Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[inquiring mind]

... but has absolutely zero scientific evidence to support it.

You mean other than the fact the universe and life exist, and no other alternative is proven.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean other than the fact the universe and life exist, and no other alternative is proven.

No, that's not evidence. For creationism to be an alternative that can be taken seriously, you to provide evidence of the creator and also show evidence that everything was actually created.

 

[VirOptimus]

There is apparently a multitude of ways Creationism is attempted to be falsified. Doesn't the fact it hasn't make it a solid second opinion.

No its religion. Moreover, its contrary to physical reality and therefore stupid (this adresses YEC).

 

[inquiring mind]

No its religion. Moreover, its contrary to physical reality and therefore stupid (this adresses YEC).

What part of "Creation plus some form of evolution" did you not understand?

 

[DogmaHunter]

prove that a creature can evolve into another kind of creature. say a cat to a dog or a
squirrel.

Ow, what a surprise.......................
A creationists who demands "proof" that evolution occurs, by requesting an example of a thing that according to evolution can not happen.

Awesome!

since we cant do that (its suppose to take millions of years) its just a belief.

Cats wouldn't evolve into dogs or squirrels, full stop. Not in 1000 years, not in millions of years, not in billions of years. Simply never.

If that would occur, evolution theory would be false.
Not that you care, off course.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But, you’re not saying evolutionism is a proven fact either… a theory, right?


Evolutionism isn’t falsifible either.


For argument sake, we can just consider it a second opinion if you want.



I certainly don’t discount science and even some form of evolutionary process (as in creation plus some form of it), but by your own definition it still isn’t proof, even after over a 100 years of attention by the best scientific minds.

"I certainly don’t discount science" he says.... in the same post as where he is refering to the backbone theory of the biological sciences as "evolutionism".

Irony.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean other than the fact the universe and life exist, and no other alternative is proven.

Classic argument from ignorance.

 

[inquiring mind]

Classic argument from ignorance.

Well... you know you're running out of good scientific explanations when you start using words like "stupid" and "ignorance."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well... you know you're running out of good scientific explanations when you start using words like "stupid" and "ignorance."

Not if their usage is apt.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not if their usage is apt.

When is asking someone to defend their position on something not apt?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When is asking someone to defend their position on something not apt?

When the defence points used to defend the position are either stupid or ignorant of science.
It's not that hard!

 

[inquiring mind]

When the defence points used to defend the position are either stupid or ignorant of science.
It's not that hard!

Well, I can't argue that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well... you know you're running out of good scientific explanations when you start using words like "stupid" and "ignorance."

No.


Just pointing out the obvious logical fallacy.

What you said really translates to "science doesn't know - therefor my religious assertion is a valid one"

Your assertion requires demonstration and supportive evidence. Pointing out that "there is no proven alternative", doesn't give any credibility to your unsupported, undemonstrated religious assertion.

Instead, it turns it into the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When is asking someone to defend their position on something not apt?

You are the one presenting a position - not me.
And when asked to defend it, you simply pointed to "there's no other alternative". That's the equivalent of "well, how else do you explain it?".

That's classic argument from ignorance.
Your claim stands or falls on its own merrit.

If the only "defense" you have, is saying that there is no proven alternative, you're really just saying that you got nothing at all.

If you did have proper evidence, you'ld just point to said evidence, instead of appealing to scientific ignorance.

 

[inquiring mind]

If you did have proper evidence, you'ld just point to said evidence, instead of appealing to scientific ignorance.

Well, I can't argue that either.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In science, theories are never proven.

Then I'd say you got yourself a problem there in convincing anyone other than the most gullible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Showing that you are dishonest, is fairly easy.

Just about everybody here has been explaining to you, at length, at how in science, theories are never proven.

Yet, there you are, months later, still demanding us "to prove" evolution theory.

Lets see if I got this right, your present definition of dishonest is that I don't believe science proves nothing?

Then by that standard, if we told you pigs fly and you didn't believe it you would be dishonest...right.

I still get tickled that some think so highly of themselves, that they are astounded when others don't believe whatever nonsense they tell them.

 

[VirOptimus]

What part of "Creation plus some form of evolution" did you not understand?

I understood your post fine.

 

[Brightmoon]

Convince someone no proof is necessary, nor should it be expected, and they'll believe anything

Wonder who the first was to reason out the no proof in science thing? I'd just like to see what they look like.

Ummm! creationists ! Just answering that question

prove that a creature can evolve into another kind of creature. say a cat to a dog or a
squirrel. since we cant do that (its suppose to take millions of years) its just a belief.

Felids and canids evolved from now extinct organisms called miacids. Cats don’t turn into dogs but if you want to see something close to that - hyenas, they look like canids but are more closely related to felids.
This also makes another point creationists keep bringing up. We don’t use superficial resemblances to determine either a common ancestry or to determine a closely related organism.

 

[Brightmoon]

What part of "Creation plus some form of evolution" did you not understand?

While as a Christian I believe that, the problem is that Science has no room for unverified or unverifiable beliefs . Those are called fantasies. As LaPlace sorta told Napoleon but in French, “Monsieur I have no need of that hypothesis “