Creationist: Do you have scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution?

[Edx]

It is for those ignorent of evolution

What an unnecessarily rude comment.

Why? People that think the chicken and the egg is a real biological stumper ARE ignorent of evolution, as of course the answer is the egg.

You think being called ignorent is rude? Its not, Im ignorent about many things. Its not the same thing as stupidity, ignorence can be cured, so long as you dont have aprior commitment never to question your preconcieved ideas.

 

[Edx]

God does not = the Bible. Stop committing Biblolatry. The Bible could have never been written, and God could still very well exist.

Now hang on he's got a point, perhaps the Bible God only exists in the Bible. He probably didnt mean that though

 

[Edx]

Ms Texas Sky I love it when you pop your head into thread, I just know a long list of strawmen and misrepresentation is going to follow. I find it fascinating someone can be proven wrong 100% of the time and still be so confident they are right.

I see Teddy has already given a good reply to this but I do want to throw my 2 cents in.

Professor Steven Jay Gould's (Harvard) "trade secret of paleontology".

Still using those "trusty" Creationist sources I see!

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_gould.html

Fossil records show sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with their characteristics, not changing over time.

Yes there are and you've been shown transitionals before, but whats this "fully complete characteristics" buisness? Of course they will be complete.

It is "perception". (The world thought the koala bear was a bear until they realized it was really a cousin of the kangaroo). Depending on how we tell the computer to classify the data fed in, it will put objects IN or Definitley NOT in, the same trees.

The koala is a marsupial and unlike other mammals give birth to young that develop in their pouchs. A koala kind of looks like a bear at first sight, but if you examine it cant be a bear.

The lung fish looks like a link between fish and amphbian if you only look at 1/2 of its internal organs. If you look at all of its organs, and the way it produces eggs, it ceases to serve as the link.

A lung fish isnt claimed to be a transitional species.

We have over 100,000 known fossil species. The textbooks lok at approximately 10 as proof for evolution. Where are the 99,990 ?

Which text books, and you expect a text book to cover 100,000 fossils?!

Sir Karl Popper points out that evolution does not make claims which can be tested and proven or proven false. It makes vague claims, and supports them with things which they claim are evidence, but which cannot be tested. A key component to any scientific theory is that it can be tested in experiments which can be repeated by other scientists.

No evolution makes specific claims, and defines specific terms. The tree of life is very specific about what we should and should not find. All animals fit in the tree without exception but Creationists responce to this is that that is how God decided to create, nothing more, even though God could have created however he liked. Creationism has words like "kind" - they dont define it. Creationists have words like "information". They will write entire papers like the "Theory of Information" concluding Evolution mathematically impossible, yet never defines the term information!

 

[random_guy]

A lung fish isnt claimed to be a transitional species.

Just a minor nitpick, but I think the lung fish is a transitional species. A transitional species of what, we won't know (as long as the population doesn't go extinct). That said, it's not a transitional species between fish and amphibians.

 

[AV1611VET]

For those of you who need it, yet once again - with commentary:

Let me refresh your memory:

A small rule in this thread: Any references to The Bible, or verses within it are invalid. No objection to Evolution based on The Bible will count.

No Bible = no God

No God = Abiogenesis

Mathematics = no Abiogenesis

If you want me to set my Bible aside, I'll do that; but then do not try to get me to discuss this by factoring God into the equation.

If Abiogenesis is impossible, so is Evolution.

Commentary:

No Bible = no God

IOW, if you're not going to let me use Scripture, then I'm not going to factor God into the equation. I thought that was plain from the next-to-last sentence in my post.

I know that "No God = no Bible"; I just assumed that that was a given (but apparently I was wrong).

 

[USincognito]

1. Math doesn't show abiogenesis is impossible.

2. Even if abiogenesis were impossible, evolution would occur however life started; be it fiat creation, panspermia, seeding by aliens or a science project for hyper-dimensional high schoolers.

3. Can you actually try and address evolultion with scientific reasons instead of other topics like abiogenesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Math doesn't show abiogenesis is impossible.

Oh, okay, I thought it did.

2. Even if abiogenesis were impossible, evolution would occur however life started; be it fiat creation, panspermia, seeding by aliens or a science project for hyper-dimensional high schoolers.

I'll go with "fiat creation", like the fiat Creator's Son did.

