In the video below, Dr. Berlinksi talks about the absence of any laboratory evidence to support the central claims of the Darwinian hypothesis. At the end of the day, what we find is an “inherent species limitation” in which “bugs stay bugs.”
In the video below, Dr. Berlinksi talks about the absence of any laboratory evidence to support the central claims of the Darwinian hypothesis. At the end of the day, what we find is an “inherent species limitation” in which “bugs stay bugs.”
1 – Claiming the fossil record doesn’t make sense is just a plain simple lie.
2 – Claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that biology has no demonstration of the various mechanisms is also just a plain simple lie.
3 – There are simulations and such like in biology and observations that demonstrate evolution in action. Simply stating that there aren’t is not an argument -it is simply denial.
4 – We do manipulate organisms, there is no apparent species limitation.
This is just a collection of denials not “evidentiary points”.
Breathtakingly barefaced.
What you have failed to appreciate is that one does not need evidentiary points to prove that a proposition is false if the proposition in question is that there is positive evidence for something. In such an instance, because the burden of proof rests with the one that is claiming to possess the evidence (as is the case with those who claim that there is evidence for biological evolution between different species), all one has to do to refute this is to show that such evidence doesn’t exist or is inconclusive.
Think of it this way: if you claim that there is evidence that I did a murder, then the burden of proof rests with you as the one making the claim. Ergo, it is sufficient for me to simply show that the evidence does not exist. If I do this by giving actual evidence that I did not commit the murder, then so much the better, but it is also sufficient simply to prove that your evidence is false.
I’m conscious that this still doesn’t address your points 1-4, but I am hesitant to do so since your allegations that he is lying are tinctured with the ad hominem fallacy.
“If you claim that there is evidence that I did a murder, then the burden of proof rests with you as the one making the claim. Ergo, it is sufficient for me to simply show that the evidence does not exist. If I do this by giving actual evidence that I did not commit the murder, then so much the better, but it is also sufficient simply to prove that your evidence is false.”
If you claim that there is evidence that gods exist, then the burden of proof rests with you as the one making the claim. Ergo, it is sufficient for me to simply show that the evidence does not exist.
Gods are innocent of existing until proven guilty. On the other hand, there is a world of evidence that evolution is true, therefore evolution is true.
Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages — simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain — the start of living organisms from nonliving matter. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, “Why nature is mathematical is a mystery…The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.” Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way.
The appearance of design in nature does not prove the existence of a designer. And it certainly gives no clue as to the character and purpose of said mythical designer.
But Dave, Dr Berlinski never claimed there was evidence for gods or God in this video. Thus, your comment amounts to little more than ‘bait and switch’ tactics.
My apologies. I thought this was all part of the wider debate between evolution (science) and creationism (religion).
Hi dave, are you a champion of evolution?, if so please explain how life “evolved” from nothing?, or maybe how the first trees grew from nothing?, and if they grew from nothing back then, then why dont they grow from nothing today?, and if they can grow from nothing then why are they not growing on the moon or mars? i’m all ears dave?
“If you claim that there is evidence that I did a murder, then the burden of proof rests with you as the one making the claim; likewise it is sufficient for me to simply show that the evidence for evolution simply does not exist. If I do this by giving actual evidence that I did not commit the murder, then so much the better, but it is also sufficient simply to prove that your evidence is false.”
If you claim that there is evidence of evolutiont, then the burden of proof rests with you as the one making the claim; likewise it is sufficient for me to simply show that the so called evidence amounts to no more than wishful thinking.
Evolution is innocent of existing until proven guilty. On the other hand, there is a world of evidence that there is a Creator, therefore evolution is just another unproven and unlikely hypothesis.
No evidence for evolution? I’m no expert, but:
Speciation
The fossil record
Vestigial organs
Flightless birds
Lungfish and mudskippers
Differences and commonality of features
Observed Evolution
Aquatic mammals
The duck-billed platypus
Genetic mutation
Parasiticism and symbiotic relationships
The bible
Among many others
Your turn
So Dave, exactly WHICH of your points is evidence of evolution?
