Why creationists reject evolution

[Tomk80]

i think there is. if it is a Law it is proven if it is said to be Fact it is proven. All you say is it is very close or as close as we can get it. it all fits well anbd sounds good but we just cant prove it, never will im afraid.

If it is a law, it is 'proven' just as much as if it is a theory. A law is just a description of the things we have observed untill now. We may always come across measurements that show this law to be incorrect.

The same with a fact. A fact is not proven, and even facts can change. For example, if we have always observed white swans, and never any black swans, we might call swans being white a fact. Untill the time that we find a black one.

Facts, laws and theories. All these can possibly be shown to be incorrect in the future. Therefore, we cannot speak of these being proven, only of these having evidence in favor of them.

 

[corvus_corax]

there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

i think there is.

I know there isn't.

Well said Valkhorn

When people like Schroeder speak of "proof" and "law" vs "theory", they are only demonstrating their lack of understanding of those terms in a scientific sense.

"Proof" is reserved for mathematics and alchohol.
"Law" is a description of an effect (such as the "law" of gravity")
A scientific theory (as opposed to a layman's theory) is, quite simply (read this carefully, Creationists)-
THE CURRENT BEST FALSIFIABLE, OBJECTIVELY-EMPIRICAL MODEL EXPLAINING THAT WHICH WE OBSERVE AROUND US.

Plain and simple. Scientific Theory should never be confused with Scientific Law, and neither of those should be confused with "proof".

 

[Valkhorn]

Well said Valkhorn

When people like Schroeder speak of "proof" and "law" vs "theory", they are only demonstrating their lack of understanding of those terms in a scientific sense.

Thank you. I think Kenneth Miller (a christian evolutionary biologist you creationaries) said it best when he mentioned that theories are often above facts since theories are used to explain thousands or tens of thousands of facts.

For example you might take a college course in atomic theory but never one called 'atomic facts'.

 

[Schroeder]

Well said Valkhorn

When people like Schroeder speak of "proof" and "law" vs "theory", they are only demonstrating their lack of understanding of those terms in a scientific sense.

"Proof" is reserved for mathematics and alchohol.
"Law" is a description of an effect (such as the "law" of gravity")
A scientific theory (as opposed to a layman's theory) is, quite simply (read this carefully, Creationists)-
THE CURRENT BEST FALSIFIABLE, OBJECTIVELY-EMPIRICAL MODEL EXPLAINING THAT WHICH WE OBSERVE AROUND US.

Plain and simple. Scientific Theory should never be confused with Scientific Law, and neither of those should be confused with "proof".

well that, i might say, help in my future debats or conversatuions. i will admit that it clears it up for me and that i was wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

Thank you. I think Kenneth Miller (a christian evolutionary biologist you creationaries) said it best when he mentioned that theories are often above facts since theories are used to explain thousands or tens of thousands of facts.

For example you might take a college course in atomic theory but never one called 'atomic facts'.

I know of NO CHRISTIAN who would say that CHRIST is a fictional character. And I know of no other place to read an historic account of the SAVIOR other than in the Bible. Facts are factual and theory is speculative at best------it is not revealed truth. Theory might be implied, but an implication is neither fact nor foolproof.---- no matter how much ACTUAL fact seems to support it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I know of NO CHRISTIAN who would say that CHRIST is a fictional character.

Yet it does not follow that one does not exist. As it has been shown on many occasions here the things you do not know far exceed the things you do. While this may be said about each of us to varying degrees, most people have the intelligence to refrain from making factual assertions about things they do not know.

And I know of no other place to read an historic account of the SAVIOR other than in the Bible.

Which only evidences that the account by this one book is not corroborated objectively or otherwise.

Facts are factual and theory is speculative at best

Well here’s a nice little brain dropping. “Facts are factual” beautiful… “theory is speculative as best” After all this time you still have yet to muster the intellectual fortitude to differentiate scientific theory and a layman’s theory. So why is this Nip? Are you really that dense or are you being dishonest at this point?

------it is not revealed truth.

”Revealed truth” is meaningless and you devaluate the meaning of each word with your haphazard usage. You have proven to use that truth is secondary to your beliefs.

Theory might be implied, but an implication is neither fact nor foolproof.---- no matter how much ACTUAL fact seems to support it.

And back once again to abusing the word theory. You don’t even wait for a new thread to do it anymore either. Here you go just plopping it down like so much refuse just after it has been so eloquently defined by multiple posters before you. You should be ashamed of your behaviour.

 

[Tomk80]

I know of NO CHRISTIAN who would say that CHRIST is a fictional character. And I know of no other place to read an historic account of the SAVIOR other than in the Bible. Facts are factual and theory is speculative at best------it is not revealed truth. Theory might be implied, but an implication is neither fact nor foolproof.---- no matter how much ACTUAL fact seems to support it.

Does anybody else think this post is a non-sequitur in the extreme.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Does anybody else think this post is a non-sequitur in the extreme.

It appears that, instead of conceding a point when reason fails, some people simply abandon reason instead.

 

[LittleNipper]

Does anybody else think this post is a non-sequitur in the extreme.

I guess not.... Is non-sequitur Latin or French? Just a joke no answer necessary.........

