A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[McBell]

Source

Wait, so they are NOT related to opossums?

That is a bummer.

 

[McBell]

Okay. Every single pixel on the attached diagram is a slightly different colour. Please point out which one is the very first -- and the only first -- red one.
View attachment 50084

That is easy.
0.14, 682

 

[McBell]

I have read it 10 times and that still does not make it true. Somewhere in history there was an animal that could be called a kangaroo and it was the first one that could be called that. It does not matter how many times you deny it. I am not saying science can point a finger at it or give it a name or say exactly when it happened. Some animal somewhere some time was the first that could be called a kangaroo. If science cannot see that then nothing anyone can say will change their minds or the facts. I am NOT denying science and I am NOT denying evolution. Animals do change and evolve. But there had to be a first. Look at another example. The automobile has evolved over the past hundred s or so years. There were horse drawn wagons. There were wagons with motors. There were vehicles with no doors or no windows. But at some point there was one that could be called an automobile. Using your logic you would say there was no first automobile because it was evolving and changing. But there was a first vehicle that could be called an automobile and there was a first animal that could bee called a kangaroo. You may not be able to name it or say when it was built but do you really think there was no first automobile? The same logic applies to animals.And yes there was a first human and I am not saying it was Adam. Religion has nothing to do with it.

patent – number 37435

Though, I never did understand why people think that machines and buildings, and other non-biological examples being compared to biology helps their point.

 

[danieldemol]

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

'Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[19]'

From Intelligent design - Wikipedia

I understand your question was how do you refute it, not has it been refuted, but it is still worth noting that it has been refuted. Perhaps I could find out more for you but it's late here.

I think that Behe's books have been refuted in publications, perhaps when i get a chance I could get back to you with something more substantial, but this article is a good start for you;
Flagellum, Collapse of Irreducible Complexity

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

patent – number 37435

Though, I never did understand why people think that machines and buildings, and other non-biological examples being compared to biology helps their point.

So would you say there never was a first automobile? They were all transitional models? If there was a second car there had to be a first. People are so busy trying ro defend their scientific views that they cannot see how foolish it is to say there never was a first kangarone day there was no animal that could be called a kabgaroo and the next day there was one. So simple.

 

[McBell]

So would you say there never was a first automobile?

Why would I present a link that reveals the first ever actual automobile if I would be saying there never was a first automobile?
I am NOT a creationist.

They were all transitional models? If there was a second car there had to be a first.

And here you reveal that yu are not learning from your previous mistakes.
Evolution is about populations, not individuals.
I understand that Pokemon uses the word 'evolution' but that is not what the theory of evolution is.

People are so busy trying ro defend their scientific views that they cannot see how foolish it is to say there never was a first kangarone day there was no animal that could be called a kabgaroo and the next day there was one. So simple.

What exactly is it you are claiming to want?
The name of the very first ever kangaroo?
Its autograph perhaps?
Perhaps a tour of its grave site?
What?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Okay. Every single pixel on the attached diagram is a slightly different colour. Please point out which one is the very first -- and the only first -- red one.
View attachment 50084

You do not even see your own foolishness. There is no first color red because they are all there at the same time. There is no evolution of anything. But animals evolved over time. One day there was no kangaroo and the next day there was one. If you show different colors each day then someone might identify what day you showed the first red color. And notice that I said animals evolve. I am not denying evolution. But you are denying logic. It is not possible to have ANYTHING unless it started somewhere with a first.

 

[McBell]

You do not even see your own foolishness.

Kettle, meet pot..

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why would I present a link that reveals the first ever actual automobile if I would be saying there never was a first automobile?
I am NOT a creationist.


And here you reveal that yu are not learning from your previous mistakes.
Evolution is about populations, not individuals.
I understand that Pokemon uses the word 'evolution' but that is not what the theory of evolution is.


What exactly is it you are claiming to want?
The name of the very first ever kangaroo?
Its autograph perhaps?
Perhaps a tour of its grave site?
What?

