Best YEC argument

[Dan_Defender]

If you are referring to macroevolution – or the evolution of complex forms of life from simpler ones, - the evidence based on biochemistry is miniscule to nothing. The evidences from paleontology have serious flaws on them.

I agree. And there are other problems: a fish with both lungs and gills… the fact that something as simple as a wheel is only human, while something as complex as electricity generation and storage occurs in ancient animal species.

 

[Freddy]

rom:

If you are referring to macroevolution – or the evolution of complex forms of life from simpler ones, - the evidence based on biochemistry is miniscule to nothing. The evidences from paleontology have serious flaws on them.

I agree. And there are other problems: a fish with both lungs and gills…

D: ‘If evolution was true then we’d have examples of intermediary creatures like fish that could live in the water and on land. They don’t exist. That proves evolution is rubbish!’
F: ‘But here’s one.’
D: ‘Ah. They do exist. That proves evolution is rubbish!’

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Yes it can. Very easily. Whoever told you that it couldn’t wasn’t being truthful. Tell him or her that they need to study the subject a little more so they don’t end up giving you incorrect information.

You can tell them. Some of them are here…

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”

What would you tell all these scientists anyway?

 

[whatistrue]

right lets just guess that this material

Not what I said at all. As an engineer you should know that. I am out - muting now.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yes it can. Very easily. Whoever told you that it couldn’t wasn’t being truthful. Tell him or her that they need to study the subject a little more so they don’t end up giving you incorrect information.

You can tell them. Some of them are here…

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”

What would you tell all these scientists anyway?

I would tell them that they should be skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life and careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

And then they can get back to us when they have a better theory.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

And then they can get back to us when they have a better theory.

So in other words this theory is only being paraded as truth because there are no other better ones.
Not because it has undeniable evidence. Ah we’ll just teach the kids that this is true even though it is not proven to be and there is a level of disagreement among scientists. It’s a hypothesis at best.

Check out Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, Doug Axe as they have better theories while refuting Darwanism. I can accept a person saying this may be the most likely explanation we have but thats not what is being taught

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And then they can get back to us when they have a better theory.

So in other words this theory is only being paraded as truth because there are no other better ones.
Not because it has undeniable evidence. Ah we’ll just teach the kids that this is true even though it is not proven to be and there is a level of disagreement among scientists. It’s a hypothesis at best.

No, it’s not being ‘paraded as the truth’.

And yes, it’s being presented as the best explanation for the available evidence because there are no better ones.

And yes, it’s not proven to be true. One can’t prove theories. As I said, they are explanations.

And yes, some scientists argue over the details. That’s what scientists do. But those scientists are not offering a different scientific theory. They are debating the nuances of the existing one.

 

[Inquisitor85]

That’s how it works, it remains theory until it is proven wrong. Same applies to Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of Gravity, or anything else, if you have a better idea present your evidence and disprove evolution. If you do then theres a Nobel Prize with your name on.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Same applies to Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of Gravity, or anything else

There is no debate surrounding those theories, they are accepted. ToE is not. It has much opposition from different angles with different counter theories.

But those scientists are not offering a different scientific theor

Theistic evolution, gap theory, day age theory, apparent age theory, scientific creationism, punctuated 24 hour theory to name a few.

 

[Freddy]

Inquisitor85:

Same applies to Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of Gravity, or anything else

There is no debate surrounding those theories, they are accepted. ToE is not. It has much opposition from different angles with different counter theories.

But those scientists are not offering a different scientific theor

Theistic evolution, gap theory, day age theory, apparent age theory, scientific creationism, punctuated 24 hour theory to name a few.

The germ theory is a catch all concept for many theories about pathogens and how diseases can start. It never has been a single theory and is constantly changing and evolving in many areas of medicine. And you need to catch up with develolments regarding gravity. Another theory in a state of flux. Have you not heard of gravity waves?

And all the theories you mentioned as being possible replacements for evolution are theistic proposals. Which aren’t acceptable to science I’m afraid. Maybe ID? (stop sniggering at the back! People actually take it seriously).

 

[Pai_Nosso]

No, it’s not being ‘paraded as the truth’.

Cmon mate. Maybe not by u but people like Richard Dawkins immediately comes to mind. There are some radicals that call ToE gospel and Darwin their prophet.

And all the theories you mentioned as being possible replacements for evolution are theistic proposals. Which aren’t acceptable to science I’m afraid. Maybe ID?

Fair point I should of seen that coming. U know ID is just a front for creationism.

stop sniggering at the back! People actually take it seriously

Snigerring- Laughing in a half-suppressed, typically scornful way.
Cmon mate is that what u think im doing?
Im sorry if u got that impression as it wasn’t my intention

U said that ToE is the best theory that science has ATM and I agree with that. U just find it more probable than me.

What r u doing here anyway? Ur not a Catholic, right? So our beliefs should mean nothing to u, but ur here trying to refute them. Why bother brother? Ur not expecting to convert people to atheism? Do u go onto Buddhists forums and try to refute their beliefs as well? U know?

Im just asking cos i notice hostility in society towards Christianity and don’t understand it’s source.
Talk to me, where are u comin from?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No, it’s not being ‘paraded as the truth’.

Cmon mate. Maybe not by u but people like Richard Dawkins immediately comes to mind. There are some radicals that call ToE gospel and Darwin their prophet.

And all the theories you mentioned as being possible replacements for evolution are theistic proposals. Which aren’t acceptable to science I’m afraid. Maybe ID?

