What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Those who claim evolution did the job of making plants and animals from a few molecules by "natural selection" will more than likely not agree with the idea that there is no real proof of that.

But you're a creationist. Why are you using that word proof? It's not your standard for your own beliefs. Nothing you believe about creationism is even evidenced much less proven.

Also, nearly every critical thinker would agree with that comment, and then explain why that fact is irrelevant.

What I do find is that scientists will surmise from fossils and other imprints, that different species evolved by magic -- no, I mean natural selection.

Same thing. You disesteem magic now? You're a creationist. What else do you have?

I do not find there is evidence for evolution. But I can understand why scientists believe there is. Because of the development of the theory from the basis of Darwin, of natural selection.

So, you think that the scientists have concluded that there must be evidence for evolution because Darwin said it did? That's how faith-based thought proceeds, not from evidence to reasoned conclusion. It begins with a faith-based belief, not evidence.

there is no proof (yes, I'm going to use that word) that these organisms came about by natural selection.

Correct, just like the theory, which is also unproven but correct, or as they say in court, beyond reasonable doubt.

In fact, thinking about growth, life, and breath, it in no way suggests to me that God is not involved in the life process.

Where did proof go? Wasn't that part your criterion for belief a moment ago?

I said abiogenesis, not evolution.

No, you didn't, but it wouldn't matter if you had. You'd be just as incorrect had you said that abiogenesis was believed by faith.

Yet we agree--species were all created or evolved complete, and will not give birth to other than their kinds. Thanks for agreeing with the Bible.

No, he does not agree that species were either created or evolved complete, and neither do I, nor any other critical thinker. That's your belief, held by faith, and contradicted by evidence. Also, kinds is more bible-speak. And your Bible is wrong.

Certainly, but they--biblically speaking--lie and are deceived.

Critical thought speaking, it's the creationist who lies and is deceived. He has different standards for belief and knowledge that make him especially susceptible to deceit. He doesn't use evidence to decide what is true. He used faith, which is guessing and believing the guess as if it were an empirically discerned fact.

 

[gnostic]

Phylogenetic trees show ancestor species, not billions of species lines from one single source over all time.

Yet we agree--species were all created or evolved complete, and will not give birth to other than their kinds. Thanks for agreeing with the Bible.

The problem is that you don’t understand speciation.

Plus, there are no scientific definition to “kind”. No one use kind, except in the Bible and among creationists of the Young Earth Creationism. YEC isn’t science and the Bible isn’t a biology treatise.

The Bible creation don’t explain anything, not the WHAT “kinds” is, nor the HOW this “kinds” work. There are no descriptions of anatomy of any organisms in Genesis, nor do it explain anything about genetics.

According to Genesis, it stated that fishes and other marine life were created at the same time as the birds.

But according to fossil evidence, marine invertebrates have existed as early as the Ediacaran period (primitive sponges) existed before the earliest fishes in the Ordovician period. While true birds don’t exist about 500 million years afterward (Late Cretaceous).

Early and primitive reptiles and mammals predated the earliest true birds 300 million years.

Plus, Genesis 2 contradicts the order of creation in Genesis 1, where Adam was created before there were plants and animals.

The differences between Genesis 1 and 2, demonstrate there are no consistency as to when plants, animals and humans were created.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution happens in our time.

No, you didn't. Abiogenesis is a group of scientific hypotheses and evolution is a the phenomenon of phenotypic and genotypic change in living populations over time. Neither is faith-based and no one, I Mean NO ONE, has demonstrated them to be faith-based.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Phylogenetic trees show ancestor species, not billions of species lines from one single source over all time.

Yet we agree--species were all created or evolved complete, and will not give birth to other than their kinds. Thanks for agreeing with the Bible.

Once again, I see I trail several others in correcting your errors. Macro-evolution is demonstrated in the evidence and includes speciation. Phylogenetic trees illustrate the relationships between living things.

We do not agree. Living things were not created as they are according to the evidence. Genesis does not agree with the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly, but they--biblically speaking--lie and are deceived.

Do you consider your misrepresentation of what I said to be something encouraged in the Bible? No one has deceived me, though many have tried to force me to deny my own eyes and education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you didn't. Abiogenesis is a group of scientific hypotheses and evolution is a the phenomenon of phenotypic and genotypic change in living populations over time. Neither is faith-based and no one, I Mean NO ONE, has demonstrated them to be faith-based.

I am rather amazed that some creationists think that it is a winning technique to accuse others of using faith. It is a claim that is easily refuted and they have just demonstrated that faith is not a reliable standard to go by. But then, creationism is for the weak in faith. If they can't tell God how he made the Earth then God does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly, but they--biblically speaking--lie and are deceived.

No, that would only be your interpretation of the Bible. "Biblically speaking" there are all sorts of things wrong with the Adam and Eve myth besides the fact that it did not happen.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I lie so much and am so deceived, that I am not real and didn't write this. That is how unreal we are.

Are you sure? Are you a solipsist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you sure? Are you a solipsist?

No, it was absurd.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, that would only be your interpretation of the Bible. "Biblically speaking" there are all sorts of things wrong with the Adam and Eve myth besides the fact that it did not happen.

