Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

Evolution is a non-starter unless and until it can explain how life began but all evolutionists believe that in principle evolution explains the origins of life. It is the only naturalistic theory available to them and they dogmatically insist its up to the task, but in reality all they have is hand-waving and speculation against extremely improbable odds.

My original point had everything to do with you, me, and most everyone posting on this thread. And to remind you, that was: most people who participate in these arguments start with an unshakable belief, and look for evidence that corroborates that belief. They take that evidence wherever they can find it.

Then you shifted the argument to the scientists who developed the theory of evolution, none of whom were included in the point I was making. I understand how and why they came up with the theory but there's not a single person commenting on thes thread who's followed that path and done what they did. Everyone commenting here is depending on the work/research/writings/publications of someone else to form and bolster their own opinions.

But by trying to shift the point I was making to the originators of the theory, you placed yourself in their company and I'm here to tell you you're not in their company, you're riding their coattails just like everyone else who supports the theory. Hence the "Galileo" comment.

I've observed these threads on evolution since I joined this site. They were going on before I joined and they'll be going on after I depart. Lots of good points made on both sides but the one thing I'm certain of is that not a single person has switched over to the other side based on what's been said. So it's entertaining to see people such as yourself attempt to "prove" their points, on both sides.

I gave up on arguing these points a while back, it's fruitless. I know what I believe, and why, and that's good enough for me.. I also know that I don't have all the answers, none of us do.

No, evolution says: We KNOW the Earth was once inhabited by sea creatures, and then it was inhabited by land animals, and then it was inhabited by giant reptiles, and then it was inhabited by giant birds, and then it was inhabited by small birds and large mammal. And this is the best explanation available at this time for how those transitions occurred, subject to further refinement.

Notice the caricature "creationist". The use of caricatures is a give away that the proponent of the term doubts he can win on the merits. (If an atheist intellectual has doubts about Neo-Darwinism surely he is not a creationist, but I digress). Hundreds of studies do not verify that evolution can create life form inorganic matter or that it can create whole new body plans from pre-existing ones. They prove the opposite. Indeed, life itself and new body plans are the product of coded genetic information and Neo-Darwinism cannot account for either the inception of that information or its increase. It is true the neo-Darwinian establishment (liberal judges) have ruled that teaching the controversy is unconstitutional, but that utterly begs the question. Their decisions are poorly decided and evince a poor grasp of science. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was understood by its Framers to prohibit discrimination against homosexual marriage. This is nonsense too. Get the point? Arguments against evolution are not "notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of science". Intellectuals with the highest academic pedigrees (David Galernter, David Berlinski, Stephen Meyers, Phillip Johnson, James Tour, George Gilder and many, many others with the highest of IQs and credentials do not "misunderstand" evolution. Its more likely they understand if exceptionally well and hence come by their doubts honestly. The very question-begging, misrepresenting and caricature indulging nature of DBT's post suggest a lack of confidence in his own position, otherwise, he'd employ better arguments.

It still has nothing to do with me, my confidence or what I do or do not believe. The issue is evidence and what it supports. The evidence supports evolution, as confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field, which, again, has nothing to do with me or what I happen to believe or not believe;

Excellent presentation by world renowned chemist James Tour on why evolution has not (and probably cannot) explain the origin of life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

Then you believe in man-caused global warming also.

At its core, evolution is a "faith based" belief too. In fact, all knowledge is ultimately dependent on a leap of faith.

What has that got to do with this thread, which happens to be about evolution? As I said, what I do or do not believe is irrelevant. The issue is what the evidence tells us...if we look at it objectively. Seeing through the filter of faith is not an example of objectivity.

Quit trollin a halfway decent thread.

You post stupid shat, then when you're called on it you deflect.

If you're stupid enough to believe in the theory of evolution because it's " confirmed by the vast majority of those who work in the field", then you're stupid enough to believe in AGW.

That's amazing, considering that it was not me who was deflecting from evolution to climate change, but you yourself. Incredible.

What I am doing is nothing more than pointing out that evolution is well supported by evidence and that there are problems with faith based belief. That's all. There is no shifting from this or that, what I said was and still is related to that issue.

Some of the tactics that Creationist are known to use:

More creationist dishonesty.

''Creationists make up their own definitions in science and pretend that it is the scientific definition.

This is a comment on the article Oscars Bat and Origins battle, authored by Young Earth Creationist Johan Smit and published on 19 August 2013 at 13:44

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscars-bat-and-the-Origins-battle-20130819

In this article, he writes:

"Empirical science (also called operational or experimental science) is a term used to describe science that can be observed, tested and repeated under controlled conditions. The scientific method basically requires that something has to be measureable and therefore observable in the physical dimension. This is the science that brought us antibiotics, acne cream and the atom bomb. Where empirical science differs from origins science (also called historical science), like forensic science, is in the fact that we are dealing with data that originated from occurrences in the past where there may or may not have been eyewitnesses, and obviously the data cannot be replicated under laboratory conditions. While forensic science as a term theoretically refers to the legal system, it basically entails presenting a case (before a judge) based on evidence gathered at the crime scene. The role of the judge is then to decide whose interpretation of the evidence is the best."

This is an elaboration of the ridiculously stupid old creationist "How do you know; were you there?" argument, in which they artificially divide the natural sciences into so-called operational science and historical (origins) science.

It is an example of one of those crafty creationist falsehoods intended to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of their followers about the application of scientific methods to the examination of past events.

Thus, they imply that evolution, geology and astronomy are no more than 'interpretations' made within a secular or atheistic worldview.

This is a lie as there is no such distinction — science is science, whatever it is investigating.

The sleight of hand lies in the creationists' definition of 'operational science or empirical science', which has to be "repeatable" and "observable" by "experimentation".

Repeatable: The scientific method does not require an event (past or present) to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. That is what repeatability means in science.

Observable: Creationists tamper with the word ‘observable’ to mean ‘directly seen’. That is not what the word ‘observable’ means. The scientific method does not require an event (past or present) to be directly seen. It requires evidence for an event to be detectable. It can be detected by instruments and stored data and samples often analysed well after the event(s) has occurred.

Experimentation: It doesn’t mean experiments have to be done in a laboratory. Experimentation also means that one can predict what should be found in nature and then go out and see if it can be found.

Past events obviously can't be repeated and neither can one perform experiments in the past, but existing observations and measurements of the evidence can still be made and (scientific) deductions made from them.

The scientific method therefore does not require a past or present event to be repeatable; this applies to all science; not just historical science''

That's another problem, Jesus is said to have promised to return in power, come to judge the world within the lifetime of those standing before him. The first Christians waited for that event, but it did not happen.

That's all the stuff I see zero reason to debate. It just isn't something that can be discerned.

2. There are many cases of species changing into other cpecies, and fossils keep getting found that are "missing links" between different forms. "Gaps" get smaller with each discoveery.

Keep "helpin" the theory of evolution cause.

You're a wonderful ambassador of sanity, just like barnard's makin bicyclists look good.