Aron-Ra v. BoranJarami

[Aron-Ra]

The aging process, response to environemnt, etc.

I should have known this. Although I'm surprised that somatic mutations don't contribute to this at all. Oh well.

In addition, the time at which the zygote cleaves to produce monozygotic twins will affect the "identical-ness" of identical twins. The earlier this happens, the less "identical" they will be.

I didn't know that. Thank you.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I merely thought you should for your sack clarify what you saidf since it was challenged by a fellow evo. I do so, so as you, can learn, it makes no matter whether i muddle along or not its for my benifit is it not. SO you are a lot more learned of science then me. you arrogance is rather large. you seem to think you know EVERYTHING on planet earth.

What seems to you doesn't seem the same way to me. I don't know everything. But I know a whole lot more about this particular subject than you ever will.

For one when was the last time i brought the bible into it in saying it says this so it has to be true no matter what. i learned long ago this doesnt prove anything. I may at times bring up certain things in scripture but not as proof. And you do not assert the "theory" as fact.

A theory includes facts. A theory also explains those facts.

And you can find those head bobbing, nouth-breathing ect ect anywhere and in any subject so get off your high horse. That type of yap just doesnt work or prove anything.

Peer review isn't just limited to journal publications. Its going on right here on this board. What you just saw when SLP corrected me? That's peer review. He doesn't strike me as a mouth-breathing wanna-believer.

evolution is very evident, maybe you mean proof of the THEORY. seeig hoe you will not distingues from the two.

Evidence is a fact or circumstance, or collection thereof, which are supported by, or indicative of, only one explanative option. Proof is only applicable in mathematics, alcohol, and as a matter of law. A theory is as I said it was; a body of knowledge including (1) facts and other evidence, (2) hypotheses, both yet to be tested, and tried-and-true, and (3) natural laws. A theory is a topic of study. That's one reason why it can never be proven.

I no what a theory is. take the theory of gravity, its a theory because there is no PHYSICAL evidence to make it a fact.

SO it cant be tested and in science if it cant be tested it cant be said to be a fact. even though it is rather obviuose it is a fact because what goes up comes down.

See? That's the fact. Or rather, that is the law. A law is a general statement which is verifiably always true given appropriate circumstances. Actually, the law is "matter attracts matter", and this is, -as you just admitted- physical evidence that is very easily testable in scientific experiments.

the theory on the other havnd supposedly as physical evidence out the yen yan yet its still a theory.

And what do you think is holds any higher level of confidence than theory? Hmm?

maybe because most all of it is about evolution which doesnt prove the thoery happened. as for your odds like i said thats sure good prove of it. same odds that God created it all i would guess SO why is it not as pluasible. as above evolution is shown all the time to make the theory seem true when it doesnt prove or show it at all.

But evolution is happening right now in present tense, and this is just as easily proven as the existence of atoms in atomic theory or the attraction of matter in the theory of gravity.

biology science doesnt prove the theory which is why you use geology to fix the problem.

What "problem" are you talking about?

i cant answer them with science knowledge as in terms and what not only with what i have read and been given proof of the theory. As before you have not yet shown clear evidence for the thoery and the ones you have given are weak. strong families two toed families how do these show or prove anything. i suppose your get to that so i will read on.

How long have you been participating on this board again? Too long to still be this ignorant! I know I myself have explained all of this to you before, more than once in fact, so what is your excuse now?

 

[michabo]

Peer review isn't just limited to journal publications. Its going on right here on this board. What you just saw when SLP corrected me? That's peer review. He doesn't strike me as a mouth-breathing wanna-believer.

Not sure who is reading this, but for those that missed it, something really wonderful happened. Aron-Ra was wrong (which isn't wonderful) and he admitted it (pretty cool but not wonderful) gratefully (which is wonderful).

It sucks to be wrong especially in public, but the honest and classy thing to do is to admit it, change your view, and move on.

In an ideal world, this would be matter of course, but we aren't in that ideal world. So many people here will keep repeating the same mistakes over and over even after they have been corrected, sometimes even after tacitly admitting they were wrong. When they are wrong, some people deny they made the error in the first place (a silly thing to do in a forum).

For all of the times that we've been accused of denying evidence, of sticking stubbornly to a viewpoint even if evidence proved that we were wrong, of not having the ability to recognize the truth, I'd love to point to posts like this.

