He is Risen - The Evidence

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people believe the universe popped into existence from nothing ,that we evolved from goo to you via the zoo , life came from non life.

Based on carfeful examination of the evidence from reality. Not based on some ancient ignorant story.

 

[John1.12]

Based on carfeful examination of the evidence from reality. Not based on some ancient ignorant story.

No one observed the universe pop into existence or Darwinian evolution from one 'kind ' into another.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one observed the universe pop into existence

Off course, I didn't bother to correct all the strawmen you mentioned in that post and just let it slide.

Actually, nobody "believes" that the universe just popped into being from "nothing". As far as science is concerned, the origins of the universe are unknown. A "universe from nothing" as Lawrence Krauss talks about, is merely a hypothesis. One of many, actually. Hypothesis aren't "believed".

However, a scientific hypothesis IS based on evidence. A scientific hypothesis isn't just some wild guess based on nothing. It wouldn't be a scientific hypothesis if that were the case.

or Darwinian evolution from one 'kind ' into another.

First of all, "kind" has no meaning as biological jargon.

Secondly, if we understand the word "kind" as being something like "lineage" on any level (like "primate", "mammal", "eukaryote", "vertebrate",...) then if one would observe a "change in kind", then evolution theory would be effectively disproven.


Count on creationists to get it exactly backwards, as always.

 

[John1.12]

Off course, I didn't bother to correct all the strawmen you mentioned in that post and just let it slide.

Actually, nobody "believes" that the universe just popped into being from "nothing". As far as science is concerned, the origins of the universe are unknown. A "universe from nothing" as Lawrence Krauss talks about, is merely a hypothesis. One of many, actually. Hypothesis aren't "believed".

However, a scientific hypothesis IS based on evidence. A scientific hypothesis isn't just some wild guess based on nothing. It wouldn't be a scientific hypothesis if that were the case.



First of all, "kind" has no meaning as biological jargon.

Secondly, if we understand the word "kind" as being something like "lineage" on any level (like "primate", "mammal", "eukaryote", "vertebrate",...) then if one would observe a "change in kind", then evolution theory would be effectively disproven.


Count on creationists to get it exactly backwards, as always.

But you knew what I meant. Darwins Finches stayed Birds , Stickleback remain Stickleback, Bacteria remains bacteria. All thats given is the magic of ' Given enough time ' . Like i said it takes way more faith to believe .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you knew what I meant.

Yes, I know what you meant. What you mean is that the evidence you would want to see in support of evolution, would actually disprove it, as your understanding of evolution is nothing but a huge strawman.

Whenever a creationist talks about a "change in kind", then that is exactly what they mean.

It's not an argument against biological evolution. It's only a testament to how ignorant you are concerning evolutionary biology.

Darwins Finches stayed Birds , Stickleback remain Stickleback, Bacteria remains bacteria.

See? Exactly like I said. That "finches stay birds" is exactly what evolution says.
If finches would produce non-birds, then evolution would be effectively disproven.

It's the law of monophy. It means that species can never outgrow their ancestry.
So ALL descendends of mammals, will be mammals (or subspecies thereof).
ALL descendends of canines will be canines (or subspecies thereof).
ALL descendends of homo sapiens, will be homo sapiens (or subspecies thereof).
ALL descendends of primates, will be primates (or subspecies thereof)

Humans = "still" primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes....
And if in the future humans speciate further into subspecies, those subspecies - whatever they'll be - will still be homo sapiens. You can't outgrow your ancestry.

So, exactly as I said: if a "change in kind" would occur, then evolution would be effectively disproven.

So, the fact that we do NOT see species evolve to the point where they no longer belong to the same group as their ancestors, is evidence IN SUPPORT of evolution. And yet here you are, pretending as if it is evidence against it.

Absolutely hilarious. And quite embarrassing as well.

I always chuckle when I see creationists try and argue against evolution while shooting themselves in the foot like that.

All thats given is the magic of ' Given enough time '

There's nothing magical about the gradual accumulation of micro-changes inevitably building up into large changes.

