What evidence would convince you of evolution?

[DeMotts]

Hi all, new poster/longtime reader, etc.

I’ve noticed that some times when debating the merits of evolution with creationists the phrase “there isn’t any evidence� or “there isn’t enough evidence� is often said. In some extreme cases the creationist will go so far as to ask their opponent for a “videotape� or some type of recorded media. This is an extreme example and certainly isn’t the case with all creationists, but I have seen people on this board asking for what seems like an impossible level of evidence.

This lady is an example of this mentality:


My question is this:

Specifically what kind of evidence do you require before you would consider changing your viewpoint regarding evolution? Is there any level of evidence that would convince you? If there is a particular thing you think would change your mind, do you think that what you are asking is within the reasonable realm of possibility for science to provide?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 358 by theStudent]
What do I mean? I mean the fact that the brain is complex does not imply evolution cannot produce a brain.
What's wrong with your thinking? You were jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
Why is it wrong? Evolution can produce complex structures such as brains.

This is as simple as I can put it. What exactly is it that you don't understand? I really do not know how to make it any clearer.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And it was in those extra stuff that you misrepresented abiogenesis.

Can you go in a lab and scientifically prove that life came from nonlife? Nope.

Much better.

And I am confident that you can't.

Sounds like you do at least accept that evolution is compatible with Christianity, can you confirm that?

Don't know where you got that from.

Well they can.

Based on what?

What's wrong with the stuff I mentioned already re: fossils, genetics and morphology?

Fossils don't prove anything, unless you can give a complete fossil record, which you already admitted that you couldn't. Genetics could mean common designer...and morphology has only been observed on a micro-level...there are obvious changes in living organisms, but too what degree, is the question.

Yes. I also said it was not mere speculative, because they have scientific support.

There was no scientific support in the article, though.

You did disagree with it, but that doesn't matter one bit. You don't get to decide what evolution says and doesn't say.

Evolution states that a reptile evolved into a bird, right? Well, that is what evolution says, and that is where the evidence is lacking.

You did, and I still don't care. Repeat after me: evolution says birds are dinosaurs

Which is a scientifically unverified statement.

, as such dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

Which is another scientifically unverified statement.

I don't know. You tell me.

I am not the one who is pushing the idea that a bird is a reptile, you are...so you tell me.

No, we don't.

Of course we don't...because dogs produce dogs, and dogs don't have wings.

Say, so repeat after me: Evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

Repeat after me: According to the unproven theory of evolution, reptiles and birds are the same kind.

Such as the similarities between modern birds and reptiles

What similarities?

, or the existence of earlier gliders fossils.

"So, if you have gliders long enough, eventually, you will get wings".

Non sequitur.

Of course it is proven. See the above re: What facts?

Don't let your presuppositions interpret the evidence for you...let the evidence interpret itself .

[Bust Nak]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
Can you go in a lab and scientifically prove that life came from nonlife? Nope.

Same red herring as before. Whether I can or cannot prove life came from nonlife in a lab is irrelevant for the accusation of misrepresentation.

And I am confident that you can't.

Not exactly my problem. lt is already accepted in the scientific community.

Don't know where you got that from.

Form this quote "If I saw evidence that [God] did it that way, as opposed to the way that I believe he did it, then that would be enough."

It now sounds like you are denying that evolution is compatible with Christianity, can you affirm that?

Based on what?

Scientific observations obviously. What else do you think can convince a scientist?

Fossils don't prove anything, unless you can give a complete fossil record, which you already admitted that you couldn't. Genetics could mean common designer...and morphology has only been observed on a micro-level...there are obvious changes in living organisms, but too what degree, is the question.

Well it is good enough for science, even if it is not good enough for you.

There was no scientific support in the article, though.

It mentioned morphology and fossils, didn't it? I am pretty sure it did.

Evolution states that a reptile evolved into a bird, right? Well, that is what evolution says, and that is where the evidence is lacking.

It also says reptiles and birds are the same kind. That's the bit that you are having difficulty with. Repeat after me: Evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

Which is a scientifically unverified statement.

Actually it is verified. But you are dodging the issue again. Whether it can or cannot be scientifically verified or not, does not change the fact that evolution says birds are dinosaurs. Repeat after me: Evolution says dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

I am not the one who is pushing the idea that a bird is a reptile, you are...so you tell me.

Sure, but I am not the one who is pushing the idea that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals of yesterday was doing stuff that the animals of today haven't been observed to do. So I am not the right person to ask.

Of course we don't...because dogs produce dogs, and dogs don't have wings.

