Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[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]

great post btw

122

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Ephrem, your ignorance on the subject matter is in full regal display here if you are convinced Archaeopteryx is a valid transitional form. It is NOT the example you want to use in this debate and you’re making a laughingstock of yourself. So much for the Dutch educational system for which you are so proud.

Seriously, more study is in store for you before you can compete in the arena of this debate.

Repeat: the theory that Archaeopteryx is a intermediary life form that substantiates macroevolution has been thoroughly debunked and even hard core evolutionists shy from using Archaeopteryx as intellectual ammo like a vampire in front of a barn-sized crucifix. In other words, Archaeopteryx is so passe.

You need to look elsewhere for evidence of the Great Myth.

[/quote]

Cool read! Kudos!

124

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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.

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 . . .
[/quote]

Sorry, it stands for Young Earth, the people who think the earth is only 6000 - 10000 years old.

I have to say, I’m actually quite enjoying your Morphite talk, it reminds me of some of the post-modernist gibberish deconstructed in Socal and Bricmont’s “Intellectual Impostures”.

126

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Why I believe in the doctrine of the Church of Evolution.

I really wish you’d actually go and read some scientific literature. It’s not hard to find. A reasonable place to start? The writings of Werner von Braun, Sir John Templeton, Stephen C. Meyer, Michael Denton, Hank Hanegrsaff, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells.

Read up on the Cambrian explosion and how it turns Darwin’s theory completely on its head.

A closing thought by biochemist and spiritual skeptic Francis Crick, who shared the Nobel Prize for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, who cautiously invoked the word “miracle” a few years ago. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Not talking about evolution per say but it’s a good quote nonetheless in regards to the origin of life.[/quote]

Templeton is not respected in the scientific community. Scientists who are awarded his prize usually have a religious-based ulterior motive.

Meyor is the founder of the Discovery Institute, which is one of the greatest purveyors of lies and myths masquerading as science in the modern world.

Judging by the calibre of those two, I’d ask you to refer me to peer reviewed, published scientists who in some way dissent?

In order to pre-empt an argument I can see coming from your direction, that of “there are plenty of people who disagree with evolution, here’s some names” I refer you to Project Steve: Project Steve | National Center for Science Education

Hopefully this will at last give you an idea of the enormous scientific consensus on evolution.

As for the Cambrian Explosion. This was rapid evolution, by the standards of evolution; over a period of about 80 million years. It is still not clear what happened, whether the rate of evolution did increase, and in fact whether an explosion did genuinely happen or not is still up for debate. And as for turning Darwin’s theory on its head, it did no such thing, I ask you again; please stop spreading lies and misinformation. I advise that you take your own advice and read up on this highly fascinating and interesting period of history, but do it from credible scientific sources not DI morons.

I will tell you something that would turn Darwin’s theory on its head; fossilised bunny rabbits in the precambrian. If you find that, then you’ve disproved it.

127

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You conveniently left out the part that says a theory is testable and has been tested - repeatedly. By its very nature macroevolution is not testable so it fails to ascend from hypothesis.

It may be the best explanation out there sans creation and therefore deserving of its strong following by those who abhor the thought of a mighty, omnipotent God but that in and of itself is not enough to propel it from a weak hypothesis to a fact.

Varq, do not err in this respect again because…well, trust me…my rifle can shoot farther than yours…I won’t have to be very stealthy to sneak up on you…[/quote]

You’re still getting it confused. If it helps, think of a theory as a model; it is used to explain things. It can also be used to describe things, and to make predictions.

To quote Stephen Hawking; “A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”

Based on this definition, evolution is a superb theory.

Now the scientific method works like this; you can never prove a theory, but if you find one thing wrong with it, you can disprove. So find me one thing wrong with Evolution that comes from a credible scientific source. I gave you the example of a rabbit in the precambrian earlier.

129

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

…Templeton is not respected in the scientific community…

Neither is Jab1 on T-Nation.

