Dishonest Questions About Evolution

Wilso wrote:

No. Creationism is based on belief. Creationists have "created" the word because they see everything as based on belief. Evolution is just science. There is no 'ism' involved. The damaged, delusional minds of creationists just can't see past there own sickness. They're all just a bunch of dangerous, twisted freaks

Evolution is a scientific theory. So is creationism. Neither have proof. Both require belief. I can't prove evolution wrong, but don't go thinking it's superior to creationism, since you can't prove that wrong either. That's all I have to say.

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

Evolution is a scientific theory. So is creationism. Neither have proof. Both require belief. I can't prove evolution wrong, but don't go thinking it's superior to creationism, since you can't prove that wrong either. That's all I have to say.

Creationism is religion masquerading as science. Court decisions and government regulations in the U.S., UK, and Australia prohibit the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. Evolutionary theory is well-supported by scientific evidence. Creation is valid as a religious doctrine but can not be tested scientifically.

0 Replies

Blue, first you have to understand what a theory is in science. It is not what it means in ordinary language, where "theory" is often synonymous with just an idea. In science, a "theory" is an explanatory schema whcih is used to make sense of a broad range of data, which is testable, and which has been repeatedly tested and shown to fit the facts. You can use a theory to formulate testable, falsifiable hypotheses and experiments, which create new knowledge. Evolution is such a theory. It has been tested for a century and a half, and has not failed those tests. It is in fact the underlying explanatory principle for all of modern biology. Creationism is none of those things. It is untestable, it is unfalsifiable, you cannot use it to formulate new hypotheses, and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.

0 Replies

Of course there is no evidence for it if you define it in a way which procludes there ever being any evidence for it.

You are thinking in a box of what you have been told and in that box your statement is true.

The evidence of your own sense impressions (empiricism) would never get you to that viewpoint. You are simply going on the beliefs and authority of a new type of priesthood. And they don't have to give up shagging so they will inevitably end up corrupt as nepotism and greed bite again.

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

Evolution is a scientific theory. So is creationism.

No, creationism is not a scientific theory.

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

Neither have proof.

Incorrect. Evolution has been proven within the bounds of science. It is a scientific fact.

Creationism can not be proven scientifically because it is not based in science and not limited by science (the limits are required in order to define a scientific proof).

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

Both require belief. I can't prove evolution wrong.

Incorrect. Evolution can be proven wrong (it simply hasn't been). The fact that it can be disproven is one of the reasons why it is a valid scientific theory, and one of the reasons why Creationism is not.

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

but don't go thinking it's superior to creationism, since you can't prove that wrong either. That's all I have to say.

It's not superior. It's simply different. Evolution and Creationism can't be compared on a validity scale because they both use different assumptions from which to measure validity.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Of course there is no evidence for it if you define it in a way which procludes there ever being any evidence for it.

You are thinking in a box of what you have been told and in that box your statement is true.

The evidence of your own sense impressions (empiricism) would never get you to that viewpoint. You are simply going on the beliefs and authority of a new type of priesthood. And they don't have to give up shagging so they will inevitably end up corrupt as nepotism and greed bite again.

Your last sentence was uncalled for. Would you like me to call every moral choice of evolutionists into question?

0 Replies

username wrote:

Blue, first you have to understand what a theory is in science. It is not what it means in ordinary language, where "theory" is often synonymous with just an idea. In science, a "theory" is an explanatory schema whcih is used to make sense of a broad range of data, which is testable, and which has been repeatedly tested and shown to fit the facts. You can use a theory to formulate testable, falsifiable hypotheses and experiments, which create new knowledge. Evolution is such a theory. It has been tested for a century and a half, and has not failed those tests. It is in fact the underlying explanatory principle for all of modern biology. Creationism is none of those things. It is untestable, it is unfalsifiable, you cannot use it to formulate new hypotheses, and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.

That's where you're wrong. There's plenty of evidence for it. Not enough to prove it, I'll admit. But saying there is NO evidence for it is a complete lie. There's the testimony of witnesses (if there was ever a court case with millions of witnesses, guess who would win?), there are certain truths that just make no sense with evolution but do with creationism (like how did existence begin? what set off the big bang? how did that matter get there in the first place?), and there are things that were said in the Bible that people of that day and age didn't know. Like in the Bible, it mentions that the world is round. In Columbus's days, people still thought that it was flat and that you could fall off one end.

But you're right that it is untestable. (I wish it weren't true.) But the Big Bang theory is also untestable, and it seems to be generally accepted. And as far as I know, you can't really prove evolution either. Sure they found lots of fossils of different animals. But they can't prove that one turned into another. It may be likely, but you can't assume. Other than that, I don't know what evidence they base evolution off of. If you know, I'd be much obliged if you enlightened me.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

BlueAwesomeness wrote:
Evolution is a scientific theory. So is creationism.

No, creationism is not a scientific theory.

BlueAwesomeness wrote:
Neither have proof.

Incorrect. Evolution has been proven within the bounds of science. It is a scientific fact.

Creationism can not be proven scientifically because it is not based in science and not limited by science (the limits are required in order to define a scientific proof).

BlueAwesomeness wrote:
Both require belief. I can't prove evolution wrong.

Incorrect. Evolution can be proven wrong (it simply hasn't been). The fact that it can be disproven is one of the reasons why it is a valid scientific theory, and one of the reasons why Creationism is not.

BlueAwesomeness wrote:
but don't go thinking it's superior to creationism, since you can't prove that wrong either. That's all I have to say.

