I hear this bullshit propaganda all the time! If we took it seriously, we would have to conclude that Sherlock Holmes could never solve a single case since he wasn't there to observe the crime taking place! Clearly, that is a grossly unreasonable conclusion, meaning that the idea of having to be there is a grossly unreasonable requirement.

Good, inductive reasoning (about the nature of our physical world) creates models to explain the evidence, and if a model has no serious competition, if it explains the evidence extremely well, and if that model leads to significant new predictions that are verified, then we accept it as the explanation. But we don't write that conclusion in stone. We are always open to new, significant evidence. This is basically how science operates, and note how successful science has been!

The claim that we have to be there to know the truth of an historical event is simply dishonest. All we need is sufficient evidence. Some people seem willfully ignorant of that fact! Were you there when the Government of the United States of America was formed? No sane person doubts the basic account because we have sufficient evidence. Was anyone there when the Himalaya Mountains began to form? Yet, geologists have a clear answer because the evidence is there. Was anyone there when a well-known layer of sandstone was formed? Yet, geologists can tell you a lot about how it happened because the evidence is there. Was anyone there when the elements of carbon and oxygen first appeared in our universe? Yet, astronomers and physicists can answer that question with confidence because enough evidence is there!

As for evolution, one can find an unusual amount of evidence that makes it abundantly clear, at least to rational minds with a scientific education, that life has evolved. Please see my thread "The Case for Macroevolution" which hasn't yet been buried too deeply. In the light of all that evidence one would have to conclude that the makers of that YouTube are either totally cut off from reality or are dishonest. Take your pick.

[Added on] I would like to add that whoever did that YouTube was performing a disgustingly dishonest piece of not-so-subtle propaganda! It might fool a scientific ignoramus who is into evolution denial. People were probably conned into participating and then slammed with leading questions, no time for serious reflection, continual interference to push the propaganda points, all delivered by an "interviewer" who was well versed in slick replies designed to make those who accepted evolution look stupid. And, of course, anyone who actually stood their ground would have been edited out. Only the responses that make evolution look bad would have been retained in the final edit. Of that you can be sure.

I'd love to have that moron, that disgusting mouth-piece for propaganda, appear on this forum and reply to my thread "The Case for Macroevolution." Of course he's not going to show. He probably knows that he is dealing in cheap propaganda and would look like an ass in a serious discussion!

Time to turn the tables.

Question To man in search of: How do you know Muhammad wrote the Qu'ran? You were not there to observe him writing it.

Shifting burden is what you Absolutists always do. My turn.

rmfr

Oh really! What a disgustingly dishonest piece of interviewing and editing. The interviewer puts people on the spot and badgers them to provide soundbite answers to complex questions. We'll never know what they really said because of the unfair editing.

But here's an example of an everyday phenomenon that supports evolution. The hiccup.

The first creatures to migrate from sea to land had both gills and lungs. Their brains sent out signals to close the airways and switch to gill breathing when under water. That reflex is still present in our brains, and from time to time it fires, forcing our glottis to clamp shut and creating the "hic" sound. When tadpoles do that, they are able to force water out through their gills. The same reflex can be observed in various amphibians. Presumably in those creatures the gills start working, and the reflex stops. We don't have gills, so the signal just keeps firing over and over.

So there's vestigial evidence of a fish evolving into a land animal--what you creatards would call a "change of kind".

And BTW, if you want to cure hiccups, try sprinkling a spoonful of granulated sugar on your tongue at the back of your mouth. Or if you're a young Earth creationitwit, try swallowing a bible whole.

Yup... That's Ray all right... ughhh. No I need a brain shower... I've seen this insufferable video before... the whole thing. It's "the atheist delusion" if you really want to see the most dishonest, mind-numbingly stupid creationist bullshit so you can puke all over yourself and binge drink for a month to get your mind back from the abyss... I recommend watching the whole thing.

Evolution is observed frequently under test conditions, including speciation.

The scientific method has produced the most accurate understanding of the natural world. I agree that religion has nothing to do with that.

Hey, man in search of. Here are two images of embryos. Notice both have the yolk sac that Greensnake mentioned.

Now for the challenge, guess which one is human and which is the fish embryo. Both are at about the same stage of development (around 25 to 30 days).

https://i.imgur.com/4AUAWu3.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/NIJH567.jpg

And you said that video is not about religion. Bullshit! You lied. It was nothing more than a religious propaganda bullshit made by Ray Comfort (analysis software gave it a 78 to 79% probability it was Ray Comfort, which is actually no comfort).

For once will your ____ out of your ___. Please.

https://i.imgur.com/kelGXDx.jpg

rmfr

P.S. - Now I am off to get a bottle of Highland Park and a case of Blue Moon so I can get myself back from the abyss. Thanks for the hint AU...