Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I can’t 100% wrap my head around “evolution”…therefore “creation”.

What don’t you all understand with the above?

I don’t know . . .therefore Lixy!!

I can’t 1005% wrap my head around evolution . . .therefore instantaneous cosmically stellar morphing!!

A new theory of the Origin of species . . .tiny little quantum particles called morphs . . .once they build up to a unstable mass they cause instantaneous morphing of any carbon-based life forms in the vicinity (kind of like medichlorines on steroids . .)

Welcome to the life side, luke . . .we are your fathers . . who knew the power rangers were on to a scientific theory . . .of course that makes the death side of morphs out to be hell . . . so this is heaven here on the life side . . . I know - cuz I have seen some angels . . .

This phenomenon has been witnessed occurring in such places as Hollywood, (I only played a smart person on TV, but now I understand the entire geopolitical spectrum and Bush lied!) Washington DC (I am now a democrat) France (but not proven - they may have always been spineless . . . say how many French soldiers does it take to protect Paris? We don’t know they’ve never tried . . .)

some times morphs cause devolution though, thus pond scum (viruses and bacteria) became lawyers . . . a walrus became Donald Trump . . . Michel Jackson morphed into a white woman . . .

I love this theory - I’m going to call it the Morphic Cosmic Collective Unified Natural Theory of Science. McCUNTS for for short . . .

Explains the platypus . . . poor little creature was the result of a morphing of a group of Ducks and Beavers - also explains why neither is no longer native to Australia now- they all got morphed . . .

The Do-do bird is not extinct - the whole species was morphed into ACLU attorneys and ACORN activists . . .

Democrats are morphed lemmings (always running off the deep end of things), Republicans are morphed ostriches (keep their heads buried until they get run over) Muslims are morphed Africanized honey bees - used to be really nice and make make natures sweetness, but now piss them off once (even accidentally) and they won’t stop attacking . . .

IRS agents are morphed leeches . . . Navy SEALS are the result of a morphed collection of sharks, wolf packs and wolverines . . .

OK - I should stop myself . . .I’m so excited about my new theory that I’ve covered myself with baking grease and Saran wrap and I don’ even know why . . . .

[/quote]
I know you’re being facetious, but this is useful as an illustration. What you have written here is not a theory, but a hypothesis (or rather a collection of hypotheses). A workable scientific theory would explain these hypotheses and make testable predictions. It obviously won’t become a theory because it can’t do these things, just as YE creationism cannot.

103

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You, sir, do not even understand what the definition of the word “theory” is. Yet, you wish to be taken seriously here?
[/quote]

Careful, Push.

104

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I cannot for the life of me believe that I have been sucked into the vortex of another creation/evolution debate on Testosterone Nation. Forgive me, friends, if I seek to extricate myself from the matrix and return to SAMA.[/quote]

I’d make a comment about the creation/evolution debates remaining oddly consistent and unchanging, but I think I made that comment on the 3rd or 4th one. Time to move on to the 15th global warming debate or the 23rd gay marriage one…

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You, sir, do not even understand what the definition of the word “theory” is. Yet, you wish to be taken seriously here?

And, “In science, a theory is as good as it gets” is simply an outlandish showcase of ignorance.

Even if you want to truly talk “theory” and its plural, to imply all theories hold an equal status of acceptance and credulity is nonsense. There are hypotheses, weak theories, strong theories, etc. so these distinctions must be made before a sweeping statement such as the one mentioned above can be made.

See my post above referencing Laws, scientific Laws, that is. You see, when a theory becomes accepted as a Law THEN you can say, “In science, a Law is as good as it gets” and you can hold your head high and sound like intelligent and thoughtful projector of opinion on this subject. The Theory of Macroevolution is a long ways from achieving that status much to the chagrin of its Faithful Believers.[/quote]
Evidently you’re struggling with this.

Lets start with this wiki link;

You are right, there are hypotheses, etc. These are not scientific theories.

Do you know what, since you so disdain scientific theories, how about you test one of them? Why not test the theory of gravitation. You could do this in numerous ways, such as walking of a cliff or tall building. Since it’s just a theory in exactly the same way that evolution is just a theory you’ll probably float, magically. Just like your space god magically created everything.

