Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of that is actually evidence for Intelligent Design. Saying that the other side has flimsy evidence doesn't make your evidence stronger. You have no evidence. None.
Surely, you have some evidence that can stand on its own two feet. Go.
Isn't the entire support for evolution that ID can't stand on its own two feet?
After all, Harrier has been asking a particular member who has participated in this thread to defend the theory of evolution for almost a full week, and instead they have deflected by bringing up creation, as if that had anything to do with the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.
Occams razor is a axiom, the simplest solution is (all things being equal) the most likely.
One solution states that natural processes led to the adaptation of species to fill specific roles in their environment, the one's better suited to their environment increased in number and thrives, the one's less suited to their environment decreased in number and became extinct. As environments change so to do the species, and even when environments do not, species still adapt to better suit their environment.
One solution states that an Intelligent designer created all life, and populated the environment, not only did he design life, he also ensured that the ecosystem created was in enough balance with enough head space to ensure that except in a few known instances, the system never self-destructed.
The former solution fulfills the criteria of occams razor far better than the latter, just the complexity of having an intelligent designer, and the complexity of the ecosystem that the intelligent designer created means it's many, many orders of magnitude more complex, and we already have proof in several areas (mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology) that simple processes can indeed create complex structures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
2) Organic evolution has never been observed.
Sure it has, check out the E.Coli evolution described earlier in the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
3) Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Wouldn't that be more pertinent to ID? For example we know maggots and flies are not spontaneously generated by corruption in rotting flesh. If you're discussing abiogenesis, then you're barking up the wrong theory, Evolutionary theory has no explanation currently how life began, because it's not pertinent to the theory, the theory assumes life, and is about the nature of how that life develops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
4) Language. Humans do not learn speech except from other humans who already speak.
However that more firmly proves that there is no ID. If there were wouldn't their be one language? Occams razor implies that unless the designer was messing with us, then all language would the be same. Before I was speaking English, I was speaking, not English and only my 18 month old sister could understand me, but I was speaking and the family consensus is that whatever my sister was translating was accurate, from me requesting diaper changes, to food, to being cold (I don't know if this makes me or my sister special, but it is relatively unusual). The issue isn't whether we speak or not, the issue is understanding the vocalization of one person has a meaning that another can comprehend. If we're just looking at pure language, then we've invented several and more in the course of recorded history, Sign Language is an excellent example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx
5) The failure of evolutionist to overcome the non-falsifiable hypothesis. eg. when a creationist makes a statement like "metamorphesis could not have evolved" an evolutionist points out that it could, but we just haven't figured out how yet.
I don't think you understand what a non-falsifiable hypothesis is. The Evolutionist is defending the theory by applying an ad-hoc hypothesis, the question is not is it falsifiable, its is the ad-hoc hypothesis reasonable? If you want proof that Evolution is falsifiable, I'll use Dawkins example of finding any modern species in the Precambrian era, that completely falsifies evolution, there is no way if the theory of evolution is accurate (assuming all other factors are taken into consideration) if for example you found a Cappuchin Monkey fossil in the Precambrian era.
Ah - but Harrier can refute the theory of evolution - which cannot stand on its "own two feet" - because it is complete nonsense.
He will make this clear once you answer the questions that you have been avoiding for almost a whole week:
Why do you think that there is observable evidence for evolution?
What is your definition of evolution?
Please answer in your own words.
C'mon - you obviously feel strongly about this, so why won't you just defend your position by answering these very simple questions?
Quit dodging and deflecting - it only erodes your credibility - which is nil to begin with.
As you have now promised to provide your evidence to refute the theory of evolution if I answer your 2 questions specifically, I'll bite.
Simply speaking, evolution is the heritable changes in the gene pool of populations through successive generations. Just to clarify, a population evolves, not an individual organism. There are several mechanisms for these changes in allele frequencies in populations - natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, gene flow etc
Why do I think there is observable evidence for evolution? Because scientists have observed changes in the gene pool of populations through successive generations. In modern times, this can be tested with DNA analysis.
