Then please present a scientific theory that explains the observations made by the "myth" of evolution. Can you?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
"Dilbert" Demonstrates Evolution
- Thread starter alexgb00
- Start date
Then please present a scientific theory that explains the observations made by the "myth" of evolution. Can you?
But have you ever read a scientific theory of creation? Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and what is commonly called a theory? Have you ever heard about the scientific method?
Upvote
0
I don't know of any schools that teach evolution in pre-school. Or elementary school, for that matter. Do you? Which ones? A basic working knowledge of genetics is required. The first time I encountered a real introduction to the theory of evolution in school was freshman year of high school, and it consisted of a two paragraph blurb in an one thousand page biology textbook, thanks to fundamentalist lobbyists.
Thank God for public libraries. A much harder place to lobby for censorship than public schools, it is.
On the other hand, I can name quite a few Christian pre-schools and elementary schools in my city alone... that teach Creationism. At that age, kids will believe any thing you tell them. Afterwards, when they're older, you can keep them believing in it (even vigorously defending it) easily.
Well said.
Upvote
0
Care to start another thread and give thise evidence?
I would be very interested to see it.
Upvote
0
BZZZT! Wrong!
Alchemy wasn't a scientific discpline. Parts of it became one. We call it chemistry. So alchemy wasn't a 'theory'.
Cold fusion was never more than a hypothesis, and a quickly falsified one.
Geocentricism predated science by a bit (heliocentricism was one of the first discoveries of astronomy), but might have been a theory (beats me how rigorously it could be tested). If it was, it's obviously a falsified one.
Creation isn't a theory. Currently, it's not even a hypothesis.
Hasn't it been explained to you already what a theory is? Why do you persist in using a different definition than scientists?
Maybe so you can stuff that strawman? Hmm?
Upvote
0
I'm using a keyboard. I don't need to formulate a theory about where it came from. I know where it came from. I know how it got here. I know (basically) what it's made of. Same with life on earth. I know where it came from. I know how we got here. I know (basically) what we're made of. I don't need the fairy tales people make up to try to explain what would have to have happened if we got here by purely naturalistic processes, since it didn't happen that way.
Upvote
0
Yes, I do. Do you have kids? Don't they come home and tell you what they learned about dinosaurs and the like?
Besides, they don't need to teach it in school. Kids get it day in and day out on TV.
Upvote
0
Where did life on earth come from? How did we get here? What empirical evidence do you have to support your answers?
Are the "fairy tales" made up solely to provide a naturalistic explanation, or are they made up to best explain the evidence?
And how can you be so sure humans didn't arise by purely natural processes? How do you eliminate the possibility that you're simply wrong?
Upvote
0
What does teaching about dinosaurs have to do with evolution? Sure, I suppose it implies that the earth is very old, but if we didn't teach that we'd have to stop teaching physics, geology, and chemistry too.
Oh I get it now. Barney the dinosaur is a tool of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy to indoctrinate innocent children in the religion of evolutionism.
Innocent children's character or EAC stooge?
Upvote
0
You know what my answers will be.
They are made up almost solely to provide a naturalistic explanation. That's why they DON'T best explain the evidence, but people insist on propping them up in SPITE of the evidence (and even occasionally making up evidence where there is none - piltdown man, recapitulation, etc.)
Neither of us can be sure in terms of proof. You trust what you trust, and I trust what I trust.
Upvote
0
My son got the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds from somewhere. It could have been TV, but I'm guessing it was from school. I should have asked, but I had a good reason not to at the time.
One thing I know, and that is TV shows routinely and frequently mention evolution as though it was factual. Even Pokemon incorporates the idea of evolution into its formation of pocket monsters. These kids get bombarded with evolution assumptions on a daily basis.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Oh I get it now. Barney the dinosaur is a tool of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy to indoctrinate innocent children in the religion of evolutionism.
Innocent children's character or EAC stooge?
