What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[BilliardsBall]

But it hasn't. Those prophecies are just ad hoc reinterpretations after the fact. When the Bible makes clear prophecy it fails.

It was "ad hoc after the fact" that the Jews were "... scattered to many nations, persecuted in each, returned to Israel at a specific calendar date [translating to 1948 AD]..." (!)

Make up your mind, please, was it a self-fulfilling prophecy to return in '48 or "ad hoc after the fact"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you think that? Most people that make that claim have no clue about genetics and how to apply it to evolution.

Ah but we both have a clue--FACT, most of what you're claiming as proof of evolution is reduction of information, not addition of new information, FACT, most genetic mutations are harmful, not helpful.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evidence (noun) is what is evident (adjective) to the senses. What it is evidence of requires the application of valid reasoning to generate sound conclusions. There's no wiggle room here. These don't have to be your rules, and they obviously are not, but those who know and adhere to them aren't interested in what others using other methods call truth and supporting evidence.

The Baha'i will tell you that their scriptures and the biography of their messenger are evidence to them of a god. Critical thinkers reject that conclusion upon reviewing that evidence. There is nothing in their holy book or any other holy book that a human being couldn't have written, which betrays the claim that it is evidence of a god channeling it. There would need to be something superhuman there to even begin to think that it wasn't written by an ordinary human being.



Those prophecies don't support you claims for them. They are not prescient in any way not common to human experience. What you call evidence of supernatural prescience isn't that. High quality prophecy - the kind that can convince a critical thinker - needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. Optimally, the time and place are specified. It also needs to prophecy something unexpected, unlikely or unique. What happened in 1948 was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was a movie called "Frequency" in which Dennis Quaid's son living in the future tells his father living in the past the outcome of game five of what is for him the as yet unfinished 1969 World Series from 1998 using a ham radio in order to convince his father that he really knows his father's future. Here's what the son said to the father:

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."​

Then the father sees it all play out live on a TV in a bar. Is that convincing? Once one rules out a taped delay broadcast of the game, yes, it is. Why? Because it is very specific and predicted something very unlikely. Biblical prophecy lacks that specificity, without which, it is very human and mundane, and reminds nobody of a god.



Still with the "apes and people"? Did you read the discussion Jose Fly and I had about you writing that? We were wondering what causes you to keep making that error. At one point, I mentioned that I hoped you would clarify that, but you chose not to have any input into what was being decided about your likely motives.

One shouldn't expect a person unable to assimilate that man is an ape to understand much other evolutionary science, either. One has no standing in a scientific discussion if he can't learn the science. Certainly, you consider that reasonable. Imagine how you would respond to somebody who couldn't learn biblical prophecy correctly but called it weak anyway.

But to address your comment, no, the differences between humans and non-human apes speaks to the fact that every change offered an adaptive advantage and was retained by the population's gene pool (now would be the time to stop reading if science has no value to you, as only science lies ahead). Man had a different history from the other great apes, who are all hairy, arboreal brachiators and knuckle walkers feeding on leaves and nuts. Man's ancestors lost their jungle as the Sahara desertified, and he had to come down to the earth, shed his hair and stood upright to engage in persistence hunting, and evolved a big brain to take advantage of his free, dexterous hands. Why and just where this happened are uncertain, but one interesting idea attributes the changes to changes in ocean currents and local humidity and temperature caused by North and South America coming together and ending a Pacific -> Atlantic current.

It may be too much to ask, but I'd ask you to read the Israel prophecies, it's clear you never have. They are specific, measurable, timed--and provable, for those fulfilled in modernity circa 1948 AD.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The word “ape” isn’t a name of any species, BilliardsBall.

The word “ape” is a taxon classification of some shared physical and genetic traits of groups of primates (the taxon order, Primates).

Primates (order) is grouped together with other mammals in the class Mammalia.

Mammals, primates, apes, monkeys, fishes, sharks, birds, amphibians, frogs, dinosaurs, vertebrates, animals, plants, trees, bacteria, etc. None of these words that we use everyday to describe them, are names or labels of “species”.

Humans, as in the Homo sapiens (species) or Homo sapiens sapiens (subspecies) are the only species that are extant today in the genus Homo, which is a Latin word for “human”. Other human species in the Homo genus are extinct, eg Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, etc.

Homo isn’t a name of species, just as apes are not of species.