If you can only take steps of 1 inch, given enough steps you will inevitably cover miles and miles.
It's how "+" works.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+............+1 = big number

Like i said it takes way more faith to believe .

Yes, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the fairy tale strawman version of evolution you are advocating.

It takes 0 faith to accept the actual theory of evolution, due to the extreme amounts of evidence that support it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why believe someone that had a hallucination?

Why believe you (that is was just a hallucination)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why believe you (that is was just a hallucination)?

When has it not been some sort of brain disorder? If your elderly cat neighbor lady saw Jesus in her cereal bowl would you believe her? Especially if she started spouting new theology from that observation? You appear to believe Paul without adequate evidence.

By the way, have you ever taken a critical look at his Road to Damascus story? It has a very serious problem with it.

 

[John1.12]

Yes, I know what you meant. What you mean is that the evidence you would want to see in support of evolution, would actually disprove it, as your understanding of evolution is nothing but a huge strawman.

Whenever a creationist talks about a "change in kind", then that is exactly what they mean.

It's not an argument against biological evolution. It's only a testament to how ignorant you are concerning evolutionary biology.



See? Exactly like I said. That "finches stay birds" is exactly what evolution says.
If finches would produce non-birds, then evolution would be effectively disproven.

It's the law of monophy. It means that species can never outgrow their ancestry.
So ALL descendends of mammals, will be mammals (or subspecies thereof).
ALL descendends of canines will be canines (or subspecies thereof).
ALL descendends of homo sapiens, will be homo sapiens (or subspecies thereof).
ALL descendends of primates, will be primates (or subspecies thereof)

Humans = "still" primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes....
And if in the future humans speciate further into subspecies, those subspecies - whatever they'll be - will still be homo sapiens. You can't outgrow your ancestry.

So, exactly as I said: if a "change in kind" would occur, then evolution would be effectively disproven.

So, the fact that we do NOT see species evolve to the point where they no longer belong to the same group as their ancestors, is evidence IN SUPPORT of evolution. And yet here you are, pretending as if it is evidence against it.

Absolutely hilarious. And quite embarrassing as well.

I always chuckle when I see creationists try and argue against evolution while shooting themselves in the foot like that.



There's nothing magical about the gradual accumulation of micro-changes inevitably building up into large changes.

If you can only take steps of 1 inch, given enough steps you will inevitably cover miles and miles.
It's how "+" works.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+............+1 = big number




Yes, it takes a lot of faith to believe in the fairy tale strawman version of evolution you are advocating.

It takes 0 faith to accept the actual theory of evolution, due to the extreme amounts of evidence that support it.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Macro evolution.
We have found billions of fossils over the last two hundred years. The "evidence" in the so called fossil record that supports transitional states can hardly fill a coffin. Most are anomalies and deformations. And micro evolution proves design. A mechanism of random mutation destroys information and cannot account for new or better information that would be required for an organism to adapt for survival.

 

[sayak83]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Macro evolution.
We have found billions of fossils over the last two hundred years. The "evidence" in the so called fossil record that supports transitional states can hardly fill a coffin. Most are anomalies and deformations. And micro evolution proves design. A mechanism of random mutation destroys information and cannot account for new or better information that would be required for an organism to adapt for survival.

This is so wrong it's laughable. The number of transitional fossils found number in thousands and NONE are deformities.
You must think thousands of scientists with decades of expertise are fools that they harp on a theory if the evidence was not so blindingly convincing? Let me state something clearly, IF you reject evolutionary theory, one of the most well established and well evidenced theory in the entire history of science, you are rejecting the entire practice of science. Completely. Entirely. In totality. There is no alternative. If the scientific process is a valid means to knowledge then evolution has to be true. There is no other choice.
And please do not pretend that you have the expertise to examine scientific evidence like fossils or DNA data. The task requires as much expertise as other high skill tasks like detecting cancer from X ray or designing Mars rovers. I can discuss transitional fossils with you forever, but if your only reply is that those look like deformities to you or some "expert" creationist who has no relevant training, then the discussion is moot. In our world, expertise matters and expertise comes from years and years of training. New Knowledge is established by experts gathering evidence for a certain claim and that evidence getting vetted by other experts in the field. No shortcuts. This is the only method by which claims are accepted or challenged. If people make claims but cannot follow this process, it has no scientific merit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Macro evolution.
We have found billions of fossils over the last two hundred years. The "evidence" in the so called fossil record that supports transitional states can hardly fill a coffin. Most are anomalies and deformations. And micro evolution proves design. A mechanism of random mutation destroys information and cannot account for new or better information that would be required for an organism to adapt for survival.