106

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

…Of course, had Jefferson read On the Origin of Species, published only 33 years after his death, he probably would have found much in it with which he agreed. Old Tom was open-minded like that.

And if he could’ve lived another 150 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species he would’ve seen a theory in complete disarray and possibly concurred with his original premise. He was probably open-minded enough to surmise that he had erred in chasing Darwin’s rabbit.[/quote]

Well either you are ignorant, or lying flat out.

Currently evolution is one of the scientific worlds strongest theories. Every knew development in this area of science has confirmed original predictions; genetics, dna, mapping the genome, molecular biology. All these strands not only fit in to the theory, but support it and confirm it. Any one of them could have proved Darwin wrong. And yes, there have been updates and improvements; this is exactly how good science should work.

107

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

You, sir, do not even understand what the definition of the word “theory” is. Yet, you wish to be taken seriously here?

Careful, Push.

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm[/quote]

Ta. I was flabbergasted by that response to be honest. The extreme levels of irony are pretty hard to beat. If I hadn’t seen more of his posts I’d suspect a Poe, but alas.

Looking forward to his next one!

108

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…you are mistaken, i’m not looking for a why. In Mak’s thread on eastern philosophy i said that truth is unknowable, so looking for a why is pointless to me. I like to know the mechanisms upon which reality rests, i find that an interesting and an honorable pursuit, is all. Understanding however why some people resist the scientific approach towards our origins in favor of irrational metaphysics, that’s a daunting task i tell you…

…i’m off to bed, it’s rise and shine in 6 hours for me. Goodnight!
[/quote]

(in the interest of keeping things interesting, please read this post with an Irish Accent while kicking the closest person to you)

What!?! You refuse to ask all of the questions - you don’t wish to ask a question that can lead to the ultimate knowledge?

So if the truth is unknowable, does that naturally mean the only things we can know for certain are the false things? But if that were true then we could not know that that is true, because the truth is unknowable, so we can’t know if the false things are false and the true things are true - but if that were true, then we couldn’t know it, and since we know it it can’t be true, so we can the true things are true and the false things are false but as soon as we know it’s true it can’t be true and we’re back to square one . . . which is false, we’re not back to square one because it cannot be known to be true that we were back to square one . . . so we’re still in a flux without knowing anything, but we can’t even know we’re in a flux because that would be knowing our true location metaphysically and we can’t know that that is true - so we are falsely truly in a flux, truthfully falsely at square one trying to not know what is false in case it proves to be true and upsets the whole applecart . . .but maybe it’s not true that it would upset the apple cart . . . so in the end you can’t know anything -so the quest is pointless for you,so stay home and eat potato chips and watch Voltron reruns . . . .

You non-deity types are nuts!

112

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You missed the point but as I am trying to exit the matrix…

…shit, here I go again. I did not intend to imply nor should you or Varq infer that I suggested that a hypothesis and a theory are one in the same.

Having said that, there are very, very strong opinions out yonder in the scientific world that the theory of macroevolution has never achieved theory status but rather that is still dwells in the land of a hypothesis. In fact, the main reason in a nutshell, is that it is not testable. Failing to be testable causes failure to be considered a theory.

(With that in mind, Varq, it would behoove you to “be careful”)

Jab, why don’t YOU test the theory of macroevolution for us, buddy? Can you get the job done? Show us your stuff. (And knock off the “since you so disdain scientific theories” bullshit)[/quote]

Good grief. Ok I’ll go over this slowly.

Micro evolution or small changes, is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. Macroevolution is the accumulation of this effect over much longer periods of time. In this instance the scientific community is clear; there is no real difference between either, and macroevolution has been demonstrated (as in birds gaining feathers).

Macroevolution can however also occure very quickly, for example in cases of whole genome duplication.

This distinction you talk of is a creationist canard that bares no relation to the science.

You’re right about one thing; macroevolution is not a theory. It is a fact within the theory of evolution.

