|
Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
Many people who make that sort of claim and others really don't know what theory
means in science. It's looking at the evidence and determining what best
explains the evidence. As more evidence and knowledge come forth, the theory
advances and when necessary, errors corrected. On the other hand, with
creation, you're told the "facts" and are not allowed to challenge
them, even though there's no supporting evidence and plenty that's contrary.
BTW, ever compare the definitions of "faith" and
"delusion"?
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
Agreed,
I am a Christian and it is my opinion that both the evolutionists and the
"Young Earth" creationists are full of male bovine excrement.
Evolution isn't science because it isn't testable.
Further, nothing in the theory of evolution contridicts the basic idea of a
created universe until you add in abiogenisis (live developing from un-living
materials).
Many evolutionists like to push the idea that you can't understand modern
biology without evolution and yet one of the earliest discoveries of biology as
a science was to prove abiogenisis imposible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
That is, Origin of Species certainly gives a number of tests of evolution versus
creation, from a very god-fearing Christian author, I might point out. I can
think of more that were not cited, since, at that point, the germ theory of
disease was not widely accepted.
Anyone care to discuss the 20th century domestication of Russian Foxes? Equines
and their near relatives?(google, for example, "zorse")
(Christenson, on his high zorse)(grin)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
Like virtually every other scientific theory, the theory gains
popularity, not
because it provides a better explanation, but because the
advocates of the
earlier theory died out.
I've got to push
the big red buzzer on this because it is totally untrue. Evolution provides a
much better explanation; one consistent with observations from
paleontology, astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geology, etc in a way that the
"old explanation" was not. We have a mechanism for it and everything. We can
look at the DNA changes directly and watch it happening. Denying the reality of
evolution at this point is simply not rational.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
Equally guilty?
False equivalency.
Evolution is
falsifiable. It has made predictions which have been proven correct. It has been
updated after finding more evidence (like good science does). At this moment,
evolution is by far the one theory to explain differentiation of species that
better fits all the evidence we have found so far.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
comdesc/
We even understand it better than gravity.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bprice on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
Whilst Creation Science advocates are guilty of bad science,
evolutionists are equally guilty of equally bad science.
[citation
required].
You need to support this bald assertion of "equally guilty of
equally bad science."
I suggest that you may start with this example:
"Creation Science" advocates of the "intelligent design" ilk imagined that
flagella were an example of "irreducible complexity", thus could not have been
produced by evolutionary processes. This imagining, supporting their faith, was
adduced as a conclusive 'scientific' fact and published. The people who know
about such things — evolutionists in biology — immediately produced
a series of predecessors to flagella-bearing organisms showing an evolutionary
process that produced them. This is the only example that I can recall wherein
the "Creation Science" people actually dared to attempt anything remotely
scientific.
Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that
evolutionists are "equally guilty" (100% of all cases is what 'equally' means)
of "equally bad science" (making unsupported conjectures, contrary to available
evidence, claimed as facts). --- --Bill. NAL: question the answers,
especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|