Are Evolutionists Quacks ...?

4 Ways Quacks Evade Criticism
6th Oct. 2018 | Genetically Modified Skeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGEDjd_Nqb4

When I mildly agreed to time signatures:

3:50 Perhaps Zacharias' weakness is not being Young Earth Creationist? I don't know if he is, btw. That's to criticism 1.

Anyway, for the "nothing can surprise God" (2) it does not equal our acts are predetermined, since foreknown and predetermined are two different things.

4:10 could / couldn't handle in the moment = the reason why my apologetics are online, not oral

I'm not stuck in the moment, in theory nothing stops me from answering half an hour or a week later, when I have looked things up.

When I found something to argue about strongly, see title of the post, and got a dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:48 You go evolutionists!

When has macro-evolution been observed?
Wolf and dog have a common ancestor ...
Yeah, thanks for equivocating, but we think they are the same created kind.

Theo Skeptomai

You are observing macro-evolution anytime you are around any lifeform whatsoever. So pretty much every waking hour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai No, you may mean I am observing what in the long term are results of macro-evolution, but you do not mean I observe the actual process itself.

Try again.

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. I MEAN you are actually observing the process of biological evolution firsthand. This process, like ALL phenomena, is in perpetual transition. All life forms are continually evolving.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai Well, that is MICRO-evolution. Variation within a kind.

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. Given enough time these transitions complete the process of speciation. It is all the same process. Have you ever taken a biology course?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai First of all, speciation doesn't suffice to macro-evolution. It simply means a barrier to fertile interbreeding.

A better measure would be emergence of a new cell type, and evolutionists have allowed this to be as often as (excluding nerve cells) one new type every 3 million years = not observed.

Second, your own words "given enough time" = more time than you actually observe.

So, this means, you did not observe it.

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You obviously have never studied biological evolution. Speciation is said to have occured when a daughter population which has been isolated from a parent population has acquired enough variances as to no longer be sexually compatible with the parent poulation. We are actively observing the process every time we encounter any lifeform. It is the same as observing a mountain range eroding. It is perpetually eroding and you are actively observing the process. You just don't recognize the change because on short intervals of time this change in imperceptible. But it is still currently eroding.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai Your description of speciation (at least supposing "sexually compatible" means "readily so") is one reason why it is not species that is the created kind.

I am giving you one readily comprehensible criterium of what is needed for evolution from molecules to man, so called macro-evolution. It has quite simply not been observed.

Stating that a mountain range is in fact eroding while I observe it doesn't amount to my observing it erode. In fact, watching the height of Mount Everest over 150 years, it is more like it is still rising. So "Mount Everest eroding" would be among the things not observed. It may be true, just that the land rise compensates for erosion and some more above that, but it is even so not observed. It may be ongoing while observed, but even so it is in fact not observed, like atomic nuclei are supposedly there in whatever object I observe, but they are still not observed.

You have a problem in epistemology if you can't see what "not observed means" or when it in fact applies.

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just because Mt Everest is rising (due to tectonic collision) does NOT mean that erosion isn't occurring. Both processes are occurring. It just happens that one process (tectonic collision) is causing the moutain to elevate at a greater rate than the other process (erosion) causes attrition.

And like biological evolution, the transition is PERPETUAL. You are observing both processes at every moment you are notice these entities. Again, these perpetual transitions are occuring so slowly as to ellude your attention.

Again speciation is perpetually occuring. Diversification never ceases. We humans share a common ancestry with other great apes. We apes share common ancestry with other primates. We primates share a common ancestry with mammals. Ans so on and so on.

And we humans will be the ancestral seed of future beings that will differ from us to the point of speciation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai I am not observing erosion shortening Mount Everest. It is very possible it does, but that this is more than compensated by land rise, but I am even so not observing it.

The sediment in rivers flowing down from Himalayas may come from erosion further down than the peaks.

I did not say we cease to diversify, I am simply observing we don't observe any diversification involving new cell types. We don't observe any diversification going from dog to hedgehog. Or vice versa, or from common ancestor to both.

And before you say the diversifications we observe could add up to the one between dog and hedgehog or fish and bird, that's again something we do not observe.

In other words, you don't have any Magellan for Evolution. Before Magellan you could observe curvature, but you could not pretend it added up to a complete globe in your observation, you had to deduce that otherwise, like God would not create something like an incomplete globe, or from considering whatever you believed about gravitation to behave like the forces of attraction in a waterdrop, which observably leads to globe shape.

Aristotle had considered as his strongest and final argument a pseudo-Magellan, namely finding Gibraltar just on the other side of the Ganges he and King Alexander didn't cross. Let's say, they were arguably misinformed about exact shape of Gibraltar. But near two thousand years later, you have a real Magellan, globe shape observed all around a big circle by observation (and we even more recently have someone walking past both poles too, Mike Horn.

That is proving the globe by observation, as in proving it is complete. And that is what you don't have for evolution. In the bigger sense, of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai "We humans share a common ancestry with other great apes."

Not in our observations.

"We apes share common ancestry with other primates."

Not in our observations.

"We primates share a common ancestry with mammals."

Not in our observations.

You are aware that observations and deductions are different, right?

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Have fun splashing around in the deep end of your pool of delusions. Peace.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai Have fun avoiding epistemology and taking "science" as a unit, hope it doesn't lasts too long!

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl How have I avoided epistemology?

Theo Skeptomai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Cowering away? Or are you going to answer a straightforward question?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Theo Skeptomai Well, yes, my internet time is not always well allotted. Hence the delay, I saw your question now.

By giving the explanation (the observed process is identic to its unobserved parts), as if that answered the epistemological question how the unobserved parts of supposedly just one process is supposed to be known.

Butterflies changing colour has been observed, and any new cell type, like reptiles growing feathers or mammary glands, has not been observed.

You may continue to explain that the process doing the one, changing colours on butterflies, actually is able to add up to the other given enough time, but this does not in any way shape or form prove that it happened, and most definitely not that we saw it happen.