Of course.

Repeat after me: According to the unproven theory of evolution, reptiles and birds are the same kind.

No can do. It's not true. At best I can say is "accord to you, reptiles and birds are the not same kind," or "according to you evolution is an unproven theory."

What similarities?

Bones, genes, functionalities.

"So, if you have gliders long enough, eventually, you will get wings".

Non sequitur.

You are forgetting reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection. With those factored in, evolution is inevitable.

Don't let your presuppositions interpret the evidence for you...let the evidence interpret itself.

Now we are getting into philosophy territories. You must have some presupposition to let the evidence interpret itself, such as the presupposition "that empirical evidence can tell us about reality."

[For_The_Kingdom]

Same red herring as before. Whether I can or cannot prove life came from nonlife in a lab is irrelevant for the accusation of misrepresentation.

If you can't prove that life can come from nonlife, on naturalism, then evolution is not a brute fact.

Not exactly my problem. lt is already accepted in the scientific community.

It was once accepted in the scientific community that the universe was static and eternal...but they were wrong.

So, the scientific community only shows consensus, not factuals.

Form this quote "If I saw evidence that [God] did it that way, as opposed to the way that I believe he did it, then that would be enough."

It now sounds like you are denying that evolution is compatible with Christianity, can you affirm that?

So I can't admit that it is possible for God to have used evolution, while at the same time denying that he did use evolution?

I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Scientific observations obviously. What else do you think can convince a scientist?

I believe that most scientists are naturalists, so that says it all right there. And this is not the genetic fallacy either...you asked, and I gave my answer LOL.

Well it is good enough for science, even if it is not good enough for you.

Yup.

It mentioned morphology and fossils, didn't it? I am pretty sure it did.

Oh, my bad..I meant a scientific breakdown on how it is based upon those two things that birds evolved wings.

It also says reptiles and birds are the same kind. That's the bit that you are having difficulty with. Repeat after me: Evolution says reptiles and birds are the same kind.

If they are the same kind, then the theory wouldn't be that they evolved into birds. What something evolves into cannot be the same thing that it was before the evolution, otherwise, it would be the [same thing]...hey, wait a minute LOL.

Actually it is verified. But you are dodging the issue again. Whether it can or cannot be scientifically verified or not, does not change the fact that evolution says birds are dinosaurs. Repeat after me: Evolution says dinosaurs producing birds is an example of dinosaurs producing dinosaurs.

So if we go back in time and traverse every single time that a bird gave bird, eventually, we will get to the point where we will see the rise of a feathered animal from a non-feathered animal.

That is voodoo speculation.

And you repeat after me: Gliders are gliders, and wings are wings.

Sure, but I am not the one who is pushing the idea that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals of yesterday was doing stuff that the animals of today haven't been observed to do.

But that is what happened.. if the claim is that birds evovled from reptiles, then you are saying that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals were making these macro-changes.

Today, we do not see anything that even CLOSELY resembles such macro-changes that YOU believe occurred hundreds of millions of years ago...that, followed by your lack of one complete fossil record, adds to the grand scheme of things.

No can do. It's not true. At best I can say is "accord to you, reptiles and birds are the not same kind," or "according to you evolution is an unproven theory."

Did that make sense?

Bones, genes, functionalities.

Common designer.

You are forgetting reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection. With those factored in, evolution is inevitable.

Right, and all of those things are limited to the "kind" of animal that it is related to. You claim that reptiles and birds are the same kind, yet, we don't observe those kind of changes in nature.

Now we are getting into philosophy territories.

Not at all...if you already presuppose evolution, everything that you see regarding biology will scream out EVOLUTION to you. That is exactly why, between our conversations about evolution/abiogenesis, you didn't even consider intelligent design...it was "the buck stops with abiogenesis and evolution"...that is a closed-minded presupposition.

Unlike me, of course, because I can believe in evolution all while maintaining my Christian theism. So there are no presuppositions because my worldview isn't effected in any way...so I can refuse to accept the their based on lack of evidence, not because my worldview is threatened if don't.

Unlike some people lol.

You must have some presupposition to let the evidence interpret itself, such as the presupposition "that empirical evidence can tell us about reality."

Ok, and I can let the evidence interpret itself, and STILL not draw the same conclusiont that you do.

[Kenisaw]

If you can't prove that life can come from nonlife, on naturalism, then evolution is not a brute fact.

