Was stumped by a Creationist

[pinqy]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

No one claims one life form changes directly to another. But it has been directly observed that species, and the genetic pool of species do change over time. And that over time species change to the point that the nth generation would not be considered the same species. And there is a mountain of evidence that current species did not exist in the past but similar species did, and it can be shown what changes occurred.

 

[Votto]

Evolution does not address our origins in relation to science, abiogenesis does.

There is nothing to abiogenesis other than saying what chemical were needed for life and they all somehow came together.

Evolution, on the other hand, is simply evidence on how life forms change over time, but it does NOT address how non-life becomes life.

 

[abu afak]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

This is really unbelievable BS.
You should stop believing in evolution if you don't have the brains/simple logic to defend it.
Forget Popper's ABSTRACTION.

So despite a huge amount of circumstantial Evidence against the defendant (the best kind): he bought the gun/murder weapon, he was there, he hated the victim, etc....
We can say the JUDGE DID IT because it's not falsifiable he didn't... as he had no alibi for that hour.
RIGHT?
**** *** you moron.

And of course Evo is falsifiable.
If any fossil of millions had been found in the wrong strata.. POOF!
If we/humans, ANY life on earth, had completely different innards (or systems other than DNA) that would defeat it.
If humans were closer genetically to dandelions than they are to Chimps... that would do it. Poof
But just about EVERYTHING is consistent with EVO.
EVERY relevant new science since Darwin, and there's been an explosion of them, is either consistent with or helps affirm Evo: isotopic dating, DNA, etc.
Evolution is the very basis of modern biology.

Oh, and Popper RECANTED:
Popper on evolution | ScienceBlogs

`

 

[Votto]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

This is really unbelievable BS.
You should stop believing in evolution if you don't have the brains/simple logic to defend it.
Forget Popper's ABSTRACTION.

So despite a huge amount of circumstantial Evidence (the best kind): the gun, he was there, he hated the victim,....
We can say the JUDGE DID IT because it's not falsifiable he didn't... as he had no alibi for that hour.
RIGHT?
**** *** you moron.

And of course Evo is falsifiable.
If any fossil of millions had been found in the wrong strata.. POOF!
If we/humans, ANY life on earth, had completely different innards (or systems other than DNA) that would defeat it.
If humans were closer genetically to dandelions than they are to Chimps... that would do it. Poof
But just about EVERYTHING is consistent with EVO.
EVERY new sciences since Darwin, and there's been an explosion of them, is either consistent with or helps affirm Evo: isotopic dating, DNA,etc.
Evolution is the very basis of modern biology.

Oh, and Popper RECANTED:
Popper on evolution | ScienceBlogs
`

Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.

 

[sealybobo]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

What do you mean one life form changes into another? You mean like this?

Butterfly Monarch GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they

Made up nonsense. Nothing has ever been shown to be wrong with the fundamental theory, and it has been confirmed as fact as much as we know any fact.

 

[sealybobo]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobaldcalculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.


The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.

The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That's how likely your hypothesis is.

Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.

The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

 

[abu afak]

Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.

No
That's not an answer to what I specifically said.
What if humans "that god specially created in his image", had different life chemistry? No DNA, but "QVC," or solid state?
Evo predicts that similarity inside and out and traces it.
DNA confirms Darwin's theory.
If human bones were found inside a Dino (or strata contemporary with them).. there is NO explanation.

But I already explained that in my last
You're TOO STUPID to post.
bye
`

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

No one claims one life form changes directly to another. But it has been directly observed that species, and the genetic pool of species do change over time. And that over time species change to the point that the nth generation would not be considered the same species. And there is a mountain of evidence that current species did not exist in the past but similar species did, and it can be shown what changes occurred.

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Wrong, we have actually watched that happen. And you know that, which is why your original, parroted creationist blog talking point in this thread specifically mentioned only mammals. But oops, you forgot to hedge and accidentally reverted to the general talking point of "any species".

 

[pinqy]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

No one claims one life form changes directly to another. But it has been directly observed that species, and the genetic pool of species do change over time. And that over time species change to the point that the nth generation would not be considered the same species. And there is a mountain of evidence that current species did not exist in the past but similar species did, and it can be shown what changes occurred.

BUT NO evidence that a single species evolved into TWO or more distinctly DIFFERENT species.

Actually, yes. And more than two.

If you can accept that one species can change over time, why can’t you accept that different, geographically isolated groups of a species can experience different changes so that the different groups eventually are so different as to constitute different species?

