Evolution as a theory of creation is a JOKE

[Nathan45]

any scientist who could falsify evolution would be a rich rich man. even with that kind of incentive no one has been able to disprove it.

even the ones who can't falsify evolution but just say they can have no problem getting rich selling books to idiots. Imagine how well they'd sell if they actually had any basis or weren't so full of fallacies that a properly educated 12 year old could refute them.

 

[sbvera13]

Ok, truth, are you sure you want to use that argument?

1. There are no options other then natural selection.
2. Therefore, there's another option.

Really...

 

[Nathan45]

I think a lot of creationists don't understand why scientists insist that all theories have a natural basis... it's like they think all scientists hate god or something... the problem is that if you're allowed to invoke supernatural or magical or miracle explanations for events, then you've completely thrown any testability out the window. You can't test for God, so there is fundamentally no way of providing any evidence for intelligent design. To do science you have to have some way of knowing whether your beliefs are true or false.

He does have one point though: in that if the evidence disproved evolution, science would basically be stumped on this issue, as there is no good alternative naturalistic theory for the diversity of life. But that's really something for an alternate universe, as the evidence clearly shows that evolution is correct.

 

[Split Rock]

If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity, it has to make do with the only alternative it has at its disposal, namely the philosophy of natural selection.

True... the only theory that works is evolution . False.. Natural Selection is not a philosophy... it is a mechanism of evolution that has been observed time and time again.

This view or theory can never be allowed to be considered doubtful since there is no plausible naturalistic alternative.

Then why are there thousands of research papers testing its predictions?

There is an important difference between going to the evidence to test a theory against an alternative, and going to this same evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that science is willing to tolerate.

Provide us with an "alternative" to test evolution against.

 

[RomanSoldier]

Evolution as a theory of creation is a JOKE

Evolution is not a theory of creation. The JOKE is on you I'd say.

 

[truth above all else]

You really don't know how science works, do you? Every experiment run is not to prove evolution, it is to disprove it. It just hasn't happened.

Surely you cannot be serious, I suspect you have no idea how science works,more importantly you have no idea how evolutionary philosophy works.It is pointless engaging a self proclaimed evolutionist in discussion about whether the TOE is true. The reply is likely to be that the theory is the best explanation we have,and therefore it is our closest approximation to the truth. Naturalistic evolution is the only conceivable explanation for life, and so the fact that life exists proves it to be true.Trusting an ordained evolutionary scientist in running an experiment to disprove evolution is not dissimilar to trusting a politician with your money.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Evolution doesn't exist. Everything mates according to it's own kind. Never do you see one dog even remotely looking like another species, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Nor will one-cells tinier than a hair on your arm eventually grow into the size of giraffes. Evolution is a lie about the flesh dude, straight from The Devil, to take your mind off the Spirit.

 

[Nathan45]

Surely you cannot be serious, I suspect you have no idea how science works,more importantly you have no idea how evolutionary philosophy works.

look in a mirror sometime...

It is pointless engaging a self proclaimed evolutionist in discussion about whether the TOE is true.

There is no such thing as a "self proclaimed evolutionist". Nobody uses the term "evolutionist" except creationists.

The reply is likely to be that the theory is the best explanation we have,and therefore it is our closest approximation to the truth. Naturalistic evolution is the only conceivable explanation for life, and so the fact that life exists proves it to be true.

You're forgetting that not only does life have to exist, it has to exist in a way that is consistent with evolutionary principles of nested hierarchy and gradual change. And it does exist in that way.

Trusting an ordained evolutionary scientist in running an experiment to disprove evolution is not dissimilar to trusting a politician with your money.

So you think all of the scientists are lying, suppressing evidence, like politicians? 100,000s of scientists, all liars? why?

To be a scientist all one has to do is use the scientific method, anyone can do it, you don't need a PHD. Do you think that bat skeleton i posted a picture of is a lie, is it innacurate? does it not really have all the same bones as a human does? well, go find a bat, catch it, kill it, pick it's bones out, and lay them out and see for yourself if the bones are the same as in that picture. Anyone can do it. Or go dig up fossils yourself, and see if you can find any chimeras or any rabbits in cambrian strata, either of which would disprove evolution. Anyone can test evolution, there is no such thing as an "ordained" scientist, anyone can be a scientist.

