a question for creationists...

[Merlin]

This is not how science is done. This is not how evolution is evidence.

The theory of evolution makes specific predictions. Scientists go out and collect observations and then see if the predictions match the observations. In the case of the theory of evolution, the predictions match the observations.

For example, the transitional fossil Tiktaalik rosae was found using the predictions made by the theory of evolution. From the fossil record scientists were able to predict that an important transition between lobe finned fish and terrestrial tetrapods should have occurred in a specific time frame (the Devonian period). Using radiometric dating they found an exposed bed that was from the correct period. In addition, these deposits were once close to other sedimentary beds that had yielded fossils on either side of the transition under question. After 3 years of searching they found the very fossil that evolution predicted one should find, a fish with legs.

Time after time the theory of evolution produces accurate predictions. This is why the theory is accepted by more than 99% of biologists.

OK
so there is a reason for your belief.
a reason which justifies your belief in your mind.
Kewl!

 

[Loudmouth]

OK
so there is a reason for your belief.
a reason which justifies your belief in your mind.
Kewl!

Its not a belief. Its a frank acceptance of a theory that works. I will discard evolution once it makes inaccurate predictions.

 

[thaumaturgy]

First of all, Christians are not against science. In fact, many of the great scientists of history were Christians.

My father was a staunch creationist (even before he was a Christian!) and he was a very respected physics professor.

Yet he didn't teach you the actual scientific definition of "Theory"?

That's OK, I didn't listen to my dad much of the time either.

The reason we're against the theory of evolution (and it is just a theory, by the way) is that (a) it goes against scripture, (b) it goes against logic, (c) it goes against science.

"Goes against logic" and "Goes against science": phrases that sound like someone speaking who doesn't understand how science is done!

If your dad was a well-respected physics professor and you came away with this kind of science education....

 

[Pesto]

So, you choose to believe a past event occurred based on a possibility that it could occur.
ok

Do you believe the sun rose the day before you were born?

 

[gamespotter10]

First of all, Christians are not against science. In fact, many of the great scientists of history were Christians.

My father was a staunch creationist (even before he was a Christian!) and he was a very respected physics professor.

The reason we're against the theory of evolution (and it is just a theory, by the way) is that (a) it goes against scripture, (b) it goes against logic, (c) it goes against science.

The others do not.

truth by logic is not science.

contrary to what people might believe, science is based ONLY on evidence gathered, NOT intuition or common sense

 

[Merlin]

Do you believe the sun rose the day before you were born?

I believe it.
I do not claim it as a fact, only my belief.

 

[Vene]

Can you explain fossils then? Can you explain why all organisms use the same nucleotides? Can you explain why all organisms are made out of cells? Can you explain why land vertebrates have 4 limbs? (or in the case of snakes a skeletal system with vestigial bones). How about vestigial structures at all? Can you explain radiometric dating? (And before you say it's false, why do you trust nuclear medicine and why do nuclear weapons work? It's based on the same principles).

What do we see that points to a creator that a natural cause doesn't explain just as well?

Quoted because it was ignored by Merlin.

 

[Naraoia]

contrary to what people might believe, science is based ONLY on evidence gathered, NOT intuition or common sense

That's not true. What evidence lead to the theories of relativity?

Eh, and a scientist without common sense is a scary thing in my mind. One without some capability of intuition is a boring one. But maybe I don't know science well enough.

 

[gamespotter10]

That's not true. What evidence lead to the theories of relativity?

Eh, and a scientist without common sense is a scary thing in my mind. One without some capability of intuition is a boring one. But maybe I don't know science well enough.

quantum mechanics seemingly contradicts all of common sense

 

[Vene]

That's not true. What evidence lead to the theories of relativity?

Eh, and a scientist without common sense is a scary thing in my mind. One without some capability of intuition is a boring one. But maybe I don't know science well enough.

I've been told numerous times I lack common sense. But I can work logic just fine.

 

[gamespotter10]

That's not true. What evidence lead to the theories of relativity?

Eh, and a scientist without common sense is a scary thing in my mind. One without some capability of intuition is a boring one. But maybe I don't know science well enough.

also, the theory of relativity is supported by 2 things, at least that I know of
1: The speed of light is constant
2: a phenomena known as gravitational lensing, which as been observed where stars which were behind the moon appeard in front of the moon due to the bending of light by gravity. this is what catapulted the theory of relativity into wide acceptance by the scientific community

 

[Allegory]

I used to say it a lot on this forum, simply because I used to play warcraft a whole lot.

Isn't world of warcraft kind of heretical with the whole mages and warlocks thing?

 

[RichardT]

Isn't world of warcraft kind of heretical with the whole mages and warlocks thing?

I used to play warcraft III TFT a lot and I was in fact ranked top 400 on solo ladder. I sort of stopped playing a little after I got saved, I thought that there were more important things that I should be doing.

 

[Naraoia]

also, the theory of relativity is supported by 2 things, at least that I know of
1: The speed of light is constant

That's probably right...

2: a phenomena known as gravitational lensing, which as been observed where stars which were behind the moon appeard in front of the moon due to the bending of light by gravity. this is what catapulted the theory of relativity into wide acceptance by the scientific community

That might have been what catapulted it, but did Einstein actually base relativity on lensing (or any other observation, actually)?

Hmm... probably got me there...

I still can't believe that all science is based on evidence and evidence alone, but I'll give you this until I find a really good example

 

[Naraoia]

I used to play warcraft III TFT a lot and I was in fact ranked top 400 on solo ladder. I sort of stopped playing a little after I got saved, I thought that there were more important things that I should be doing.

How can anything make you stop playing WC III?

Yes, I'm an absolute fan. Though I rarely defeat even an Easy computer in a custom game :o More of a campaigner I am.

 

[gamespotter10]

That's probably right...
That might have been what catapulted it, but did Einstein actually base relativity on lensing (or any other observation, actually)?

Hmm... probably got me there...

I still can't believe that all science is based on evidence and evidence alone, but I'll give you this until I find a really good example

he based it on a constant speed of light.

 

[RichardT]

How can anything make you stop playing WC III?

Yes, I'm an absolute fan. Though I rarely defeat even an Easy computer in a custom game :o More of a campaigner I am.

Lol... Do you have msn?

 

[Naraoia]

Lol... Do you have msn?

I do, though nowadays I usually forget to go online

 

[Nitron]

Einstein actually said the theory came by intuition (based on music. dunno how that works)

 

[Nitron]

I HEREBY CHALLENGE YOU

But I can't find my CD's...

lulz.