But biblical Creation narratives are not just the first stories of Genesis. You are ill equipped to argue the Bible with your scant knowledge of the Bible, yet again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But biblical Creation narratives are not just the first stories of Genesis. You are ill equipped to argue the Bible with your scant knowledge of the Bible, yet again.

I have never read the Bible as such and I don't have to. Yet I still have a life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

False again

View attachment 68050

See how one source sits at the root from where all others branch off.
This one is a highly resolved tree which was auto generated from fully sequenced genomes.



Learn how evolution works.
If species give birth to members "not of their kind", then evolution theory is falsified.



Not even remotely.

What? There are things descended from other things, with sub-descendants. We agree on phy trees.

The Bible does not claim one ancestral source for all life.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you're a creationist. Why are you using that word proof? It's not your standard for your own beliefs. Nothing you believe about creationism is even evidenced much less proven.

Also, nearly every critical thinker would agree with that comment, and then explain why that fact is irrelevant.



Same thing. You disesteem magic now? You're a creationist. What else do you have?



So, you think that the scientists have concluded that there must be evidence for evolution because Darwin said it did? That's how faith-based thought proceeds, not from evidence to reasoned conclusion. It begins with a faith-based belief, not evidence.



Correct, just like the theory, which is also unproven but correct, or as they say in court, beyond reasonable doubt.



Where did proof go? Wasn't that part your criterion for belief a moment ago?



No, you didn't, but it wouldn't matter if you had. You'd be just as incorrect had you said that abiogenesis was believed by faith.



No, he does not agree that species were either created or evolved complete, and neither do I, nor any other critical thinker. That's your belief, held by faith, and contradicted by evidence. Also, kinds is more bible-speak. And your Bible is wrong.



Critical thought speaking, it's the creationist who lies and is deceived. He has different standards for belief and knowledge that make him especially susceptible to deceit. He doesn't use evidence to decide what is true. He used faith, which is guessing and believing the guess as if it were an empirically discerned fact.

At this point, abiogenesis should be regarded as a faith-based claim, since it is a hypothesis neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

I dislike your saying ALL creationists lie. That is not only a logical fallacy--after all, are you claiming ZERO creationists deconverted to atheism (?) but is a disreputable, deplorable way to (attempt to) win an argument.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem is that you don’t understand speciation.

Plus, there are no scientific definition to “kind”. No one use kind, except in the Bible and among creationists of the Young Earth Creationism. YEC isn’t science and the Bible isn’t a biology treatise.

The Bible creation don’t explain anything, not the WHAT “kinds” is, nor the HOW this “kinds” work. There are no descriptions of anatomy of any organisms in Genesis, nor do it explain anything about genetics.

According to Genesis, it stated that fishes and other marine life were created at the same time as the birds.

But according to fossil evidence, marine invertebrates have existed as early as the Ediacaran period (primitive sponges) existed before the earliest fishes in the Ordovician period. While true birds don’t exist about 500 million years afterward (Late Cretaceous).

Early and primitive reptiles and mammals predated the earliest true birds 300 million years.

Plus, Genesis 2 contradicts the order of creation in Genesis 1, where Adam was created before there were plants and animals.

The differences between Genesis 1 and 2, demonstrate there are no consistency as to when plants, animals and humans were created.

You are talking a lot of nonsense about the Bible--and I know I know the Bible far, far better than you would--you would need decades to catch up to my knowledge.

My claim is simply that Creation and Abiogenesis are neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab. Claiming otherwise would be a lie on your part. Please stick to the topic at hand.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you didn't. Abiogenesis is a group of scientific hypotheses and evolution is a the phenomenon of phenotypic and genotypic change in living populations over time. Neither is faith-based and no one, I Mean NO ONE, has demonstrated them to be faith-based.

What might be a good way to demonstrate how people cling to myths, including abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is a group of hypotheses, yes, for example, it's all the rage now to claim we'd need merely one replicating RNA to help jumpstart life.

Name a replicating RNA, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, I see I trail several others in correcting your errors. Macro-evolution is demonstrated in the evidence and includes speciation. Phylogenetic trees illustrate the relationships between living things.

We do not agree. Living things were not created as they are according to the evidence. Genesis does not agree with the evidence.

Relationships demonstrate similarities without interposing imaginary brances for phylogenetic trees. Without DNA in fossils, all branches of the phy trees are conjectural, as you know, one reason why tree theory is in constant flux.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you consider your misrepresentation of what I said to be something encouraged in the Bible? No one has deceived me, though many have tried to force me to deny my own eyes and education.

My comment was to a writer who sagely responded how it takes some stubborn willfulness to cling to the outdated abiogenesis theory. Don't worry, just as Pasteur demonstrated against nonsense, as biology uncovers increasing layers of cell complexity, abiogenesis claims will sound even more extreme.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What? There are things descended from other things, with sub-descendants. We agree on phy trees.

You also said they don't all have a common root.
That is not the case. So we do definitely not agree.

The Bible does not claim one ancestral source for all life.