Would you agree that at some point in the past there was not one single animal that a scientist would call a kangaroo? And then some later day if you looked very closely you would say "That animal is a kangaroo". I do not want its name or date or location. But it had to have existed. And that was the first animal that a scientist would call a kangaroo. That is all I want. One day there was no kangaroo and another day there was. And that car you mention was not really a car. It was just a transitional model. Between wagon and automobile.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[19]'

From Intelligent design - Wikipedia

I understand your question was how do you refute it, not has it been refuted, but it is still worth noting that it has been refuted. Perhaps I could find out more for you but it's late here.

I think that Behe's books have been refuted in publications, perhaps when i get a chance I could get back to you with something more substantial, but this article is a good start for you;
Flagellum, Collapse of Irreducible Complexity

IC has not been recruited, but every specific example, such as all of the claimed examples of Behe, have been shown to have natural explanations. IC is essentially an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. It amounts to " I don't know how this happened, therefore God". Technically there is no way to refute an argument from ignorance, but then there is no need to. That is why when the specific examples that Behe claimed were "proof" of ID, even though it was an argument from ignorance for those examples, the concept is said to have been refuted.

Now there is a possibility. There may be some step that can be proven to be impossible. But no one has come even close No one has proved that pigs cannot fly either. There is no need to. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. The ID argument today has been reduced to an argument that "Pigs can fly because you have not proved that they can't".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you agree that at some point in the past there was not one single animal that a scientist would call a kangaroo? And then some later day if you looked very closely you would say "That animal is a kangaroo". I do not want its name or date or location. But it had to have existed. And that was the first animal that a scientist would call a kangaroo. That is all I want. One day there was no kangaroo and another day there was. And that car you mention was not really a car. It was just a transitional model. Between wagon and automobile.

There was a creature that some scientist might call a kangaroo. But that same creature would be denied to be a kangaroo by other scientists. Your question is rather pointless. You are trying to assume that there is a goal in evolution to specific species or forms. There is no such goal. And scientists may have learned the lesson that what you want is pointless. When the evolution of the basal mammals was first becoming clear there were some almost violent arguments about whether a specific fossil species was a mammal or not. All of the features of modern mammals did not appear at once so which particular evolutionary step was the one defining one?

 

[McBell]

Would you agree that at some point in the past there was not one single animal that a scientist would call a kangaroo? And then some later day if you looked very closely you would say "That animal is a kangaroo". I do not want its name or date or location. But it had to have existed. And that was the first animal that a scientist would call a kangaroo. That is all I want. One day there was no kangaroo and another day there was.

Yes, I would.

And that car you mention was not really a car. It was just a transitional model. Between wagon and automobile.

What car?
What are you talking about?

You mean the link to the first ever automobile, YOUR word of choice, not mine?
Though you did also use the word vehicle, which is an even broader definition, but this is your first use of the word car.
One wonders why you are unable to keep up with your own posts...?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You do not even see your own foolishness. There is no first color red because they are all there at the same time. There is no evolution of anything. But animals evolved over time. One day there was no kangaroo and the next day there was one. If you show different colors each day then someone might identify what day you showed the first red color. And notice that I said animals evolve. I am not denying evolution. But you are denying logic. It is not possible to have ANYTHING unless it started somewhere with a first.

Your own foolishness right back at you.

First, there were millions upon millions of marsupial animals in Australia, once it separated from the rest of the continents. Yes, there were many species of marsupials, that couldn't breed with other species. And within each species, there were millions of animals. Evolutionary change, when it happens, starts with (usually) very small changes in some -- but not all -- individuals. Small enough that anyone would consider them the same species: a little taller, a slightly different colouring, teeth shaped ever-so slightly differently, a little more elasticity in the bounce, or whatever. But otherwise pretty much indisinguable from the rest. But if those tiny differences offer an advantage, and can be passed on genetically, then those tiny differences will eventually show up in the majority.

This can take generations. And the tiny differences keep happening, and after hundreds or thousands of generation -- especially if groups get separated from one other by some feature of nature, eventually you could have a herd of extremely similar (but not genetically identical) animals that we may call kangaroos. And their parents we would call kangaroos, and their grandparents!

But if you were able to look back much further, say hundreds of generations, you would turn up something that you would be forced to say was "different enough that we ought not call it a kangaroo."

