• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I can’t help remembering RedOne77’s early days on this forum and wondering if there is something similar going on here with Christian Doc. Perhaps Christian Doc really is a doctor, but not really a creationist. :shrug:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
fantôme profane;2149980 said:
I can’t help remembering RedOne77’s early days on this forum and wondering if there is something similar going on here with Christian Doc. Perhaps Christian Doc really is a doctor, but not really a creationist. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Most of the time it goes the other way around. Creationists are notorious for lying or exagerrating their credentials. That is, there are hundreds of Christian apologists who claim to have a degree in this or that, and after investigation we see that they got their degrees from a paper mill or an otherwise unaccredited school.

The fact that "Christian Doc" presents his teacher as unable to defend his position says alot about his school. It's not a very good one if the profs don't know what they are talking about, particularly when it is the application of medicine.
 
Gunfingers

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
angellous_evangellous said:
Most of the time it goes the other way around. Creationists are notorious for lying or exagerrating their credentials. That is, there are hundreds of Christian apologists who claim to have a degree in this or that, and after investigation we see that they got their degrees from a paper mill or an otherwise unaccredited school.

The fact that "Christian Doc" presents his teacher as unable to defend his position says alot about his school. It's not a very good one if the profs don't know what they are talking about, particularly when it is the application of medicine.
Click to expand...
I dunno, it seemed from the story like Christian Doc assumed that because his instructor only gave one quick example that there must be NO examples and things just kinda snowballed from there.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Christian Doc said:
Willamena,

You don't time is essential for evolution? Well, then I think you need to reread this:

Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

"Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life"

It is an essential part of how the theory of evolution supposedly explains the diversity of life. If you do not have the large amount of time, then evolution is wrong.
Click to expand...
I think the confusion might be coming from the fact that there are two separate issues here:

- evolution
- common descent

Regardless of how long the Earth has existed, the mechanisms of evolution are testable and supported by evidence. If you were to somehow show that the Earth is actually very young, this would speak against the idea of common descent, but it wouldn't necessarily speak against the idea of evolution.

I think that these two separate ideas sometimes become conflated when creationists try to attack common descent by attacking evolution.

Christian Doc said:
I took the above link from the ones that you recommended. Surely you must see that millions of years is essential for evolution to be realistic to explain the diversity and complexity of life we see?

I do understand the theory of evolution. I understand that it requires enormous amounts of time in order that you can get the numbers of generations required to diversify the species to the point that they are different species. (thus the tree of life in evolutionary theory requires long periods of time)
Click to expand...
Do you also understand that if we were plunked down on Earth yesterday by gods/aliens/what-have-you in the forms we are now, we and all life on Earth would continue to evolve?

Christian Doc said:
If evolutionist conservationists really believed that evolution could work rapidly why would they try to save endangered species? Why not just let them change rapidly in response to the climatic change?
Click to expand...
"Rapid" in evolutionary terms is still a lot longer than "rapid" in common parlance. If a species is about to be wiped out within a few generations, no evolutionary adaptation can keep pace with that.

Also, a lot of the effort to prevent climate change is about protecting whole ecosystems. An ecosystem may not be an evolutionary unit, but it's still an existent thing that we can value. Even if all the species in a given area successfully adapt to some dramatic change in climate, the ecosystem there will still have been destroyed and replaced with something else.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Gunfingers said:
I dunno, it seemed from the story like Christian Doc assumed that because his instructor only gave one quick example that there must be NO examples and things just kinda snowballed from there.
Click to expand...

That's the other side of the coin.

1) Either the prof was unable to defend his position

2) Our friend was unable to comprehend his prof's position, being either unwilling or unable to understand what the prof was saying.

But that's beside the point. A basic knowledge of human physiology is needed in pre-med study, and it's impossible to understand the human body without understanding evolution.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
angellous_evangellous said:
But that's beside the point. A basic knowledge of human physiology is needed in pre-med study, and it's impossible to understand the human body without understanding evolution.
Click to expand...
... one would think, though I've read about Creationist geologists who still manage to find oil while still believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I assume they just focus on the correlation between the various rock formations and the presence of oil, and don't consider the "how" of why the oil is there. Presumably, a similar approach could work for medicine.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... one would think, though I've read about Creationist geologists who still manage to find oil while still believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I assume they just focus on the correlation between the various rock formations and the presence of oil, and don't consider the "how" of why the oil is there. Presumably, a similar approach could work for medicine.
Click to expand...

Geologists without a basic knowledge of his field can't do the damage that a practicing doctor can.

Part of the reason for schools and degrees is to weed people out who will be destructive to the field. I suspect that "creationist" geologists are few and far between, or lied or kept their mouth shut while in school.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
angellous_evangellous said:
Geologists without a basic knowledge of his field can't do the damage that a practicing doctor can.
Click to expand...
Depends.

I know it's not quite the same thing, but a geotechnical engineer who says to himself "pfft! This test result says that this soil sample consolidated 15,000 years ago! That's older than the age of the Earth! I'm going to disregard it when I design my building foundation" can definitely set up a situation that will end with a very bad day for many people.

angellous_evangellous said:
Part of the reason for schools and degrees is to weed people out who will be destructive to the field. I suspect that "creationist" geologists are few and far between, or lied or kept their mouth shut while in school.
Click to expand...
Oh, definitely. I wouldn't have passed even my first "geology for engineers" course if I had done my course work on the basis of a 6,000-year-old Earth. It would've been a clear demonstration that I wasn't learning even the basics of the subject matter.
 
Biblestudent_007

Biblestudent_007

Active Member
fantôme profane;2150611 said:
Then tell us about it. You are a theistic evolutionists, what were you debating with him about if you both accept evolution? Or were you not a theistic evolutionist back then?
Click to expand...

I was OEC Old Earth Creationism . . I actually learned about ToE (theory of evolution) from him.

The crux of the debate was that I was advocating Bible based belief (God as the Creator of the universe) and he was advocating atheistic evolutionary theory. (Nihilistic existentialism) ~ the universe is a just random with no inherent meaning.

By the way, Do you know where I can find him online? . .
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Biblestudent_007 said:
I was OEC Old Earth Creationism . . I actually learned about ToE (theory of evolution) from him.

The crux of the debate was that I was advocating Bible based belief (God as the Creator of the universe) and he was advocating atheistic evolutionary theory. (Nihilistic existentialism) ~ the universe is a just random with no inherent meaning.

By the way, Do you know where I can find him online? . .
Click to expand...

The man you were debating may have been an atheist, but the subject(evolution) is neither atheistic nor theistic, it's completely neutral to the god issue. So, the idea of "atheistic" evolution is a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top