The funny thing about this is that my daughter loved Barney when she was a toddler, so I've seen a gazillion shows (and watched the same tapes over and over and over again...). Speaking as one who knows the show extremely well, it's not Barney you have to watch out for, it's Baby Bop. She's the leader of the covert operations group.
Upvote
0
Something you made up. Okay. Actually, your analogy was a bit off. We all know where keyboards come from. They're made in factories, designed to work with computers, and if you wanted you could trace down exactly who built your computer, in what part of the world, and even when.
You, however, disagree with the expert consensus, and claim keyboards are manufactured by aliens.
And get very annoyed when the keyboard experts dismiss your claims as nonsense.
Wait for it...wait for it..
Nicky! Oh NICKY! Who was it that showed Piltdown was a fraud? Falsified recapulation? Oh wait! It was scientists!
Now, was it Creationists that pointed out Gish's Bullfrog protein error? Creationists who pointed out the deceptive quoting practices of others? Um..nope.
Oh, we're still waiting for you to comment on those twenty-nine evidences that get brought up so often. We're not holding our breath, because your "objection" to radiometric dating appears to be "It doesn't work because I refuse to accept the answer".
Upvote
0
npeterley:
Why do you feel it's neccessary to debunk evolution? Why do you think that anyone who accepts evolution as science is an atheist? I am a Christian, and I believe that evolution is true. Just because evolution exists, it does not disprove God. God exists. God created life. But God used evolution to helf form life into it's present state.
Also, would you prefer schools teach young-earth Creationism instead of real science?
Why do you feel it's neccessary to debunk evolution? Why do you think that anyone who accepts evolution as science is an atheist? I am a Christian, and I believe that evolution is true. Just because evolution exists, it does not disprove God. God exists. God created life. But God used evolution to helf form life into it's present state.
Also, would you prefer schools teach young-earth Creationism instead of real science?
Upvote
0
I'm not sure it is necessary, but it sure is fun.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing.
So you're a Christian who is wrong about evolution. So what?
No, I would prefer that schools teach creation AND real science, which means they wouldn't teach evolution except in the context of historical blunders.
Upvote
0
Nick still hasn't explained why all those biologists, of all those faiths (and none), disagree with him.
That's got to really stick in his craw. Of all the people in the world with education and experience in biology, only those with a specific religious bias agree with Nick.
That's got to really stick in his craw. Of all the people in the world with education and experience in biology, only those with a specific religious bias agree with Nick.
Upvote
0
I may be wrong about evolution, but it is highly unlikely. There is lots of evidence supporting evolution, but NO evidence supporting YEC. Sorry.
Upvote
0
Goddidit, Goddidit, and None.
In spite of the evidence? How many times have we started an "evidence against evolution" thread and got exactly zero credible responses?
Or maybe you were talking about this evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
That's right. I'll trust empirical data gathered and analyzed by experts, and you can trust your 3,000 year old myth written by semi-literate shepherds. But let's stop pretending that your sources are scientific and mine are not.
Upvote
0
Actually the evidence for creation is the same for evolution. The difference is in interpretation.
Upvote
0
Not credible in your esteem. Big deal, what would one expect? Neither do I think any of your evidence for evolution is credible. So it's a draw.
But IMO there's plenty of evidence that gives evolution trouble, not the least of which is the fossil record.
Empirical data? Yes.
Gathered by experts? Maybe. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Analyzed by experts? Maybe. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Analyzed from the a-priori position of natural causes? Absolutely, therefore the conclusions reflect the bias of the people analyzing the data. And yes, that goes for Christian "scientists", too (not "Christian Scientists" as in reading room). Despite their profession of faith, they most often believe it is proper to take the position of interpreting evidence through the a-priori position of natural causes. I think they're wrong for doing that, but I'm glad they usually admit it. And it explains why they are professing Christians yet believe in evolution.
Edited addition: By the way -- I find it amusing that your defense is "your sources aren't scientific and mine are" as if that means anything.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