Speciation? What has speciation to do with evolution? The two are not the same (although evolutionists- when it suits- will pretend they are). There is variation within species- everybody knows that. The original ‘kind’ would have contained all the genetic information for variation within that ‘kind’.
Fossil record? The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. This is also admitted by various evolutionists. Even Darwin himself struggled with this.
Vestigial organs? These organs are not ‘vestigial’ at all- they are not ‘left over bits’ from some imagined evolutionary past. Science has proven this.
Flightless birds? Birds that don’t fly have either an alternative purpose for their wings or are devolved through loss of genetic information over time through mutation.
Lungfish and Mudskippers? Oh, I get it… they’re supposed to be somehow ‘transitional’. Bit of an argument from silence there… how do you know they’re ‘transitional’? Remarkably good at what they do. Not proof of evolution at all.
Differences and commonality of features? Did the VW Beetle somehow ‘evolve’ into a Porsche? Of course not- they both had a common designer. Differences and commonality of features indicative of common designer.
Observed Evolution? Never been observed. It’s odd how evolutionists claim that evolution takes ‘millions/billions of years’ to occur but then post ‘observed evolution’ in a list supposedly SUPPORTING evolution?
Another trick of evolutionists is to posit ‘Natural Selection’ as evolution. One of the earliest observers and writers on natural selection was Blythe who was a Creationist. Check him out- natural selection does not equal evolution.
Aquatic mammals? Yup, designed that way. And remarkably good at what they do. Not proof of evolution at all.
The Duck-billed platypus? Same as above, designed that way. And remarkably good at what they do. Not proof of evolution at all.
Genetic Mutation? This actually corrupts the genetic code. This is certainly the OPPOSITE of adding to the genetic information which evolution needs. Certain genetic mutations can be beneficial (eg- wingless beetles on a windy island) but nonetheless genetic information has been lost. Devolution.
Parasitism and symbiotic relationships? In what aspect does this have any bearing on evolution?
The Bible? As there is an Intelligent Being behind the Bible’s formation, there is no evolution in its creation. If I didn’t know better, I’d be lead to think you’d added ‘the Bible’ to get an emotive response.
I’m sorry Dave, but all your points have been refuted time and time again as support for evolution. And it’s not just by Creationist scientists either. In fact, many (if not all) of your points back up a Creator. Hope you get to know Him mate. His name’s Jesus.
John 3:16
You asked for evidence, I provided. You reject them as you wish.
As for my including the bible, I can cite a few suggestions:
1. Since the bible was written, bats have evolved into mammals from their bird origins.
2. Hares and rabbits have become non-ruminants.
3. Noah split up the breeding pairs of raven and doves. That there are ravens and doves today must mean they have evolved from other species.
4. Jesus called the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds. Today, the epiphytic orchid has the smallest seed. Therefore, either these orchids have evolved seeds smaller than the mustard, or the mustard seed has evolved seeds that are bigger than the orchids.
Of course, you could accept an alternative explanation. But I doubt that you’d accept that the bible is simply a book of myth and fantasy written by men with a limited knowledge of the world.
I think Dave is trying to suggest that the Bible has some aspects of biology wrong. So let us apply some scholarship (not to mention common sense):
1 The Hebrew word for ‘bird’ encompasses all hopping and flying things. The bat is included in the Lev 11 and Deut 14 because of what it does rather than what it anatomically is. The craze for classifying wild life anatomicaly began with the Victorians. Interestingly, all the unclean birds are carnivorous.
2 Hares and rabbits do actually chew the cud, but in a rather unpleasant manner (google it).
3 What Dave means here is that Noah sent out a raven, which flew off, and a dove, which also flew off, and that therefore these were separated from their mates. Without doubting the capacity of birds to find their mate again, Noah actually took in seven breeding pairs of ‘fowls of the air’ according to Gen 7:3.
