) an organism changing into another organism has never been observed, ever. Despite countless efforts by scientists for over 100 years. Antibiotic resistance turned out to just be epigenetic inheritance - the antithesis to Darwinian evolution (instead emulating Lamarckism). There's been millions of generations of fruit flies in labs across the world and not one lab has changed them into something other than a fruit fly - despite trying very hard with artificial selective pressures. The example of the dark and light moths, and how the dark moths exhibited allele drift is by no means proof of evolution - the dark morphology of moths was already present in the gene pool, you just assume evolution somehow managed to create this phenotype without any scientific evidence. Further demonstrating your theory is faith-based, and always jumps to conclusions in favor of evolution. "evolution did it... not sure how... but we know it definitely did".

4) Do you realize these evolutionary scientists have to come up with interesting stuff to be published? They have to in order to get paid. Do you realize the confirmation bias that leads to? So you have a cacophany of garbage science, paid for by government grants (hurray! pay taxes to be lied to about our origins and the meaning of life...), that will extrapolate data, jump to conclusions, and so on, just to remain relevant in a dying field that has no actual basis in empirical evidence.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh the monumental levels of irony...

"God did it... not sure how... but we know it definitely did"... case closed all scientists should stop testing any evolution related concepts, and the government should funnel all evolution funding into the church... right?

... and accusations of "confirmation bias" from a creationist?... lol...

An appeal to complexity isn't "... someone doesn't understand something, therefor it is not true.'... it is "... someone doesn't understand something, therefor it is God that did it"... the fallacy is saying "God did it", because it seems too complex to happen naturally, and not providing evidence to support your claim. (I don't believe I'm having to explain this!... hard to have discourse when you don't accurately understand the concepts you are discussing).

The rest... ok... so evolution is wrong. Where do we put our research funding then? If not evolution, what testable alternative encompasses all of the evidence (from these many areas... fossil record, geology, global species distribution, genetic inheritance, taxonomy, biology, etc.)

Come on man! You can't just say something is wrong, and not suggest either a correction or an alternative?

So what is correct?... and how do we test it?

I'm being serious here... let's move past "evolution is wrong", and discuss testable alternatives? Unless you can't that is.

But if it was god, shouldn't we still be able to test its creation, or see evidence for it?

Did god set a process in motion that governs development of complexity, or is god the eternal tinkerer, constantly inserting new species into the universe on a whim? If so, when does God do this? What is the mechanism for insertion of a species into our universe? There must be evidence of the handiwork, or a signature... or is god hiding all evidence from us? As god's plaything's are we not allowed to know how the back-end works? Does god have a library of genetics and body parts that gets put together, or does god start from scratch every time? How can we test any of these things, or will god even allow is to test them?

Should we not question how the universe works, and follow the evidence?

So where does the evidence lead us, and what is this elusive testable alternative to evolution that you just will not offer?

Or admit that in hundreds of years, thousands of thoughts, no-one (not even theists) have been able to suggest an alternative to evolution... and creation is not testable, it is philosophy, so not a scientific alternative.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Creationists cant lose the argument with anyone who forwards evolution
Creationism has science on their side, their is no empirical evidence for evolution, evolution is a faith

Rather than defend creation, just contest the science of evolution and evolution dissolves almost instantly
Problem is the average evolution believer doesn’t have a clue what science really is.

Fair enough, I wont argue with you. However, would you please enlighten those of us not in the know, as to what science truly is. Thank you.

a reply to: edmc^2

Why do so many seem to fall in to the fruitless game of choosing one side or the other (Evolution or Creation)? Not many seem to realize that it's a combination of both. Evolution is a fact! However, evolution is simply God's creative technique in Time and Space. I prefer to call it Progressive Evolution. I look at God as a fact as well. The entire Universe, from Macro to Micro is ripe with design and purpose that could not happen by chance.

Though the existence of God can never truly be proven by physical Science alone, I find it impossible to believe that the Universe is just an accident. One thing that science has proven is that Life only stems from pre-existent Life. Life is purposeful and life is established on the worlds of time and space with intent.

This will be more evident in the years to come when contact is made with other worlds and beings. The current theory of evolution would have a hard time explaining how intelligent beings developed on other worlds. Even more so if their forms are similar to ours.

It just seems sad to me that so many people argue over this. I understand the scientific mind that only believes what it can prove. Yet these same scientists pin much on theory which to me is another word for faith.

Consider the following:

Mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities. Not only in the realms of life but even in the world of physical energy, the sum of two or more things is very often something more than, or something different from, the predictable additive consequences of such unions. The entire science of mathematics, the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance—liquid water. The understanding knowledge of this one physiochemical phenomenon should have prevented the development of materialistic philosophy and mechanistic cosmology.

Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or a thing can do. For example: Water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn.

I believe that most people that do not believe in God feel this way because of the religion they have been exposed to. Things just don't make sense. Most religions have a very narrow view and are not very clear on many topics. If anyone is interested in a larger view of God, the Universe and our place in it please check out The Urantia Book (www.urantia.org...).

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Creationists cant lose the argument with anyone who forwards evolution
Creationism has science on their side, their is no empirical evidence for evolution, evolution is a faith

Rather than defend creation, just contest the science of evolution and evolution dissolves almost instantly
Problem is the average evolution believer doesn’t have a clue what science really is.

Fair enough, I wont argue with you. However, would you please enlighten those of us not in the know, as to what science truly is. Thank you.

Yeah but nah, in the context of the question I was answering relating to the post your question is to broad for a simple answer