Did we disprove evolution yet?

[AV1611VET]

If it is falsified, it is overturned. Alternately, it can be replaced by a new theory that explains the data better.

Then I'll take this remark with a grain of salt:

The problem is that it had clearly been falsified. Therefore, no amount of supporting evidence matters.

 

[3sigma]

God says otherwise.

Your God lacks factual reality.

Your 'actual state of affairs' is weak and beggarly by comparison, and changes with the next clipboard to come out.

It is myopic and can take a hike.

Creationism isn’t the truth. It isn’t in accord with fact or reality. That a religious believer would tell reality to take a hike doesn’t surprise me at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there any way to get you to stop misusing Pluto as an example? I mean, its not even amusing anymore. It's just kinda sad.

Your word "misusing" aside -- yes, there is a way.

By stop acting like today's cosmology is the be-all/end-all of cosmologies.

Telling me that creationism -- (which tells us how and when we got our moon) -- is wrong, when there are five theories replacing it, doesn't cut it with me.

That's like saying:

• Bob: What are you eating?
• Joe: A cherry popsicle.
• Bob: No, it's not.
• Joe: Then what is it?
• Bob: Looks like red raspberry, or red apple, or watermellon, or cotton candy, or tangerine to me; but definitely not cherry.

 

[Split Rock]

Then how do you overturn something that has been falsified, according to scientific doctrine?

If it is falsified, it is overturned. Alternately, it can be replaced by a new theory that explains the data better.

Then I'll take this remark with a grain of salt:

The problem is that it had clearly been falsified. Therefore, no amount of supporting evidence matters.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Sorry, but this seems to be a non-sequitur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism isn’t the truth.

That definition of "truth" in the Miriam-Webster is all over the spectrum.

Here's God's definition:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

By God's definition, creationism is the Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but this seems to be a non-sequitur.

We'll leave it at that then, eh?

 

[Split Rock]

Your word "misusing" aside -- yes, there is a way.

By stop acting like today's cosmology is the be-all/end-all of cosmologies.

Telling me that creationism -- (which tells us how and when we got our moon) -- is wrong, when there are five theories replacing it, doesn't cut it with me.

That's like saying:

• Bob: What are you eating?
• Joe: A cherry popsicle.
• Bob: No, it's not.
• Joe: Then what is it?
• Bob: Looks like red raspberry, or red apple, or watermellon, or cotton candy, or tangerine to me; but definitely not cherry.

What does the Moon have to do with claiming that the discover of Pluto was a "folly," or implying that the identification of Pluto is somehow falsified just because it has been placed in a new category? In any case, your idea for the creation of the Moon is simply not scientific. Whether its right or wrong is irrelevant.

 

[MoonLancer]

Then how do you overturn something that has been falsified, according to scientific doctrine?

try revising that first.

 

[Split Rock]

We'll leave it at that then, eh?

Leave it any way you want. You asked me a question, and I did my very best to answer it. Sometimes I think you have a true aversion to learning. Do you think that such an aversion pleases God?

 

[driewerf]

That definition of "truth" in the Miriam-Webster is all over the spectrum.

Here's God's definition:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

By God's definition, creationism is the Truth.

god can't take a hike. Because there is no god.

 

[3sigma]

By God's definition, creationism is the Truth.

Religious beliefs are used a shield against the harshness of reality. Consequently, religious language is filled with weasel words and euphemisms. In religious language, ‘Truth’ is a euphemism for ‘fiction, fallacies and misrepresentations’. Religious believers seem compelled to capitalize the word, which handily warns us that we are being told the opposite of the truth.

Again, your God lacks factual reality so attributing anything to it is meaningless.

 

[Gracchus]

That definition of "truth" in the Miriam-Webster is all over the spectrum.

Here's God's definition:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

By God's definition, creationism is the Truth.

You say that is God's definition of truth based partly on what is said in a book where serpents and asses talk (the talking asses I'll believe as I have known some, but serpents have no lips or vocal cords), a book in which magic trees give fruit that lets you live forever, people are raised from the dead, walk on water and rise to heaven with and without chariots of fire and partly you base it on whatever you have to "add (sic) hoc" to make it make sense, even to you.