Anyway.

Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Not sure who is reading this, but for those that missed it, something really wonderful happened. Aron-Ra was wrong

My teen-aged daughter thought this was the best single sentence she ever read on this board.

 

[RichardT]

.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is priceless, you turn a forum for formal debates into a free for all. That makes as much as sense as a random mutation being a mechanism for the adaptation of the human brain. I'll give you guys one thing, you are consistant if nothing else.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is priceless, you turn a forum for formal debates into a free for all. That makes as much as sense as a random mutation being a mechanism for the adaptation of the human brain. I'll give you guys one thing, you are consistant if nothing else.

This thread was intended to be an open discussion. It wasn't my idea to move it to this forum.

 

[Tomk80]

Indeed, it started out in the general forum. I was wondering where it went when first checking for it again.

 

[Schroeder]

What seems to you doesn't seem the same way to me. I don't know everything. But I know a whole lot more about this particular subject than you ever will.

i know this.

A theory includes facts. A theory also explains those facts.

nice way to state it. doesnt make it a fact BUT you insist it is. and that there is no other explination.

Peer review isn't just limited to journal publications. Its going on right here on this board. What you just saw when SLP corrected me? That's peer review. He doesn't strike me as a mouth-breathing wanna-believer.

good thing. wish it went both ways. funny how your error is just a mistake or miswording ours is a lie and stupidity no matter when it happens. I saw you got a further explination by another to still be able to call us liers and stupid. And your ending goute prove this. A christiian is stupid and doesnt want to learn and will always be this way Others are just learning and made a mistake. See this all the time. but it is ecspected. Even still comes from you even though i believe i recall a thread from you to keep from doing this type of bashing. Just cant help throwing in your little insulting one liners.

Evidence is a fact or circumstance, or collection thereof, which are supported by, or indicative of, only one explanative option. Proof is only applicable in mathematics, alcohol, and as a matter of law. A theory is as I said it was; a body of knowledge including (1) facts and other evidence, (2) hypotheses, both yet to be tested, and tried-and-true, and (3) natural laws. A theory is a topic of study. That's one reason why it can never be proven.

SO you admit the theory is not provable which means it probly cant be disproven since it is just a topic of study. I think it has been tested in some way or another and still just a topic of study.

See? That's the fact. Or rather, that is the law. A law is a general statement which is verifiably always true given appropriate circumstances. Actually, the law is "matter attracts matter", and this is, -as you just admitted- physical evidence that is very easily testable in scientific experiments.

HOW is the theory of evolution NOT verifiably always true given the appropriate circumstances.

And what do you think is holds any higher level of confidence than theory? Hmm?
But evolution is happening right now in present tense, and this is just as easily proven as the existence of atoms in atomic theory or the attraction of matter in the theory of gravity.

no kidding. still doesnt make the theory correct or law or fact. life would not exsist if this was not true NO MATTER how it came to be. Which is why i keep saying evolution is not strong evidence for the theory. Even though it is the main evidence for it.

What "problem" are you talking about?
How long have you been participating on this board again? Too long to still be this ignorant! I know I myself have explained all of this to you before, more than once in fact, so what is your excuse now?

well i am just a stupid unlearnable Christian right. i have no hope. and no excuse. It is just who i am. Or maybe some things are hard for some of us to get or understand no matter what faith we believe in. We all are not on the level of evovled form as you. you are just above us. More evolved. Just thought i would be a little sarcastic.

 

[Aron-Ra]

A theory includes facts. A theory also explains those facts.

nice way to state it. doesnt make it a fact BUT you insist it is. and that there is no other explination.

Well, to be quite blunt, that's true. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity. There's never been any alternative theory to choose from. And evolution is an inescapable fact of population genetics too; one which can be directly observed and verified many different ways.

Peer review isn't just limited to journal publications. Its going on right here on this board. What you just saw when SLP corrected me? That's peer review. He doesn't strike me as a mouth-breathing wanna-believer.

good thing. wish it went both ways. funny how your error is just a mistake or miswording ours is a lie and stupidity no matter when it happens.

I've seen many demonstrations of deliberate dishonesty from creationists arguing against evolution. But I've never seen that scenario reversed. And I'm talking about situations where we can prove the claimant knew that his or her claim was false before they made it. I've even seen several occasions where creationists even admitted to lying, or at least stated that they found it permissable to lie as long as they were lying for Jesus.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church [...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
--Rev. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity

No one ever said such a thing in defense of evolution.

