ID KO'd in Pennsylvania

[abcdefg]

a “positive evolution”?
Furious squirrels attack stray dog and tear it to pieces

english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/97/385/16565_squirrels.html

 

[abcdefg]

Does evolution theory take the form of science?
To be a science theory it at least has to be falsifiable. tell me, what evidence, if found, can falsify evolution theory. If there isn’t any, then it’s not science but conspiracy theory.

 

[Digger71]

abcdefg:

Does evolution theory take the form of science?
To be a science theory it at least has to be falsifiable. tell me, what evidence, if found, can falsify evolution theory. If there isn’t any, then it’s not science but conspiracy theory.

Evolution can be falsified in many ways.

A good example would be a true chimera, such as a mermaid, a cockatrice, or something more mundane, such as fish with feathers. These would falsify evolution by mixing up features in an ad-hoc fashion, when evolution has a strict set of rules regarding what features can be found within an animal group and what cannot.

Alternatively, you can design a fitness landscape, and make predictions about which of a selection of organisms will survive. An extreme and fairly useless example is to set up a aquarium/vivarium designed to dry out in 60 days and stock it with fish and frogs. We would predict the fish would die first was they suffocated, the frogs, having lungs would live longer.

While this second example seems obvious and pointless, remember that if the fish ‘magically’ developed lungs, evolution would be disproven.

The fossil record itself would disprove evolution if it was static, that is, if we did not see change-over-time in the animals recorded there-in. A dinosaur surrounded by ediacaran fauna, or a human from the silurian.

In breeding terms, if a fly gave birth to a horse, that would demonstrate a complete re-ordering of DNA, and a substantial injection of new data in the genome, and many, many modifications to the developmental pathways. This would falsify evolution that says offspring must resemble parents (in this case you would get an arthopod becoming a chodate).

At a molecular level, evolution would be disproved if it was found that all features of all animals/plants existed in a supressed state and only those appropriate to the species were expressed. This would imply that any life can become any other life if the correct genes were expressed, and this would destroy the concept of linneages.

Again, at the molecular level, it it was found mutations do not accumulate and pass on, there would be no means for a species to evolve, and evolution would be falsified.

That is 6 ways to falsify evolution. Any of these would pose a very serious problem to the theory of evolution. Actually, to be strictly accurate the fossil evidence has to be very extreme to falsify evolution, because in general a new fossil simply pushes back or brings forward the earliest appearance or latest appearance.

So it isnt a conspiracy theory.

 

[abcdefg]

1. There’s no need for fish with feathers or mermaids if there’s an intelligent designers. so if there’re fish with feathers it also falsify intelligent design as now we have an ignorant designer.
   1.1 Fur/hair greatly enhance the possibility for humans, why we no long have thick furs as monkey or bears? humans who firstly develop body hair as we have today are more likely to be frozen to death which is contrary to evolution
2. everyone can predict fish die earlier than frogs without using evolution theory or ID
   2.1 fish with lungs(lung fish) does exist. which can be explained by both ET and ID. however ET can’t specify which specify it comes from
   2.2 you do believe God exists, who can’t any human instantly develop wings when fallling from a plane. if you 're refering to develop wings during a long period of time look at 2.1
3. fossil leaves much to be desired. only a small fraction of “intermediate state” creatures found. even this ET can’t prove they come from random evolution instead of some already existed species died out themselves.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

if flies constantly gives births to horses, ID can’t be true either. ET is atheism inspired, ID is theism inspired

4.1 Because you’re a Catholic. I can bring out Jesus as an example who has no scientifically verifiable father. and biologically virgin birth is impossible.