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with evolution is completely incapable of doing any actual scientific research? That's all being a "scientist" is, doing research, conducting tests.

 

[Nathan45]

Never do you see one dog even remotely looking like another species, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

really if you're going to pick an example dont' use dogs, there's such a wide variety of them.

and of course a dog is never going to evolve into, say, a cat, the odds of a cat evolving twice independently are astronomically low. The genetic code has millions and millions of genes and it changes every generation... you can easily get from a dog to something new (although technically it would still be a sub-species of dog) but getting from a dog to something that exists already would be like winning the lottery twice in a row.

 

[Nathan45]

Nor will one-cells tinier than a hair on your arm eventually grow into the size of giraffes.

Well, how big will they get? you seem to imply they can get bigger, just not that bigger. You know the old saying, a journey of a thousand miles, begins with a single step?

anyway, the single cell actually hasn't grown much at all. It just got friends, more cells which it attached too. instead of just floating around on it's own, it became multicellular.

You'd be amazed at the similarities between a single celled life form, and one cell of a multi-celled life form. A multicellular organism, is basically just a bunch of cells, no matter how large it gets.

so take a single cell, give it 4 billion years to evolve and make more cells, and "fill the earth" so to speak...

well, the cells keep evolving, and at the end of the 4 billion, they're still cells! Except instead of being one cell, they're are lots and lots of them arranged in the shape of a giraffe. Sure, in addition to being multicellular, they've developed symbiosis with a mitochondria, which is basically just another cell inside of a cell, gotten a nucleus, but they're still not a lot different. Did you know that humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas? A lot of the DNA, is for the cellular level stuff, and cells are really quite similar everywhere. Really, I don't see why evolution is that far fetched.

 

[MoonLancer]

Surely you cannot be serious, I suspect you have no idea how science works.

Please provide evidence for this claim otherwise you really shouldn't be using that name.

ps

theirs no philosophy in evolution. only biological science.

 

[MoonLancer]

Evolution doesn't exist. Everything mates according to it's own kind. Never do you see one dog even remotely looking like another species, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Nor will one-cells tinier than a hair on your arm eventually grow into the size of giraffes. Evolution is a lie about the flesh dude, straight from The Devil, to take your mind off the Spirit.

You know, this statement was so crazy i thought you must have been a Poe, a parody of creationists.

then i saw your were a christian and a republican.

 

[Morcova]

the evolutionist version of life is hilarious

Too bad you don't understand it then.

 

[truth above all else]

Please provide evidence for this claim otherwise you really shouldn't be using that name.

ps

theirs no philosophy in evolution. only biological science.

Scientific knowledge relating to the wonders of biology, is knowledge par excellence insofar as it is actually knowledge of nature. Evolutionary dogma is rather more complex than of a single scientific fact or hypothesis. It is a belief involving many spheres of thought and by no means just science.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn...e/images/Drawing-Hands-M-C--Escher-180592.jpg

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Scientific knowledge relating to the wonders of biology, is knowledge par excellence insofar as it is actually knowledge of nature. Evolutionary dogma is rather more complex than of a single scientific fact or hypothesis. It is a belief involving many spheres of thought and by no means just science.

You are right. Whatever you mean by "Evolutionary dogma" probably is indeed all that. (Not that any of that would be my problem, though.)


And likewise, to the Opening Post, and Ryan Lee Paris. It is not as if any of that was my problem. Or that of the ToE ...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Just for any real creationists in the thread: actual application of human-primate common descent (i.e. evolution) in discovering an HIV suppressing protein.

So all this stuff about how evolution is "dogma", "a lie", blah blah blah, is just a bunch of hot creationist air. Until you guys can address real world science, you got nothin'.

 

[Hespera]

i would not say the theocreologists got nothing. They have a way to poke a stick in the ant nest; see what your drive -by poster accomplished.

