Post by xavster December 22, 2013 (831 of 1066)
|
|
Whereas creationism, which relies on the presence of a god or higher being, has loads of evidence supporting it. Hmm.....
|
|
|
Post by steviev December 22, 2013 (832 of 1066)
|
|
xavster said:
Whereas creationism, which relies on the presence of a god or higher being, has loads of evidence supporting it. Hmm.....
Classic burden shift. First provide one observable instance of speciation. The burden is on Darwinists to produce even a single observable instance of their speculative hypothesis/fairytale.
|
|
|
Post by audioholik December 22, 2013 (833 of 1066)
|
|
steviev said:
No, I read the book you cited. Mr. Coyne produces not a single observed instance of speciation
What are you talking about? The book is packed with evidence of speciation, there are so many examples of it in the book that I would have to basically quote the entire book to do it justice.
Let me repeat the predictions made by Darwin's theory of evolution.
"- Since there are fossil remains of ancient life, we should be able to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing "descent with modification" (adaptation).
- We should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.
- We should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. Moreover, these "missing links" (more aptly called "transitional forms") should occur in layers of rock that date to the time when the groups are supposed to have diverged.
- We should expect that species show genetic variation for many traits (otherwise there would be no possibility of evolution happening).
- Imperfection in the mark of evolution, not of conscious design. We should then be able to find cases of imperfect adaptation, in which evolution has not been able to achieve the same degree of optimality as would a creator.
- We should be able to see natural selection acting in the wild"
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387663176&sr=8-1&keywords=Why+Evolution+Is+True
These are neither fairy tales nor wild guesses, but very detailed, and well defined predictions the theory of evolution makes, which can be tested through observation. And are positively tested through observation and tons of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by audioholik December 22, 2013 (834 of 1066)
|
|
xavster said:
Whereas creationism, which relies on the presence of a god or higher being, has loads of evidence supporting it. Hmm.....
Creationism (and Christianity more broadly) relies on a belief in the psychopathic celestial authority which controls our every action and thought for which there never was a shred of evidence, and tons against it -see the book: Why Evolution Is True.
|
|
|
Post by steviev December 22, 2013 (835 of 1066)
|
|
audioholik said:
Creationism (and Christianity more broadly) relies on a belief in the psychopathic celestial authority which controls our every action and thought for which there never was a shred of evidence, and tons against it -see the book: Why Evolution Is True.
Darwinism (and evolution more broadly) relies on a belief in speciation, for which there never was a shred of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Lute December 22, 2013 (836 of 1066)
|
|
steviev said:
Classic burden shift. First provide one observable instance of speciation. The burden is on Darwinists to produce even a single observable instance of their speculative hypothesis/fairytale.
The burden of proof is on everyone...Creationists included!! Where is the proof that humans were walking around with dinosaurs??
|
|
|
Post by audioholik December 22, 2013 (837 of 1066)
|
|
|
steviev said:
Darwinism (and evolution more broadly) relies on a belief in speciation, for which there never was a shred of evidence.
There's tons of evidence for it. You are a free man at last, no longer slave to the despostic monster in the sky!
|
|
|
Post by audioholik December 22, 2013 (838 of 1066)
|
|
Lute said:
The burden of proof is on everyone...Creationists included!!
Creationists have been infected by a very potent strain of the God virus, which fatally cripples the operation of their brains and renders them unable of participating in a rational discussion.
Ever tried to discuss evolution, fossil record, transitional forms of species, embryology, DNA sequencing, geology, radioactive decay, etc with patients of the psychiatric ward? I haven't, but I wouldn't expect any useful contributions from them!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those positing the "idea" that evolution is essentially a global hoax perpetrated by the entire biologically inclined scientific community, perhaps you could explain why we can't just have one flu-jab and it work for everyone, everywhere, for all time? Could it be that we have witnessed the flu virus evolve in front of our noses which is why different formulations are needed each year?
To be consistently anti-science, you should next renounce all digital technologies as being the work of Satan (no heavenly medium would exist by utilising only two states when we're gifted 10 digits)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lute said:
Where is the proof that humans were walking around with dinosaurs??
Give me a few minutes with Photoshop. I'll also "prove" that Mahler jammed with Elvis...
|
|
