Though the creationist denies evolution, he can very seldom refute the evidence for it. [Spirituality & Religion]
If you deny evolution, how do you refute the evidence we have for it in the for of fossils and genetics? Is your denial based on the evidence or is it based on a pre-existing world view?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I’ve told you before about being careful about using this term evolution because we know evolution happens through natural selection. What we are questioning is Darwinism which we know did not happen as Darwin said. We know through fossil evidence at least a gradualism didn’t happen. Things like the Cambrian explosion tell us that it wasn’t gradual like Darwin said it was. The problem is that you asked too many simplistic questions without realising there are huge complicated answers that Darwinist simply haven’t solved. The very fact that you say that unguided forces can produce things like personality and intelligence without having personality and intelligence themselves always seems to me completely incomprehensible. Have you got an explanation for that? There are things that Darwinist need to explain themselves without this rather arrogant attitude that creationists of got to do all the explaining. So please tell me how unguided forces can produce personality and intelligence
Yes...you do keep talking about darwinism and it's weird. If you think you can refute evolution by attacking the specific model that Darwin came up with nearly 200 years ago....then you have made a serious mistake. Evolution as a science has been developing in depth and scope for all of that time. You'd know that if you actually attempted to inform yourself about that which you deny. You tell me that i ask too simplistic questions...and you you in all sincerity ask me why some animals don't appear to have changed!? Do you have any idea how low level and simplistic a question that is? I don't say that to reprimand you but to impress on you how limited is your understanding of this subject you contest so violently.
[quote] So please tell me how unguided forces can produce personality and intelligence[/quote]
Personality is just an amalgam of predispositions and learned behavior in response to certain stimuli. It's nothing special or myserious. Even dogs and cats have different personalities. Some are more aggressive or affectionate, food possessive and indifferent. Same with humans. Just qualities that are a balance between nature and nurture, a fact that modern psychology has known for ages.
Intelligence is nothing more than an aptitude for dealing with problems. Problem solving behaviour is common to many, many animals besides humans. How could this arise without intention? Simple: an individual which through some quirk of genetics is able or likely to attempt novel solutions to a given problem retains a competitive advantage over those that are only able to operate institutionally. As this organisms succeeds in intra-specific competition, this predisposition is spread throughout the population.
As a final note i must point out that an argument from incredulity is not counter evidence. Saying "I don't know how x could happen, therefor i am justified in believing that it did not" is a logical fallacy. You get that, right?
You just don’t get it. Evolution occurs we know but at what level? Darwinism is another matter altogether and has never been proved. You don’t seem to note the difference which is not surprising as you have no doubt been indoctrinated by Darwinism through the education system. They even teach Miller’s experiment@Pikachu
[quote] Darwinism is another matter altogether and has never been proved[/quote]
Incorrect. Evolution (as we agree) is indisputable within a family or a genus. It has been shown through fossil and genetic evidence to have occurred on a much broader scale as well. These are evidences which i am happy to discuss in detail. Just say the word and we will begin.
Incorrect. Darwinism has not been shown to have occurred. The transmutation of species is very much in dispute. The fossil evidence is not there@Pikachu
No. Sorry bud. There's no legitimate scientific dispute about the fact that evolution has occurred. It's not a controversy. On one side there is virtually every scientist studying such things across various fields that agree that the evidence shows evolution....and on the other side there are a handful of (sometimes) scientists, sometimes in a related field, often with religious motivation who disagree.
While there continues to be robust debate about the particulars of the process of evolution, there is no balance of controversy to be taught.
Given that you ask questions like "why are there not animals evolving into humans" i feel that perhaps you have not kept very close attention on the subject of evolution and its evidences. Speaking of which...
[quote]The fossil evidence is not there[/quote]
Of course it is. Remember the dinosaur fossils i posted and detailed their transitional features? Remember how the only response you had for that was a 30 year old, roundly criticized article which only deal with one of the fossils anyway? Archaeopteryx since then has been definitively assigned to dinosauria. In fact the only debate about archaopteryx now is whether it has a direct lineage or whether it is on another branch.
So let's talk about microraptor and it's exhibition of [i]literally[/i] the very [i]definition[/i] of what a transitional fossil should posses. I'm happy to go into more detail but before i devote my time to it, i'd like your promise that you will at least attempt in good faith to debate and refute the evidence. So, do i have your word?
Sure. In the same way there's a [i]controversy[/i] about whether you can cure cancer with homeopathy: some homeopaths say you can... every other actual scientist across a number of medical and physics fields says that it cannot.
Same thing here. There are a handful of people who disagree but there is no legitimate [i]scientific[/i] controversy here. Simple as that.
Certainly. There have been very significant examples of that very principle. Like Dr. Semmelweis who thought it would be a good idea to wash your hands between surgeries and the delivery of babies. Other doctors derided him because if he was right, that would mean they were responsible for thousands of unnecessary infections and deaths. But the evidence was undeniable and this was the first step in the germ theory of disease which is now the basis for much modern medicine.
But here's the thing, speedy: the time to reject scientific consensus is [i]after[/i] it is shown to be flawed, not [i]before[/i]. If evolution is wrong then the evidence would show it....but over and over and over across field after field of independent study...evolution keeps being validated and the few nay sayers have done nothing, [i]nothing[/i], speedy but say "how could x happen". They never, [i]never[/i] show that x [i]did not[/i] happen.
So get back to me with that Galileo complex when there's a little more substance to the counter evidence.🤣🤣
[i][c=#BF0000]P.S. Your red herring almost worked. Shame on me lol. But i could help but notice that while you're happy to assert that there is no fossil evidence, you seem to have backed down from actually debating that point. Was that an oversight? Would you like to correct it now?
If you think you can go toe to toe with me, let's debate the fossil evidence. You game?[/c][/i]
I explain that the fact that there exist individuals who reject scientific evidence does not represent a legitimate scientific controversy...and you feel that your [i]best[/i] response is a quote about paying attention to smart people?
Hmm well ok. lol excellent advice. Practice what you preach.
@Pikachu Your problem is of course that you don’t really know what you’re talking about and you’re just recycling a load of stuff which you’ve picked up off the Internet without really understanding it. You’re not qualified to talk about the stuff you regurgitating