1. It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin
   news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386516.stm
   5.1 everything can mutate and inherit. this doesn’t necessarily make ET true. we have all kinds of skin color. it simply doesn’t serve any side of the battle.
2. consider these
   6.0.1 research found creatures likes to breed with others with the same feature. that is a human’s ideal spouse is the one share the same genes but of the other sex.
   6.0.2 humans brought up together from young are unlikely to get married. so if a creature suddenly develops a new gene, it’s unlikely it can find another spouse and pass the mutation to its offspring. Do you like to marry a man/woman who has the same intelligence as you but can photosynsis thus appearing green? you can say he/she is ugly. that’s right you regard any one differs your gene very much as ugly.
   6.0.3 due to the rarity of a good mutation, it’s almost certain(whoever studied this can use a stronger word I guess) superior creatures appear very slowly. say today there’s no human on earth and tomorrow there’re humans. the number is 1 or 2 at the best. it can’t be 1000 or 2000 humans. so humans have to choose monkeys/apes as mates that return to 6.0.2
   6.0.4 do you think human(homo sapien) is a species distinguishable from a monkey? that’s there’s a creature which is a monkey a second ago become a human after a second or a monkey can bear a human? be fore warned if you think monkey or other primates can bear humans it directly contradicts your assertion in 4

 

[abcdefg]

all these is to show ET and ID on the same level of science and ET and Christianity doesn’t fit well.

 

[abcdefg]

Surrendering to evolution theory is a theology disaster. If evolution theory were true, considering these:

1. God hadn’t created man, neither had Satan
2. The only advantage human have over competing species(tiger, lion for example) is the intelligence.
3. God forbids human to eat the fruit from tree of wisdom. however Satan encouraged humans to eat it. thus without Satan, humans might as well be extinct. thus we should worship Satan.

don’t say the forbidden fruit is false, otherwise there would be no original sin.

 

[abcdefg]

Somebody agrees with evolution theory here please show me which human race is superior or inferior?

As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

 

[abcdefg]

The focus of thie thread: Darwinism has been infallibly condemned by Pius XII in Humani Generis

Passage 5,6 explains Church’s position

1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

Passage 10 11 deals with the reason for those believing in Darwinism

Passage 23 condemns “symbolic interpretation” of Bible
Passage 25 points out the absurdity of method commonly known as “scientific method”
Passage 35 Church’s understanding of the status of evolution theory: a hypothesis opposed to the doctrine revealed by God
Passage 36 Officially condemns those consider the evolution theory is settled
Passage 37 Officially condemns polygenism
Passage 41 Darwinism shouldn’t be taught in school
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Creationism/ID today among Catholic is like artificial birth control before the release Humanae Vitae ----- already confirmed position but largely forgotten. to such an extent that even myself don’t remember it.

Remember even if St. Peter vocally denied Jesus Christ 3 times. it’s not a “teaching” thus not protected by Holy Ghost.

an article on another papal documents showing the tradition on ET will be written by me later

 

[abcdefg]

I decide to make this one short as this article said better than me.

We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

1. a day isn’t necessarily 24h but it must be an alteration between light and dark.
2. Eve(the first woman) come to this world in a different way to Adam(the first man), no matter how one interprets the Bible. unless one throw the Bible out of the window. however according to Darwinism, men and women came into being the same way.

Also note in these encyclical letters. the condemn of Darwinism is explicit. I don’t believe in any form of evolution theory on the origin of universe, life or man. however these 2 posts focus more on Darwinism.

 

[Digger71]

The question posed was “can evolution be falsified”. I will repeat that point regularly.

1. There’s no need for fish with feathers or mermaids if there’s an intelligent designers. so if there’re fish with feathers it also falsify intelligent design as now we have an ignorant designer.

The question was can evolution be falsified. Not “would a mermaid falsify Intelligent Design”

The animals we see around every day strictly conform to descriptive rules of biology. That is, ants have six legs, frogs have 4. A designer could break these rules and give frog 6 legs, 8 legs or 500 legs. But evolution cannot break these rules. frogs always have 4 limbs (I am not including developmental abnormalities in this).

abcdefg:

humans who firstly develop body hair as we have today are more likely to be frozen to death which is contrary to evolution

Humans evolved in Africa where, in general, you are unlikely to freeze to death. Our use of clothes and fire, part of the extended phenotype, reduced the seective pressure to develop fur.