Okay, so you do not know what evidence is and you appear not to understand what macroevolution is either. Macroevolution has been observed in real time. In fact every claim in your post is wrong. Just amazing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is so wrong it's laughable. The number of transitional fossils found number in thousands and NONE are deformities.

Thousands? I beg to differ. At this point almost every fossil found is by definition transitional. But as to clear transitional fossils being between what creationists would call "kinds" I would agree that it is in the thousands.

 

[sayak83]

Thousands? I beg to differ. At this point almost every fossil found is by definition transitional. But as to clear transitional fossils being between what creationists would call "kinds" I would agree that it is in the thousands.

That is what I was saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Macro evolution.
We have found billions of fossils over the last two hundred years. The "evidence" in the so called fossil record that supports transitional states can hardly fill a coffin. Most are anomalies and deformations. And micro evolution proves design. A mechanism of random mutation destroys information and cannot account for new or better information that would be required for an organism to adapt for survival.

A bit more than a "coffin" here and there ar many many many more:

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what I was saying.

I was merely disagreeing with the low number of "thousands".

 

[John1.12]

A bit more than a "coffin" here and there ar many many many more:

Wow ,that's...erm not convincing. Come on man that's terrible. Every new one that comes out is refuted only to be told " yeah but the next one..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow ,that's...erm not convincing. Come on man that's terrible. Every new one that comes out is refuted only to be told " yeah but the next one..."

It is not my problem is you won't let yourself understand. You probably do not even know what a transitional fossil is.

And none of those have been refuted. Where did you get that crazy idea from? Please find a transitional fossil from that video and explain how it has been refuted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why believe you (that is was just a hallucination)?

Ask yourself why when someone makes such claims of visions / revelations and what-not 2000 years ago, it is considered accurate.

But when somebody makes roughly the same claims today, they are tested for drugs and / or given anti-psychotic medicine. And perhaps even admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

 

[John1.12]

This is so wrong it's laughable. The number of transitional fossils found number in thousands and NONE are deformities.
You must think thousands of scientists with decades of expertise are fools that they harp on a theory if the evidence was not so blindingly convincing? Let me state something clearly, IF you reject evolutionary theory, one of the most well established and well evidenced theory in the entire history of science, you are rejecting the entire practice of science. Completely. Entirely. In totality. There is no alternative. If the scientific process is a valid means to knowledge then evolution has to be true. There is no other choice.
And please do not pretend that you have the expertise to examine scientific evidence like fossils or DNA data. The task requires as much expertise as other high skill tasks like detecting cancer from X ray or designing Mars rovers. I can discuss transitional fossils with you forever, but if your only reply is that those look like deformities to you or some "expert" creationist who has no relevant training, then the discussion is moot. In our world, expertise matters and expertise comes from years and years of training. New Knowledge is established by experts gathering evidence for a certain claim and that evidence getting vetted by other experts in the field. No shortcuts. This is the only method by which claims are accepted or challenged. If people make claims but cannot follow this process, it has no scientific merit.

Perhaps this a different topic for another op ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Macro evolution.

This is yet more evidence that you have very little knowledge on the topic - if any at all.

Only creationists make a distinction between macro and micro evolution as if they are different processes.
In reality, they are one and the same process. So this statement of yours, makes no sense.

We have found billions of fossils over the last two hundred years

No, not "billions". Millions.

. The "evidence" in the so called fossil record that supports transitional states can hardly fill a coffin

And yet another hint of your ignorance.
In reality, every single fossil is a transitional between what came before it and what came after it.

The truly interesting ones, are those that mark transitions between big ancestral and descended taxonomic groups. Most famous one is likely Titkaalik, which is literally a semi-aquatic creature that features traits from both its fully aquatic fish ancestors and its fully land-walking tetrapod descendends.