Evolution is a brute fact. The theory of evolution is supported by a wide ranging array of data and empirical evidence. How life began doesn't matter, because the theory of evolution does not deal with how life began. In only states that life forms change over time. Why cultists must CONSTANTLY have this explained to them is utterly mind boggling. I have to ask Kingdom, has this boundary finally sunk in, or are you going to dazzle us with another misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution in the future?

It was once accepted in the scientific community that the universe was static and eternal...but they were wrong.

So, the scientific community only shows consensus, not factuals.

Completely true. That consensus is reached on the gathering, observing, and experimentation of data and evidence. Those facts are what lead to the conclusions.

So I can't admit that it is possible for God to have used evolution, while at the same time denying that he did use evolution?

I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Forum rules prohibit me from answering your question at this time...

I believe that most scientists are naturalists, so that says it all right there. And this is not the genetic fallacy either...you asked, and I gave my answer LOL.

Yes, it does say it all, doesn't it. Because surveys show that over half of scientists are religious and/or believe in a personal god. So your belief is, like others, completely unfounded and does not reflect reality. You could have avoided that of course by actually researching the percentage of naturalists in science today, that you didn't speaks volumes.

Oh, my bad..I meant a scientific breakdown on how it is based upon those two things that birds evolved wings.

Here's a good place to start. It talks about all flight, not just birds: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrate ... volve.html

So if we go back in time and traverse every single time that a bird gave bird, eventually, we will get to the point where we will see the rise of a feathered animal from a non-feathered animal.

That is voodoo speculation.

Based on genetic, morphological, geological, biological, and paleontological study of all the data and empirical evidence gathered? That's not speculation. It's a combination of facts. Once your Google gets fixed you can look up speculation and see why that word doesn't fit.

And you repeat after me: Gliders are gliders, and wings are wings.

Except for before the were, and then after they change into something else.

But that is what happened.. if the claim is that birds evovled from reptiles, then you are saying that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals were making these macro-changes.

They weren't "making" anything. Changes occurred to their genome, over time. These changes led some species of raptors to start on a path that has led to modern birds. Birds are still changing today. What path that takes to the future we won't know until it happens.

Today, we do not see anything that even CLOSELY resembles such macro-changes that YOU believe occurred hundreds of millions of years ago...that, followed by your lack of one complete fossil record, adds to the grand scheme of things.

Figure out a way to live 200,000 years or so, and you will.

Bones, genes, functionalities.

Common designer.

Baseless conjecture. Aren't you supposed to provide evidence for claims in this forum? You would need to provide data that a design creature exists. Then you would need to show that this design creature actually did the designing. After all, the existence of a design creature doesn't prove it did anything...I look forward to all your evidence and information...

Right, and all of those things are limited to the "kind" of animal that it is related to. You claim that reptiles and birds are the same kind, yet, we don't observe those kind of changes in nature.

Except for all the empirical data that shows that those changes happened you'd be right.

Not at all...if you already presuppose evolution, everything that you see regarding biology will scream out EVOLUTION to you. That is exactly why, between our conversations about evolution/abiogenesis, you didn't even consider intelligent design...it was "the buck stops with abiogenesis and evolution"...that is a closed-minded presupposition.

The reason no one considers intelligent design is that there is zero evidence for intelligent design. And let's be perfectly clear here. There isn't even one single scrap of empirical data that supports the claim that life arose because some supernatural critter willed it so. We don't even have any evidence for the critter yet, much less any actions this critter supposedly took. And we all know you don't have any either, or you would have already presented it long ago.

Unlike me, of course, because I can believe in evolution all while maintaining my Christian theism. So there are no presuppositions because my worldview isn't effected in any way...so I can refuse to accept the their based on lack of evidence, not because my worldview is threatened if don't.

Unlike some people lol.

Your Christian theism must not be very "Christian" if you accept the theory of evolution and not the inerrant word of the god creature that everything was made from dust the same week at humans...

Ok, and I can let the evidence interpret itself, and STILL not draw the same conclusiont that you do.

Entirely true, although I have personal doubt as to how rigorous your examination of the actual evidence has been...

[For_The_Kingdom]

Evolution is a brute fact.

Mere assertion.

The theory of evolution is supported by a wide ranging array of data and empirical evidence.

What empirical data?

How life began doesn't matter, because the theory of evolution does not deal with how life began. In only states that life forms change over time.

Right, and if God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, there would be no change in life forms over time, would there? Nope.

Why cultists must CONSTANTLY have this explained to them is utterly mind boggling.

No, what is mind boggling is that evolutionists don't seem to understand the fact that they can't logically just bypass abiogenesis (a theory that is scientifically unverified) and jump right to evolution (a theory that they THINK is scientifically verified).