I saw you got a further explination by another to still be able to call us liers and stupid. And your ending goute prove this.

What is an ending goute?

A christiian is stupid and doesnt want to learn and will always be this way Others are just learning and made a mistake.

By 'Christian', I assume you mean 'creationist'. If so, then you're right. That is often the case, because creationism depends on a series of foundational falsehoods.

See this all the time. but it is ecspected. Even still comes from you even though i believe i recall a thread from you to keep from doing this type of bashing.

Many times now I have challenged others to present even one credible proponant of evangelical creationism because I maintain that there has never been a single tenable advocate of creation science anywhere ever. Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as in the form and function of science itself, and even theology too! Or they have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute. If you can think of one exception to this rule, name him, and give me a relevant citation from him to prove it.

Just cant help throwing in your little insulting one liners.

If you don't like it, then answer the challenge above along with this one: I would be willing to bet that there has never been a single completely honest argument for Biblical creationism as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective; not one which also contests the scientific evidence on specific points. The creationist movement has never produced any such document with any substance which did not also include known falsehoods of some sort. If you know of even one exception, post the link, and I will write you a 100 word apology if it checks out.

Evidence is a fact or circumstance, or collection thereof, which are supported by, or indicative of, only one explanative option. Proof is only applicable in mathematics, alcohol, and as a matter of law. A theory is as I said it was; a body of knowledge including (1) facts and other evidence, (2) hypotheses, both yet to be tested, and tried-and-true, and (3) natural laws. A theory is a topic of study. That's one reason why it can never be proven.

SO you admit the theory is not provable which means it probly cant be disproven since it is just a topic of study. I think it has been tested in some way or another and still just a topic of study.

No theory can ever be proven in the positive sense. That's why gravity is still "just" a theory, and atomic theory has never been proven even in Hiroshima. No matter how true these things obviously are, a theory is all they can be. But a theory can be disproven. Take for example the theory of ether, Lamarkian evolutionary theory, or the theory of phlogiston. Its never possible to prove any theory right, but it is possible to prove them wrong.

HOW is the theory of evolution NOT verifiably always true given the appropriate circumstances.

Could you rephrase that question so that it makes sense?

what do you think is holds any higher level of confidence than theory? Hmm?

.................[___________]

Try this. Actually answer every direct question put to you as best you can, just like I do. That alone would inspire people to perceive you as honest. To answer that question, a theory is as close to proven as anything in science ever can be.

But evolution is happening right now in present tense, and this is just as easily proven as the existence of atoms in atomic theory or the attraction of matter in the theory of gravity.

no kidding. still doesnt make the theory correct or law or fact.

That life evolves is a fact. That genetic variation occurs in seperated sub-populations over many successive generations is a law.

life would not exsist if this was not true NO MATTER how it came to be. Which is why i keep saying evolution is not strong evidence for the theory. Even though it is the main evidence for it.

None of this comment made any sense. Could you rephrase it so that I can figure out what you're trying to say?

How long have you been participating on this board again? Too long to still be this ignorant! I know I myself have explained all of this to you before, more than once in fact, so what is your excuse now?

well i am just a stupid unlearnable Christian right. i have no hope. and no excuse. It is just who i am. Or maybe some things are hard for some of us to get or understand no matter what faith we believe in. We all are not on the level of evovled form as you. you are just above us. More evolved. Just thought i would be a little sarcastic.

Seriously dude, I have explained to you what a theory is several times already, and you still act like it means 'guess'. Maybe if you have trouble understanding something, you should ask for clarification instead of retaliating with sarchasm. Because you only make yourself, and creationism, look worse when you do that.

 

[RichardT]

Hey Aron-Ra, I was wondering if you can try to find errors in the creationwiki so that I can fix them.

By the way, what does your daughter think of me... lol...(ex : fundy idiot, maniac, nice guy?)

 

[Aron-Ra]

Hey Aron-Ra, I was wondering if you can try to find errors in the creationwiki so that I can fix them.

At a glance, I see several.

Evolutionism is the belief in the theory that life on Earth is simply the result of random, natural processes, and ultimately attempts to explain the existence of humans by means other than divine creation. The theory of evolution (or general theory of evolution) is a philosophical perspective that stems from an atheistic worldview.

