A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[darkskies]

I was not exactly clear. No offspring, or nieces or nephews, or near nieces or nephews, or even distant relations means that it is not transitional.

Okay, thanks.

 

[GardenLady]

This is the best denunciation of Creationism I've read.

I think you mean young earth creationism that denies evolution, correct? There are gazillions of people who are theists and believe that God created the universe and all life but still accept the science supporting evolution and deep time.

 

[GardenLady]

Science is based on things that "cannot be defined properly".

No. Lost and wandering indeed.

 

[firedragon]

I'm posting this only because I absolutely love how the narrator makes clear just how dumb creationists can really be when confronted with real scientific questions. I know it's (only) 14 minutes long and a lot of members don't like watching anything so interminable (unless it's got cartoon Scotsmen, @Revoltingest), but really, I think it deserves a watch.

It discusses (from both sides of the argument) how kangaroos (and so many other marsupials) got from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And the creationists are absolutely pricesless when they try to make their case.

So Hovind, who is a well known fraud with fake Phd's that came from a house is the kind you pick? Making this type of evangelistic nonsense the general idea for "creationism" and "creationists" is not very good. It is a strawman for other creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So Hovind, who is a well known fraud with fake Phd's that came from a house is the kind you pick? Making this type of evangelistic nonsense the general idea for "creationism" and "creationists" is not very good. It is a strawman for other creationists.

Kent Hovind is hardly in that video at all. It features mostly his son. The younger Hovind and daddy are not exactly on speaking terms.

 

[tas8831]

And the creationists are absolutely pricesless when they try to make their case.

And these are the "educated" professional creationists...

 

[tas8831]

Maybe more important than how kangaroos got to Australia is how did an animal that was NOT a kangaroo give birth to an animal that WAS a kangaroo. As to how they got there, they probably flew Quantas.

Is that more important for creationists? Why? Can't creationists produce evidence-backed answers?

 

[tas8831]

Let me ask a question. Has "science" ever seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal?

Has "religion" ever seen a kangaroo created by their favored deity?

A dog cannot mate with a cat and a horse cannot mate with a cow so it would seem that a kangaroo could not mate with a non-kangaroo.

Brilliant. You must be a scientician of some sort!

 

[tas8831]

So I think you are saying that science has not seen a non-kangaroo kangaroo style animal. They just assume they existed because their theories do not work without them.

Since you are a science person, you can try this-

Rapid Pliocene adaptive radiation of modern kangaroos | Science
Rapid Pliocene adaptive radiation of modern kangaroos
View ORCID ProfileAidan M. C. Couzens1,2,*, Gavin J. Prideaux1
See all authors and affiliations
Science 05 Oct 2018:
Vol. 362, Issue 6410, pp. 72-75

I found that in a 30 second search.

I think you are saying that creationists just make things up because they have no evidence for anything and they need to prop up their ancient middle eastern tales at all costs.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Science didn't say "kangaroo-style". That was said in hopes that you'd understand better.
It's like you refuse to understand, smh.

And science did not say "things that cannot be defined properly" but you did. And I believe you. Science makes up important sounding words to try to define something that they cannot see or prove but need to pretend to define to make their theories work.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

How does it lose meaning? How do you know she isn't transitional?

Because EVERYTHING could be called transitional so it really has no meaning.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Quite a few posts in this thread are demonstrating the essence of the topic just beautifully -- people arguing science without knowing what it is, or arguing various aspects of science while knowing little about them.

It's rather like someone saying, "that's not how you translate that Chinese language book into Icelandic!" without ever having bothered to study either language.

And yet, there appear to be those willing to do exactly that. Strange.

 

[Windwalker]

A bit of irony: I was watching this on my tablet which has terrible teeny tiny speakers. I turned the captions on. The automated caption software must have been saying "Aahh! What's that sonny?". It kept writing " cancers in Genesis " instead of "Answers in Genesis". Inadvertently humorous and correct at the same time.