If God doesn't exist, then abiogenesis is the only game in town...which itself just may very well be a FALSE concept.

So either you have to admit that the God Hypothesis is a viable option, or simply admit that abiognesis could be false, and therefore, evolution could be false.

Either one of those two you are gonna have to come to terms with.

I have to ask Kingdom, has this boundary finally sunk in, or are you going to dazzle us with another misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution in the future?

How about you dazzle me with scientific evidence to support naturalistic claims.

Completely true. That consensus is reached on the gathering, observing, and experimentation of data and evidence. Those facts are what lead to the conclusions.

I have a lot to say about that, but we need not get into it here.

Forum rules prohibit me from answering your question at this time...

LOL.

Yes, it does say it all, doesn't it. Because surveys show that over half of scientists are religious and/or believe in a personal god. So your belief is, like others, completely unfounded and does not reflect reality. You could have avoided that of course by actually researching the percentage of naturalists in science today, that you didn't speaks volumes.

Well hey, if that is what surveys say, then this is simply an "in house" disagreement that I have with fellow believers, ESPECIALLY Christian believers.

We don't have to agree with everything.

But then again, at least those believers who DO believe in evolution have the common sense to know that even if evolution did occur (as the theory says), that an intelligent designer was the orchestrator of the entire process.

They are not believing that a mindless and blind process was behind the entire affair and was able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do.

Here's a good place to start. It talks about all flight, not just birds: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrate ... volve.html

No this guy didn't just post the same speculative link that was posted prior...please don't tell me he did.

*checks link*

Yup, he sure did. SMH.

Based on genetic, morphological, geological, biological, and paleontological study of all the data and empirical evidence gathered? That's not speculation. It's a combination of facts. Once your Google gets fixed you can look up speculation and see why that word doesn't fit.

Speculation: 1.the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Perfect fit.

Except for before the were, and then after they change into something else.

Sure, thats the theory.

They weren't "making" anything. Changes occurred to their genome, over time. These changes led some species of raptors to start on a path that has led to modern birds.

This one mini-paragraph is the prime example of leaving natural science, and entering voodoo science. Nature science is the observation/experimentaion involving the change of organisms over the course of time. No one can deny that there are changes...however..

Voodoo science is the idea that these changes can occur on such a large scale as you described above. We have NEVER observed such changes in living organisms...never...yet we are to believe that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to see it, that it occurred.

No one saw it, and no one will ever see it, because no matter what point living humans are in history, they will always be told "you missed it", or "you won't be here to see it"...

Yet, it happens, right? If you don't see the scam/con with that, then I can't help you.

Birds are still changing today. What path that takes to the future we won't know until it happens.

Sure, and no one will be around to see it happen, either, huh? It will happen when you are conveniently not around to see it happen...and those that will be here in during that futuralistic time-frame, it would have either happened already, or it didn't happen yet.

But sure, birds are changing. But I guess if a reptile can evolve wings..birds can evolve arms, can't they?

Figure out a way to live 200,000 years or so, and you will.

My point exactly!! How convenient to NOT be here when it happens, but still maintain that it...happens.

Baseless conjecture.

About as baseless as common ancestry.

Aren't you supposed to provide evidence for claims in this forum?

Sure, the argument from consciousness does an excellent job of putting the nail in the coffin of evolution.

You would need to provide data that a design creature exists. Then you would need to show that this design creature actually did the designing. After all, the existence of a design creature doesn't prove it did anything...I look forward to all your evidence and information...

The argument from design would do just that.

Except for all the empirical data that shows that those changes happened you'd be right.

No, because this "data" that you speak of could be the blueprint of an intelligent designer.

The reason no one considers intelligent design is that there is zero evidence for intelligent design.

And the reason believers like me won't consider evolution is that there is zero for it.

And let's be perfectly clear here. There isn't even one single scrap of empirical data that supports the claim that life arose because some supernatural critter willed it so.

There isn't even one single scrap of empirical evidence that supports the claim that life, sentient or otherwise, arose from inanimate matter...nor is there that mental states come from physical states.

None. In fact, there is evidence against it.

We don't even have any evidence for the critter yet, much less any actions this critter supposedly took. And we all know you don't have any either, or you would have already presented it long ago.

Kalam
Ontological
Consciousness
Moral
Design
Jesus/Resurrection

Just a few arguments out of the two dozen or so arguments for theism. Pick one.

