proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Hieronymus]

You don't know me.

I've combed through more creationist/ID material than most creationists. I've read entire published works from various creationist/ID authors and debated this stuff ad nauseum on forums like this.

What I've found is there really isn't much actually arguing in favor of creationism or ID.

There's little need for anything other than to point at the level of technology which makes life live.
It reduces every human attempt to create something to childs play.
Why should i ascribe it to dead unconscious forces rather than to a capable intelligent entity with a will to create.
Yes, God. God also answers the question: "Why does anything exist at all?"
It's just the better answer. It's more probable, more plausible, has more explanatory power.
Not just about the mechanics of living nature, but to existentional questions in general.

Rather, most of what creationists/ID advocates argue is a negative argument against evolution (usually based on gaps in knowledge; hence, the arguments from incredulity)

"Incredulity" is to be expected when you preach preposterous ideas for which the evidence is ambiguous at best (because of the gaps and absence of explanation of the reality of things).
You would have to be delusional to believe such a thing.
I'm just saying, when you can't convince someone, it's not necessarily due to the incredulence of that person.

and then assuming intelligent creation as a default position.

I don't think that's relevant.
Actually, many people become creationists or doubt the ToE from a position of assuming the ToE is true.
On the other hand, historically creation is the default position if you had to chose between creation and 'chance'.
I think the true default position is not knowing what to think of it.
But then again, when we want to adhere a purpose to our existence and existence in general, it's a logical step to suspect there is a God of some sorts.

And that's fine for a theological basis, but real science doesn't work like that.

Real science, as in the natural sciences, can not say anything about anything beyond their natural paradigm.
This does not change the plain logic that the natural most likely has a super natural origin, for things do not create themselves (that would be a logical fallacy).

 

[Hieronymus]

I didn't make any complaint about science being unable to address the supernatural. I might have complained about creationists' determined, ongoing and dishonest attempts to ignore the physical evidence for evolution and a 4.6 billion year old Earth.

We're just dismissing your naturalistic models.
We believe in God, who by definition is Creator of everything.
It is you naturalists who NEED your naturalistic models to support your (un)beliefs.
You need billions and billions of years to give chance a chance (so to speak).
And you need lots of money, endorsements and public platform to sell it.
Who provides this?
Not the scientists in the field, they just do science for who pays them to do science.
But if you want to make a name in science, you'll have to be 'liked' by the facilitators.
So you've all been had big time by the opinion makers who are no Christians, but who do have axes to grind.
Christians are not (supposed to be) the puppets of the elite, worldly people unfortunately are.

Science is an awesome collection of disciplines.
But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science.
How human....


(edit) sorry, leslie, i don't think you're a naturalist, i forgot who i was replying to.

 

[bhsmte]

We're just dismissing your naturalistic models.
We believe in God, who by definition is Creator of everything.
It is you naturalists who NEED your naturalistic models to support your (un)beliefs.
You need billions and billions of years to give chance a chance (so to speak).
And you need lots of money, endorsements and public platform to sell it.
Who provides this?
Not the scientists in the field, they just do science for who pays them to do science.
But if you want to make a name in science, you'll have to be 'liked' by the facilitators.
So you've all been had big time by the opinion makers who are no Christians, but who do have axes to grind.
Christians are not (supposed to be) the puppets of the elite, worldly people unfortunately are.

Science is an awesome collection of disciplines.
But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science.
How human....

Evolution doesnt even pretend to address origin of life. And that makes this, a big giant strawman on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're just dismissing your naturalistic models.
We believe in God, who by definition is Creator of everything.
It is you naturalists who NEED your naturalistic models to support your (un)beliefs.
You need billions and billions of years to give chance a chance (so to speak).
And you need lots of money, endorsements and public platform to sell it.
Who provides this?
Not the scientists in the field, they just do science for who pays them to do science.
But if you want to make a name in science, you'll have to be 'liked' by the facilitators.
So you've all been had big time by the opinion makers who are no Christians, but who do have axes to grind.
Christians are not (supposed to be) the puppets of the elite, worldly people unfortunately are.

Science is an awesome collection of disciplines.
But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science.
How human....

Once again all you have is an argument from incredulity based upon your ignorance of all aspects of science.