An obvious example is Richard Lenski's 25 year experiment with E. coli. Almost 60,000 generations have been observed from the populations starting in 12 different environments and the genetic changes have been recorded from samples that have been frozen every 500 generations. One particularly interesting evolutionary change was one strain in an aerobic environment, evolving the ability to be able to use citric acid as a carbon source.
Changes over much longer periods of time and many more generations of different populations can also be observed and tested using DNA analysis, fossils, comparative anatomy etc.
Okay. I answered your questions specifically.
So will you now specifically answer the questions that I asked you first? Or are you going to keep dodging and deflecting and demand I answer even more of your questions when you kept refusing to answer mine?
In your own words please:
1. What do you think evolution is?
2. What scientific evidence can you present that can refute the Theory of Evolution?
True - Ham will completely destroy anything that Nye presents.
Ham will try to keep Bill on the run demanding that he defend Ham's usual barrage of ridiculous scientifically illiterate straw man arguments without ever really presenting any evidence himself (well he has nothing other the Bible).
Ham: "You can't answer how a monkey gave birth to a human can you? Hah! I win!"
Bill: But that's not what evolution is....
Ham: (interrupts)Yes it is! That's what you evolutionist claim isn't it? You can't answer my question can you? Hah! I win!"
Bill: If you give me a chance to explain what evolution actually is....
Ham: (interrupts) I know what evolution is. Are you saying I don't? You evolutionists are so arrogant! Where's the missing link fossil of a half whale - half dog? You can't show me one can you?" Hah! I win!"
Bill: There is no missing link - that's a popular misconception of science and you can't have a whale and.....
Ham: (interrupts) No missing link? See? You admit you have no missing links. Hah! I win.
Bill: But as I was trying to explain to you...
Ham: (interupts) "Were you there to see it when a dinosaur changed into a bird one day? No? Hah! I win!"
Bill: But that's not...
Ham: (interrupts) "See? You can't answer me can you. You weren't there! Hah! I win!"
Bill: But what you are saying is not cor...
Ham: "You weren't there! Are you seriously claiming you were? See how evolutionists tell lies? I have an eye-witness account of Creation written by someone who was there - God. Do you? No? Hah! I win!"
Bill: But that's not science... that's...
Ham: (interrupts) Of course it's science. Obviously you don't even know what science is. This is too easy. Hah! I win!"
Bill will probably be scratching his head thinking "WTH is this lunatic even saying? He will be hesitating thinking how can he politely tell Ham that everything he is saying is pure codswallop while Ham is crowing victory!
Isn't the entire support for evolution that ID
can't stand on its own two feet?
No, not even a little bit. Evolution is evolution, and remains unchanged whether you think God poofed the world into existence, or Mombo of the Kuba vomited the earth, sun, moon and stars into being.
No, not even a little bit. Evolution is evolution, and remains unchanged whether you think God poofed the world into existence, or Mombo of the Kuba vomited the earth, sun, moon and stars into being.
It's funny how they keep linking ID back to Creationism themselves, yet continue to deny it's a religious idea.
I'm confident that I missed nothing. But rather than persevorate on the fundamental error that underlay your "point," I simply pointed it out and then went on to make a couple points of my own. That is how conversations are supposed to work.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 01-17-2014 at 10:53 AM..
Thank you for your reply. Since this book has been mentioned a lot in this thread, I wanted to know more about it. I went to Amazon and read all of the preview content there. Of course, that is not like reading the entire book, but it seems the author is trying to address the ORIGIN of life (and the unlikeliness that life spontaneously appeared) more than evolution of life. Is that accurate?
Yes. The Theory of Evolution never even addresses the origins of life on this planet.
It's important to understand that ID does not preclude ToE, nor does ToE preclude ID. Anyone arguing otherwise on this thread (and there are a few ) are merely afraid of keeping their minds open to contradictory information. They cannot fathom a world in which 2 different things can both be true at the same time. They're intellectually limited and therefore faulty, IOW.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