Indeed, it does not.
So no, we do not agree with what the bible says.
Neither does the evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are ill equipped to argue the Bible with your scant knowledge of the Bible, yet again.

We get this all of the time from apologists trying to exclude the opinions of skeptics. There's never a supporting argument or evidence, just the claim. Actually, the most knowledgeable people regarding the Bible are those that can read it open-mindedly and dispassionately, which is the skeptic. The believer uses motivated reasoning. He looks for ways to make the contradictions and other defects of scripture seem otherwise. You're not going to get an honest evaluation from a believer, who assumes a priori that his deity is good and brilliant.

Here's the last half of the list I've been keeping for years of these attempts to exclude the opinions of skeptical critics by theists as you've done.

Spoiler

[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.

[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible

[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.

[33] Your arguments are so full of errors and misconceptions I don't even wanna touch it.

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!

[37] Your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[39] We cannot and must not apply modern concepts to ancient cultures. It causes failure to understand.

[40] It takes humility to understand the Bible

[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.

[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[48] You're cherry picking scripture.

[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.

[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.

[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.

[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.

[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.

[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

[61] Its cute you cherry picked from a cherry picked verse because you dont know anything else. Very cute. Can you explain what "yakaffara bissilahi" mean in Quranic arabic?

[62] So you are an expert in arabic right?

[63] You dont understand transliteration, its an everyday haters haven to find.

[64] You need a spiritual susceptibility to recognize Him through His verses, if not, you're out of luck.

[65] The words are the proof, even by themselves, but you need a certain spiritual susceptibility to them.

[66] The problem is you read all these hadiths without the notion of Quranic wisdom

[67] There are two atheists who claim they can make exegesis of the Qur'an with out even a Childs knowledge in the arabic language. Im sorry to say but that is not exegesis, but learning off some website.

[68] You lack the basic knowledge needed for a debate

[69 If you do not believe in God, His things will be beyond your comprehension.

At this point, abiogenesis should be regarded as a faith-based claim, since it is a hypothesis neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

It looks like you don't know what faith is or how to identify it. You also don't seem to know what a hypothesis is, or you wouldn't call one a faith-based claim. Nor do you know what science actually claims. Nor the criteria for belief.

And why the sudden disesteem for faith? That's the basis of your worldview. Suppose abiogenesis had no more evidence for it than creationism, and neither could be believed except by faith. Why would it be honorable or sensible to believe creationism by faith but not abiogenesis instead? You seem to have a double standard for belief.

I dislike your saying ALL creationists lie.

Sorry. I was parroting your comment. You wrote, "they--biblically speaking--lie and are deceived." I responded, "Critical thought speaking, it's the creationist who lies and is deceived." And now, you're offended. Isn't that another double standard?

it's all the rage now to claim we'd need merely one replicating RNA to help jumpstart life.

Is this how well you understand scripture, too? Please tell me again how offended you are at the suggestion that creationists lie. Isn't that what you're doing now? You called my comment, "a disreputable, deplorable way to (attempt to) win an argument." How would you evaluate your comment using the same standards? Honorable? If so, there's that double standard again. If your criticisms of the science - 'it's just faith' - applies equally to the mythology, how does that support your beliefs or undermine the scientific position?

 

[gnostic]

You are talking a lot of nonsense about the Bible--and I know I know the Bible far, far better than you would--you would need decades to catch up to my knowledge.

My claim is simply that Creation and Abiogenesis are neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab. Claiming otherwise would be a lie on your part. Please stick to the topic at hand.

What do age have to understanding the Genesis Creation?

Understanding the Bible’s Creation come in 3 camps

1. Those who interpret Genesis literally.
2. Those who interpret Genesis metaphorically or symbolic like allegories or even like parables.
3. And those who are skeptical of one or the other or both.

I used to be point 1, but i wasn’t what you call a creationist. I simply believed in Genesis without attempting to mix it with “history” or with “science”, when I was a believer of the Bible.

What I mean, I didn’t there were groups called “Creationism” and I wasn’t aware of people calling themselves “creationists” before 2003.

It was in 2003 (I was 37 at that time), when I heard of Creationism for the first time I joined an Internet forum. It was a forum for computer programmers, but they have sections for discussions on books, tv & films, music, politics and of course, a section on religion.

It was here that I also learned about Evolution too. I heard of mutations and Evolution, but as my knowledge in biology didn’t expand beyond Year 9 high school, I didn’t know anything about Evolution and Natural Selection, before 2003. I didn’t even know who was Charles Darwin, before joining this forum.

By this time, I was already leaning towards agnosticism. My doubt in the Bible first occurred back in 2000, but not because of Genesis or anything about the Old Testament. It was the New Testament that my view started to change and started to doubt, more specifically “the sign” in Matthew 1.

But I think you heard of my story before.

Anyway, as I learned a bit more about creationism and about Evolution, that before the end of 2003, I have formed my own opinions on the subject. I came to realization that the Genesis Creation & Flood didn’t happen as I did more research, not only with the Bible itself, but with general history. Only then did I started to doubt the Old Testament too.

Three years afterward (2006), I joined this forum.