Your Christian theism must not be very "Christian" if you accept the theory of evolution and not the inerrant word of the god creature that everything was made from dust the same week at humans...

Huh?

Entirely true, although I have personal doubt as to how rigorous your examination of the actual evidence has been...

SMH.

[Kenisaw]

Evolution is a brute fact.

Mere assertion.

It's you verses several scientific fields that have invested untold millions on man hours in research to reach that conclusion. Your opinion is statistically unimportant. If you could produce even one piece of evidence to show that evolution is not a sound scientifically theory, you would have done so already. You statement is unsupported conjecture.

The theory of evolution is supported by a wide ranging array of data and empirical evidence.

What empirical data?

Well that's odd. You told someone else " I can let the evidence interpret itself, and STILL not draw the same conclusiont that you do". Yet now you appear oblivious to the existence of the billions of fossils found since the time of Darwin, and sequenced genomes, and geological and morphological and biological and paleontological experiments on the empirical evidence. You mean you haven't actually reviewed any of it? I can't speak for everyone, but that comes as a real stunner to this individual...

How life began doesn't matter, because the theory of evolution does not deal with how life began. In only states that life forms change over time.

Right, and if God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, there would be no change in life forms over time, would there? Nope.

Whether life started as the whim of a god being or as the result of chemistry doesn't have anything to do with evolution. If BOTH god beings and abiogenesis isn't the explanation for the beginning of life, that doesn't change the fact that life exists and has changed over time. It's irrational to think the start of life and evolution are connected...

Why cultists must CONSTANTLY have this explained to them is utterly mind boggling.

No, what is mind boggling is that evolutionists don't seem to understand the fact that they can't logically just bypass abiogenesis (a theory that is scientifically unverified) and jump right to evolution (a theory that they THINK is scientifically verified).

If God doesn't exist, then abiogenesis is the only game in town...which itself just may very well be a FALSE concept.

Except you assume that natural and supernatural are the only two possibilities. You have no way of knowing if that is true. Nor do I. There could be a completely different explanation that we aren't even aware could exist. You assume limits that you cannot prove exist...

So either you have to admit that the God Hypothesis is a viable option, or simply admit that abiognesis could be false, and therefore, evolution could be false.[/quote[

Until any cultist can ever come up with any data or empirical evidence for the existence of any god creature, and THEN prove that this god creature did the actual creating (because for all you know a god could exist and life started naturally anyway) there is no rational reason to consider supernatural tales as plausible.

Regardless, since evolution is NOT reliant on HOW life started, your entire line of logic is absurd.

Either one of those two you are gonna have to come to terms with.

You need to rethink your comments.

I have to ask Kingdom, has this boundary finally sunk in, or are you going to dazzle us with another misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution in the future?

How about you dazzle me with scientific evidence to support naturalistic claims.

Thanks for not answering the question. Your deflection is noted. I will answer yours.

All life started simply long ago. Life does not violate the laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, or any other law of the universe. Lipids form waterproof membranes all by themselves, and lipids are still used in cell walls today. Amino acids, sugars, and alcohols are common in the universe, including deep space. There are several known molecules, including some that just so happen to be RNA synthesizers, that self-replicate, all by themselves, without assistance. Viruses are not alive yet they are not totally inanimate either, and exist somewhere in between.

These are some of the things about the materials that make up living things that lead researchers to conclude that life started as a result of chemistry.

Completely true. That consensus is reached on the gathering, observing, and experimentation of data and evidence. Those facts are what lead to the conclusions.

I have a lot to say about that, but we need not get into it here.

As you wish. Perhaps the chance to discuss it in another thread will occur someday.

Forum rules prohibit me from answering your question at this time...

LOL.

I appreciate your sense of humor, thank you.

Yes, it does say it all, doesn't it. Because surveys show that over half of scientists are religious and/or believe in a personal god. So your belief is, like others, completely unfounded and does not reflect reality. You could have avoided that of course by actually researching the percentage of naturalists in science today, that you didn't speaks volumes.

Well hey, if that is what surveys say, then this is simply an "in house" disagreement that I have with fellow believers, ESPECIALLY Christian believers.

We don't have to agree with everything.

But then again, at least those believers who DO believe in evolution have the common sense to know that even if evolution did occur (as the theory says), that an intelligent designer was the orchestrator of the entire process.

They are not believing that a mindless and blind process was behind the entire affair and was able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do.

Well I don't know that I can intelligently comment on what all scientists that are believers think. Fortunately the ability to good science is not limited by what a person believes or doesn't believe.