2. everyone can predict fish die earlier than frogs without using evolution theory or ID

The question was can evolution be falsified,

I chose a blindingly obvious example so everyone would understand it. But I will explain it.

Evolution predicts less ‘fit’ animals will have less success in breeding. The ‘fitness’ of an animal is defined by it’s environment. In the experiment described the fish die and so cannot breed. Evolution would be falsified if the fish did not die. This is because it would break the explicit link between environment and ability to survive, which is called ‘natural selection’.

It is not a test of Intelligent Design, it is a test for natural selection.

abcdefg:

2.1 fish with lungs(lung fish) does exist. which can be explained by both ET and ID. however ET can’t specify which specify it comes from

I was using a generic fish and a generic frog so that the example would be blindingly obvious.

abcdefg:

2.2 you do believe God exists, who can’t any human instantly develop wings when fallling from a plane. if you 're refering to develop wings during a long period of time look at 2.1

The instant appearance of wings is another way to falsify evolution. So that is 7.

abcdefg:

1. fossil leaves much to be desired. only a small fraction of “intermediate state” creatures found. even this ET can’t prove they come from random evolution instead of some already existed species died out themselves.

The question was can evolution be falsified, not “what evidence supports evolution”

Evolution says life changes over time. A STATIC, that is unchanging fossil record would demonstrate evolution was wrong.

You are attacking evidence for evolution but that is not the question I was answering.

 

[Digger71]

abcdefg:

And God said,Let the earth bring forth the living creatureafter his kind, cattle,and creeping thing, and beast of the earthafter his kind:] and it was so.
if flies constantly gives births to horses, ID can’t be true either. ET is atheism inspired, ID is theism inspired

4.1 Because you’re a Catholic. I can bring out Jesus as an example who has no scientifically verifiable father. and biologically virgin birth is impossible.

Your second point (4.1) counter your first point.

Are you saying God does not have the power to make a fly give birth to a horse? But I thought he was omnipotent?

Evolution says a fly can never give birth to a horse. And as we are talking about how to falsify evolution (remember?) so that is a solid example of how evolution would be proven wrong.

If God can cause a virgin birth he can make flies give birth to horses.

abcdefg:

1. It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin

Evolution would be falsified if the genes were 100% the same but one was a person and one was a pumpkin.

abcdefg:

5.1 everything can mutate and inherit. this doesn’t necessarily make ET true. we have all kinds of skin color. it simply doesn’t serve any side of the battle.

Evolution would be falsified if it was found that genomes do not mutate, or there was no way to pass on those mutations.

Evolution states variation is due to different genes, and these genes differ due to mutation. If there was no mutation there would be no variation and nothign for natural selection to work on.

abcdefg:

1. consider these
   6.0.1 research found creatures likes to breed with others with the same feature. that is a human’s ideal spouse is the one share the same genes but of the other sex.

Bestiality, hybridisation, inbreeding. There are ample examples of attempts to mate with things that cannot lead to reproduction.

My favourite hybrid is the Liger.

abcdefg:

Do you like to marry a man/woman who has the same intelligence as you but can photosynsis thus appearing green? you can say he/she is ugly. that’s right you regard any one differs your gene very much as ugly.

I would think a photosynthesising person very cool, and I would marry them.

abcdefg:

6.0.3 due to the rarity of a good mutation, it’s almost certain(whoever studied this can use a stronger word I guess) superior creatures appear very slowly. say today there’s no human on earth and tomorrow there’re humans. the number is 1 or 2 at the best. it can’t be 1000 or 2000 humans. so humans have to choose monkeys/apes as mates that return to 6.0.2

That is not how evolution works. Evolution is gradual (with the exception of some types of hybridisation). It is not lizard-cosmic ray-chicken, but the slow development of features in a breeding population.

abcdefg:

6.0.4 do you think human(homo sapien) is a species distinguishable from a monkey? that’s there’s a creature which is a monkey a second ago become a human after a second

That is not the theory of evolution. That is a creationist misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[Digger71]

abcdefg:

Somebody agrees with evolution theory here please show me which human race is superior or inferior?