It's not superior. It's simply different. Evolution and Creationism can't be compared on a validity scale because they both use different assumptions from which to measure validity.

In your opinion creationism's not a scientific theory. There are many scientists who agree with it.

Evolution is not a scientific fact. It's a theory.

You're correct on your next point.

Evolution is very difficult to prove either right or wrong. I mean, no one saw the Big Bang. No one knows for sure it happened. No one knows for sure that one animal turned into another over time. How do you prove that kind of thing?

I agree with you there. But you admit that evolution requires assumptions. Therefore, how can it be fact?

0 Replies

Looks like about the tenth deja vu albeit with another "christian." Have fun, fellows.

0 Replies

Keep it up Blue. You have their knees knocking.

Quote:

there are certain truths that just make no sense with evolution but do with creationism

That's a scientific fact of the first order. It's fundamentalist wisdom. I can't imagine a structural functionalist taking exception to it.

I was talking to a bird on the bar tonight who made absolutely no sense whatsover (excuse tautology) from any possible interpretation of evolutionary theory.

I had to rely on the Book of Solomon or the Song of Songs as it is sometimes known.

If she's a machine like La Mettrie said, and he's the only anti-ID martyr I know of if de Sade is excluded, why is she still so difficult to operate properly after all these years of human evolution?

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

In your opinion creationism's not a scientific theory. There are many scientists who agree with it.

Just because some scientists agree with it doesn't make it a scientific fact. Science has certain rules, if a theory does not confirm to those rules, then it is not a scientific theory, it's just 'a' theory.

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

Evolution is not a scientific fact. It's a theory.

Evolution started as a theory, but it evolved into a fact over a hundred years ago.

At present, it is considered a scientific fact and a scientific theory. The word 'theory' in science does not preculde something being a fact. The word 'theory' when used in science does not equate to a 'guess'.

Many people make this mistake. You can simply check a few dictionaries to see the usage of the word 'theory' in a scientific context.

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

Evolution is very difficult to prove either right or wrong. I mean, no one saw the Big Bang. No one knows for sure it happened. No one knows for sure that one animal turned into another over time. How do you prove that kind of thing?

I agree with you there. But you admit that evolution requires assumptions. Therefore, how can it be fact?

The requirements for 'proof' in science are different from the requirements for 'proof' in philosophy or metaphysics.

In science, 'facts' and 'proof' are determined by a preponderance of evidence (similar to a court of law). The empirical evidence in favor of evolution is so overwhelming and multifaceted that it is considered to be a scientific fact. Everything we know about biology is based around it.

Does that help clarify things?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Looks like about the tenth deja vu albeit with another "christian." Have fun, fellows.

Here we go again.

0 Replies

Re: Dishonest Questions About Evolution

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

A: we are a branch of the primate family.. there is not just one type of primate there is many and we happen to be one.

Quote:

If evolution is true, why don't we see cats giving birth to dogs?

A:have answer but dont know how to pu it in words..

Quote:

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

A:where u there when god created everythere?

Quote:

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

what??

Quote:

Which of the races in the human family is the most evolved? (If you say 'none', then you obviously don't believe your own theory.)

[/quote]

A:i can obviously im more evolved then you..

0 Replies

Were in St Johnsbury for a few more hours , then well drive up to our place near Eastport. I saw a program on the "dish" last night. it was some goofy "Creation scientist" who, dressed up in Suntan shorts and a pith helmet, was being a shill for the Rev Dr Robb, who emits a Creationism/ID show eachevening. (Tis a hoot full of half truths, and lies)

Last nights story was that the Morrison Formation was a sedimentological example of flood deposits that stretch continent wide. And stick out in otrhercontinents since , after all, continentral drift actually began AFTER the Flood. According to the Rev Doctor, and his Indiana Jones sidekick dressed up in the suntan lederhosen, the FLOOD is synonamous with the Jurassic Morrison Formation (except that tyhe Moorrison Formation is a time stratigraphic series that displays forests, swamps, riverbeds, deserts, and the mountain fronts mear the Sundance Sea which was in Canada at the time. There are little deposits of brackish water, low energy lakes and ponds, coals swamps (similar to the Evrglades) and dewltas that drain these lowlands and uplands. In other words, the Morrison wsnt much different than what we see in the Eastern US today(cept it was a bit hotter and muggier)

They went on like gungasnake does, claiming how only a fool would interpret this data any other way but a flood. Im glad that Indiana wasnt one of my students, Id hide my head in shame.

This example of half truthing and lying to an audience (whom, they expect to ne a bunch of ignorant yahoos who need to believe their tales) is in perfect accord with how deceit, fraud, and "talking -down to" is all part of the Craetionist bags of tricks.

0 Replies

So ,heres just another one for Wandels pile of Creationist residuum.

Quote:

Anybody who interprets this evidence as anything other than a Universal Flood is a fool

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

But to be honest, starting this argument with you was a mistake. I've tried it before, and they get nowhere. So I apologize, and nevermind. I just want to politely disagree with the claims that many of those questions are dishonest.

Yes, i understand well that the imaginary friend superstition crowd don't believe in debate and argument--they want you to agree or be damned.

No surprises here.

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

There's the testimony of witnesses . . .

To turn creationist burroshit back on you--witnesses? Oh . . . do you know anyone who was there? Do you know anyone who witnessed creation?

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

I mean, no one saw the Big Bang.

The "Big Bang" has nothing to do with evolution. A theory of evolution does not stipulate nor rely on cosmic origins.

To revert to my most recent question, who saw creation?

Dishonest Questions About Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know