They also have some odd, sometimes funny cartoonish ways of talking about evolution. That little drawing av came up with is worth not a thousand words, but a half million of his posts.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity, it has to make do with the only alternative it has at its disposal, namely the philosophy of natural selection.

Is "natural selection" a "philosophy"? I was rather under the impression it is a brutal fact of life happening every single second of every single day for everyone to see.

I was just at a family get together in which a vicious stomach flu went through and hit about 2/3 of the family (it was at my father in law's funeral, and my wife was so sick she and a couple of her sisters couldn't even make it to their dad's funeral service). Yet I and a select few were spared.

Now: we can look at this two ways:

1. Natural selection: I had some resistance to whatever it was (bacteria, virus, I dunno) because I slept with and took care of the woman night after night after night who had the most vicious form of this illness and I didn't get it. Others didn't and did contract it.

2. God's Will: The father in law and part of the family were/are quite devoutly religious (mostly Catholic). I am an atheist. Is this a sign of God's approval of atheism in that I didn't contract it?

This view or theory can never be allowed to be considered doubtful since there is no plausible naturalistic alternative.

Natural selection: known to occur
Genetic mutation: known to occur
Genetic drift: known to occur
Life clearly changing over time (fossil record): known

Hmmm, I'm seeing a pattern here that is best explained by....evolution

There is an important difference between going to the evidence to test a theory against an alternative, and going to this same evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that science is willing to tolerate.

And it looks to me like evolution takes know factors and constructs just about the most direct and obvious conclusion from those known factors.

Confirmation bias is far more likely from a religious point of view considering that hypothesizing "God" as a factor requires things no theists have been able to do since the dawn of time: ie model God to a reasonable level of surety such that all observers can use the "god hypothesis" to explain anything consistently. (hence the zillions of religions across time and location).

 

[Cabal]

I am not saying that some animals have not mildly evolved over time to better adapt to their environment, but to think all life came from one cell animals and plants to what we have today is a JOKE!

Not backing up a point is also a JOKE!

Scientist try and link one animal to another, "these two creatures have similar teeth, thus they must be related somehow and thus evolved. These two have similar ear bones, thus they must be related and evolved." Do you have proof? Well... No... we have to make logical assumptions... REALLY! So can you prove through fossil evidence that the same species truly evolved from one stage to the next? Well... again... not currently... like I said, we have to make some logical assumptions... REALLY... based on what... two creatures share similar teeth? Well... that does indicate they have some connection. REALLY!

Well, that's by far from the only method of comparison that is used, so

And Why do we only see big jumps, and have to hypothesize about the change, why don't we have proof of the sublte evolutionary steps from one stage to another. If man evolved from one stage to the next slow and subtly, where is the bone evidence showing these subtle changes? Why only the big jumps?

The "jumps" are still quite large periods of time, allowing for comparatively "subtle" (whatever that's supposed to mean) development.

Why? Because they are only guesses... I'm sorry, if you are a PhD, you don't guess you hypothesize, but a guess is a guess, is a guess.

Good job it's a theory! REALLY!

I believe in Creation. I believe God created every plant, insect, animal, fowl, and aquadic life that exists, and that they may have slightly evolved to better suit their environment, but they started and are today basically the same as what they were from the beginning.

Have fun with Noah's Ark, then.

Now some of you may even believe a higher form of life transplanted us, or genetically created us from the life already found here... While I do not believe this, I could accept this over everything evolving from one cell creatures over time.

How odd, the odds of being seeded from space are even less.

Can I prove God created everything scientifically... Nope! But neither can you prove evolution. Mine is faith, and yours, a guess - ok hypothesis. I will stick with faith!

Can I prove God created everything scientifically? Nope!

Neither can we prove evolution - inasmuch that a theory can't be proved, like gravity can't be proved, but it works so often it's demonstrated itself to be beyond reasonable doubt.

One is a scientific theory, and one is a faith-based idea, so how or why could you even start to prove it?

Don't worry, there's good news, you can reconcile both! REALLY!

(Hint for next time, drop the sarcasm - it does your point no good.)