To what?

As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

Well, for exverything we have a fossil record for (humans, ants, whales) we can say ‘it evolved’, and for everything we dont have a fossil record for (bats) we can say 'it was created.

That seems fair.

 

[jman507]

Digger71:

Your second point (4.1) counter your first point.

Are you saying God does not have the power to make a fly give birth to a horse? But I thought he was omnipotent?

Evolution says a fly can never give birth to a horse. And as we are talking about how to falsify evolution (remember?) so that is a solid example of how evolution would be proven wrong.

If God can cause a virgin birth he can make flies give birth to horses.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but ET says flies give birth to flies. ID says flies give birth to flies by design. These are all natural processes, but yet if God decided he was to give the world Jesus, he breaks the design or evolution, not in any natural event, but a supernatural event. Science could not have any answer for Jesus cause that is beyond its scope. An event like that is not subject to experiment, its not repeatable. To me this seems more of a metaphysical question than a scientific one.

If God can make a virgin give birth, he can make a fly give birth to a horse. Scientist cannot say completely that there has not ever been a fly that has given birth to a horse or that it could happen in the future. But if God could make that happen that does not mean he will make that happen. I’m not saying that by any scientific reasoning but by philosphical reasoning.

 

[Digger71]

jman507:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but ET says flies give birth to flies. ID says flies give birth to flies by design.

ID does not claim flies give birth to flies, that was an insertion from the bible that is not officially part of the ‘ID movement’. ID simply claims that life is too complex to evolve.

What abc was saying is that life was designed to exactly resemble evolution, so that we could not tell them apart. What is of interest here is that the designer made thinks exactly like evolution, but evolution never happened.

hmmmm, at a basic level that makes the designer a deciever.

On another level, scientific theories are never absolutes. Currently evolution is not falsified. If, however, in the future, a fly gave birth to a horse, evolution would be falsified (fly-zap-horse). This was one of my original points.

 

[abcdefg]

Digger71:

To what?

never mind to what. to yourself for example.

Digger71:

Well, for exverything we have a fossil record for (humans, ants, whales) we can say ‘it evolved’, and for everything we dont have a fossil record for (bats) we can say 'it was created.

That seems fair.

You’re creating your own theory here? why god(or the intelligent designer) only created bats instead of ants?

 

[abcdefg]

Digger71:

The question posed was “can evolution be falsified”. I will repeat that point regularly.

The question was can evolution be falsified. Not “would a mermaid falsify Intelligent Design”

Haha, my point for this is evolution is no more a science than Creationism/ID

Digger71:

The animals we see around every day strictly conform to descriptive rules of biology. That is, ants have six legs, frogs have 4. A designer could break these rules and give frog 6 legs, 8 legs or 500 legs. But evolution cannot break these rules. frogs always have 4 limbs (I am not including developmental abnormalities in this).

developmental abnormalities? is that what you call it? have you seen any good developmental abnormalities? random mutations nowadays are bad. strictly vs. abnormality it’s a paradox.

Digger71:

Humans evolved in Africa where, in general, you are unlikely to freeze to death. Our use of clothes and fire, part of the extended phenotype, reduced the seective pressure to develop fur.

why apes in Africa still have fur? sure you don’t need clothes and fire to keep yourself warm in africa even if you don’t have fur. btw my biology textbook tells me human developed in China.

Digger71:

The question was can evolution be falsified,

I chose a blindingly obvious example so everyone would understand it. But I will explain it.

Evolution predicts less ‘fit’ animals will have less success in breeding. The ‘fitness’ of an animal is defined by it’s environment. In the experiment described the fish die and so cannot breed. Evolution would be falsified if the fish did not die. This is because it would break the explicit link between environment and ability to survive, which is called ‘natural selection’.

It is not a test of Intelligent Design, it is a test for natural selection.