Fair point I should of seen that coming. U know ID is just a front for creationism.

stop sniggering at the back! People actually take it seriously

Snigerring- Laughing in a half-suppressed, typically scornful way.
Cmon mate is that what u think im doing?
Im sorry if u got that impression as it wasn’t my intention

U said that ToE is the best theory that science has ATM and I agree with that. U just find it more probable than me.

What r u doing here anyway? Ur not a Catholic, right? So our beliefs should mean nothing to u, but ur here trying to refute them. Why bother brother? Ur not expecting to convert people to atheism? Do u go onto Buddhists forums and try to refute their beliefs as well? U know?

Im just asking cos i notice hostility in society towards Christianity and don’t understand it’s source.
Talk to me, where are u comin from?

I’ve been here for very many years (not just as Freddy). I enjoy a good discussion about life, the universe and everything. And everything includes faith. Fascinating subject.

And I’m pretty sure you’d be able to come up with a couple of reasons why some people are hostile to some Christians. No need for me to tell you.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I’ve been here for very many years (not just as Freddy). I enjoy a good discussion about life, the universe and everything. And everything includes faith. Fascinating subject.

Fair enough. Are u an atheist, agnostic like, where are you at?

I was basically raised by Catholics, went atheist for 10 years. The next 10 years i was agnostic where the possibility of a God slowly went from 5% to 100%.

Have u got like a probability of possibilities?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’ve been here for very many years (not just as Freddy). I enjoy a good discussion about life, the universe and everything. And everything includes faith. Fascinating subject.

Fair enough. Are u an atheist, agnostic like, where are you at?

I was basically raised by Catholics, went atheist for 10 years. The next 10 years i was agnostic where the possibility of a God slowly went from 5% to 100%.

Have u got like a probability of possibilities?

95%…?

 

[Pai_Nosso]

95%…?

So a 5% possibility of some kind of God. Fair enough.
Has that ever changed?

When I gave God little chance i would of thought that all these different religions we see around the globe were created mainly to control people. Is that kind of ur perspective?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

95%…?

So a 5% possibility of some kind of God. Fair enough.
Has that ever changed?

When I gave God little chance i would of thought that all these different religions we see around the globe were created mainly to control people. Is that kind of ur perspective?

The percentage has been dropping over the years. I don’t know if this makes sense but the God I don’t believe in now isn’t the God I used to believe in when I was young. It was only as I got to understand what He actually was meant to be that the belief started to fade.

And I believe that religions are entirely a natural feature of societies. The have never been ‘designed’ to control people (well, there are exceptions such as scientology) but have occured as a means to bring people together with a common outlook. And that will involve some control of the adherents as a matter of course.

 

[tafan2]

And I believe that religions are entirely a natural feature of societies. The have never been ‘designed’ to control people (well, there are exceptions such as scientology) but have occured as a means to bring people together with a common outlook. And that will involve some control of the adherents as a matter of course.

I’ll give you credit, that is a more objective view if religion than most atheists hold. Always hard to complete the phrase “if I was an atheist, I would think X”. But since I in no way feel my religion exists to control me (cradle Catholic here, and have never felt that way), I have never understood the argument that religions are there to control us all.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I believe that religions are entirely a natural feature of societies. The have never been ‘designed’ to control people (well, there are exceptions such as scientology) but have occured as a means to bring people together with a common outlook. And that will involve some control of the adherents as a matter of course.

I’ll give you credit, that is a more objective view if religion than most atheists hold. Always hard to complete the phrase “if I was an atheist, I would think X”. But since I in no way feel my religion exists to control me (cradle Catholic here, and have never felt that way), I have never understood the argument that religions are there to control us all.

As I said, Tafan, I don’t believe it is either. But it results in some control by default and that, within a social context, is not a bad thing.

A football club isn’t designed to control people. It’s brought into existence to bring together people with the same interests. That they are under the control of the club chairman or committe or simply by the very rules and regs of the club is entirely incidental. But the club wouldn’t be a group of like minded individuals if if didn’t have some structure that exercised some control of its members.

We are social animals and a structure to whatever aspect of social life we happen to choose will necessarily require you to accept certain conditions on how you are meant to operate within that structure.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So if you are shown evidence that it can be observed and can be tested and that you can repeat experiments, would you change your mind? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#e1

I have read these evolutionary arguments before. And, no, this is not evidence of “repeatable experiments” that somehow “prove” evolution. Some of the arguments even admit that theories have “changed” over time, and even contradicted previous evolutionary arguments from the past. But the replacement of one theory over another does not actually “prove” evolution. It merely disagrees with other non-repeatable “experiments.” Again, there are no solid, silver bullet theories of evolution that demonstrably proves that a lower life-form somehow “evolved” into a higher lifeform over millions of years. Scientists have never “observed” this change over millions of years, nor can they test it in a laboratory, nor can they repeat it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So if you are shown evidence that it can be observed and can be tested and that you can repeat experiments, would you change your mind? https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#e1

And, no, this is not evidence of “repeatable experiments” that somehow “prove” evolution…But the replacement of one theory over another does not actually “prove” evolution…Again, there are no solid, silver bullet theories of evolution that demonstrably proves…

I think we might skip any further discussion. That you aren’t even aware that theories cannot be proved indicates to me that you don’t have enough knowledge about the subject for anything good to come from it.

Thanks anyway.