And no, I won’t knock that stuff. You are now being wilfully ignorant. The scientific community treats the theory of evolution and the theory of gravitation equally in terms of acceptance. Stop spreading lies and misinformation.

113

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well either you are ignorant, or lying flat out. What you have stated above is undeniably false. You need to explore your world. It is not as cut and dried as you think it is.[/quote]

The trouble with what you’re saying compared to what I’m saying, is I have the overwhelming support of evidence behind me.

In this instance, it is cut and dried. If you think it is false, please try and prove me wrong. Hopefully in the process of you failing to do this, you will learn why you are failing to do this.

Additionally, I have explored the world a fair amount, and will continue to do so, but this has nothing to do with the discussion.

115

I’m not sure how this is related, but this cockatoo (“snowball”) actually dances. For real:

116

[quote]pushharder wrote:Pointless garbage.
[/quote]

I really wish you’d actually go and read some scientific literature. It’s not hard to find. The wikipedia article is a reasonable place to start; Macroevolution - Wikipedia

EDIT: Really it comes down to this; if the evidence were to change, to support another theory, or to disprove evolution, I would follow it. Gladly.

You however are shown the evidence, and regardless of the overwhelming mass of it, stick to your own beliefs. And you know what, that’s fine. Just keep those beliefs to yourself. They have no place in the real world.

117

[quote]pushharder wrote:
C/IDer: OK, buddy, you are one ardent believer. Don’t forget to tithe.

[/quote]

LOL! Great post.

118

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

You, sir, do not even understand what the definition of the word “theory” is. Yet, you wish to be taken seriously here?

Careful, Push.

I wonder about the source of this website. You don’t suppose you cherry-picked this one, do ya?[/quote]

Nope. Did a google search for “hypothesis + theory + law” and that one came out first. There are plenty of other sites, all of which say essentially the same thing.

A “theory” in science is a conceptual framework, based on experimentation and attempts not to prove, but to disprove, that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

A “hypothesis” is a supposition, based on observation, but as yet untested.

When someone who isn’t a scientist says “theory,” he probably really means “hypothesis.”

That’s my hypothesis, anyway.

119

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

I know you’re being facetious, but this is useful as an illustration. What you have written here is not a theory, but a hypothesis (or rather a collection of hypotheses). A workable scientific theory would explain these hypotheses and make testable predictions. It obviously won’t become a theory because it can’t do these things, just as YE creationism cannot.
[/quote]

Aye! Go pick on some other person’s theory, We Morphites are a very hostile and angry bunch of gun-toting loonies . . .

What do you mean obviously won’t become a theory - just try to prove my examples wrong, you cross-eyed gerbil hugger . . . careful with that - that’s how lixy ended up with tiny balls . .morphing is highly unpredictable .(Sorry Lixy - couldn’t refrain myself)

It is morphing high unpredictability that proves your assumptions wrong- of course we can’t predict the outcome of a chaos-theory based carbon-life form extrapolationary morphism -it runs counter to the very definition of the process . . .

one last question; what is YE creationism? Is that like a predecessor creationism before the X and Y chromosomes were fully developed? - I know, it is gay creationism . . .

120

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s where this debate always ends up here on TN (and elsewhere on a message board, I’m sure).

Macroevolutionist: EVERYBODY that’s anybody believes in this really, really strong theory. (Aka, how to promulgate Global Warming crowd)

Creationist/IDer: That simply is not true. The theory, or hypothesis, has serious flaws recognized even by ardent macroevolutionists.

MacroEVer: Oh man, you are so stupid if you don’t believe like I do. I have been to university and I KNOW it’s all fact.

C/IDer: Many creationists including numerous well respected scientists have also been to university and hold an objectivity not to be swindled by the New Order of Evolution is a Fact Society.

MacroEVer: Oh man, they are so stupid. EVERYBODY that’s anybody believes in this really, really strong theory.

C/IDer: But it’s not testable.

MacroEVer: Oh man, that is so stupid. EVERYBODY that’s anybody knows its been tested a million times. It’s the best theory there ever was.

C/IDer: OK, buddy, you are one ardent believer. Don’t forget to tithe.
[/quote]

and just like that we morphites get left out of the discussion . . .