It was found by prediction, btw.
Paleontologists, geologists and others working in related fields joined forces to find this "fish-apod" by prediction.

- They estimated when it would have lived
- They predicted its main anatomical features
- They hypothesized the environment in which it would have lived (swampy area's or shallow waters).

They then took a geological map and looked for places with exposed rock of that age, which during that time would have been swampy / shallow waters. They pinpointed this spot, went there and started digging.
Lo and behold, they found tiktaalik - a previously unknown species.

It was the age they expected.
It had the anatomical features they expected.
It was found in exactly the type of place they expected.

How did they do this, if evolution and geological history is apparently so wrong?

And that's just one example of course. There are many more like it.
Like the ancestral fossils of whales for example. Horses. Cats. Humans and other primates. Etc.

Ignorance is not an excuse, and certainly not an argument.

Most are anomalies and deformations

If "most" are like that, then surely you will have no problem to link just one and explain how you concluded it was "just an anomaly" or a "deformation".

And micro evolution proves design.

//facepalm

A mechanism of random mutation destroys information

The optimization framework that uses genetic algoritm which I worked on and for which our customer paid more then 300.000 dollars, disagrees.

Every single newborn human, all of which have an average of some 55 mutations, disagrees.

The many experiments in which beneficial mutations were literally observed, disagree.

Mutation can destroy information, sure.
It can also create it, copy it, alter it. All without doing any harm. Most mutations are actually neutral and make no difference. Then there are also those that are beneficial (ie: give the individual an edge in survivability)

and cannot account for new or better information

This is demonstrably false.

that would be required for an organism to adapt for survival.

A mutation that grants immunity to a certain type of poison. Would you say that that is harmful for the organism that gets that mutation?

 

[John1.12]

This is yet more evidence that you have very little knowledge on the topic - if any at all.

Only creationists make a distinction between macro and micro evolution as if they are different processes.
In reality, they are one and the same process. So this statement of yours, makes no sense.



No, not "billions". Millions.



And yet another hint of your ignorance.
In reality, every single fossil is a transitional between what came before it and what came after it.

The truly interesting ones, are those that mark transitions between big ancestral and descended taxonomic groups. Most famous one is likely Titkaalik, which is literally a semi-aquatic creature that features traits from both its fully aquatic fish ancestors and its fully land-walking tetrapod descendends.

It was found by prediction, btw.
Paleontologists, geologists and others working in related fields joined forces to find this "fish-apod" by prediction.

- They estimated when it would have lived
- They predicted its main anatomical features
- They hypothesized the environment in which it would have lived (swampy area's or shallow waters).

They then took a geological map and looked for places with exposed rock of that age, which during that time would have been swampy / shallow waters. They pinpointed this spot, went there and started digging.
Lo and behold, they found tiktaalik - a previously unknown species.

It was the age they expected.
It had the anatomical features they expected.
It was found in exactly the type of place they expected.

How did they do this, if evolution and geological history is apparently so wrong?

And that's just one example of course. There are many more like it.
Like the ancestral fossils of whales for example. Horses. Cats. Humans and other primates. Etc.

Ignorance is not an excuse, and certainly not an argument.




If "most" are like that, then surely you will have no problem to link just one and explain how you concluded it was "just an anomaly" or a "deformation".




//facepalm



The optimization framework that uses genetic algoritm which I worked on and for which our customer paid more then 300.000 dollars, disagrees.

Every single newborn human, all of which have an average of some 55 mutations, disagrees.

The many experiments in which beneficial mutations were literally observed, disagree.

Mutation can destroy information, sure.
It can also create it, copy it, alter it. All without doing any harm. Most mutations are actually neutral and make no difference. Then there are also those that are beneficial (ie: give the individual an edge in survivability)



This is demonstrably false.



A mutation that grants immunity to a certain type of poison. Would you say that that is harmful for the organism that gets that mutation?

Yes no one understands ,everyone's a moron . You have to have really ,really learn this stuff . Like really really really have to be taught it .