Yeah. Sure.

 

[Naraoia]

Hi, not been here for a while. I've been pootling along in my degree, not really keeping track of the latest developments in Creation Science.

FishFace is back! Helloooo!

And also wondering whether AV has decided to enlighten us as to how embedded age is different from something which is new but looks old? (Without references to new bicycles made from 4.5billion year old parts)

From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:

AV Doesn't Get the Point.

Religious beliefs are used a shield against the harshness of reality.

I don't want to start an argument over this, but I would like to see what evidence supports this one-sided view of religion. Oh, I don't doubt that religious beliefs provide comfort for many people. But I'm also sure that such a widespread and influential phenomenon has a multitude of functions. And, based on the small segment of the evolution of religion literature I read, there is little real consensus on what they are.

 

[3sigma]

Religious beliefs are used a shield against the harshness of reality.

I don't want to start an argument over this, but I would like to see what evidence supports this one-sided view of religion.

I’ve given you only one characteristic of religions. Religions are many-sided. For example, they also cause unnecessary harm by promoting ignorance and encouraging intolerance, cruelty and violence.

However, in answer to your request, here is some evidence that religious beliefs are used as a shield against the harshness of reality. You can see much of this evidence in the posts by religious believers here in these forums.

Religious beliefs are used mainly to overcome insecurity (fear and anxiety). Religious believers confirm their insecurity with their incessant desire for, obsession with and talk about being saved. It is the insecure who constantly yearn to be saved.

Religious believers fear death. The harsh reality is that there is no sound reason not to think that death is a permanent end to our existence. Religious beliefs are used as a shield against that harsh reality to assuage the fear of death. It is probably no coincidence that the most successful religions are those that promise eternal life. The fear of death is confirmed by the numerous religious euphemisms for the word 'died' (for example, passed away, passed on, passed over, passed to the other side, gone to heaven, gone to meet his/her maker, with the celestial choir, with the angels, with the heavenly father, in God's care, residing with Jesus, etc.). Religious believers are desperate to avoid acknowledging death or accepting that it is the end of their existence.

Religious believers fear the unknown. The harsh reality is that here are probably some questions to which we will never know the answer. Religions shield religious believers from that harsh reality by providing an answer to every question, even if that answer is something as worthless as "God did it". Religions provide shallow answers to comfort shallow thinkers.

Religious believers fear uncertainty. The harsh reality is that life is filled with shades of grey and there is very little in life that is certain (except perhaps the certainty that one day we will die). Religions shield religious believers from that uncertainty by encouraging them to think in terms of absolutes, extremes and false dichotomies. Religious believers tend to see one extreme position or two opposing extreme positions as the only possible positions. For example, religious believers tend towards moral absolutism. Many religious believers are absolutely certain that their God exists contrary to the harsh reality that there is a complete lack of any sound evidence supporting that belief.

Religions provide prayer as a shield against the harsh reality that there are many things over which we have no control. Prayer is nothing more than ritual handwringing used to assuage fear and anxiety. Religions provide hope, which is usually just self-deception or confident expectation that the ludicrously implausible will occur (for example, life after death).

I’m guessing you can find many more examples of religious beliefs being used as a shield against the harshness of reality in the posts from religious believers here and in conversations you may have with religious believers.

 

[BananaSlug]

That definition of "truth" in the Miriam-Webster is all over the spectrum.

Here's God's definition:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

By God's definition, creationism is the Truth.

Jesus is Creationism? Or is Creationism Jesus?

 

[Doveaman]

Did we disprove evolution yet?

Did we prove evolution yet?

 

[BananaSlug]

Did we prove evolution yet?

We've verified beyond all reasonable doubt barring extraordinary evidence against it.

 

[Hespera]

Did we prove evolution yet?

Oh my. i think the question here, have we managed to educate even one theocreologist yet, that one does not prove a scientific theory?

 

[MoneyGuy]

I'm pretty sure creationism was thoroughly eviscerated over the last 200 years.

No it hasn't. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation. Evolution (which I believe in) and creation (which I also believe in) can coexist side by side.

 

[MoneyGuy]

god can't take a hike. Because there is no god.

There are many gods. Perhaps you mean there is no God? Big difference.