The point of mentioning that survey is that the majority of scientists are NOT naturalists, yet they still continue to discover more and more about the universe that directly contradicts religious claims.

I will note that any scientist that thinks that a god creature was the source of everything holds that belief without even a shred of evidence to support it.

Here's a good place to start. It talks about all flight, not just birds: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrate ... volve.html

No this guy didn't just post the same speculative link that was posted prior...please don't tell me he did.

*checks link*

Yup, he sure did. SMH.

You think it's speculative? Fine. Why? What errors does it contain? Where are the bad conclusions reached on the empirical data that was gathered?

Based on genetic, morphological, geological, biological, and paleontological study of all the data and empirical evidence gathered? That's not speculation. It's a combination of facts. Once your Google gets fixed you can look up speculation and see why that word doesn't fit.

Speculation: 1.the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Perfect fit.

My turn to LOL I guess, because you obviously are joking...

Except for before the were, and then after they change into something else.

Sure, thats the theory.

", supported by the facts". <---- You didn't finish your sentence there...

They weren't "making" anything. Changes occurred to their genome, over time. These changes led some species of raptors to start on a path that has led to modern birds.

This one mini-paragraph is the prime example of leaving natural science, and entering voodoo science. Nature science is the observation/experimentaion involving the change of organisms over the course of time. No one can deny that there are changes...however..

Voodoo science is the idea that these changes can occur on such a large scale as you described above. We have NEVER observed such changes in living organisms...never...yet we are to believe that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to see it, that it occurred.

We've seen it in the fossil record. We've seen it years later when a completely independent field of research - genetics - found the same thing. Two totally different fields of research verifying the same scientific theory is a rare thing, yet that is precisely what's happened.

If an organism can change, there's no limit to how much. Raptors to birds is easily one such example.

No one saw it, and no one will ever see it, because no matter what point living humans are in history, they will always be told "you missed it", or "you won't be here to see it"...

We have seen it. Fossils are snapshots in time.

Yet, it happens, right? If you don't see the scam/con with that, then I can't help you.

Right. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists from several different scientific fields, all over Earth, for the last 150 years, who invested all that time and effort just to create a scam that discredits your particular flavor of religion. That's textbook delusion right there.

Birds are still changing today. What path that takes to the future we won't know until it happens.

Sure, and no one will be around to see it happen, either, huh? It will happen when you are conveniently not around to see it happen...and those that will be here in during that futuralistic time-frame, it would have either happened already, or it didn't happen yet.

People can't document the next 200,000 years? Odd you would think that. Since the Earth has already documented hundreds of millions of years we don't really even have to worry about it...

But sure, birds are changing. But I guess if a reptile can evolve wings..birds can evolve arms, can't they?

It's possible.

Figure out a way to live 200,000 years or so, and you will.

My point exactly!! How convenient to NOT be here when it happens, but still maintain that it...happens.

The Earth was there. It's called fossils. Don't be afraid of the reality of the cosmos, Kingdom.

Baseless conjecture.

About as baseless as common ancestry.[/quote[

Let me guess, you've reached a different conclusion on this empirical evidence as well? Or are you going to ask what empirical evidence again?...

Aren't you supposed to provide evidence for claims in this forum?

Sure, the argument from consciousness does an excellent job of putting the nail in the coffin of evolution.

No such argument. It has a bad premise. And that isn't empirical evidence, that is an argument. You were asked for evidence bub...

You would need to provide data that a design creature exists. Then you would need to show that this design creature actually did the designing. After all, the existence of a design creature doesn't prove it did anything...I look forward to all your evidence and information...

The argument from design would do just that.

No such argument. It has a bad premise. And that isn't empirical evidence, that is an argument. You were asked for evidence bub...

Except for all the empirical data that shows that those changes happened you'd be right.

No, because this "data" that you speak of could be the blueprint of an intelligent designer.

Great. Let's see the evidence that the data comes from an intelligent designer...

The reason no one considers intelligent design is that there is zero evidence for intelligent design.

And the reason believers like me won't consider evolution is that there is zero for it.

How do you know that if you were asking "what empirical data" earlier? You really need to make up your mind here...

And let's be perfectly clear here. There isn't even one single scrap of empirical data that supports the claim that life arose because some supernatural critter willed it so.

There isn't even one single scrap of empirical evidence that supports the claim that life, sentient or otherwise, arose from inanimate matter...nor is there that mental states come from physical states.

None. In fact, there is evidence against it.

We were having a conversation about evolution, not abiogenesis. We weren't talking about consciousness either. Are you moving the goalposts to avoid something?