First of all, its not evolutionism. That's a creationist ploy to try and level the playing field either by referring to thier own perspective as creation "science" or by trying to minimize the science of evolution to a religious or philosophical perspective, an 'ism'. This article does both.

Evolution is not a belief in the theory either. That's redundant. Its just the theory. And being a scientific theory, belief in it is not required.

Also all science is bound to methodological naturalism. So every avenue of science seeks to explain whatever the topic is without blaming anything on magic. However, your comment that evolution "attempts to explain the existence of humans by means other than divine creation" is still deceptive. This is one of the foundational falsehoods of creationism, the idea that there is a dichotomy between Christianity and science. It is false because many of the most influential evolutionists in the history of that field have been Christians. That's always been the case since its inception, and that's still the case now. Dr. Robert T. Bakker, for example, is one of the world's leading paleontologists, and an outspoken proponant of evolution. He also happens to be a Bible-believing Pentacostal preacher.

Globally, Biblical creationists are such a minority they are considered an oddity, and an almost uniquely American phenomenon. In every other 1st world predominantly-Christian country, most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christian. That's a verifiably accurate statistic and one your article should relate. The problem is that even when creationists know all this, they still won't change their stance. That's what makes it a deliberate falsehood.

In contrast, creationism is the belief that the universe and life on Earth were created through a supernatural act of God.

This belief is also shared by the majority of the world's evolutionists too. So that's not the contrast. The contrast is that creationists reject science in favor of another foundational falsehood; that being that the Bible was written by God rather than the fallible human scribes whom we all know are the real authors.

The creation is described by cultures all over the world where one central theme is found to emerge - order from chaos.[1]

I've read a wealth of creation myths. They're all very different, most of them are completely different from each other, and mutually exclusive, and the "central theme" you're talking about is evident in none of them.

The most well known description of the creation is told in the Bible.

Because the inventor of the printing press happened to be Christian.

Creationists agree that organisms evolve through time,

No they don't. There are posters in this very forum who deny even microevolution! And I've talked to several who insist that dinosaurs never existed either!

and in fact, would take few exceptions to the basic mechanisms of biological evolution as put forth by Charles Darwin.

Like?

Creationists would also agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species.

Again, I've debated creationists in this very forum who accept microevolution but still reject speciation.

In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark.

And others believe that all the species that every existed were created before the flood, and that the ark just managed to hold them all because of God's will. One creationist told me God made the animals small enough to fit. Another told me God had Noah store their embros only.

However, creationists find themselves at odds with evolutionists in regards to several hallmarks of the general theory of evolution. Most notably, these include:
Origin of life through abiogenetic mechanisms.

Which is ridiculous. Abiogenesis means that life arose where there was no life before. Creationists believe this happened too. They just don't attempt a scientific explanation for it. Theistic evolutionists believe their god created, and then life evolved. That's another foundational falsehood of creationism; that evolution must depend on abiogenesis. Even when they admit that they know this isn't true, they still perpetuate this falsehood. One of the leaders in the Discovery Institute, (I don't remember which one) actually said that, as part of the "wedge" strategy, they wanted to "generate the idea" [lie] that one could not be a "true" Christian and accept evolution at the same time.

Mutations as a credible source of population diversity.
Common descent of all life on Earth.

These two lines are the only ones in your entire article which are true of every creationist I know of.

The Big Bang as a driving force for cosmic evolution.

There's another foundational falsehood; that biological evolution is, in any way, related to the origin of the universe.

Creationists generally feel that these aspects of the general theory of evolution are simply unsupported by the scientific method, and largely the result of atheistic philosophy.

It is true that they claim to believe this. It is also true that they continue to claim this even when they know it is not true.

As such, the belief that evolution alone is responsible for all organisms on earth is better classified as evolutionism.

Only if you want to misrepresent science with another falsehood. But be fair; should belief in the theory of gravity be called gravitism? Should belief in atomic theory be called atomism? Are either one philosophies? Does either one "stem from an atheist world-view simply because neither one cites any gods?

Both evolution and creation science suffer from misconceptions about the structure of their theories as well as questions regarding how much their various parts can be called scientific or theories.

I have no idea what misconceptions you think evolution has, but it is the only theory of biodiversity there is, or ever was. Creationism doesn't meet any of the criteria required to qualify as a theory.