 

[LittleNipper]

Yet it does not follow that one does not exist. As it has been shown on many occasions here the things you do not know far exceed the things you do. While this may be said about each of us to varying degrees, most people have the intelligence to refrain from making factual assertions about things they do not know.
Which only evidences that the account by this one book is not corroborated objectively or otherwise.
Well here’s a nice little brain dropping. “Facts are factual” beautiful… “theory is speculative as best” After all this time you still have yet to muster the intellectual fortitude to differentiate scientific theory and a layman’s theory. So why is this Nip? Are you really that dense or are you being dishonest at this point?
”Revealed truth” is meaningless and you devaluate the meaning of each word with your haphazard usage. You have proven to use that truth is secondary to your beliefs.
And back once again to abusing the word theory. You don’t even wait for a new thread to do it anymore either. Here you go just plopping it down like so much refuse just after it has been so eloquently defined by multiple posters before you. You should be ashamed of your behaviour.

Theory is theory, and the only dishonesty seems to be in your ballpark or are you simply being dense?

 

[Tomk80]

Theory is theory, and the only dishonesty seems to be in your ballpark or are you simply being dense?

Indeed, theory is theory. Theory is the best currently supported explanation of why a given phenomenon occurs, given the eivdence. Theories are well supported, coherent explanations based on a wide range of evidence.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Theory is theory, and the only dishonesty seems to be in your ballpark or are you simply being dense?

And, once again, you are absolutely wrong.

Theory n.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Now stop trying to deceive people by asserting that the Theory of Evolution is like the sixth definition.

 

[LittleNipper]

And, once again, you are absolutely wrong.

Now stop trying to deceive people by asserting that the Theory of Evolution is like the sixth definition.

This is your theory... I don't deceive people, unlike the evolutionists...

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

This is your theory... I don't deceive people, unlike the evolutionists...

If you are asserting that the word “theory” as it is used in the term “Theory of Evolution” is defined as set forth in definition six (which you are) and you know that there is a difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s theory (which you should by now) then you are deceiving people. It really is that simple.

 

[vossler]

Objection: “Evolution goes against the bible”
Although this may or may not be true depending on your interpretation of said myth there are plenty of other scientific theories and discoveries that “go against the bible”. The fact that there aren’t creationists railing against a heliocentric solar system or a round Earth shows that the “goes against the bible” objection is a selective excuse to oppose evolution and not the true reason.

Not to get into a discussion on heliocentric vs. geocentric theory, but whichever you believe it has little to no bearing on our everyday life. The Theory of Evolution has a significant bearing on our life, that's why I don't 'rail' against it.

Objection: “Evolution isn’t supported by the evidence”

Although there are many poor creationists that have been fed a false version of evolution and may believe this at first too many creationists continue to hold this position long after they have been shown the evidence. This means, once again, that this objection is just an excuse to rail against evolution and not the genuine reason.

I've seen much of the 'evidence' and most of it is less than compelling. You may think of it as an excuse, but I would be less than genuine if I were to believe something to be true that I clearly don't see. I would then be like many of the evolutionists who are interviewed and can't give a reason for why they believe.

Yes this is personal, when the Bible tells me that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. " I take that serious and it becomes very personal.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I've seen much of the 'evidence' and most of it is less than compelling. You may think of it as an excuse, but I would be less than genuine if I were to believe something to be true that I clearly don't see. I would then be like many of the evolutionists who are interviewed and can't give a reason for why they believe.

Although the ToE (Theory of Evolution) is supported my multiple lines of evidence stemming from various branches of science, I can’t see how anyone can objectively look at the genetic evidence alone and still deny it’s validity. Once I learned about ERVs I couldn’t see how the evidence could be interpreted any other way.

Yes this is personal, when the Bible tells me that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. " I take that serious and it becomes very personal.

No offense, but this is exactly why religion hinders the advancement of mankind. We are dealing with a well substantiated scientific theory here and the main, if not only, reason it is a center of controversy is that religion has set itself up at odds with it. The correlation between the ToE and the heliocentric solar system is so acute that I am at a loss as to how anyone can’t realize it as history repeating itself.

If taken literally the bible is chock full of errors. Once you realize this and start to interpret the text in order to reconcile it with the reality of a spherical earth and non geocentric universe then you must be reasonable and allow for the possibility that the origin of man is just another instance of this phenomenon and evaluate the ToE objectively.

 

[LittleNipper]

If you are asserting that the word “theory” as it is used in the term “Theory of Evolution” is defined as set forth in definition six (which you are) and you know that there is a difference between a scientific theory and a layman’s theory (which you should by now) then you are deceiving people. It really is that simple.

Now, it sounds like you're trying to confuse people with English. Scientific THEORY is not anymore certain then not having been there.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Which reminds me… you never responded to post 36 Nipper. Have you been able to figure it out yet?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Now, it sounds like your trying to confuse people with English. Scientific THEORY is not anymore certain then [sic] not having been there.

Tell me Nip, do you have to be there to know that the surface of the sun is hot?
For all your rhetoric and hand-waving you have yet to own up to one of your fallacious statements.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Which reminds me… you never responded to post 36 Nipper. Have you been able to figure it out yet?

No? Wow Nip, it seems you always have a lot to say until it comes down to talking about why you say it. If your opinions are without reason then why in the world should anyone even listen to you much less lend credence to them?