 

[sealybobo]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences differ slightly among the three domains. A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are. That's because, if the original protein set was the same for all creatures, a relatively small number of mutations would have been needed to arrive at the modern proteins. If life arose from multiple species each with a different set of proteins many more mutations would have been required. "What I wanted to do was not make the assumption that similar traits imply a shared ancestry because we know that's not always true. For instance, you could get similarities that are not due to common ancestry but that are due to natural selection. That is, when environmental forces, such as predators or climate, result in certain mutations taking hold, such as claws or thicker fur.

Biologists call the independent development of similar traits in different lineages "convergent evolution." The wings of bats, birds, and insects are prime examples: They perform similar functions but evolved independently of one another. Bottom line is it’s highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences if we didn’t have a common ancestor.

Penny had been part of a similar, but more narrowly focused, study in the 1980s. His team had looked at shared proteins in mammals and concluded that different mammalian species are likely descended from a common ancestor. Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do. Evolution should not be given any special status.

 

[Votto]

Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.

No
That's not an answer to what I specifically said.
What if humans "that god specially created in his image", had different life chemistry? No DNA, but "QVC," or solid state?
Evo predicts that similarity inside and out and traces it.
DNA confirms Darwin's theory.
If human bones were found inside a Dino (or strata contemporary with them).. there is NO explanation.

But I already explained that in my last
You're TOO STUPID to post.
bye
`

First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.

Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory dimwit.

 

[sealybobo]

Evolution is not falsifiable in that if something is shown to be wrong about theory then they just modify it according to the evidence.

No
That's not an answer to what I specifically said.
What if humans "that god specially created in his image", had different life chemistry? No DNA, but "QVC," or solid state?
Evo predicts that similarity inside and out and traces it.
DNA confirms Darwin's theory.
If human bones were found inside a Dino (or strata contemporary with them).. there is NO explanation.

But I already explained that in my last
You're TOO STUPID to post.
bye
`

First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.

Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory dimwit.

Explain to us how you can think the scientific theory of evolution has anything to do with the creation story?

Is that why religions were so threatened by the theory of evolution?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.

Exactly! That's the advantage of magical nonsense...you can slop it on like a (useless) veneer on any empirical knowledge. "God did that!"....okay, neato.

Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory

Which would never happen, as they are both dna-based animals. This fact alone shows us common ancestry, quite definitively.

And the fundamental idea of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species would still apply quite well either way.

 

[Votto]

First of all, Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They may be one in the same.

Exactly! That's the advantage of magical nonsense...you can slop it on like a (useless) veneer on any empirical knowledge. "God did that!"....okay, neato.

Secondly, IF evolution found different origins for both the Dino and man then the would just move onto another evolutionary theory

Which would never happen, as they are both dna-based animals. This fact alone shows us common ancestry, quite definitively.

Right, Darwin done it.

Thanks for that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right, Darwin done it.

Except nobody thinks Darwin magically directed evolution, or even invented it. So, other than being a completely bunk comparison....good comparison!

 

[Votto]

Right, Darwin done it.

Except nobody thinks Darwin magically directed evolution, or even invented it. So, other than being a completely bunk comparison....good comparison!

The miracle of matter and life.

Where did they originate?

Science has only theories, they cannot create or destroy matter, nor can they create life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did they originate?

Matter and life? Well,it appears matter coalesced from the dense, high energy state that existed prior to the big bang and immediately after it. It appear life as we know it originated via selection from chemicals found in abundance all over the universe.

Science has "only theories"? As compared to....you? What do you have? As compared to....mystic shamans? Iron age religious texts? What?

Feel free to test these "only theories" yourself. Jump off of your roof 1000 times, and record how many times you fall up instead of down. That can be your test of gravitational theory.

You can test the germ theory of medicine by injecting yourself with the blood of an Ebola victim. You can test the theory of electromagnetism by bathing with a plugged in toaster.

 

[Votto]

Where did they originate?

Matter and life? Well,it appears matter coalesced from the dense, high energy state that existed prior to the big bang and immediately after it. It appear life as we know it originated via selection from chemicals found in abundance all over the universe.

Science has "only theories"? As compared to....you? What do you have? As compared to....mystic shamans? Iron age religious texts? What?

This is a tautology. You have no proof that matter is eternal. In fact, we can look as far back as the Big Bang.

Now before 1960, scientists did think matter was eternal. In fact, a priest came up with the theory of the Big Bang before science proved him correct.

As for life, if science knows how it came to be without intelligent design, why is it that with intelligent design they cannot replicate it?

Again, this is a tautology, not science. Science is about observation and experimentation.