You know it takes a presumptuous little booger to arbitrarily decide who is respected in the scientific community. Unless you can cite some sources that say Mr. Templeton is a dunce? A dunce like Werner von Braun?
[/quote]

Is a small selection. I didn’t arbitrarily decide anything. I’ve read a lot, and it’s an attitude that I read a lot.

I’m not sure what Wernher von Braun has to do with anything. But John Templeton is not a scientist. Again, please refer me to the published, peer reviewed scientist dissenters.

131

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

Meyor (sic) is the founder of the Discovery Institute, which is one of the greatest purveyors of lies and myths masquerading as science in the modern world…

Did you learn this in Sunday school at your church last week, friend?

…As for the Cambrian Explosion. This was rapid evolution…

My, my, yes it was. Very rapid evolution. Miraculously rapid evolution, in fact.[/quote]

Just because you don’t/won’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is a miracle. Rapid evolution is surely still evolution. In fact, the evolution during the cambrian explosion was of rapid macroevolution. Try and stay consistent, I thought macroevolution didn’t exist?

134

Look, the fact remains that the entirety of modern biology makes little to no sense without evolution.

We can’t test most of atomic-theory either, yet we still teach that in schools pretty much accept it as current truth, because almost all modern chemistry relies on our current understanding of the atom.

Evolution is not perfect. It has holes. But having holes doesn’t discredit the mountain of evidence we have for it.

Creationism, however, needs to be perfect to have credit, because it is NOT a scientific theory with ANY evidence. Saying “God did it” is not, and will never be science. If you want religion taught in school theology classes, more power to you. I’d just like to keep things that are quite clearly not science OUT of science class rooms.

135

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Wikipedia is your baby, isn’t it, Jab? And you want to talk about “respect”. Funny.[/quote]

You should really be attacking my arguments if you had anything to attack them with. Actually I read scientific blogs, books and journals when I can. Wikipedia is useful however as a starting point for research and learning, and it is good at explaining basic scientific terms that should be understood if a meanignful scientific discussion is to be had.

136

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

Just because you don’t/won’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is a miracle. Rapid evolution is surely still evolution. In fact, the evolution during the cambrian explosion was of rapid macroevolution. Try and stay consistent, I thought macroevolution didn’t exist?

You’re so zealous in spreading your Faith that you forgot to switch on your sarcasm meter.[/quote]

Forgive my misunderstanding. If you look up Poe’s Law you’ll see why it can happen in these sorts of conversations.

138

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

…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…

You conveniently left out the part that says a theory is testable and has been tested - repeatedly. By its very nature macroevolution is not testable so it fails to ascend from hypothesis.[/quote]

Sorry. I assumed that the “testing” part would be explained by the “experimentation and attempts to disprove” part. My bad.[quote]

It may be the best explanation out there sans creation and therefore deserving of its strong following by those who abhor the thought of a mighty, omnipotent God but that in and of itself is not enough to propel it from a weak hypothesis to a fact.[/quote]

What’s wrong with the hypothesis that a mighty, omnipotent God (as opposed to a feeble, omnipotent God, one supposes) allows his creation to proliferate through the vehicle of macroevolution?

Uh huh.

That’s what I love about the Politics forum. All differences of opinion, no matter how great or small, can always be settled through implied death threats.

Trust me, friend. You’ll have to be VERY stealthy to sneak up on me. :slight_smile:

139

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:

…please refer me to the published, peer reviewed scientist dissenters.

Do your own fookin homework. I may be your fookin professor here on TN but I’ll be fooked if I’m going to fookin spoon feed ya, you fooker.[/quote]

I concede; I’m no match for such an elegantly structured rebuttal.

140

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
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 . . .
[/quote]

I’d say that it’s one of two possibilities: either Jab meant to write “Ye Olde Creationisme,” taking a jab, as it were, at what he perceives as the anachronistic nature of the idea, or else he is using the letters YE to stand for “Young Earth,” an allusion to the belief held by many creationists that the earth (and, presumably, the universe) were created some six thousand years ago.