(November 22, 2016 at 1:13 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 8:47 am)Mathilda Wrote: I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. You can't show that they are not. Yet you are the one claiming that it isn't.

Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. 

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

First hit on google for "evolution observed in nature"

Observable:

8 Examples of Evolution in Action


Testable and repeatable:

Silver Foxes Change Rapidly… and in Surprising Ways

Also see 1. Evolution in the Lab in the previous link for another experiment. Anyone can repeat these experiments.


Falsifiable:

What would falsify evolution

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
  
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
  
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
  
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
  
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
  
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
  

I'm not entirely convinced by this last list which is why I said (and which you ignored) "It is falsifiable in that you could demonstrate that what we are observing works by means other than inherited traits, mutation of genetic information and natural selection." But I'm not going to put too much effort into it because I know you're not going to accept anything I say, and will either ignore it or come up with a load of bullshit about kinds and microevolution. But this is just from two minutes with google. If you were genuinely interested in whether you were correct or not you could find out a lot more yourself, or ask genuine questions.

(November 22, 2016 at 9:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Even if the theory of evolution was proved completely wrong tomorrow, so what? What is the end game?

Scientists reconsider and start building a new hypothesis, or more likely adapting the old one.

What does not happen is scientists all say "Well God did it then". It's a pointless argument from ignorance.

And for 10 bonus points, if "God did it", I don't give a s*** anyway. Good for him. So what? 

"And for 10 bonus points, if "God did it", I don't give a s*** anyway. Good for him. So what?"

This information was the most important one I ever received from you, Thank You for your honesty, “The Creator is clearly seen,” Paul explained to the Romans 1:20. Yet despite all their intelligence and scientific skills, the Gentiles refused to acknowledge the Creator. The problem was not their inability to see Him but their rebellious hearts, which “suppressed the truth in unrighteousness” Romans 1:18. Scripture makes it clear that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the creation of the world around us. God is saying that the design and complexity of nature makes it obvious that He exists. But hard hearts often refuse to accept any evidence that the Bible is true, for it makes them accountable to a Creator God.

Another problem you have is epistemological and philosophical.  How does one know anything?  What is the source of knowledge and certainty?  You need check up on biblical epistemology. Also refer back to page 1 of ☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it".

Trolololololol

The one who claims to know has stopped learning. The one who states "I do not know" continues to learn.

"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it."
--Voltaire

(November 22, 2016 at 1:28 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 1:13 pm)The Joker Wrote: I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. 

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

First hit on google for "evolution observed in nature"

Observable:

8 Examples of Evolution in Action


Testable and repeatable:

Silver Foxes Change Rapidly… and in Surprising Ways

Also see 1. Evolution in the Lab in the previous link for another experiment. Anyone can repeat these experiments.


Falsifiable:

What would falsify evolution

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
  
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
  
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
  
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
  
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
  
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
  

I'm not entirely convinced by this last list which is why I said (and which you ignored) "It is falsifiable in that you could demonstrate that what we are observing works by means other than inherited traits, mutation of genetic information and natural selection." But I'm not going to put too much effort into it because I know you're not going to accept anything I say, and will either ignore it or come up with a load of bullshit about kinds and microevolution. But this is just from two minutes with google. If you were genuinely interested in whether you were correct or not you could find out a lot more yourself, or ask genuine questions.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action are all examples of variation within a kind they are not evolution.

Fact: There have been no lab observation of evolution happening such as life coming from non life, only mutations has ever been observed in the lab and mutations are not evolution but variation within a kind, mutations don't increase the genetic information but rather corrupts some parts of DNA and we get a decrease in genetic information in other words devolution not evolution and mutations don't change the kind it is still the same kind.

Silver black fox- Again that is not evolution but variation within the dog family kind.

When it comes to dating the age of the earth.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it
confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New
Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.

What's the definition of a 'kind'?

I love how theists claim that evolution is not scientific, as though the bible is.

(November 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What's the definition of a 'kind'?

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

(November 22, 2016 at 2:26 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What's the definition of a 'kind'?

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

Okay, what does 'type' mean in that sentence?  Can you relate a 'kind' to any sort of taxonomic labels or is it just its own new definition?  I've heard a dozen different definitions of 'kind' from as many theists, so what makes your definition of 'kind' correct?