Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[amariselle]

Creationists do depend on faith. Case in point, the Statement of Faith of AiG, which says the following:

Of course they do, I wasn't saying they don't. I was saying scientists do as well.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The fossil record is broken and inconclusive at best. Even other scientists have admitted that, apart from any particular agenda.

The fossil record is incomplete at best.

How many pieces of a jigsaw puzzle do you need before you figure out the picture?

How many footprints do you need to see before figuring out which way someone was walking?

How many notes must you hear before you can name that tune?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We're not the ones who believe man shares a common ancestor with a daffodil.

But you do believe absurdities like that evolution entails that human beings can "evolve" into daffodils.

 

[Oafman]

The fossil record is broken and inconclusive at best. Even other scientists have admitted that, apart from any particular agenda.

Nonsense. It's neither broken nor inconclusive. It's incomplete (as in, we haven't found everything), which is unsurprising when you consider we are looking for animal remains from a 500 million year period in rocks on a constantly-changing Earth.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course they do, I wasn't saying they don't. I was saying scientists do as well.

Can you find a single reputable scientific organisation or journal that has a "statement of faith" similar to that of AiG?

 

[Jimmy D]

Where is the new genetic information that is REQUIRED for evolution to be viable?

Have you heard of mutations? As I alluded to that example is just the results of a few hundred years of selective breeding, what do you think would happen over a few hundred thousand or millions of years?

 

[amariselle]

It's not merely a matter of believing. We know that humans are apes. We can show that to be true.

You can demonstrate a scientific theory and various hypotheses. You cannot prove it as absolute, indisputable fact.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We're not the ones who believe man shares a common ancestor with a daffodil.

No, you believe man was sculpted out of mud.

If a dog can't evolve into anything else then evolution can't happen.

Why not?

Evolution not only demands increasing complexity, but it must be so common that it's the driving force of all living things.

Since when does evolution "demand" such a thing? The only one making demands is you.

If nothing CAN evolve into anything else then nothing DID evolve into anything else.

Case in point.

 

[amariselle]

Can you find a single reputable scientific organisation or journal that has a "statement of faith" similar to that of AiG?

Well, there are many scientists who are creationists as well. If I searched for something, I'm sure I could find it. Not all scientists are Atheists after all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can demonstrate a scientific theory and various hypotheses. You cannot prove it as absolute, indisputable fact.

So unless we show that something is absolutely certain, science has no value?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can demonstrate a scientific theory and various hypotheses. You cannot prove it as absolute, indisputable fact.

Which is why nobody does that (If some do, they're wrong. People are fallible, after all).

 

[KWCrazy]

But you do believe absurdities like that evolution entails that human beings can "evolve" into daffodils.

I KNOW that if evolution isn't happening that it never happened.
YOU are the one that believes we share an ancestor; that something evolved into both daffodils and human beings.
Frankly, I think the ToE is the most pathetically idiotic claim man has ever made; believed only because the only other alternative is acknowledging God and a consequence to our actions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, there are many scientists who are creationists as well.

No there are not. There are very few, and many aren't even biologists.

If I searched for something, I'm sure I could find it.

Consider it a challenge then. I challenge you to find a single reputable scientific organisation or journal that has a similar "statement of faith" to that of AiG.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, there are many scientists who are creationists as well.

People are fallible, after all.

If I searched for something, I'm sure I could find it. Not all scientists are Atheists after all.

You could "find" it, but the real question is, would you care whether or not it was actually there?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can demonstrate a scientific theory and various hypotheses. You cannot prove it as absolute, indisputable fact.

"Absolute, indisputable fact" like this?

I KNOW that if evolution isn't happening that it never happened.
YOU are the one that believes we share an ancestor; that something evolved into both daffodils and human beings.
Frankly, I think the ToE is the most pathetically idiotic claim man has ever made; believed only because the only other alternative is acknowledging God and a consequence to our actions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I KNOW that if evolution isn't happening that it never happened.
YOU are the one that believes we share an ancestor; that something evolved into both daffodils and human beings.
Frankly, I think the ToE is the most pathetically idiotic claim man has ever made; believed only because the only other alternative is acknowledging God and a consequence to our actions.

Sorry KW, you'll have to do better than that. I suggest that you start by correcting your misconceptions regarding evolution.

 

[KWCrazy]

Have you heard of mutations?

Have you ever heard of mutations advancing a species?
Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. Just ask the fruit flies that can't fly.
Benevolent mutations work great for X-Man comic books, but have never seemed to be found in the real world.

 

[amariselle]

Which is why nobody does that (If some do, they're wrong. People are fallible, after all).

Scientific theories are proclaimed as indisputable fact all the time, that is until they are disproved by the newest and latest discovery.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course they do, I wasn't saying they don't. I was saying scientists do as well.

For example?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Scientific theories are proclaimed as indisputable fact all the time, that is until they are disproved by the newest and latest discovery.

No they're not, not by scientists.