Evolutionary Science is a fairytale

[Morcova]

You know it's never going to happen the way you want, TO.

Indeed, you'd have to have some actual evidence first.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

who has been around to actually observe this happen? no one , so i wont believe it,

as for the different generations of giraffe what a load of crap, who puts together this rubbish? how on earth can anyone know all this is a fact, who observed it?

So only things that are directly observed are true?

So you think most people in prison are innocent?

Suspect you just deny the evidence rather than consider it

 

[tanzanos]

who has been around to actually observe this happen? no one , so i wont believe it,

Actually all the people who were around to observe my birth are dead! So who is writing this post if you do not believe I exist????????

See what I mean by "Flawed Logic"?

 

[TheOutsider]

You know it's never going to happen the way you want, TO.

Sadly, you are correct. I'm not even sure why anyone is having a debate on this subject anymore. The Creationists keep coming to the table with absolutely nothing and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You know it's never going to happen the way you want, TO.

No Creationist should be called on to Prove a Negative. That's an impossibility. However it would be nice if Creationists would post defensible facts of their own.

I see plenty of Creationists posting claims and very few of them are backed up by references, but those that are are usually backed up by pretty weak and non-robust "science".

Creationists need to realize that the very foundational assumption of their model has got to be proven before they can get anything else accepted.

It's simple. Creationists only have to do ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY to win 99.99999% of the debate:

Prove God Exists.

It would solve so many problems that Creationism would be the least among them.

Of course once they prove God exists, then they will have to do some janitorial work around the concept:

1. Prove it is their god (ie Yahweh)
2. Provide a testable set of action-reaction couplets so we will know how God works, and to verify further use of the God Hypothesis.

So Inan, you don't have to prove anyones facts are false, although you should probably be somewhat concerned with understanding the facts that scientists present as facts, such that you might have reason to assume they are in error in their assumptions, but you don't have to prove that they aren't facts.

Once again, Inan, you are going up against people who do science for a living. For me, I think it, breathe it and it infuses my life with an epistemic process that shapes how I formulate my knowledge of the things around me.

As a professional scientist I am very interested in how I know the world around me. So to that end I put quite a bit of effort into understanding how I know what I know. I know my thinking is prone to fault. That's also part of being a scientist.

But further, and I can't repeat this enough, if a model for a feature of reality is presented it must contain only factors that are verifiable. You may disagree with many things in the model, assumptions, ineraction effects, sample size, etc. But that doesn't necessarily mean your model including supernatural factors is ipso facto acceptable.

Your model, if it has scientific merit, must meet scientific criteria.

This is what I find frustrating about the "God Hypothesis". The fiercest defenders of the God Hypothesis construct it such that it is either a case for special pleading (ie "God is different from everything and so doesn't need to fit any paradigm!") or it unfalsifiable.

Neither one "works" in this type of discussion. If it is the former then we may as well just drop science altogether because this special case can mess up everything we think we know thereby making anything we think we know or think we can predict or model a mere illusion (which, of course gets into theological mazes around a "deceptive God"), and if it is the latter then we aren't talking science anymore.

 

[Inan3]

No Creationist should be called on to Prove a Negative. That's an impossibility. However it would be nice if Creationists would post defensible facts of their own.

I see plenty of Creationists posting claims and very few of them are backed up by references, but those that are are usually backed up by pretty weak and non-robust "science".

Creationists need to realize that the very foundational assumption of their model has got to be proven before they can get anything else accepted.

It's simple. Creationists only have to do ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY to win 99.99999% of the debate:

Prove God Exists.

It would solve so many problems that Creationism would be the least among them.

Of course once they prove God exists, then they will have to do some janitorial work around the concept:

1. Prove it is their god (ie Yahweh)
2. Provide a testable set of action-reaction couplets so we will know how God works, and to verify further use of the God Hypothesis.

So Inan, you don't have to prove anyones facts are false, although you should probably be somewhat concerned with understanding the facts that scientists present as facts, such that you might have reason to assume they are in error in their assumptions, but you don't have to prove that they aren't facts.

Once again, Inan, you are going up against people who do science for a living. For me, I think it, breathe it and it infuses my life with an epistemic process that shapes how I formulate my knowledge of the things around me.

As a professional scientist I am very interested in how I know the world around me. So to that end I put quite a bit of effort into understanding how I know what I know. I know my thinking is prone to fault. That's also part of being a scientist.

But further, and I can't repeat this enough, if a model for a feature of reality is presented it must contain only factors that are verifiable. You may disagree with many things in the model, assumptions, ineraction effects, sample size, etc. But that doesn't necessarily mean your model including supernatural factors is ipso facto acceptable.

Your model, if it has scientific merit, must meet scientific criteria.

This is what I find frustrating about the "God Hypothesis". The fiercest defenders of the God Hypothesis construct it such that it is either a case for special pleading (ie "God is different from everything and so doesn't need to fit any paradigm!") or it unfalsifiable.

