How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

If they understand and or accept well evidenced science it won't. If a certain personal faith belief takes priority over well evidenced science, than it may be quite comfy cozy.

Show me a single 'comprehensive' study of evolution that isn't riddled with assumptions and caveats, only proven facts.

 

[bhsmte]

Show me a single 'comprehensive' study of evolution that isn't riddled with assumptions and caveats, only proven facts.

LOL.

This board has been loaded with demonstrating the evidence for evolution, constantly. Lastly, I don't play pigeon chess with biblical creationists. I do like being entertained by them though.

 

[USincognito]

How very convenient, Facts that change. Thats exactly my point, evolution science is not proven. Therefore it should only be taught as theory, and not paraded as fact.

As I noted it tends to confuse folks who aren't familiar with the specifics, but nothing is ever proven in science and there is no such thing as scientific proof. Please read this article.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

As others have pointed out, you also seem unaware of the meaning of "fact" and "theory" in a scientific context. Again, evolution is a fact supported by a massive amount of evidence. The theory of evolution explains the facts of the diversity of life we see now, in the fossil record and why genetic analysis shows all living things are related by common ancestry.

Sorry but alot of your rebuttals have no actual back up and are just more provisional facts.

Oh, what a shame. I was hoping you were a sincere actor interested in a sincere discussion rather than a typical dishonest Creationist who will hand wave away the evidence I have presented because you're not prepared to deal with a science advocate who knows what he's talking about. I've seen this shtick/tactic a thousand times before.

For the record/lurkers:
- I asked for you to provide me with an example of something specific from the fossil record, genetics, homology, vestiges or biogeography being a problem for evolution. You did not.
- I explained to you the difference between body fossils and trace fossils and further explained how both contradicted the Flood.
- I explained, with specific examples, how early geologists were looking for evidence of the Flood and falsified it, while modern Creationists engage in dishonest tactics to try and support it.
- I provided you with two websites listing hundreds of transitional fossils.
- I provided you with four specific examples of beneficial mutations.

Your "no actual back up and are just more provisional facts" riposte is simply dishonesty.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Show me a single 'comprehensive' study of evolution that isn't riddled with assumptions and caveats, only proven facts.

None of those exist. Science doesn't deal with 'proven facts'. Also, pick up a biology textbook, all of them have a segment on evidences of evolution which picks every creationist's argument apart.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol, no, the bacteria predated eukaryotic organisms by over a billion years. And it is very obvious that bacteria which gain energy from sunlight, heat, chemicals in the environment, etc., would predate anything that consumed other living organisms, because those things arose in environments that provided energy in a form that was able to produce their ancestral protocells. That is, environments that produce life also are suitable for it to persist in... the life at the time, not necessarily many modern organisms.

-_- also, this fits fossil record observations.

Regardless, autotrophs predate heterotrophs by vast periods of time. They didn't "evolve just in time for dinner".

That's quite a story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.

Now hold on there. There is no 'evidence' for evolution, only supposition. Old bones don't reveal much evidence of the evolution of soft tissue, which is absolutely necessary to study evolution. The missing link in the study of evolution is the soft tissue of these fossils.

It is said the modern medicine depends on the ToE. In other words without this knowledge doctors would not be able to treat disease. That would be like believing that I need to know where the fox that is eating my chickens came from in order to shoot it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

None of those exist. Science doesn't deal with 'proven facts'. Also, pick up a biology textbook, all of them have a segment on evidences of evolution which picks every creationist's argument apart.

The only evidence is the theory itself. It is as devoid of "flesh" as those old bones.
Every single piece of evolutionary evidence is connect by suppositions. It's a chain under construction, with missing links.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL.

This board has been loaded with demonstrating the evidence for evolution, constantly. Lastly, I don't play pigeon chess with biblical creationists. I do like being entertained by them though.

Isn't that why we're all here, to be entertained or to entertain?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I take back that question (although the basis of evolutionary study must be ancient soft tissue. And because there is no ancient soft tissue evolutionary study has no basis).

Why does the basis of evolutionary study HAVE TO BE ancient soft tissue?

What is a "good chance" (percentage) that you will develop glaucoma? Do you have the 'glaucoma gene'? I have cataracts, and my doctors says that "everyone has cataracts but not everyone will suffer loss of vision because of it. So far I haven't even though many in my family have and needed the surgery. I have a very different lifestyle than they which might account for this, which of course means that I might not be affected by this 'genetic' weakness.