That the Earth is old was known long before the theory of evolution was developed. That was discovered by early geologists that were looking for evidence of the biblical flood. Instead they found evidence that the flood never happened and that the Earth was old.

One does not "NEED" something that already exists.

And no, science is not a religion. You are merely denigrating your own beliefs by trying to lower the sciences down to your level. That will not work with people that understand the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you can not observe it.

I can observe it. You can't observe it. Your lacks are not my lacks.

 

[HitchSlap]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Nope.

 

[lesliedellow]

We're just dismissing your naturalistic models.
We believe in God, who by definition is Creator of everything.
It is you naturalists who NEED your naturalistic models to support your (un)beliefs.

Correction. It is you creationists who need the fiction that anybody who disagrees with you is an unbeliever; in order to justify burying your heads in the sand.

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution doesnt even pretend to address origin of life. And that makes this, a big giant strawman on your part.

Yeah, that's right, just ignore the gist of what i wrote and do some pointless nitpicking at details....

And i never said such a thing, or maybe i did, but you probably meant the ToE is not about the origins of life.
For the rest, a naturalist has little choice other than believing in things evolving into other things by accident (as opposed to intentional).
A pointless point in the middle of nothing "expanded rapidly" (you can't say "exploded" because that sounds to destructive) and became the universe, in which particles somehow grouped together to form galaxies where in one of them our solar system decided to form and on this planet there was this ambitious soup that came to life.
All of those are things evolving.
Another word for "things evolving" is evolution.
Some call the ToE 'special evolution' because it's about species.
Are we on the same page on this?
Good.
Now did you have any comment relevant to my post you quoted?

 

[Hieronymus]

Once again all you have is an argument from incredulity based upon your ignorance of all aspects of science.

You think you can criticize my opinion because i don't believe in your fairytales.
In fact, it's your main (only?) argument against my opinion.
So it's fried air again.

That the Earth is old was known long before the theory of evolution was developed. That was discovered by early geologists that were looking for evidence of the biblical flood. Instead they found evidence that the flood never happened and that the Earth was old.

Funny, because geology actually shows there was a giant watery disaster on all of the earth.
Slow stratification has been quite refuted in the 80s of the previous century, by experiments by scientists.
Now why does hardly anybody know that?

One does not "NEED" something that already exists.

What are you implying?
That naturalistic models already existed? Since when?
To give chance a chance you NEED billions and billions of years, and even then the odds are against naturalistic beliefs.

And no, science is not a religion. You are merely denigrating your own beliefs by trying to lower the sciences down to your level. That will not work with people that understand the sciences.

I didn't say science is a religion.

 

[Hieronymus]

Correction. It is you creationists who need the fiction that anybody who disagrees with you is an unbeliever; in order to justify burying your heads in the sand.

Well, who is not a creationist but an evolutionist doesn't believe in special creation, as found in the written word of God.
They don't believe that, so they're an unbeliever in that sense.
They find it unbelievable, so they don't believe it.
Is that my fault?

 

[Hieronymus]

I can observe it. You can't observe it. Your lacks are not my lacks.

You can not observe what i know.
Try to remember what i replied to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think you can criticize my opinion because i don't believe in your fairytales.

You really should watch what words you use. You re the one with the beliefs in fairytales. I am sorry that you are too afraid to even try to learn so that you could argue in a meaningful way against the science that frightens you so badly.

In fact, it's your main (only?) argument against my opinion.
So it's fried air again.

It is all that is needed. Your lack of knowledge in this matter demonstrates who is spouting "fried air".

I am willing to help you to learn, as are others here.

Funny, because geology actually shows there was a giant watery disaster on all of the earth.
Slow stratification has been quite refuted in the 80s of the previous century, by experiments by scientists.
Now why does hardly anybody know that?What are you implying?

Sorry, but your terrible ignorance in the field of geology is not a valid argument either. What we see is evidence that processes in the past are the same as they are today. No evidence for a "giant watery disaster" can be found. Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

That naturalistic models already existed? Since when?
To give chance a chance you NEED billions and billions of years, and even then the odds are against naturalistic beliefs.

Please try to pay attention. I said that we knew that the Earth was old long before the theory of evolution was proposed. Or did you forget you mistakenly claimed a "NEED" for billions of years? And you do not know how to calculate the odds. More "fried air" from our latest non-expert.

