What is an evolutionist strongest argument?

[notto]

Okay, MY science degree dealt with the physical realm. I did not have the 'benefit' of reverse proof for theories to be unbuilt without ever having been contructed. In physics classes we applied demonstrative process to material through various degrees of subjection to force and heat, with predictable, quantifiable resultants, legitimizing the equations we learned in class.

Then you should have no problem giving us a complete 'proof' of gravity or relativity.

 

[Buck72]

The point is that theories are accepted if they have significant supporting evidence and have not been falsified. The degree of the supporting evidence determines the strength and stability of the theory, but even the most well-founded theories are never, ever "proven".

Either I must be denser than diamond, or this is absurd logic. I may be dense in areas (we are all to some degree guys), but WOW.

You guys are willing to hang your soul (not talking salvation here), your doctrine of Creation, contrary to the Word of God...on an UNPROVEN THEORY?

Now, it has been a few years since college, I may have dumped a lot of material, but one thing I remember, and still use today, quite often actually, is called: a "WAG" (Wild A** Guess). A more eduacted version is called a "SWAG" (Scientific WAG). It is comically referred to as a "guess" and oftentimes rests somewhat close to the mark, but still not based on hard data or empirical fact.

Never, would I dare to imagine that the Word of God is incorrect while I merrily leap for the UNPROVEN POSSIBILITY of an educated guess.

I'm not disputing the intelligence of folks that hold to this idea, just that it is built upon unstable ground. In the Greek that term means "SAND".

Please read:

Mat 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Mat 7:25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.

Mat 7:26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.

Mat 7:27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall."

 

[Buck72]

Then you should have no problem giving us a complete 'proof' of gravity or relativity.

That's easy...jump. Did you come back down? Yes. And you were accelerated earthward at a known, measurable rate of 32 ft/sec2

A rate that is both demonstrable and quantifiable, again and again. Evolution is none of this. It is pure guesswork, though well-thought, and highly educated, it is still, guesswork.

 

[Vance]

Buck, you are showing a massive ignorance of science here, which is very disappointing. Science works in theories. Why do you think the theory of gravity is "just a theory"? Why is the theory of relativity "just a theory"? Because you DON'T PROVE THEORIES.

The phrase "unproven theory" is simply an oxymoron. No scientific theories are ever proven. The degree to which they should be accepted as the correct explanation of the data that is gathered is the degree of evidence supporting it, how well it tests out, etc. With these, evolution is probably the most well accepted theory in science because it is most supported and tests out over and over and over again.

Guesses have nothing to do with it. Again, I refer you to the quote I recently posted about theories and facts.

And, btw, you know that I don't believe that evolution contradicts the Bible in the least, so that is not a barrier for me.

 

[ThePhoenix]

That's easy...jump. Did you come back down? Yes. And you were accelerated earthward at a known, measurable rate of 32 ft/sec2

A rate that is both demonstrable and quantifiable, again and again. Evolution is none of this. It is pure guesswork, though well-thought, and highly educated, it is still, guesswork.

I say he went down because you were a negative thinker. I prove this by saying that someone who believes in the theory of evolution must believe in the dog eats dog world the theory implies, and thus must be a negative thinker.

There, I've proved falling is caused by negative thinking. Therefore I've removed the burden of proof from myself, and the theory is true.

 

[Buck72]

No scientific theories are ever proven. The degree to which they should be accepted as the correct explanation of the data that is gathered is the degree of evidence supporting it, how well it tests out, etc. With these, evolution is probably the most well accepted theory in science because it is most supported and tests out over and over and over again.

I know this...I'm just playing games as a "dumb YEC" to draw out an agreement that evolution is not proven or provable. It is what I've been arguing all along.

And, btw, you know that I don't believe that evolution contradicts the Bible in the least, so that is not a barrier for me.

I have a list of contradictions that I've been working on. For the record, is there anywhere in scripture that SUPPORTS evolution?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

I have a list of contradictions that I've been working on. For the record, is there anywhere in scripture that SUPPORTS evolution?

The bible is not a science book by any means. If you feel that it is, therefore, I ask you, find one example which supports any of the topics:

Quantum Tunneling
Hydrogen Spectroscopy
Nobel gas laws
Radioactivity
Bioelectrics in relation to Kirelian photography

The fact is, despite what you may have been taught, evolution is not attempting to disprove the bible. Evolution contridicts biblical literalism, which is one way of interpreting the texts that we (christians) treasure.

One can not disprove creation. However, the creationist ideologies can, for they have stepped into the realm of science. Creationism has not stood the test of time, evolution has (so far); creationist remnants congregate now in the barren world that is science, waiting for the inevitable.

On a later '[edited]' note:

Based on what you have said, that we are risking our salvation for an unproven theory, you should do the same. Who are you to dwell in the world of science, when there is a chance you might be wrong. Evidence surrounds you, their theories confuse you! Will you ruin your salvation by making a scientific mockery of God's glory? Your theories have been disproven, and yet you continue on. You scare the non-believers, and make fools out of the followers.
Therefore, why not drift back into the herd of creation, instead of your doomed creationist path!


*The previous message was satire.

 

[Vance]

I know this...I'm just playing games as a "dumb YEC" to draw out an agreement that evolution is not proven or provable. It is what I've been arguing all along.

I have a list of contradictions that I've been working on. For the record, is there anywhere in scripture that SUPPORTS evolution?

Yes, evolution, as a theory, is no more "proven" than any other theory of science. This, of course, is not in the least a detraction from it's validity.

As for Scripture supporting evolution, the most persuasive is that "earth bringing forth" and the creation of man out of dust. But really, talcos is right, I would not *expect* God to explain His use of evolution any more than he explained anything about the science of reproduction, photosynthesis, or any other "life development" process.

Really, if I had created over billions of years and used evolution, and I wanted to convey a general message to the effect that I created it all and, at the same time, provide a model for honoring one day out of seven, the way God described it would not be a bad choice.

 

[=Joel=]

I have always wondered about these improbabilities of evolution, but never heard anyone actually try to deny them. I myself have researched them to a certain degree, and kind of curious how you all will respond to them. Maybe someone would like to comment on these and explain to me how evolution could occur. Thanks



There are 36 here

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html



and a few here

http://www.creationists.org/math.html

 

[notto]

I have always wondered about these improbabilities of evolution, but never heard anyone actually try to deny them. I myself have researched them to a certain degree, and kind of curious how you all will respond to them. Maybe someone would like to comment on these and explain to me how evolution could occur. Thanks



There are 36 here

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html



and a few here

http://www.creationists.org/math.html

The first page of the first link is a simple lie. That should tell you something about the quality of the source. The law of biogenesis has nothing to do with current studies on the start of life but dealt with notions of maggots spontaneously springing forth from meat or mice coming from grain (which was actually believed in the past). This is a strawman and a purposeful misrepresentation of the science involved.

 

[ThePhoenix]

The problem with creationist math is always evident quickly. The first problem is the "Sheer randomness" problem. It is impossible for DNA to assemble out of random elements. It didn't do that. Gradual changes meant that only viable DNA passed on. It's easy to assemble an incredibly complicated organism if you have a process that error checks every detail. All you need is time, and a lot of it.

The second process is simple confusion. They claim that intermitant forms are worthless. Heh. The "inbetween" form of an eye is a group of light-sensative cells. A lot of basic animals still have those. Inbetweens are useful.