No matter, as there is evidence of abiogenesis. There is also zero evidence that consciousness exists outside of the physical brain. Whether that need a new thread to talk about or we can do it in here I leave in your capable hands.

We don't even have any evidence for the critter yet, much less any actions this critter supposedly took. And we all know you don't have any either, or you would have already presented it long ago.

Kalam
Ontological
Consciousness
Moral
Design
Jesus/Resurrection

Just a few arguments out of the two dozen or so arguments for theism. Pick one.

So no evidence. Just arguments. I'd pick Kalam but that already got trashed a few months ago. Tell you what, I would like you to pick the best one there is, and we shall have a go at it. What say you?

Your Christian theism must not be very "Christian" if you accept the theory of evolution and not the inerrant word of the god creature that everything was made from dust the same week at humans...

Huh?

Exactly.

Entirely true, although I have personal doubt as to how rigorous your examination of the actual evidence has been...

SMH.

Those your initials or something?

[Bust Nak]

If you can't prove that life can come from nonlife, on naturalism, then evolution is not a brute fact.

Incorrect. We can observe evolution is real time in a lab. Science doesn't get more factual than that.

It was once accepted in the scientific community that the universe was static and eternal...but they were wrong.

So, the scientific community only shows consensus, not factuals.

Not exactly my problem, I will just update my views in accordance with the latest consensus.

So I can't admit that it is possible for God to have used evolution, while at the same time denying that he did use evolution?

I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

You can, but that's not what I was asking - I asked if you can affirm that evolution is compatible with Christianity. Admitting that it is possible for God to have used evolution sounds very much to me like you accept evolution is compatible with Christianity. But when I asked you to conform that in writing, you refused.

I believe that most scientists are naturalists, so that says it all right there. And this is not the genetic fallacy either...you asked, and I gave my answer LOL.

Only most? All scientists should be naturalists, they have a duty to be naturalists, such is the importance of empirical evidence in science.

Yup.

Well, if you accept that it is good enough for science, is there any point for you staying in this sub-forum?

Oh, my bad..I meant a scientific breakdown on how it is based upon those two things that birds evolved wings.

I am sure there are lots of literature if you want to get down to specifics.

If they are the same kind, then the theory wouldn't be that they evolved into birds. What something evolves into cannot be the same thing that it was before the evolution, otherwise, it would be the [same thing]...hey, wait a minute LOL.

It's NOT the same thing, just the same KIND, a VARIATION. A dog is not the same thing as a wolf, nor is a shirt the same thing as a dress, just the same kind.

So if we go back in time and traverse every single time that a bird gave bird, eventually, we will get to the point where we will see the rise of a feathered animal from a non-feathered animal.

Yes, a feathered animal is a variation of a non-feathered animal, within the same kind.

And you repeat after me: Gliders are gliders, and wings are wings.

Gliders are gliders, and wings are wings. I am cool with that.

But that is what happened.. if the claim is that birds evovled from reptiles, then you are saying that long ago, when no one was around to see it, that animals were making these macro-changes.

Yes, just as we see today, animals are still making these macro-changes.

Today, we do not see anything that even CLOSELY resembles such macro-changes that YOU believe occurred hundreds of millions of years ago...

Actually we do, just not with wings specifically. Lenski and co's E. coli long-term evolution experiment being my current favourite example.

Did that make sense?

Which exactly are you referring to? Everything made sense grammatically.

Common designer.

It could be a common designer, so what? Are you denying that it can be evolution?

Right, and all of those things are limited to the "kind" of animal that it is related to. You claim that reptiles and birds are the same kind, yet, we don't observe those kind of changes in nature.

Of course we do. That's why we are so sure of evolution.

Not at all...if you already presuppose evolution, everything that you see regarding biology will scream out EVOLUTION to you.

But I don't presuppose evolution.

That is exactly why, between our conversations about evolution/abiogenesis, you didn't even consider intelligent design...it was "the buck stops with abiogenesis and evolution"...that is a closed-minded presupposition.

That IS philosophy territories. It doesn't have to be evolution, any naturalistic explanation would do, it's just that evolution happens to be the best one we have; it just can't be intelligent design, it has to be ruled out a priori, without consideration.

Unlike me, of course, because I can believe in evolution all while maintaining my Christian theism. So there are no presuppositions because my worldview isn't effected in any way...so I can refuse to accept the their based on lack of evidence, not because my worldview is threatened if don't.

Ironically, there is plenty of empirical evidence, the most likely reason for rejecting them is because one's worldview is threatened. Why do you think other Christians would adopt theistic evolution, if not for the evidence?