I was using a generic fish and a generic frog so that the example would be blindingly obvious.

It’s also a test for ID/Creationism. God designed them so. However even the environment is frequently repeated you won’t see any fish develop signs of lung.

Digger71:

The instant appearance of wings is another way to falsify evolution. So that is 7.

it falsify ID also. both ET and ID states no great changes within seconds.

Digger71:

The question was can evolution be falsified, not “what evidence supports evolution”

I can say through your answer ID is also a scientific theory can be falsified

Digger71:

Evolution says life changes over time. A STATIC, that is unchanging fossil record would demonstrate evolution was wrong.

You are attacking evidence for evolution but that is not the question I was answering.

how about bats?
I attack whatever you answered not limited a single aspect.

 

[abcdefg]

Digger71:

Your second point (4.1) counter your first point.

Are you saying God does not have the power to make a fly give birth to a horse? But I thought he was omnipotent?

Evolution says a fly can never give birth to a horse. And as we are talking about how to falsify evolution (remember?) so that is a solid example of how evolution would be proven wrong.

If God can cause a virgin birth he can make flies give birth to horses.

Of course fly can give birth to a horse, if God will. not there’s no such a need. remember it’s an intelligent designer not a random designer.

Digger71:

Evolution would be falsified if the genes were 100% the same but one was a person and one was a pumpkin.

are our genes the same? no. Either of us is non-human? no. your statement is a non-sequitur the same way “If John Kerry is a Chinese then evolution theory is falsified”

Digger71:

Evolution would be falsified if it was found that genomes do not mutate, or there was no way to pass on those mutations.

ID don’t exclude

Digger71:

Evolution states variation is due to different genes, and these genes differ due to mutation. If there was no mutation there would be no variation and nothign for natural selection to work on.

are natural selection is going on? which human is unfit for environment? Jews in WW2, you think?

Digger71:

Bestiality, hybridisation, inbreeding. There are ample examples of attempts to mate with things that cannot lead to reproduction.

My favourite hybrid is the Liger.

inbreeding is reproductive. only generally produce inferior offsprings. if evolution were true, the group can inbreed normally will survive while those who can’t should be extincted by now.

Digger71:

I would think a photosynthesising person very cool, and I would marry them.

Enough is enough. science has proven you won’t like one of them unless because of a paraphilia. there’re women who like having sex with their husbands as if being raped but actually don’t want to be raped by a stranger. talking is one thing, reality is another.

 

[abcdefg]

Digger71:

ID does not claim flies give birth to flies, that was an insertion from the bible that is not officially part of the ‘ID movement’. ID simply claims that life is too complex to evolve.

did ID ever say, flies have to give birth to a horse? it never happens as there’s no such need, God let horses to give birth to horses.

Digger71:

What abc was saying is that life was designed to exactly resemble evolution, so that we could not tell them apart. What is of interest here is that the designer made thinks exactly like evolution, but evolution never happened.

hmmmm, at a basic level that makes the designer a deciever.

I’d like to give you a friendly reminder I never mean “life was designed to exactly resemble evolution”
Everything looks like ID to me, nothing even remotely resembles evolution. evolution has failed in multiple aspect, yet you dismiss them as trivial exceptions

Digger71:

On another level, scientific theories are never absolutes. Currently evolution is not falsified. If, however, in the future, a fly gave birth to a horse, evolution would be falsified (fly-zap-horse). This was one of my original points.

evolution is considered falsified by many. some people just don’t like to admit it.

 

[rlg94086]

Thought all y’all would enjoy this…

But is it really game, set, match, Darwin?

Have these fellows forgotten that John Scopes, the teacher in that 1925 “Monkey Trial,” lost in court, and was convicted of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution and fined $100? Yet Darwin went on to conquer public education, and ACLU atheists went on to purge Christianity and the Bible from our public schools.

The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,” reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about “intelligent design” than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class.

Read the rest at realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_28_05_PB.html

 

[abcdefg]

Some quotes from scientists

atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html