Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[oatmeal]

unsurprisingly, JD ignores this, the defining characteristic of the scientific method, reproducibility

Yes, there is no, absolutely no scientific experiment that changes one species into another, let alone, showing how the ridiculously complex activities within a single cell organism was so organized to not only be alive, but reproduce itself.

 

[oatmeal]

This manner of explanation just plays into Darwinists' hands. They define evolution as "change." If we were to accept that definition, then OP is rendered moot, as nobody claims that nothing changes.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. That is what is being debated.

Thus, no opponent of Darwinism should ever say that "evolution" happens.

Well, I disagree that my statement plays into Darwinists' hands.

Let me restate what I said maybe in a clearer manner.

As I stated, Darwinism explains minor changes within species but by no means explains "The Origin of Species"

As far as being a scientific explanation underlying the origin of species, it is basically a catastrophic failure.

Even so, it takes an intelligent mind to breed dogs or any other animal to attain the goal of the breeder.

 

[Stripe]

I disagree that my statement plays into Darwinists' hands.

Only in the sense that it uses their language instead of idea-neutral descriptions. It's a very semantic objection I raised.

 

[Stuu]

Begging the question, or petitio principii, is when an argument assumes its foundations without justification.

Which is exactly what Mr. Brown did in the 1980s. Why are you not criticising him?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

You don't believe 6-10,000 years ago is a distant past?

Not in the context of a solar system that is 4.55 billion years old.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Totally agree. What I was saying is that the fossils that they call the "Cambrian explosion" are simply the results of a global flood.

What global flood?

Before you assign the appearance of the fossil record to a global flood, you should first establish that there was one.

Over to you.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

What global flood?

The one that you remain willfully ignorant of.

Before you assign the appearance of the fossil record to a global flood, you should first establish that there was one.

Your willful blindness is no excuse for not seeing the evidence that is quite clear.

Over to you.

Stuart

​​​​​​​Back at you.

 

[Stuu]

The one that you remain willfully ignorant of. Your willful blindness is no excuse for not seeing the evidence that is quite clear. ​​​​​​​Back at you.

The evidence is indeed very clear. Mr. Brown has nothing. The comets go round and round but the actual global flood itself never happened. It's all hilariously made up.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

The evidence is indeed very clear. Mr. Brown has nothing. The comets go round and round but the actual global flood itself never happened. It's all hilariously made up.

Stuart

Your opinion counts for nothing.

 

[Stuu]

Your opinion counts for nothing.

Indeed it doesn't. Evidence is king. Evidence says no global flood. I'm just your messenger.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Which is exactly what Mr. Brown did.

And this is the fallacy of tu quoque.

When you bring something useful to the table, a sensible discussion might be possible.

 

[Stripe]

Evidence:

Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over.

Do you know how to make rocks?

 

[Right Divider]

Indeed it doesn't. Evidence is king. Evidence says no global flood. I'm just your messenger.

Stuart

Evidence for a global flood is quite obvious. As I said... your willful ignorance of the evidence is your own personal problem.

 

[Stuu]

Evidence:

Billions of dead things buried in rock the world over.

And what is that evidence for, would you say?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Evidence for a global flood is quite obvious.

Is that why Mr. Brown hasn't told us what it is?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Is that why Mr. Brown hasn't told us what it is?

Stuart

He has. You're a liar.

 

[7djengo7]

Not in the context of a solar system that is 4.55 billion years old.

Stuart

Not in your Darwinist fictional context, that is.

 

[Stuu]

He has.

Looks like you would believe anything.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Looks like you would believe anything.

Stuart

Dr. Browns book is FULL of the evidences. If you cannot read, you need to go back to school.

 

[Stuu]

Dr. Browns book is FULL of the evidences. If you cannot read, you need to go back to school.

Mr. Brown's book doesn't actually contain any evidence that there was a flood. My challenge to you would be to lay out where it says that there was a global flood in this particular period in history, deduced from this evidence and contradicted by no other evidence. You won't be able to do that.

What he actually does is assert there was a global flood, without evidence for the event itself. Then he tells you, contrary to Widmanstatten pattern evidence, that comets leapt off the surface of the earth, with no supporting evidence that happened either. Then he tells you when the flood must have happened because of a time when the two comets were last near the sun at the same time.

It's a bit like me saying that I leapt over a tall building in a single bound last week, but it can't have been on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday because I was working those days, so it must have been the Thursday I did it because it was a public holiday. Would you accept that logic as evidence I did actually leap over a building? Because that is the logic you are accepting from Mr. Brown.

In his case it is particularly hypocritical because he uses calculations based on genealogy of absurdly long-lived characters in a religious book to confirm his comet calculations, but then as I understand it refuses to talk about religion when he invites people to 'debate' his ideas.

There is no debate. Mr. Brown is fraudulent, and that's the opinion of most other creationist organisations. I'd say most proper scientists working in geology, astronomy and paleontology have probably never even heard of him. That's because he is not a serious person in science, his whole mission is to generate the alt-facts for religious fundamentalists, and of course they are not facts in any meaningful sense. You can tell by his enthusiasm to 'debate': that kind of debate is for entertainment, it is not a process real scientists use to work out what is really going on.

Stuart