Humans are species of the Homo, but they are also species of other classification names:

• Homo (genus)
• Homonini (tribe), which includes the genera Homo and Australopithecus
• Hominidae (family), “great apes”
• Hominoidea (superfamily) “apes”
• Catarrhini (parvorder) “Old World monkeys”
• Simiiformes (infraorder) “monkeys”
  
• Haplorhini (suborder)
  
• Primates (order)
  
• Mammalia (class)
• Animalia (kingdom)

Humans are apes and primates, as well as they are mammals and animals. But words like apes and primates, in biology, don’t referred to as species.

We often used the word “fish”, eg on trout, barramundi, sardine, tiger shark, swordfish, etc, and yet “fish” isn’t a species. None of the fishes I had listed are of the same species; they don’t even belong to the same genus and same family.

We do the same thing with birds, but “birds” (class Aves) isn’t name of the species, nor are peregrine falcons are of the same species as that of doves or of pelicans.

And speaking of falcons, falcons isn’t the name of species, but that of the genus Falco and the family Falconidae. There are many different species and subspecies of falcons, so the peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) are of different species to the gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus).

Thank you! Therefore, I'll redact to "chimpanzees and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Obvious diversion. I recognize that humans are apes per science. I recognize that you deny it regardless of the evidence.

The number of mutations indicates that both lines were evolving following the divergence from the common ancestor.

Show me. How does it falsify the relationship?

You claim to be fully cognizant of the biology from your tender youth. Show me.

I share features with apes, and features with some marsupials, and some bacteria. I am also a sentient person.

I am cognizant of the biology and already showed you, quote, "[Other apes of your choice, say, chimpanzees] and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have never use “tender age” before, because I have not learnt its definition.

Is that referring to infant and toddler age?

At least 5 years old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Blind faith is gross to us both--accepting things without evidence.

Biblical faith is trust based on disclosed evidence, that's the precise wording here in Hebrews 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen.

That verse literally says it's about "hope" and things "not seen". ie: not known; not in evidence; not in observation.

These things are the opposite of verifiable evidence and data.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah but we both have a clue--FACT, most of what you're claiming as proof of evolution is reduction of information, not addition of new information, FACT, most genetic mutations are harmful, not helpful.

Nobody on this side of the fence is claiming anything is "proof" of evolution.

And your claim about "reduction" of information is just nonsense.

Mutation can add, change or remove.

And no, "most" mutations aren't harmful. The majority of mutations are in fact neutral.
Adding to that, the evolutionary process doesn't require a "majority" of mutations to be beneficial at all.


Count on evolution deniers to get everything wrong about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It may be too much to ask, but I'd ask you to read the Israel prophecies, it's clear you never have. They are specific, measurable, timed--and provable, for those fulfilled in modernity circa 1948 AD.

I'm a prophet.
The other day I predicted that the waiter at the restaurant would bring me a steak.
Sure enough, 15 minutes later, there he was - with a steak!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you! Therefore, I'll redact to "chimpanzees and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc."

It does not.

Ignorance concerning how a mechanism actually works, is not an argument against it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Biblical faith is trust based on disclosed evidence, that's the precise wording here in Hebrews 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen.

Those words are incoherent. Knowledge based in evidence properly evaluated is not faith. Faith is every other belief - the set of unjustified beliefs. The essence of faith is the LACK of substance and sufficient evidence to justify belief. Hope is not belief.

The reason faith is so touted in Christianity to the point of calling it a virtue that pleases God is because the religion cannot be believed without it. It's also the reason the church fathers demeaned reason. Reason won't lead one to theism. They tried with the arguments from First Cause, from Natural Law, etc., but they're all flawed and convince no critically thinking logicians.

Why would faith be considered a virtue? Is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? Of course not Faith, by definition, is unexamined, making it among the shallowest of experiences. What is faith but the willingness to believe without sufficient reason? It is nothing more or less than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. Belief based in that little thought deserves no more respect handling snakes or casting horoscopes.

FACT, most genetic mutations are harmful, not helpful.

You keep repeating that, but it is Irrelevant. Why do you think otherwise? The theory is correct despite that fact. That's the power of natural selection - t accumulate the beneficial mutations while weeding out the harmful ones. After a few hundred million years, guess what has accumulated and what has not anyway.

was it a self-fulfilling prophecy to return in '48 or "ad hoc after the fact"?

Yes. There was no prophecy to return in '48. No year was specified - part of the reason it is considered low quality prophecy. Also, the people making it happen had access to the prophecy. That's what self-fulfilling means, and another reason it is considered low quality prophecy.

