(November 23, 2016 at 3:54 am)Mathilda Wrote: To summarise, Joker can't show that evolution isn't testable, reproducible, falsifiable and observable. When we provide evidence that it is he responds that what we are referring to is not evolution because some animals cannot breed with one another. Yet he doesn't explain why this invalidates the theory of evolution.

(November 22, 2016 at 7:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: "God didn't do it" is not the atheist position. I'm sick of explaining this.

Everything else is an argument from ignorance and nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. As for your Provine quote, EvolutionWiki has this to say:

Quote:This is William Provine's view. It is not a scientific view, and it is not an inevitable outcome of evolution. It is the metaphysical view of one person on this matter. Evolution does not mean there is no life after death; if there is an impact on traditional ideas of life after death, perhaps the most difficult would be the possibility of animals other than humans sharing in the afterlife. As for ethics and an ultimate meaning to life, they are not contradicted by the theory of evolution. And free will, again, is a metaphysical debate having nothing to do with evolution. Provine is entitled to his views, but it seems he has made evolution into something it is not.

In other words, it's his personal opinion and not a scientific pronouncement. His credentials on this matter are irrelevant.

Quote:Where are you going to place your bet? If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing." ~Peter Kreeft Catholic Theologian

Quote:Administrator Notice

Material plagiarised from https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-...life-ob16/. If you're going to parrot Ken Ham, at least have the decency to cite the source.
-Stimbo

(November 23, 2016 at 8:08 am)chimp3 Wrote: Joker: If humans are unique creations then why do we have nipples? Why breast milk for feeding our babies? Why do we have fur and not feathers? Why do we have umbilici?

(November 23, 2016 at 8:23 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 8:08 am)chimp3 Wrote: Joker: If humans are unique creations then why do we have nipples? Why breast milk for feeding our babies? Why do we have fur and not feathers? Why do we have umbilici?

Why do men have more nostril hair than women? (seriously)

(November 23, 2016 at 8:17 am)The Joker Wrote: Good,  Now this is where the Pascal Wager argument kicks in.

Quote:Where are you going to place your bet? If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing." ~Peter Kreeft Catholic Theologian

(November 22, 2016 at 2:43 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 2:10 pm)The Joker Wrote: 8 Examples of Evolution in Action are all examples of variation within a kind they are not evolution.

This is going to get repetitive ...

(November 22, 2016 at 8:47 am)Mathilda Wrote: 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.

(November 22, 2016 at 2:10 pm)The Joker Wrote: 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.

We also know the age of the Earth based on geology. I am not a geologist, I married one and have just asked him about it now as he as walked through the door.

Radiometric dating tells us that the Earth is over 4 billion years. We have rocks from the moon, zircon crystals that do not change once they form and the oldest one found is 4.4 billion years old. There is no chance that Zircon is pre-Earth. The heat of the Earth is consistent with our understanding the age and the radioactive material within. We can observe solar systems forming in other parts of the galaxy which is consistent with our understanding of the age of the Earth.

The fossil record is just one extra bit of observable evidence.