How to choose between creation and evolution.

[DogmaHunter]

Creation is the uniform factor.

translation: "we are all united in our objection to mainstream biology!"

Another hint at the fact that there are no valid "pro creation" arguments. The entire "pro creation" case consists of nothing more or less then stabs at evolution (based on ignorance, bias, incredulity, strawmen,... ).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Supernatural creation is the uniform belief just as evolution is the uniform belief of science, even though there are differences of opinion there as well.

Science doesn't do "belief".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

translation: "we are all united in our objection to mainstream biology!"

Another hint at the fact that there are no valid "pro creation" arguments. The entire "pro creation" case consists of nothing more or less then stabs at evolution (based on ignorance, bias, incredulity, strawmen,... ).

Not so. I love biology, but not their conclusions re evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science doesn't do "belief".

So scientists don't actually believe evolution occured?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The point was, that a lot of the "aches" are a symptom of the underlying "(design) problem".

Our backbones weren't designed to be abused. If you have a backache there are better explanations than poor design. How do you explain recovery from back aches, or any other healing for that matter. Why would evolution provide a remedy for injury due to a poor design when in just a few million years it could provide a better one?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not arguing about the science per se, but the conclusions of science. Within those 'scientific' papers are those 'mini-miracles' (the assumptions) that hold the whole thing together.

Name a specific, accessible paper and state clearly one of the assumptions you believe is made in it. (And by the way, it seems very much that you are arguing about the science, since the conclusions are based upon a science that you readily admit you do not understand, but just name that paper and one assumption.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not so.

There is a thread right here on this forum, which deals with exactly this topic. Where creationists are invited to present their "pro creation" case WITHOUT trying to take stabs at other cases.

Such a case has never been presented. Disclaimer: preaching the bible, is not bringing a case - that's just repeating the claims.

The "creation" side of the argument, is build up entirely on negative evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So scientists don't actually believe evolution occured?

Not in the sense that creationists "believe" miraculous creation occured, no.

Science doesn't deal with that kind of "belief". Instead, science deals with "provisional acceptance".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Our backbones weren't designed to be abused.

They weren't designed for bipedalism either. That's the point.
It's designed to walk on al fours. And then tinkered with to accomodate for bipedalism.

If you have a backache there are better explanations than poor design. How do you explain recovery from back aches, or any other healing for that matter. Why would evolution provide a remedy for injury due to a poor design when in just a few million years it could provide a better one?

The remedy isn't provided by evolution.
Nore is the healing or recovery the point.

The point is that the aches manifest in the first place. Waaay to easily. Directly due to the oddly shaped design, which isn't optimal for bipedalism.

But whatever.... It's clear that you aren't getting it, nore willing to get it.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not on the majority side (I'm comfortable with that).

Comfort is more important to some, i understand that.

 

[tas8831]

Well, that's biology for you.

Maybe our 130 IQ alpha male is really the FoodBabe of evolution - if it is complicated, it must be wrong.

 

[tas8831]

Dream on.

No need to dream.

You are going full pshun on us - making trivially absurd and easily refuted claims (the gorilla skull thing? the 'I studied anatomy' thing?) then pretending otherwise and/or engaging is pathetically obvious trolling.

Sorry - that is withering on the vine.

Sad.

 

[tas8831]

I've perused many evolution papers.

I seriously doubt that.

None make sense to me.

Why does that surprise you? You admitted that you are ignorant of evolutionary biology.

In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.

The 'trees' were 'planted' more than 100 years ago. We are working on the details. Creationists busy themselves with martyrdom fantasies, logical fallacies, the Dunning-Kruger effect, etc.

I think it's safe to say that history will judge this debate (in the future of course).

Yes - and history up to this point shows that the Religious Box that ALL of nature was once put in has shrunk to a mere matchbox - a place where questions not yet answered are the only inhabitants.

Yes - I predict that history will, one day, look at evangelical Christianity much the same way we currently view Norse and Greek mythology.

 

[tas8831]

Not if they keep changing and rearranging their theories. Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion. After all they are studying the creation.

Right - mustn't adjust theories based on new data.

Better to simply imbue ancient mystics and numerologists with infallibility and run with it, no matter the cost.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not arguing about the science per se, but the conclusions of science. Within those 'scientific' papers are those 'mini-miracles' (the assumptions) that hold the whole thing together.

Another YEC canard...

Tell us all about these "assumptions" that you will now hide behind.

I'm betting that what you think are assumptions are actually conclusions...

And regarding your 'all Christian sects tell the same story' routine - as an OEC gap "theorist", you are at odds with evangelicals. Clearly YOUR creationism differs from theirs, ergo, the story is NOT the same.

You don't even seem to grasp your OWN position, much less the science of ours.

 

[tas8831]

Not so. I love biology, but not their conclusions re evolution.

Which aspects of biology do you actually understand and agree with?

For crying out loud, you want to argue that tissues are molecules!

 

[tas8831]

So scientists don't actually believe evolution occured?

It is a conclusion.

YOU do 'belief.'

You believe what you do about evolution premised on your already admitted ignorance.

Not sure why you are so proud of that.

 

[tas8831]

Our backbones weren't designed to be abused. If you have a backache there are better explanations than poor design. How do you explain recovery from back aches, or any other healing for that matter. Why would evolution provide a remedy for injury due to a poor design when in just a few million years it could provide a better one?

There is always an out for the creationist. Why not a better 'design'? Why the design of the hyena pseudopenis?

 

[Jimmy D]

Supernatural creation is the uniform belief just as evolution is the uniform belief of science, even though there are differences of opinion there as well.

An empty platitude, there is no uniform belief other than "God did it", which is fine if that's what you believe. Don't pretend it offers any explanatory power or is on an equal footing with scientific explanations though.

I repeat...

Creationism is utterly USELESS as an explanation for what we see in the natural world and only reflects the beliefs of the particular individual answering the questions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They weren't designed for bipedalism either. That's the point.
It's designed to walk on al fours. And then tinkered with to accomodate for bipedalism.




The remedy isn't provided by evolution.
Nore is the healing or recovery the point.

The point is that the aches manifest in the first place. Waaay to easily. Directly due to the oddly shaped design, which isn't optimal for bipedalism.

But whatever.... It's clear that you aren't getting it, nore willing to get it.

So it follows that the rest of our bodies are also not meant to walk upright as well?