I personally don't know since I've not had any medical tests done yet, in any sense.

 

[VirOptimus]

Now hold on there. There is no 'evidence' for evolution, only supposition. Old bones don't reveal much evidence of the evolution of soft tissue, which is absolutely necessary to study evolution. The missing link in the study of evolution is the soft tissue of these fossils.

It is said the modern medicine depends on the ToE. In other words without this knowledge doctors would not be able to treat disease. That would be like believing that I need to know where the fox that is eating my chickens came from in order to shoot it.

... are you trolling again?

 

[bhsmte]

Isn't that why we're all here, to be entertained or to entertain?

I can only speak for myself in that regard.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why does the basis of evolutionary study HAVE TO BE ancient soft tissue?

That's where the evidence would be found. Anything else is supposition. Ancient fossils with eye sockets with a hole for an optic nerve indicate that those eyes were pretty much like modern eyes. No evolution needed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's where the evidence would be found. Anything else is supposition. Ancient fossils with eye sockets with a hole for an optic nerve indicate that those eyes were pretty much like modern eyes. No evolution needed.

It's comments like these that really demonstrate that you don't know the bare minimum about how science is done.

 

[Astrophile]

Wrong. The so called facts being backed up by those theories are not facts, but mathematics that can be wrong. Even germ theories and facts are found to be wrong.
Evolution is taught as fact in schools, and they don't say "we think" the world or artifacts etc are so many millions of years old, they say "we know".

You are, as the saying goes, comparing apples with oranges. There is no scientific theory of biology that provides as good an explanation of the facts of life as the theory of evolution; therefore, until somebody comes up with a better one, it is the only theory that should be taught in schools. It's similar to Newton's theories of dynamics and gravitation; they were wrong, and they were eventually superseded by Einstein's theories, but they were better than the idea that the planets were pushed round their orbits by angels.

However, scientific theories of astronomy, geology and biology can't prove that God didn't create the universe in six days, with light already in transit from galaxies and quasars millions and billions of light-years away, rocks already containing fossils and with radiometric ages of millions and billions of years, and living things with genetic and anatomical evidence of a long history of evolution. All that the scientific evidence can show is that that is the universe looks as if it is 13.8 billion years old, the solar system looks as if it is 4.57 billion years old, and living things look as if they have evolved over several billion years.

I used to be an atheist, but when God showed up it was all over. You're welcome to your sad delusion, but I know God is real and I never will go back.

Very well. I used to be a Christian, but when I started studying the Bible in detail, and reading Josephus's Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, I realised that the Bible is not historically accurate and that it is like the literature of other nations, a collection of books written over a long period of time by a great number of people with very different views of theology and morality. No doubt your experience was different from mine. Still, it would be interesting to know what you thought about the Bible and Christianity when you were an atheist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's comments like these that really demonstrate that you don't know the bare minimum about how science is done.

Few of us do. Perhaps that's a weakness in our education system. Teachers would rather groom their brightest students than aid the stragglers. I guess they apply evolution (survival of the fittest) to their students.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Science never saved anyone anywhere.

Just believe and trust the heavenly FATHER YHVH SOVEREIGN CREATOR.

Then there is no question any more.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Few of us do. Perhaps that's a weakness in our education system. Teachers would rather groom their brightest students than aid the stragglers. I guess they apply evolution (survival of the fittest) to their students.

And the ignorant comments just keeps on pouring out...

 

[Speedwell]

Very well. I used to be a Christian, but when I started studying the Bible in detail, and reading Josephus's Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, I realised that the Bible is not historically accurate and that it is like the literature of other nations, a collection of books written over a long period of time by a great number of people with very different views of theology and morality. No doubt your experience was different from mine. Still, it would be interesting to know what you thought about the Bible and Christianity when you were an atheist.

I agree with you entirely and I am still a Christian.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

However, scientific theories of astronomy, geology and biology can't prove that God didn't create the universe in six days, with light already in transit from galaxies and quasars millions and billions of light-years away, rocks already containing fossils and with radiometric ages of millions and billions of years, and living things with genetic and anatomical evidence of a long history of evolution. All that the scientific evidence can show is that that is the universe looks as if it is 13.8 billion years old, the solar system looks as if it is 4.57 billion years old, and living things look as if they have evolved over several billion years.

I think scientists have too much time on their hands.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And the ignorant comments just keeps on pouring out...

I was there...saw it with my own eyes.