Stephen Jay Gould described the secular side of this in the article Evolution as Fact and Theory,. Each concept's superstructure has (1) a collection of 'a priori' postulates, (2) a collection of theories that support or are derived from those postulates as well as observational evidence, and (3) a collection of predictions derived by those theories.

I would have to see that article in context, because there is no such thing as a 'priori' -anything- in science.

"We humans long to be connected with our origins so we create rituals. Science is another way to experience this longing. It also connects us with our origins, and it too has its rituals and its commandments. Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. Science is not perfect. It is often misused. It is only a tool, but it is the best tool we have -- self-correcting, ever changing, applicable to absolutely everything."
--Carl Sagan; COSMOS

Try this instead:

Evolution is a scientific theory that all life on Earth is biologically-related via natural demonstrable processes and mechanisms. In contrast, creationism is a rejection of science in favor of the belief that biodiversity is the result of a string of supernatural acts by their gods as detailed in their various scriptures. Creation is described differently by cultures all over the world where one central theme is found to emerge - it all happened by magick. The most well known description of the creation is told in the Bible, but there are many others with mutually exclusive accounts attributed to different gods or different versions of God.​

Creationists agree on nothing except a double-standard that any and all scientific evidence must be automatically dismissed as questionable no matter how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem - if there is any chance that it conflicts with their sacred fables. But their own mythos must be held a-priori, never to be critically examined no matter how absurd they appear, nor how profoundly they conflict with everything revealed by science.​

I submit this as a parody to give you an idea of how much propaganda you've put in your own article. Mine has that too, but mine is accurate. The real difference in perspectives isn't creationism v. evolution; and it damned sure ain't creation "science" vs. the philosophy of evolution'ism'. That's just a flat out lie. What it really boils down to is dogmatic [blind] faith vs. rationalism.

By the way, what does your daughter think of me... lol...(ex : fundy idiot, maniac, nice guy?)

She doesn't read these forums unless I specifically invite her to show her something. So she doesn't have any opinion of you. I can tell you though that my opinion of you was much higher yesterday than it is after reading your article today.

 

[Schroeder]

Well, to be quite blunt, that's true. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity. There's never been any alternative theory to choose from. And evolution is an inescapable fact of population genetics too; one which can be directly observed and verified many different ways.

Fine i will agree that creationism is not truelly a theory. because it involves faith in something not seen. But this does not make it wrong. IF there is a God then it is very reasonable to be true. I have evidance in my life that there is a GOD. You wouldnt except any of it so there is no point in discussing them. I try not to say i am a creationist because of this. I am, but as you rightly say, (i may be wrongly suggesting it in what i write) it can not have complete scienctific support as your thoery does. To me evolution IS what biodiversity is, no theory needed. The Theory is the idea or Topic of how life began without God. The theory uses the FACT of biodiversity through evolution.

I've seen many demonstrations of deliberate dishonesty from creationists arguing against evolution. But I've never seen that scenario reversed. And I'm talking about situations where we can prove the claimant knew that his or her claim was false before they made it. I've even seen several occasions where creationists even admitted to lying, or at least stated that they found it permissable to lie as long as they were lying for Jesus

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church [...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
--Rev. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity

No one ever said such a thing in defense of evolution.

there is no wimming on your part to use odd quotes from extreme people to make a group look dishonest. I could do the same For any group on earth. So no need to continue it. I may work for those who already dislike them put not for people who are honest. I have read people who are evolutionist and atheist say they believe the theory BECAUSE they cannot except the other alternative. Dont ask me to find there qoute because i do not keep a record book of such things.

What is an ending goute?

never mind it was off topic anyways.

By 'Christian', I assume you mean 'creationist'. If so, then you're right. That is often the case, because creationism depends on a series of foundational falsehoods.

what is the difference between foundational falsehoods and assumtions. The theory does use assumtions. They have and continue to use ideas that have been shown wrong. There are groups that are evolutionist that do lie by being diseptive in there wording or in there writing or. It seems to me that if you say your a christian and dont believe in the theory your automatically a creationist or LIAR as you would say.