Ok, and I can let the evidence interpret itself, and STILL not draw the same conclusiont that you do.

You still have your own presupposition though that lead you to a different conclusion.

[Clownboat]

Unlike me, of course, because I can believe in evolution all while maintaining my Christian theism. So there are no presuppositions because my worldview isn't effected in any way...so I can refuse to accept the their based on lack of evidence, not because my worldview is threatened if don't.

I question this claim.
Directly from JW.org:
If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... t_index]=5

The Bible says that “[God] created all things.� (Revelation 4:11) He did not “rest� until his creative work was complete. (Genesis 2:2) The implication is clear: God did not create a simple organism and then rest, or take a backseat, while that organism evolved over millions of years into various kinds of fish, apes, and humans. * That idea, called macroevolution, denies the role of a Creator, who the Bible says “made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.�
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... t_index]=7

It doesn't seem that you are allowed to believe in evolution because you are told that macro evolution denies the role of a Creator and such.

So I wonder why you are on a science debate forum discussing something that you are not allowed to consider being true. This does however explain why you have such difficulty distinguishing between abiogenesis and evolution though.

Would your Kingdom Hall consider what you are doing here evangelism, or would they threaten you with being dis-fellow shipped if they knew?

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's you verses several scientific fields that have invested untold millions on man hours in research to reach that conclusion.

I am an independent mind who draw my own conclusions and don't accept everything I am told if it doesn't make sense to me.

Your opinion is statistically unimportant. If you could produce even one piece of evidence to show that evolution is not a sound scientifically theory, you would have done so already. You statement is unsupported conjecture.

I don't accept macroevolution (without God) based upon 3 reasons.

1. Abiogenesis problem
2. Consciousness problem
3. Lack of supporting evidence for it

The first two are evidence AGAINST the theory, and the third is not enough evidence FOR the theory.

So in the totality of all three, that is enough for me to draw the conclusion that evolution is false.

Well that's odd. You told someone else " I can let the evidence interpret itself, and STILL not draw the same conclusiont that you do".

And I stated numerous times that there is "evidence", evidence of microevolution...variation within the kind...and I am being told that the reptile-bird thing is evidence within the kind, which I call nonsense.

Yet now you appear oblivious to the existence of the billions of fossils found since the time of Darwin

And you appear oblivious to my response to the presented evidence of fossils. You don't have a complete fossil record for any single organism, yet this is what you are presenting as evidence for the theory.

You are taking one fossil of what you believe is a transitional fossil and proclaiming that this fossil X is what you claim it is...and again, I call nonsense.

and sequenced genomes

Common designer. Any evidence that is presented on a molecular level presupposes fine tuning on a molecular level, and that brings forth the argument from design.

Again, a lot of stuff have to be presupposed in order to even get to evolution, much less allowing evolution to actually occur.

and geological and morphological and biological and paleontological experiments on the empirical evidence. You mean you haven't actually reviewed any of it? I can't speak for everyone, but that comes as a real stunner to this individual...

You are generalizing, I need specifics.

Whether life started as the whim of a god being or as the result of chemistry doesn't have anything to do with evolution. If BOTH god beings and abiogenesis isn't the explanation for the beginning of life, that doesn't change the fact that life exists and has changed over time. It's irrational to think the start of life and evolution are connected...

Ok, then complete this task for me...

1. God doesn't exist
2. Abiogenesis is false

Explain to me how evolution can be true if the above 2 are false. Go right ahead. Tell me how, if God doesn't exist and abiogenesis is false, can evolution possibly be true.

I will eagerly wait.

Except you assume that natural and supernatural are the only two possibilities. You have no way of knowing if that is true. Nor do I. There could be a completely different explanation that we aren't even aware could exist. You assume limits that you cannot prove exist...

Well, enlighten me on these other possibilities and I will add them to the list. Until then, lets just go with what we have, shall we?

Until any cultist can ever come up with any data or empirical evidence for the existence of any god creature, and THEN prove that this god creature did the actual creating (because for all you know a god could exist and life started naturally anyway) there is no rational reason to consider supernatural tales as plausible.

We have data from science, math, philosophy, and HISTORY that a God "creature" exists...data from all aspects of knowledge points in that direction.

Regardless, since evolution is NOT reliant on HOW life started, your entire line of logic is absurd.

Then the answer to the question above should be no problem.

Thanks for not answering the question. Your deflection is noted.

Your question was loaded and I refuse to answer it.

Tell me something I don't know.