Kangaroos and wallabees have common ancestors. Some species of kangaroos and wallabees can mate -- usually producing sterile offspring, occasionally producing sterile males females, and even less often, fertile females but not males. Yes, kangaroos and wallabees have many features in common, and yet they are different species.

The pixels I showed could be presented by the computer program that generated them one after the other, rather than in a single picture (in fact, that's how the computer actually does it, just so fast that it looks "all at once"). And in that case, my challenge to you, to decide which of those millions of pixels was no longer orange but red, and which was no longer red but violet. And you couldn't do it.

Your failure is to think big enough. Every who does this imagines 2 animals (or if they're really brave maybe as many as 11). But they refuse to do over millions of animals, over hundreds or thousands of generations. And that is why they simply can't understand what is being said to them. It is an utter failure of the imagination, and nothing more.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, I would.


What car?
What are you talking about?

You mean the link to the first ever automobile, YOUR word of choice, not mine?
Though you did also use the word vehicle, which is an even broader definition, but this is your first use of the word car.
One wonders why you are unable to keep up with your own posts...?

OK forget the car,automobile, vehicle thing. You finally agree that there was an animal that some scientists would call a kangaroo. And it was the first one. That is ALL I have been saying. There had to be a first even if its exact name or location was not agreed by everyone. But it also shows that science is not as exact as it likes to think it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK forget the car,automobile, vehicle thing. You finally agree that there was an animal that some scientists would call a kangaroo. And it was the first one. That is ALL I have been saying. There had to be a first even if its exact name or location was not agreed by everyone. But it also shows that science is not as exact as it likes to think it is.

You are incorrect again. Science is not as accurate as your strawman version of it says that it is.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You are incorrect again. Science is not as accurate as your strawman version of it says that it is.

Thank you but your own words said thar some scientists might call a certain animal and other might not. That sounds like it is not very accurate.

 

[ecco]

Since you do not see the point I will have to end by saying that you cannot have a second wife if you did bot have a first. Your wife cannot have a second baby if she did not have a first.

That is true, but it has nothing to do with evolution. Your understanding of evolution is completely wrong and completely irrational. It is impossible to apply logic to irrational concepts.

At some point in history there was no animal called a kangaroo.

That is true, but is meaningless.

Every species cannot be a transitional species. There has to be a line somewhere.

T-Rex is not a transitional species. What's your point?

Whether you believe it or not, somewhere back millions of years ago there was a baby animal that could be called a kangaroo. And it was the first one.

Wrong! You can repeat your nonsensical claims as often as you like. That will not make them correct. If you had a basic understanding of ToE, you would see why you are wrong. Since you don't, you don't.

And since most fundamentalist religions believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, I would not describe my beliefs as fundamentalist.

That's a nice attempt at trying to duck the Fundamentalist label. However, Old Earth Creationists are also Fundamentalists. If you want to stretch the length of a day to somewhat conform to science, that is just you rationalizing your religious writings. You still have a fundamentalist belief in what is written. You just apply some of your own spin to it.

 

[ecco]

The same logic applies to animals.And yes there was a first human and I am not saying it was Adam. Religion has nothing to do with it.

More nonsense. Religion has everything to do with it. Without religion, there would be no reason to disbelieve Evolution. While millions of religious people, including Christians believe in Evolution, there are no atheists who disbelieve Evolution.


If the early Christians had gone along with Marcion instead of silencing him, Christians would not be against evolution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wrong! You can repeat your nonsensical claims as often as you like. That will not make them correct. If you had a basic understanding of ToE, you would see why you are wrong. Since you don't, you don't.

This is what I was saying in another thread. So many people argue against Evolution as if they had advanced degrees in 6 of the sciences that might have a bearing -- and yet they appear to know little to nothing about the ToE -- except, of course, that they somehow "know" it is wrong. This is hubris. This is like saying to the Frenchman that his pronuciation of his own language is wrong, even though you know nothing about French at all.

 

[Heyo]

Thank you but your own words said thar some scientists might call a certain animal and other might not. That sounds like it is not very accurate.

It is not very accurate. But scientists know that (though they don't like to talk about it in front of lay people.) The "species" label is almost as arbitrary as the "kind" of the creationists.