Many times now I have challenged others to present even one credible proponant of evangelical creationism because I maintain that there has never been a single tenable advocate of creation science anywhere ever. Every last one of them who has ever published antievolutionary rhetoric has revealed inexcuseable ignorance of the very topics where they claim expertise, as well as in the form and function of science itself, and even theology too! Or they have distorted data, relied on logical fallacies, emotional pleas, parody, and sensationalist propaganda, or purposefully misrepresented the arguments they pretend to refute. If you can think of one exception to this rule, name him, and give me a relevant citation from him to prove it.
If you don't like it, then answer the challenge above along with this one: I would be willing to bet that there has never been a single completely honest argument for Biblical creationism as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective; not one which also contests the scientific evidence on specific points. The creationist movement has never produced any such document with any substance which did not also include known falsehoods of some sort. If you know of even one exception, post the link, and I will write you a 100 word apology if it checks out.

See your dishonest here in how you word it. you could not have read every creationist viewpoint and It is based on the assumption your absolutly right. As you said a theory is something that can not be proven FACT. SO you could be wrong.

No theory can ever be proven in the positive sense. That's why gravity is still "just" a theory, and atomic theory has never been proven even in Hiroshima. No matter how true these things obviously are, a theory is all they can be. But a theory can be disproven. Take for example the theory of ether, Lamarkian evolutionary theory, or the theory of phlogiston. Its never possible to prove any theory right, but it is possible to prove them wrong.

Fine i will say a theory can be proven wrong. Why has the theory of evolution NOT been proven fact.

Could you rephrase that question so that it makes sense?

not really.

Try this. Actually answer every direct question put to you as best you can, just like I do. That alone would inspire people to perceive you as honest. To answer that question, a theory is as close to proven as anything in science ever can be.

again Why is the theory of gravity still a theory. what is the actual diffinition of a theory. TO me the idea of everything from nothing is and or has been falsified. If it is true we cannot make life from nonlife then the theory as a problem which is why abiogenesis is not part of it. TO me we should have enough evidence, because we keep presenting anough of it, to say that it is fact that life evolved from a common ansector into all that we see. MAYBE it is me not getting "theory" correct. Tell me why the thoery off gravity is a thoery and will not be anything but that and maybe i will get it.

That life evolves is a fact. That genetic variation occurs in seperated sub-populations over many successive generations is a law.

SO whats your point. This doesnt prove that we came from a common ancestor or that we came from apes.

None of this comment made any sense. Could you rephrase it so that I can figure out what you're trying to say?

Most everything you speak about dealing with evolution is true its a fact of life and why life does still exsist. I just have not seen evidence that makes this fact make the theory of evolution a fact. which is why i said what i said. TONS of facts are used to make the theory seem fact when it is clear they don't. Which is why it is still a theory. How about this what is the one thing that will make the theory a fact without a doubt.

Seriously dude, I have explained to you what a theory is several times already, and you still act like it means 'guess'. Maybe if you have trouble understanding something, you should ask for clarification instead of retaliating with sarchasm. Because you only make yourself, and creationism, look worse when you do that.

as above i already asked to make it clear for me one more time. maybe i am not getting the "theory" diffinition right. i know it is not a guess. maybe i am righting in a way that makes it seem this way. Without a book diffinition i would say a Theory is something that is shown true but can not be tested to be true. Like gravity. we can throw a apple up in the air and it will come down. Why how. because. There is no real way to test this. we may no what causes it, you know what maybe you can ex[plain it better. i am loosing myself. Maybe your right i may not know exactly what it means, Or i do but cant really explain it right.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Fine i will agree that creationism is not truelly a theory. because it involves faith in something not seen. But this does not make it wrong. IF there is a God then it is very reasonable to be true. I have evidance in my life that there is a GOD. You wouldnt except any of it so there is no point in discussing them. I try not to say i am a creationist because of this. I am, but as you rightly say, (i may be wrongly suggesting it in what i write) it can not have complete scienctific support as your thoery does. To me evolution IS what biodiversity is, no theory needed.

A theory is needed for anything and everything in nature which we seek to understand -even if we think it obvious that we already understand it.

The Theory is the idea or Topic of how life began without God.

No it isn't. For most Christians, evolution is the idea of how life began with God. But since, by your own admission, God is assumed in lieu of any objectively demonstrable evidence, then it cannot be included in any scientific examination of anything, not evolution, nor physics, nor chemistry, nor electronics, etc., etc. No matter what the topic is; germs, thermodynamics, psychiatry, genetics, tectonics, whatever, -science can never say "goddidit". There has to be a natural explanation or it ain't science.