Neither one "works" in this type of discussion. If it is the former then we may as well just drop science altogether because this special case can mess up everything we think we know thereby making anything we think we know or think we can predict or model a mere illusion (which, of course gets into theological mazes around a "deceptive God"), and if it is the latter then we aren't talking science anymore.

You know TMT, I'm not "going up against" anyone. That seems to be your department.

As to proving that there is a God. My life is proof of that and that is enough for me. Only God can prove to you that He exists. You are going to have to ask that of Him.

Another observation. It's too bad that you aren't a christian because you sure do a lot of preaching.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You know TMT, I'm not "going up against" anyone. That seems to be your department.

As to proving that there is a God. My life is proof of that and that is enough for me. Only God can prove to you that He exists. You are going to have to ask that of Him.

Another observation. It's too bad that you aren't a christian because you sure do a lot of preaching.

I'm a Christian, I know evolution is the explanation for biodiversity of life on Earth.

Care to discuss in a friendly, rational fashion?

 

[Inan3]

Sadly, you are correct. I'm not even sure why anyone is having a debate on this subject anymore. The Creationists keep coming to the table with absolutely nothing and expect to be taken seriously.

We have come with a lot. It doesn't matter what we bring to you. You choose not to believe. You will never see spiritual things without first believing . That's just the way it works. If you don't put gas in the car you can't blame the manufacturer if it doesn't run.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We have come with a lot. It doesn't matter what we bring to you. You choose not to believe. You will never see spiritual things without first believing . That's just the way it works. If you don't put gas in the car you can't blame the manufacturer if it doesn't run.

Please, if you have any scientific evidence that suggests Biblical Creationism is the correct explanation, I'm of open mind... please explain your scientific findings to me?

 

[Vene]

We have come with a lot. It doesn't matter what we bring to you. You choose not to believe. You will never see spiritual things without first believing . That's just the way it works. If you don't put gas in the car you can't blame the manufacturer if it doesn't run.

This is what is called confirmation bias.

 

[Nitron]

We have come with a lot. It doesn't matter what we bring to you. You choose not to believe. You will never see spiritual things without first believing . That's just the way it works. If you don't put gas in the car you can't blame the manufacturer if it doesn't run.

Agreed! You will never be able to understand the grace of Tintin if you do not think of him each time you eat a mango!

 

[Inan3]

I'm a Christian, I know evolution is the explanation for biodiversity of life on Earth.

Care to discuss in a friendly, rational fashion?

I'm a Christian and I know that what the Bible says regarding Creation is exactly how it happened. My mind will not be changed on that. I have had many discussions on this forum with many qualified evolutionists/scientists. I also, know God. I have trusted His Word for 36 years and seen it to be true over and over again. If you would like to discuss in a friendly, rational fashion, I'm all for it but please do not be upset when I disagree. I will have to forego that discussion till later at a more reasonable time. I will look for your input on this.

 

[Nitron]

More seriously, if you show me those scientific findings and I find no flaws I will put my current paper on hold and do everything I can to get
them in a peer-reviewed journal.

I promise.

 

[Inan3]

Agreed! You will never be able to understand the grace of Tintin if you do not think of him each time you eat a mango!

That's right and I choose not to do so just as others choose not to believe in God.

 

[Inan3]

More seriously, if you show me those scientific findings and I find no flaws I will put my current paper on hold and do everything I can to get
them in a peer-reviewed journal.

I promise.

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with the Book of Life rather than any peer-reviewed journal.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'm a Christian and I know that what the Bible says regarding Creation is exactly how it happened. My mind will not be changed on that. I have had many discussions on this forum with many qualified evolutionists/scientists. I also, know God. I have trusted His Word for 36 years and seen it to be true over and over again. If you would like to discuss in a friendly, rational fashion, I'm all for it but please do not be upset when I disagree. I will have to forego that discussion till later at a more reasonable time. I will look for your input on this.

well I look forward to your explanation of why the scientific evidence conflicts with what "really" happened, or, conversly, where the science supporting Creationist claims are.

 

[Vene]

That's right and I choose not to do so just as others choose not to believe in God.

It's been said before, but I don't care. Give me some evidence of your god first. I happen to like having my ideas challenged and am open to changing them. So please give whatever evidence you have.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with the Book of Life rather than any peer-reviewed journal.

which is fine for your belief... but not fine if you want to claim Biblical Creationism is scientifically valid

 

[Nitron]

Quite frankly, I'm more concerned with the Book of Life rather than any peer-reviewed journal.

Do you mean book of life in the Hugh Ross sense?

 

[Inan3]

Please, if you have any scientific evidence that suggests Biblical Creationism is the correct explanation, I'm of open mind... please explain your scientific findings to me?

I realize that you are looking for scientific findings but the Bible is not a scientific book. It only states that the origin of science, and all things, come from one source, God. Although this particular forum is about Creation & Evolution, it does not say that it has to be strictly scientific in nature.