3. Can you actually try and address evolultion with scientific reasons instead of other topics like abiogenesis?

q.v. Post 59 on Page 6

 

[JohnR7]

if you're not going to let me use Scripture

They will only allow you to use what they can confirm is true. For example, they do not deny that Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem in 1000 bc because the foundation is still there in Jerusalem.

They have trouble to accept Adam and Eve and talking snakes in the Garden of Eden because they claim there is no evidence for the Garden of Eden.

Of course the problem is, when we give them the scientific evidence, then all of a sudden they want to reject science.

Science is their best friend and then the next moment they want to turn their back on their best friend Because science shows that the Bible is true.

 

[Edx]

Just a minor nitpick, but I think the lung fish is a transitional species. A transitional species of what, we won't know (as long as the population doesn't go extinct). That said, it's not a transitional species between fish and amphibians.

By that definition, we are all transitionals

 

[Tomk80]

They will only allow you to use what they can confirm is true. For example, they do not deny that Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem in 1000 bc because the foundation is still there in Jerusalem.

They have trouble to accept Adam and Eve and talking snakes in the Garden of Eden because they claim there is no evidence for the Garden of Eden.

Of course the problem is, when we give them the scientific evidence, then all of a sudden they want to reject science.

Science is their best friend and then the next moment they want to turn their back on their best friend Because science shows that the Bible is true.

Seriously John, when have you ever given evidence that is not a distortion, not irrelevant, or indeed present in the first place. Come to that, the times that you actually give anything that resembles evidence even a little bit are scarce at best. So whatever you are, qualified to talk about supplying evidence you are most definitely not.

 

[notto]

I'll go with "fiat creation", like the fiat Creator's Son did.

So then you should have no problem with Darwin, as he did as well.

 

[Asimis]

So it seems that after 14 pages without presenting a scientific objection to Evolution we are safe to conclude that creationists simply do not have a scientific objections to Evolution?



As.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So it seems that after 14 pages without presenting a scientific objection to Evolution we are safe to conclude that creationists simply do not have a scientific objections to Evolution?



As.

You almost seem to be surprised.

 

[Schroeder]

You have said this a couple of times already but you have failed to present anything to back up your claim.



What is wrong with Evolution? Please give specific examples.



As.

there is no problem with evolution The problem is when they use the evidence of evolution to explain that the theory is correct, when in FACT it does not support or show in anyway the theory of evolution. ALL the supposed evidence for the theory is JUST evidence of evolution. As much ALL of the evidence i have seen is JUST evidence for evolution and not the theory. KNOW if you assume here and there and postualate this or that your theory is pretty good. but this is just reaching and misleading. As you say falsifying evedence, though it is just falsifying evidence for the theory and not for evolution.

 

[steen]

Huh? Are you SURE you know what science is, Schroeder?

 

[TeddyKGB]

there is no problem with evolution The problem is when they use the evidence of evolution to explain that the theory is correct, when in FACT it does not support or show in anyway the theory of evolution. ALL the supposed evidence for the theory is JUST evidence of evolution. As much ALL of the evidence i have seen is JUST evidence for evolution and not the theory. KNOW if you assume here and there and postualate this or that your theory is pretty good. but this is just reaching and misleading. As you say falsifying evedence, though it is just falsifying evidence for the theory and not for evolution.

What.

 

[Asimis]

there is no problem with evolution The problem is when they use the evidence of evolution to explain that the theory is correct, when in FACT it does not support or show in anyway the theory of evolution. ALL the supposed evidence for the theory is JUST evidence of evolution. As much ALL of the evidence i have seen is JUST evidence for evolution and not the theory. KNOW if you assume here and there and postualate this or that your theory is pretty good. but this is just reaching and misleading. As you say falsifying evedence, though it is just falsifying evidence for the theory and not for evolution.

This simply made no sense, could you please clarify what you mean?


As.

 

[Asimis]

You almost seem to be surprised.

Im actually dissapointed. I mean if you are so vocal against something, then you must know what that something is and why you are so vocal against it. Creationists have demonstrated that they reject and oppose Evolution without actually knowing what it is or even without knowing what is wrong with it.


As.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is their best friend and then the next moment they want to turn their back on their best friend Because science shows that the Bible is true.

Perhaps that's why science is their best friend. Results can be manipulated.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Perhaps that's why science is their best friend. Results can be manipulated.

Unlike the Bible, which means the same to everyone, and which has never been used or misused to support someone's pet agenda.