I think the software knew the deeper truth of what Answers in Genesis is. It's a cancer of Genesis, rotting it away from the inside out.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So Hovind, who is a well known fraud with fake Phd's that came from a house is the kind you pick? Making this type of evangelistic nonsense the general idea for "creationism" and "creationists" is not very good. It is a strawman for other creationists.

Well then, what about Michael Behe, who testified for the defense (of Intelligent Design) in Kitzmiller v Dover PA ? (A defense that didn't go well, by the way.) Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, as well as a leading ID proponent.

 

[firedragon]

Well then, what about Michael Behe, who testified for the defense (of Intelligent Design) in Kitzmiller v Dover PA ? (A defense that didn't go well, by the way.) Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, as well as a leading ID proponent.

So let me see it. How do you prove that intelligent design is false with scientific evidence?

 

[Heyo]

So let me see it. How do you prove that intelligent design is false with scientific evidence?

You could start here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia and follow the links where needed. Though that only proves that ID is not scientific (and therefore not fit to teach in science class). But as a first step, do we agree that the findings of the court were correct?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So let me see it. How do you prove that intelligent design is false with scientific evidence?

That problem is not mine to prove. The claims of Intelligent Design are not backed up with any evidence at all from a science viewpoint. In fact, the claims of ID are based primarily on notions that there are some things that are impossible to have evolved -- you know, irreducible complexity.

Evolution, on the other hand, is built upon the evidence stored in thousands of museums and libraries around the world, on millions upon millions of hours of work in the field and in laboratories, all carefully documented and duly presented for peer review. ID? Not so much. In fact, Behe had to admit, during the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, that there is no peer reviewed literature concerning the claims of ID. His actual words were: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

ID makes claims -- it is up to ID to prove them, not up to anyone else to disprove them. I would have thought you'd be aware of that by now.

 

[firedragon]

You could start here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia and follow the links where needed. Though that only proves that ID is not scientific (and therefore not fit to teach in science class). But as a first step, do we agree that the findings of the court were correct?

I do not have good research enough to proclaim I know exactly how the future will come out to be if they included that particular textbook in school curriculum, be it scientific or not. Thus, I am not qualified to agree or not.

I can give my anecdotal opinion.

I think I would side with the traditional Islamic approach of methodological naturalism in education pertaining to science, be it evolution or anything else. This is my opinion. I mean, this is to the theists. But maybe that is irrelevant to what you asked.

Nevertheless, on the question of this particular case of Dover, yes Heyo, I know this case pretty well. Have you read the book? You see, this book is "against the theory of evolution". You see, it is a book that's written like a missionary would write a theological negative criticism of another theology. If that is the standard of debate, I dont like it. This book is a young earther. It was endorsed by young earthers. Thus, I like to be specific in every case. What you are looking at is the advent of Darwins theory and the Christian Young Earther's response that culminated in making all kinds of efforts to dismiss Darwins theory as a boogey man and force the Christian YEC idea everywhere. This is a response out of institutionalised fear of losing control. Of course all of these people are more qualified than me on the subject. Yet, when something like the Young Earther theory is debunked to this level, trying to hold on to this with so much polemics and that being a text book in school is uncalled for.

 

[firedragon]

That problem is not mine to prove. The claims of Intelligent Design are not backed up with any evidence at all from a science viewpoint.

That maybe true. But making an argument based on not proven does not prove of its false.

In fact, the claims of ID are based primarily on notions that there are some things that are impossible to have evolved -- you know, irreducible complexity.

Not really. You are speaking from an American, YEC type of polemics environment. This is not a global and historical phenomena.

Evolution, on the other hand,

There is no other hand. The problem is you are coming from purely an American point of view in my opinion. I could be wrong but this is what I realised from your post. Thats why I said that "to other theists, that's a strawman".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That maybe true. But making an argument based on not proven does not prove of its false.

Just stop right there! And think a little more deeply:

Claims for "intelligent design" or the "Easter Bunny did it," or "we're all just brains in a vat anyway," if they are lacking evidence, must then be held to be equally likely -- along with every other possible claim that you can dream up that also lack evidence.

Is that really how you suppose getting to the truth happens? Really?