Arguments against evolution?

[Freodin]

Yes, but it says "can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
A prediction is not fact.

And it also says:
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted"
Like i said before, it is widely accepted because science says so.
But science cannot repeat things which happened before man was created.
How can scientists prove that the big bang theory is fact, when they weren't around at the time? They can't repeat something which they don't know for sure actually happened.

Sorry, but that is not the way science works - and it is also not the way philosophy - yours included - works.

If you would base your conclusions on what you wrote above - then how would you know that God created the world - were you there?

It´s written in the Bible, which is written by God, you might say. Well, how do you know - were you there when it was written?

So you see, it cannot work this way. There has to be a way to find out thing without direct observation.

And scientific methodology is such way

 

[artybloke]

Yes, but it says "can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
A prediction is not fact.

No, but a prediction can be tested. If the theory of gravity, say, predicts that things will fall to the ground, and things don't fall to the ground, then there are two possible outcomes:

1) the theory is wrong. If this happens every time we test it, then the theory is disproved, or falsified.

or

2) There is some other force acting on it to prevent it from falling (eg, a jet propulsion engine.) This can also be tested for.

If, however, things do fall to the ground, then the theory of gravity is not proven, though the predicted outcome has occured. It is, however, the best possible explanation, and so it is the theory that becomes accepted until someone comes up with a better one.

Vastly oversimplified, as I'm sure the scientists here will tell me, but that's basically how it works.

Creationist "theories" have, sadly for the literalist mindset, been thoroughly trounced since the 1830's; and at the moment there is simply no alternative to evolution that explains the evidence quite so thoroughly. Its predictions have a habit of being proved right.

 

[Adam Kadamon]

to the OP:

Answer this: Have you read up at Evolution at all? We get too many people in here that have never opened a book on Evolution who are trying to 'bring it down'.

Oh. And words are allowed to have more than one meaning. Fall isn't just a time of the year, ya know.

As has been explained, the theory in science is,if you get down to the very basic, simple terms, 'how'.

If you base it all on evidence, did you know the Theory of Gravity has less evidence then the Theory of Evolution?

Creationism of falsified by creationists some 200 years ago.

 

[Jet Black]

Yes, but it says "can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
A prediction is not fact.

And it also says:
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted"
Like i said before, it is widely accepted because science says so.
But science cannot repeat things which happened before man was created.
How can scientists prove that the big bang theory is fact, when they weren't around at the time? They can't repeat something which they don't know for sure actually happened.

Mr Smith was murdered by being stabbed in the back. There is evidence of this, and hence no need to stab the unfortunate smith in the back again, on front of the courtroom to demonstrate this.

 

[Arikay]

Creationist2004: Do you accept germ theory, or cell theory? If so, why? they are only theories. based on that assumption, you should not need to take antibiotics because the idea that a germ is causing your illness is only a "theory"

I would recomend learning more about a scientific theory and about evolution in general. This forum is a pretty good place to start, there are quite a few scientists and christians that would be happy to answer your questions, as long as you are willing to ask them and then listen to the answers.

 

[revolutio]

Is the Atomic Theory still considered a theory or is it accepted as fact? I have seen the pictures of atoms, but I don't know if that is considered sufficient evidence to deem the theory factual.

 

[Tomas K]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works...

And if you want some hints on which way the winds are blowing would I suggest that you check some other threads .

 

[Jet Black]

Is the Atomic Theory still considered a theory or is it accepted as fact? I have seen the pictures of atoms, but I don't know if that is considered sufficient evidence to deem the theory factual.

oh those aren't pictures of atoms, those are pictures of the voltage change seen as what we think are electrons tunnel across the gap to what we think are atoms.

 

[Bushido216]

Yes, but it says "can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
A prediction is not fact.

And it also says:
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted"
Like i said before, it is widely accepted because science says so.
But science cannot repeat things which happened before man was created.
How can scientists prove that the big bang theory is fact, when they weren't around at the time? They can't repeat something which they don't know for sure actually happened.

We can, however, predict that those with the best chance for survival will survive, that populations will change over time according to their needs, and that evidence exists in the earth's crust which will validate previous evolution.

 

[ilwjc]

Evolution is the idea of Darwin, not to be taken seriously.

 

[toff]

Evolution is the idea of Darwin, not to be taken seriously.

Sorry, ilwjc, wrong. Evolution is the name given to a process observed repeatedly, in both field and laboratory. The Theory of Evolution is the name given to a theory (or more precisely, a group of theories) about how and why evolution occurs. This theory has been researched, studied and evidenced for over a hundred and fifty years and is more well evidenced than the theory of gravitation. It is the best explanation for how the life forms that we see around us came to be. As such, it is to be taken VERY seriously.

 

[Bushido216]

Evolution is the idea of Darwin, not to be taken seriously.

Gravity was the idea of Newton, not to be taken seriously.

 

[Creationist2004]

Aaaahhhh! Are ilwjc and i the only creationists on this forum?
If so, then this is a little unfair. Obviously things are going to be biased against creationism.

And whats all this about creationism being abandoned by Christians years ago?!! If thats what you think, then you obviously know as little about creationism as i supposedly know about evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Aaaahhhh! Are ilwjc and i the only creationists on this forum?
If so, then this is a little unfair. Obviously things are going to be biased against creationism.

There are more, but given that creationists are working with falsified science, they are at an inherent disadvantage in these forums. Rarely do creationists stick around when debating these subjects.

And whats all this about creationism being abandoned by Christians years ago?!! If thats what you think, then you obviously know as little about creationism as i supposedly know about evolution.

Creationism was largely abandoned by Christians over 100 years ago. It only seems to have retained a foothold in the U.S., specifically in the Bible Belt of the U.S.

 

[Creationist2004]

Rarely do creationists stick around when debating these subjects.

Well i don't plan on going anywhere! Whenever iam online iam coming back here. And iam staying till this debate is over.

 

[toff]

Aaaahhhh! Are ilwjc and i the only creationists on this forum?
If so, then this is a little unfair. Obviously things are going to be biased against creationism.

And whats all this about creationism being abandoned by Christians years ago?!! If thats what you think, then you obviously know as little about creationism as i supposedly know about evolution.

Creationism HAS been abandoned by the vast majority of christians, world-wide. Everywhere except the US, it is a VERY tiny percentage of christians, viewed by others as akin to flat-earthers.

 

[michabo]

Sorry Creationist2004, but there are too many scientists here. Argument-from-soundbite as Hovind like to use is very difficult when you have the leisure to examine each point in detail, and you have the breadth of knowledge that the forum participants have. There are a few creationists still posting, but they don't have any good arguments either

I think the people that stick around here are only those that are genuinely interested in learning, which (just my biased opinion of course) might also explain why creationists are in such a minority. I hope you stick around to challenge us and yourself.

 

[toff]

Rarely do creationists stick around when debating these subjects.

Well i don't plan on going anywhere! Whenever iam online iam coming back here. And iam staying till this debate is over.

The debate will never be over, until all the creationists die off - which may take quite a few years yet, sadly. Still, Galileo waited a long time for the church to finally admit he was right...evolution, too, will wait. Scientific truth has a way of hanging around...whereas religious dogmatism has a way of eventually dieing out.

 

[michabo]

The debate will never be over, until all the creationists die off

And then we'll just debate ourselves!

Who was it that said that academic disputes are so bitter because there is so little at stake?

 

[toff]

And then we'll just debate ourselves!

Who was it that said that academic disputes are so bitter because there is so little at stake?

In this one, I fear, a great deal is at stake. Such as academic freedom and the future of our children.