The theory uses the FACT of biodiversity through evolution.

The theory explains the facts. That's what all scientific theories do.

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church [...] a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
--Rev. Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity

No one ever said such a thing in defense of evolution.

there is no wimming on your part to use odd quotes from extreme people to make a group look dishonest.

Except that this "extreme person" is the founder of Protestant Christianity.

I could do the same For any group on earth. So no need to continue it.

Then do it, because I say you can't do that in this case. You don't get to say that evolutionists lie just like creationists do, and not have to back that up. They don't, and if you're going to claim otherwise, then I'm going to call you on it, and make you prove it. Those sorts of extreme comments come commonly from creationists, but never from their opposition in science, and you can't produce a single exception to that.

I may work for those who already dislike them put not for people who are honest. I have read people who are evolutionist and atheist say they believe the theory BECAUSE they cannot except the other alternative. Dont ask me to find there qoute because i do not keep a record book of such things.

Its not necessary because I know it's true. Remember you're talking about believing in something that is impossible according to everything we know about anything at all, which would still be illogical even if it were possible, and which we're expected to believe for literally no reason at all, and solely on the word of the least credible people possible -even when we know better on several levels. So yeah, having no reason to believe something is already a pretty good reason not to believe it. But especially so when you also have lots of good reasons not to believe it.

what is the difference between foundational falsehoods and assumtions.

An assumption doesn't have to be known to be false before it is presented.

The theory does use assumtions.

Yes, but only one; uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural laws of the universe don't occasionally change to create deceptive indications.

They have and continue to use ideas that have been shown wrong.

But only to a degree. Take for instance the Bohr model of the atom. It was known for some time that the Bohr model didn't work in all situations. But it worked in others, most of them in fact. So we knew it wasn't completely accurate, but until we had a quantum model to replace it with, we had to continue to use the Bohr model if we wanted to do chemistry at all.

Try to think beyond simple dichotomies of right or wrong, magic or science. Try to expand your mind to accept nuances and extenuating circumstances. You'll quickly see that you're black & white world also has varying shades of gray as well as a whole spectrum of color.

There are groups that are evolutionist that do lie by being diseptive in there wording or in there writing or.

No there aren't. Consider that a challenge.

It seems to me that if you say your a christian and dont believe in the theory your automatically a creationist or LIAR as you would say.

No, you can be an honest theist, and even an honest Christian. But honesty and creationism cannot exist in the same mind for very long.

I would be willing to bet that there has never been a single completely honest argument for Biblical creationism as a general conclusion over the scientific perspective; not one which also contests the scientific evidence on specific points. The creationist movement has never produced any such document with any substance which did not also include known falsehoods of some sort. If you know of even one exception, post the link, and I will write you a 100 word apology if it checks out.

See your dishonest here in how you word it. you could not have read every creationist viewpoint and It is based on the assumption your absolutly right.

I said I would bet there is not. That is an admission that I may not be absolutely correct. But I have read every contention waged by various creationists in common, and there has never been an honest one. In this case, I have set myself up as an easy mark, because just one honest creationist publication would prove me wrong. And you apparently already know you can't produce even that one.

As you said a theory is something that can not be proven FACT. SO you could be wrong.

No no no. A theory usually is a fact to start with. But the explanation of that fact can never be proven right, and this is because if we did so we would stop trying to learn about it. We will never know anything completely nor with absolute accuracy. That's why a theory can't be proven correct even if we know for certain that it is correct. But the explanatio of that fact can always be proven wrong, at least to some degree, like the Bohr model of the atom was.

Fine i will say a theory can be proven wrong. Why has the theory of evolution NOT been proven fact.
not really.

It has been. If we apply the word, "proof" in the context that a court of law would use, evolution was already a fact, and the explanation of it has already been proven correct -consistently- according to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from every relevant field of study.

a theory is as close to proven as anything in science ever can be.

again Why is the theory of gravity still a theory. what is the actual diffinition of a theory.

"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."
--Wikipedia

TO me the idea of everything from nothing is and or has been falsified.

Then why do you still believe in it? And especially, why do you reject quantum mechanics and say that everything was poofed out of nothing by an incantation spell instead?

If it is true we cannot make life from nonlife then the theory as a problem which is why abiogenesis is not part of it.