4 Neither is the mustard seed the very smallest seed of all, nor is its tree the very largest. But of things people sowed at the time, which is what the Greek word ‘sperma’ actually means, the mustard seed was the smallest and the resulting tree the largest. If, when the Lord was giving this teaching, you piped up and said, ‘Excuse me, teacher, but isn’t there some orchid seed which is smaller?’ people would have looked at you as if you were stupid. Jesus was making a certain point about the kingdom of heaven in a very graphic, Jewish, rabbinic way.
But talking of such things,
(1) How did mice evolve wings and become bats? How many generations did it take for their forelegs to swivel round and get leather on them? Mid-way through that process you can’t walk very well, and you can’t fly at all, so you are a bit stuck, aren’t you? Other mice do fairly well without wings, btw.
(2) How did birds evolve nest-building? It seems to me that had to be right first time.
(3) While the raven is black, his ‘cousin’ the magpie is stark black and white with an irridescent diamond-shaped tail. How did that evolve?
(4) What is the evolutionary reason for the tuft on the head of the tufted duck?
(5) For that matter, what is the evolutionary reason for the bright white patch under a rabbit’s tail which sticks up when he bends down to eat and screams, ‘Hello, Mr Fox, there’s a rabbit over here!’ The rest of the rabbit is brown, which makes much better evolutionary sense. (I think the white patch is there for the interdependence of nature, and from that point of view it is quite an intelligent design, but I wonder how an atheist explains that without using the expression ‘must have’.)
1. I don’t buy that. Why not include the locust or the flying squirrel.
2. Wrong. Chewing the cud is something that is unique to ruminants. What the rabbit and the hare do is something totally different. A designer god who doesn’t recognise essential differences between his own designs cannot be trusted.
3. Ravens are carrion birds. How can they possibly be regarded as ‘clean’?
4. A son of a god should surely know all the things the god itself knows. To display such ignorance, and to teach such ignorance, doesn’t fill one with much confidence. And as far as I am aware, there’s no such thing as a mustard tree.
(1) Over a very long time.
(2) Probably a trait carried on from their dinosaur ancestors. Even rudimentary nest building only has to happen once to enable it to become established.
(3) No idea, I’m not an expert. But it probably fits in with the whole evolution thing quite neatly.
(4) Possibly because a large or ornate tuft confers a sexual advantage. But if you’re going to ‘design’ such things, why not really go for it? Where are the crowned ducks, the bishop’s mitre duck, or even the Brad Pitt duck?
(5) Two possible explanations: Either as a warning to other rabbits that there’s a predator around, or the sight of all those bobbing white bits confuses poor Reynard. But here’s one for you; having made rabbits (or hares), what’s the point in also making hares (or rabbits)? Isn’t one leporid enough?
Sorry, forgot to use the expression ‘must have’.
1 Google Victorian classifications of wildlife.
2 Rabbits and hares chew their partly digested food. Google it.
3 The raven is an unclean bird (Lev 11:15; Deut 14:14).
4 Google ‘mustard tree’.
(1) So the front legs of mice gradually swivelled around to beoome the wings of bats ‘over a very long time’? Plenty of opportunity then for their predators to pick off this fictional in-process animal which could neither walk nor fly.
(2) A ‘rudimentary’ nest will not do the job. Nest-building has to be right first time or all the eggs fall out.
(3) ‘Probably’. That’s as bad as ‘must have’
(4) If the tuft confers an evolutionary advantage, why are there so many more starlings than tufted ducks?
(5) Why are there both rabbits and hares? Same reason as the wing bars on the mallard: to show the glory of God.
Hi dave, are you a champion of evolution?,Whatever your question means, but probably not.
if so please explain how life “evolved” from nothing? It didn’t
, or maybe how the first trees grew from nothing?, They didn’t
and if they grew from nothing back then, then why dont they grow from nothing today? They didn’t, so why would they now.
, and if they can grow from nothing then why are they not growing on the moon or mars? Lack of sustaining atmosphere and water probably plays a major part, along with other environmental factors.
i’m all ears dave? You’ve probably got perfectly normal ears.
[…] Evolution Dismantled in 5 Minutes […]