Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Explains Everything - Doesn't It


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#101 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 27 January 2010 - 02:01 AM

Hi Percy,

I think the point of the thread is that no matter the result evolution explains it.  If it stronger - evolution explains it.  Likewise if it weakest - evolution explains it.  The way TOE is proven is that is assumes it is the explanation of everything.  By the basis of the assumption you can not disprove evolution and likewise evolutionist can explain everything.  TOE proves itself based on the assumption that  "evolution proves everything" which is circular reasoning.

HTH

Bruce

View Post

The point is moot. TOE predicts that every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat. IF not it is extinct. Then what we can do is speculate as to why some species do survive and sometimes we can explain it if not in most cases. This is not direct evidence for evolution but it is not evidences against it either.

On the other hand if we would find a species that would clearly have an unambiguous disadvantage, say needs ten times the food than another species all other traits equal, that would be evidence against evolution. Present that kind of evidence and you may sway me...

#102 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 10:32 AM

The point is moot. TOE predicts that every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat. IF not it is extinct.

View Post


The model of evolution cannot predict anything due to its non-sentience. And the fact that “every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat” isn’t a prediction but IS an observed fact, via “inductive observation” long before evolution was even glimmer of hope to its adherents.

#103 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:21 PM

The model of evolution cannot predict anything due to its non-sentience. And the fact that “every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat” isn’t a prediction but IS an observed fact, via “inductive observation” long before evolution was even glimmer of hope to its adherents.

View Post

Thank you for correcting that slight error. I'll repost with the correct grammar...
The point is moot. The TOE implies that every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat. IF not it is extinct. Then what we can do is speculate as to why some species do survive and sometimes we can explain it if not in most cases. This is not direct evidence for evolution but it is not evidences against it either.

On the other hand if we would find a species that would clearly have an unambiguous disadvantage, say needs ten times the food than another species all other traits equal, that would be evidence against evolution. Present that kind of evidence and you may sway me...


You assert that “every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat” is a fact. I assume that you have the evidence.

On another note: I am under the firm opinion that habitats have changed dramatically from time to time during the lifetime of the earth. (In the following I assume that the species are fixed.) Since it is( and has been) a fact that species are suited to their habitats, according to you, what happens when the habitats changes?
If the species then go extinct what happens if the habitat is reinstated? Will the species return? Will the habitat be empty?Will less suited to the specifc habitat but tolerant to the temporary alteration fill the extinct species spot?

#104 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 January 2010 - 06:28 PM

Thank you for correcting that slight error. I'll repost with the correct grammar...
The point is moot. The TOE implies that every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat. IF not it is extinct. Then what we can do is speculate as to why some species do survive and sometimes we can explain it if not in most cases. This is not direct evidence for evolution but it is not evidences against it either.

On the other hand if we would find a species that would clearly have an unambiguous disadvantage, say needs ten times the food than another species all other traits equal, that would be evidence against evolution. Present that kind of evidence and you may sway me...


You assert that  “every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat” is a fact. I assume that you have the evidence.

On another note: I am under the firm opinion that habitats have changed dramatically from time to time during the lifetime of the earth. (In the following I assume that the species are fixed.)  Since it is( and has been) a fact that species are suited to their habitats, according to you, what happens when the habitats changes?
If the species then go extinct what happens if the habitat is reinstated? Will the species return? Will the habitat be empty?Will less suited to the specifc habitat but tolerant to the temporary alteration fill the extinct species spot?

View Post


It's obvious that species adapt, and re-adapt toward their habitats. It's not obvious that they change into a completely different species or animal totally each and everytime. There is absolutely no evidence that they do change like that. The evidence we do have, is the habitat adaptation, for which the creatures DNA has been pre-selected in advance for the environment. No evolution necessary.

Why? Because these so called evolved traits can be bred in and out of the genome of the species. Dormant or active. Evolutionist assume that these adaptations will eventually lead to the creation of a completely new animal... such could be further from the truth.

#105 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:23 AM

Thank you for correcting that slight error. I'll repost with the correct grammar...
The point is moot. The TOE implies that every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat. IF not it is extinct. Then what we can do is speculate as to why some species do survive and sometimes we can explain it if not in most cases. This is not direct evidence for evolution but it is not evidences against it either.

View Post

The model of evolution cannot “imply” anything due to its non-sentience. You assume much sir…


On the other hand if we would find a species that would clearly have an unambiguous disadvantage, say needs ten times the food than another species all other traits equal, that would be evidence against evolution. Present that kind of evidence and you may sway me...

You assert that  “every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat” is a fact. I assume that you have the evidence.
On another note: I am under the firm opinion that habitats have changed dramatically from time to time during the lifetime of the earth. (In the following I assume that the species are fixed.)  Since it is( and has been) a fact that species are suited to their habitats, according to you, what happens when the habitats changes?
If the species then go extinct what happens if the habitat is reinstated? Will the species return? Will the habitat be empty?Will less suited to the specifc habitat but tolerant to the temporary alteration fill the extinct species spot?

View Post

Assumption is a strange thing for those who attempt to posit it as fact, but we’ll move beyond that. Can you show a non extinct species that was not somewhat suited to its habitat?

#106 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:35 AM

The model of evolution cannot “imply” anything due to its non-sentience.  You assume much sir…

Not really...

I just think you and I use the english language differently and that you like to waste my time.
I could use the word includes but then again I guess you would try to lay the non-sentience card in order to avoid the topic. I sincerely am of the opinion that when it is said that a theory implies something it actually IS implied in that very statement that it is not the theory that implies something but rather the holders and advocates of said theory. Clear enough. By your strict usage of words it would not be correct to say that the theory of creation predicts anything since the theory is non-sentient...

Can you show a non extinct species that was not somewhat suited to its habitat?

View Post

No, I cannot, but that is the point. I find that more in line with evolution than with creation. In a divine creation, it seems unfit species could miraculously survive by divine intervention in unsuitable habitats. I don't have any evidence in either direction here. I work out of opinion, but you state that the opposite is a fact, thus you reject survival by divine intervention here. What is your proof of this fact?

And the fact that “every non-extinct species is somewhat suited to its habitat” isn’t a prediction but IS an observed fact, via “inductive observation” long before evolution was even glimmer of hope to its adherents.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users