I didn't say science is a religion.

Sure you did, you may not have noticed when you did it since all that you have is your aforementioned "fired air". You made this claim:

"But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science."

Unlike the Bible where you pick and choose which parts you want to believe and follow you can't do the same with the sciences. By denying all of biology, geology, astronomy and other sciences and trying to claim that they are a religion you are saying that science is a religion.

Once again, why not try to learn a little? Surely learning what is and what is not evidence should not be a problem for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can not observe what i know.
Try to remember what i replied to.

You make your lack of knowledge in the sciences quite obvious here. I can observe your posts and draw the obvious conclusions.

Meanwhile you merely support my claims by demonstrating that you do not understand the nature of observation, or evidence, or the scientific method for that matter.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, that's right, just ignore the gist of what i wrote and do some pointless nitpicking at details....

And i never said such a thing, or maybe i did, but you probably meant the ToE is not about the origins of life.
For the rest, a naturalist has little choice other than believing in things evolving into other things by accident (as opposed to intentional).
A pointless point in the middle of nothing "expanded rapidly" (you can't say "exploded" because that sounds to destructive) and became the universe, in which particles somehow grouped together to form galaxies where in one of them our solar system decided to form and on this planet there was this ambitious soup that came to life.
All of those are things evolving.
Another word for "things evolving" is evolution.
Some call the ToE 'special evolution' because it's about species.
Are we on the same page on this?
Good.
Now did you have any comment relevant to my post you quoted?

Not nitpicking, when you display zero understanding of what the science says.

 

[bhsmte]

You can not observe what i know.
Try to remember what i replied to.

Knowledge can be demonstrated. Feel free to do so.

 

[Velaut]

(...) To give chance a chance you NEED billions and billions of years, (...)

Correct, evolution needs billions of years to come to the point we are.
Luckily, they HAVE billions and billions of years. As clearly pointed out by Subduction Zone.

There you go, issue solved. One at least.

 

[Hieronymus]

Correct, evolution needs billions of years to come to the point we are.
Luckily, they HAVE billions and billions of years. As clearly pointed out by Subduction Zone.

There you go, issue solved. One at least.

You only have an incomplete model of billions and billions of years.
A model with enough gaps and inconsistencies of its own.
But hey, if that solves your problems, go for it.

 

[Hieronymus]

You really should watch what words you use. You re the one with the beliefs in fairytales.

No, i believe in the Truth, with a capital T.
You believe in made up stories that help you deny the Truth.

I am sorry that you are too afraid to even try to learn so that you could argue in a meaningful way against the science that frightens you so badly.

You sure have a lot of that air to fry....

It is all that is needed. Your lack of knowledge in this matter demonstrates who is spouting "fried air".

I am willing to help you to learn, as are others here.

No you're not.
You're just forcing your beliefs on me.

Sorry, but your terrible ignorance in the field of geology is not a valid argument either. What we see is evidence that processes in the past are the same as they are today. No evidence for a "giant watery disaster" can be found. Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

I don't believe a thing you say.
The evidence clearly shows a huge watery disaster some millennia ago.
We see what we expect: Various strata with dead animals in it = rapid burial.

Please try to pay attention. I said that we knew that the Earth was old long before the theory of evolution was proposed. Or did you forget you mistakenly claimed a "NEED" for billions of years? And you do not know how to calculate the odds. More "fried air" from our latest non-expert.

Nobody 'knows'
how old the earth is, don't be daft.
But you need billions of years to make your fairytale work, not me.
I don't have to work around the problems a high age poses, you do.
Or maybe you just ignore them, or never heard of any.

Sure you did,

Then you can quote me where i did. Good luck.

you may not have noticed when you did it since all that you have is your aforementioned "fired air". You made this claim:

"But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science."

It's true. It's not science anymore, it's religion under the GUISE of science.
And you fell for it. But you're not alone. You're possibly the majority, at least in our post modern pseudo rationalistic formerly Christian culture...

Unlike the Bible where you pick and choose which parts you want to believe and follow you can't do the same with the sciences. By denying all of biology, geology, astronomy and other sciences and trying to claim that they are a religion you are saying that science is a religion.

