Another Twisted Belief With The Same Logic As Darwinism Has Now Approved: Fakewinism

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62366 wrote:

"Microevolution would be if you drive your car across town. This has been proven so many times that by now everyone accepts it as true.

Macroevolution would be if you could drive your car all the way to another country. This, as everyone in America knows, is impossible."

This is probably a great example of the problem with Macroevolution. Now that you have driven your car from the United States to Mexico, lets see you drive it to France without some extra help.

That's called goalpost moving Smile

You just showed that it's possible to drive to another country. Why the need to add extra requirements? But what's funny is you've just shown a key piece of evolutionary biology without knowing it!

Genetic isolation.

Sure, my car might not be able to make it to France, but the cars in Germany, Switzerland, England and Spain surely can. This is why you don't see European licensed cars in America and vice versa.

This is one of the key factors in Darwin's finches, and you just posted an excellent example of it. I'm glad to see that you're starting to learn!

0 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62348 wrote:

There are eye-witness accounts?

So you reject my request, apparently.

#1. You cannot witness evolution anymore than you can witness yourself age, it's too long and too gradual to be directly observed.

#2. Neither of the things you are asking for are stated anywhere within evolutionary theory. they are strawman mock-ups at best.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

#1. You cannot witness... (the full nature of God) anymore than you can witness yourself age, it's too long and too gradual to be directly observed.

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62401 wrote:

#1. You cannot witness... (the full nature of God) anymore than you can witness yourself age, it's too long and too gradual to be directly observed.

Who said anything about god? We were talking about evolution.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;62404 wrote:

Who said anything about god? We were talking about evolution.

I was just pointing out that a line of reasoning that is acceptable for defending one school of thought should also be acceptable for defending other schools of thought, as well.

I appreciate the acknowledgment that one can still scientifically study and make scientific conclusions about things that one can not fully "witness" or duplicate due to the extensive nature of that which is being studied, like macroevolution or intelligent design.

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62409 wrote:

I was just pointing out that a line of reasoning that is acceptable for defending one school of thought should also be acceptable for defending other schools of thought, as well.

I never said you could disprove god, so your point is moot.

Quote:

I appreciate the acknowledgment that one can still scientifically study and make scientific conclusions about things that one can not fully "witness" or duplicate due to the extensive nature of that which is being studied, like macroevolution or intelligent design.

Intelligent design cannot be studied. How would you make predictions with it? How would you test it's validity? You can't.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;62416 wrote:

I never said you could disprove god, so your point is moot.

Intelligent design cannot be studied. How would you make predictions with it? How would you test it's validity? You can't.

we disagree. While you may or may not be able to test the designer, you surely can test the design

1 Reply

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62418 wrote:

we disagree. While you may or may not be able to test the designer, you surely can test the design

Then why hasn't anybody? If you know of a way to test whether life was designed as is, then maybe you should do this test and submit it to the scientific community or at least tell someone who can.

0 Replies

@ahmetsecer,

People have. They just have not received any kind of fair hearing on the matter.

The complexity of DNA, irreducible complexity, probability studies, origin studies leading to the theory of the "Big Bang" all beg for a conclusion that there is a designer.

Those who refuse to even see the reasonable probability or even the possibility of a designer in the above simply will not see the possibility of a designer in anything.

3 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62473 wrote:

People have. They just have not received any kind of fair hearing on the matter.

The complexity of DNA, irreducible complexity, probability studies, origin studies leading to the theory of the "Big Bang" all beg for a conclusion that there is a designer.

Those are not tests, i'm talking real scientific tests, which have not been done. If you know of some then i'd like to see them.

0 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62473 wrote:

People have. They just have not received any kind of fair hearing on the matter.

The complexity of DNA, irreducible complexity, probability studies, origin studies leading to the theory of the "Big Bang" all beg for a conclusion that there is a designer.

Those who refuse to even see the reasonable probability or even the possibility of a designer in the above simply will not see the possibility of a designer in anything.

This is because there is no evidence for the "designer". You cannot attribute acts to something you cannot show exists. It's that simple.

DNA is four "letters", just in very long chains. In the human genome, its total length is approximately 700 megs. I'm looking at a spindle of discs that can hold that much data EACH. Not exactly complex. This is also not direct evidence for any sort of designer.

Irreducible complexity? This has been refuted several times.

Describe these "origin studies leading to the Big Bang". Last time I checked, there is no way to predict ANYTHING before that event. The numbers go awry even a nanosecond before that point. NOBODY can make any substantial claims on this.

0 Replies

@Musky Hunter,

Musky Hunter;62473 wrote:

People have. They just have not received any kind of fair hearing on the matter.

irreducible complexity, probability studies etc...

false dichotomy

evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creationism.

0 Replies

Another Twisted Belief With The Same Logic As Darwinism Has Now Approved: Fakewinism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know