No, evolution is "descent with modification" and requires a variation in alleles. If there are no alleles, and/or nothing to descend from, then it can't be evolution. Abiogenesis is an entirely different process by definition.

TO me we should have enough evidence, because we keep presenting anough of it, to say that it is fact that life evolved from a common ansector into all that we see. MAYBE it is me not getting "theory" correct. Tell me why the thoery off gravity is a thoery and will not be anything but that and maybe i will get it.

Because there simply is no higher level of confidence than theory. In science, there is no "absolute truth" -ever. But saying a field of science is "just a theory" is like saying its "just" as well-established anything ever can be.

That life evolves is a fact. That genetic variation occurs in seperated sub-populations over many successive generations is a law.

SO whats your point. This doesnt prove that we came from a common ancestor or that we came from apes.

The fact that we are still apes right now proves that.

Most everything you speak about dealing with evolution is true its a fact of life and why life does still exsist. I just have not seen evidence that makes this fact make the theory of evolution a fact. which is why i said what i said. TONS of facts are used to make the theory seem fact when it is clear they don't.

Theories can't become facts. Theories encompass facts, and explain them. The explanation is the theory.

Which is why it is still a theory. How about this what is the one thing that will make the theory a fact without a doubt.

Nothing. Gravity, atomic theory, germ theory are all obviously correct, and all of them are obviously facts too. But none of them will ever be without a doubt. Once we stop doubting, we stop learning.

as above i already asked to make it clear for me one more time. maybe i am not getting the "theory" diffinition right. i know it is not a guess. maybe i am righting in a way that makes it seem this way. Without a book diffinition i would say a Theory is something that is shown true but can not be tested to be true. Like gravity. we can throw a apple up in the air and it will come down. Why how. because.

"Why, how, because"...that's the theory! Try to understand that science is inquiry. That means realizing that we don't already know everything. Faith is simply assuming we do.

There is no real way to test this. we may no what causes it, you know what maybe you can ex[plain it better. i am loosing myself. Maybe your right i may not know exactly what it means, Or i do but cant really explain it right.

You can test evolution as certainly as you can test gravity or atomic theory or virtually anything else.

 

[RichardT]

She doesn't read these forums unless I specifically invite her to show her something. So she doesn't have any opinion of you. I can tell you though that my opinion of you was much higher yesterday than it is after reading your article today.

What article? Oh, you thought I wrote that? I just like to edit articles and try to fix errors.

 

[RichardT]

again Why is the theory of gravity still a theory. what is the actual diffinition of a theory. TO me the idea of everything from nothing is and or has been falsified. If it is true we cannot make life from nonlife then the theory as a problem which is why abiogenesis is not part of it. TO me we should have enough evidence, because we keep presenting anough of it, to say that it is fact that life evolved from a common ansector into all that we see. MAYBE it is me not getting "theory" correct. Tell me why the thoery off gravity is a thoery and will not be anything but that and maybe i will get it.

Actually, an atheist will tell you that Occam's razor argues for the non-existance of God, since in the theory of Occam's razor, if 2 theories can both explain the data, the one with the least amount of assumptions should be held and the other discarded. But I will try to answer this concern as best I can when I can...

Atheist assumptions : The Universe Just is
Theist assumptions : God just is, God created the universe

Not that I agree, I will have to study this out and get you an answer. Unless of course you have an answer...

 

[Aron-Ra]

my opinion of you was much higher yesterday than it is after reading your article today.

What article? Oh, you thought I wrote that?

My sincere apologies, sir. But I did think that.

 

[RichardT]

My sincere apologies, sir. But I did think that.

Hey, Aron, you are allowed to post in the discussion pages to give your opinions on articles.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Hey, Aron, you are allowed to post in the discussion pages to give your opinions on articles.

You know, I don't think Temlakos likes me! He must not know me. To know me is to love me.

I often hear creationists dismiss my challenge as "a waste of time", but I usually don't hear that until we've already gotten started and they realize how hopeless their case is.

I'd be delighted to debate him. But I want that to be here because I prefer an open forum.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Two weeks have passed since the official first post we were initially expecting BoranJarami to reply to. He posted clarifying questions to that, so his fortnight deadline has been moved to 05:01 AM, Thursday, January 11th, as CF forums records it. I think the CF forum is based on Australian time & date. Since BoranJarami and I are both in the US, that means I should hear from him on or before Wednesday, January 10th (two days from now) before he goes into default.