What do you know about how i pick or choose anything?
You pick and choose only the evidence that fits your beliefs. You would even embrace forged evidence if that helps your faith.
But then again, your preachers, i mean peers do the picking for you. Your needs are catered for.

Once again, why not try to learn a little? Surely learning what is and what is not evidence should not be a problem for you.

Yes, well i'm very impressed.
I think i'll convert to atheism pretty soon.

But ehm... I think it's perhaps a good idea to agree we disagree.
Since this is a Christian Forum, you are supposed to respect my opinion, if i'm not mistaking.
But it's also a general rule for any member to be respectful about other opinions, so i will do my best too.

Have a nice day, and may God bless you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You only have an incomplete model of billions and billions of years.
A model with enough gaps and inconsistencies of its own.
But hey, if that solves your problems, go for it.

A claim that you have made before. What are these supposed gaps and inconsistencies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, i believe in the Truth, with a capital T.You believe in made up stories that help you deny the Truth.

Nope, you have already demonstrated that you do not. My ideas are testable and confirmable. Your beliefs have been refuted, meaning that they are not the "Truth".

You sure have a lot of that air to fry.

Wrong again, that is your sin. But you already knew that.

...No you're not.
You're just forcing your beliefs on me.

How can I "force" my beliefs on you? I guess demonstrating the obvious fact that you are wrong is "forcing" in your opinion.

I don't believe a thing you say.
The evidence clearly shows a huge watery disaster some millennia ago.
We see what we expect: Various strata with dead animals in it = rapid burial.

Nope, relatively rapid burial for some animals, but that burial may take years or in the case of "polystrate fossils" hundreds of years. And then there are the obvious examples of slow steady deposition that you have to ignore. You can't make your case if you ignore 99% of a science.

Nobody 'knows'
how old the earth is, don't be daft.
But you need billions of years to make your fairytale work, not me.
I don't have to work around the problems a high age poses, you do.
Or maybe you just ignore them, or never heard of any.

Now you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. I have explained why I am not the one that believes in fairy tales. And of course we know the age of the Earth. The fact that you keep yourself ignorant of all sciences does not help you. I can explain how and why we know that the
Earth is old. You cannot support your claims, all you can do is to deny science.

Then you can quote me where i did. Good luck.

I did. Quoting out of context as you just did is not honest. It is often used to promote a falsehood on the part of the person quoting in such a manner. I quoted you where you made that claim. Now you may not have understood your error and in that case the proper reaction is to ask questions politely and properly.

It's true. It's not science anymore, it's religion under the GUISE of science.
And you fell for it. But you're not alone. You're possibly the majority, at least in our post modern pseudo rationalistic formerly Christian culture...

Wrong again, a phrase that I am sure will be repeated often. It is not religion. It is science since it follows the scientific method. But then you do not understand the scientific method nor evidence, nor observation. Why are you so afraid to learn the basics?

What do you know about how i pick or choose anything?
You pick and choose only the evidence that fits your beliefs. You would even embrace forged evidence if that helps your faith.
But then again, your preachers, i mean peers do the picking for you. Your needs are catered for.

From your posts here. You make that obvious to anyone that reads your what you write here.

And no, I am not afraid to look at all evidence. Once more you are merely projecting your flaws upon others.

Yes, well i'm very impressed.
I think i'll convert to atheism pretty soon.

You don't have to become an atheist to get to the "Truth", but it does help. You could merely quit being a science denying Christian. There are countless Christians that do not take the Genesis stories literally, probably the majority of Christians do not make the errors that you make.

But ehm... I think it's perhaps a good idea to agree we disagree.
Since this is a Christian Forum, you are supposed to respect my opinion, if i'm not mistaking.
But it's also a general rule for any member to be respectful about other opinions, so i will do my best too.

Have a nice day, and may God bless you.

No, your opinion is only "respected" if you can support it. In fact that is a general rule for any member. I can support my claims. You can't seem to support any of yours. Respect is earned, one cannot demand it.

If you want to learn anything or if you want details on any of your major errors you need to bring them up one at a time and ask politely and properly. I will gladly answer questions for you and support my claims. Meanwhile it would be nice if you could try to support just one of your claims.