Imagine if the prophecy actually contained a date, and that date was 1944, the height of World War II. That would be a hard one to fulfill. That's the beauty of nonspecific prophecies. There's a ton of wiggle room in what one can claim fulfills them.

The Bible can't match the specificity of scientific "prophecy," which is of human origin, so there is no justification in considering something that doesn't rise to that standard divine.

It may be too much to ask, but I'd ask you to read the Israel prophecies

If it's not too much to ask, would you replay to the argument made to you. I already explained there why I consider biblical prophecy low quality and not indicative of superhuman prescience. You'll need to show why that can't be correct, or the debate is over. I realize that I sound like a broken record on these threads lately, but debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, which at this point, is the material you just ignored.

And let me remind you of what a rebuttal is and what it is not. It is not mere dissent. It is a counterargument to a claim that, if correct, disproves the claim. I say that biblical prophecy is weak. You obviously disagree, but it seems your best evidence is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I showed you the specificity needed to convince a critically thinking skeptic when I referred to the movie Frequency, which you also ignored.

They are specific, measurable, timed--and provable, for those fulfilled in modernity circa 1948 AD.

The opposite is clear when one takes off his faith goggles. Your claims about 1948 have been rejected, but you keep repeating them with no additional substance and no rebuttal of the case to reject them. No critical thinker is becoming a Christian because of that claim.

You may eventually want to notice that and quit offering it knowing that it only convinces others that THEY are correct about biblical prophecy being mundane. Just as every failed effort to overturn evolution science strengthens the case that it is correct, every offered prophecy that fails to convince is also evidence that biblical prophecy is mundane. If you had better evidence, we'd have seen it already, which is how it is known that you don't according to the truism that the absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Blind faith is gross to us both--accepting things without evidence.

Biblical faith is trust based on disclosed evidence, that's the precise wording here in Hebrews 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen.

Sorry, but that is still just blind faith. Hope does not add substance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was "ad hoc after the fact" that the Jews were "... scattered to many nations, persecuted in each, returned to Israel at a specific calendar date [translating to 1948 AD]..." (!)

Make up your mind, please, was it a self-fulfilling prophecy to return in '48 or "ad hoc after the fact"?

Many try to reinterpret that prophecy to come up with the year '48 after the fact. That some people out of a group that keeps trying to return to an ancestral homeland eventually makes it is no big news.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah but we both have a clue--FACT, most of what you're claiming as proof of evolution is reduction of information, not addition of new information, FACT, most genetic mutations are harmful, not helpful.

No, sorry, but you are wrong again. In fact almost every mutation by definition is new information. You just confirmed that you do not have a clue by making your claim. And no, most mutations are benign. Which is a good thing. Every generation has mutations. One figure that I heard recently was 300, but I do not have a confirming link for that yet. The vast majority of those are benign. A smaller percentage is harmful, and an even smaller one is positive. Harmful ones do not tend to accumulate due to natural selection. Good ones do accumulate.

You should really know this by now. Why do you keep reading lying sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may be too much to ask, but I'd ask you to read the Israel prophecies, it's clear you never have. They are specific, measurable, timed--and provable, for those fulfilled in modernity circa 1948 AD.

No, the 1948 part is what fails. That is shown by other sects having different interpretations of that particular "prophecy".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you! Therefore, I'll redact to "chimpanzees and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc."

A claim that is not supported with evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Here is what you need to do:

Find the peer reviewed articles from well respected (that leaves out any creationist journals), professional (once again this means no creationist journals) scientific (and that one especially excludes creationist journals where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method) journals that support you. Quote and link it please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That verse literally says it's about "hope" and things "not seen". ie: not known; not in evidence; not in observation.

These things are the opposite of verifiable evidence and data.

What?!

That verse LITERALLY uses the word EVIDENCE:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A claim that is not supported with evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Here is what you need to do:

Find the peer reviewed articles from well respected (that leaves out any creationist journals), professional (once again this means no creationist journals) scientific (and that one especially excludes creationist journals where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method) journals that support you. Quote and link it please.

I have no need to do so, we both know there are millions of genetic differences between chimpanzees and people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'd love for you to address the fact stated, too. Apes and people have millions of genetic differences, which speaks against the given numbers for genetic mutations being favorable, genetic drift and etc.

Can you explain why you believe this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Blind faith is gross to us both--accepting things without evidence.

Biblical faith is trust based on disclosed evidence, that's the precise wording here in Hebrews 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not [yet] seen.

That sounds exactly like blind faith to me.