A simple question for creationists.

[Hawkins]

You will be very happy to learn that it can be tested, and it has been tested. Hence, you can now see that there is an asymmetry between "both sides" of the debate. Natural selection is a testable theory, and it has passed the test. It really works as advertised. Creationism is not testable, but there is no reason to believe that creationism is needed, since natural selection very clearly does work.

That's truly deceptive statement. Manipulation in bacteria can hardly apply to, say, human evolution. You actually need faith to believe that humans went through the same behavior as bacteria do.

Worse is, replace 'human' above with whatever organism you know (besides bacteria that is), you'll find that the so-called 'natural selection' won't apply to over 99.99% species/organisms.

Another dillema is, even when you can manage to observe macro-evoluton in most species, you still need faith to belief that macro-evolution actually can bring species change do occur. As long as you can't predictably demonstrate how organs such as human eyes, human hearts, lungs...etc. come to existence in a laboratory, your theory is just an assumption one needs faith to swallow.

Again, replace 'human' in the above paragraph to see how ToE failed in most species.

 

[painted wolf]

Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans | LiveScience
Lactose tolerance gene proves Natural Selection in humans (2/7/2007)
Natural selection in humans: the EPAS1 gene at high altitudes « Why Evolution Is True

Just a few quick examples.

wa:do

 

[Majikthise]

I know it's repetative and I apologize in advance, but just so we are clear....

"Evolution is a fact, not a theory." Carl Sagan,COSMOS, pg.27

...from my own dog eared old copy and I garantee you this is in no way taken out of context. Try actually reading at least that chapter. You might just learn something.:yes:

 

[outhouse]

That's truly deceptive statement. Manipulation in bacteria can hardly apply to, say, human evolution. You actually need faith to believe that humans went through the same behavior as bacteria do.

Worse is, replace 'human' above with whatever organism you know (besides bacteria that is), you'll find that the so-called 'natural selection' won't apply to over 99.99% species/organisms.

Another dillema is, even when you can manage to observe macro-evoluton in most species, you still need faith to belief that macro-evolution actually can bring species change do occur. As long as you can't predictably demonstrate how organs such as human eyes, human hearts, lungs...etc. come to existence in a laboratory, your theory is just an assumption one needs faith to swallow.

Again, replace 'human' in the above paragraph to see how ToE failed in most species.

why do you post things you know little to nothing about???

 

[Matthew78]

Just to point out creationists have never claimed that "creation" is testable, or part of the scientific method, I am not a creationist, but I have read a couple of their books and none claim creationism is testable. The reason for this is that most believe it was a one off event, or events that took place along time ago.

I disagree; creationists do argue that the "creation model" is testable. IIRC, Duane Gish does this in his book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics.

I believe that creationism has been tested and refuted. The very existence of transitional fossils, the nested hierarchy of life, and comparative homologies have refuted creationism.

Heres a more important question. Can "natural selection" be tested?

Your find that actually natural selection and the creationist explanation of God creating things, are both metaphysical, both theories of the past. And both sides of the debate put either in the gap. Both are not scientific.

Is this the reason you are so skeptical of Darwinian evolution?

 

[Matthew78]

He isn't deliberately misquoting Sagan: He's never read Sagan - probably has no idea who Sagan is. He's clearly just grabbing a few handy quote mines from his JW magazines. Like I said ages ago, he has only two referenced sources: JW magazines and the movie Expelled.

That would explain a lot.

I would have him read Sagan's book Cosmos but I think it would do him better if he started with The Demon-Haunted World. At least he would get a clue as to how science operates, why scientific skepticism is important, and why a science-based education is badly needed in this day and age.

 

[Alceste]

That would explain a lot.

I would have him read Sagan's book Cosmos but I think it would do him better if he started with The Demon-Haunted World. At least he would get a clue as to how science operates, why scientific skepticism is important, and why a science-based education is badly needed in this day and age.

Ah well, if YEC believers had the constitution or curiosity to cuddle up with some Sagan for an evening, we wouldn't be having this debate. For my part, I wish they'd read Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth.

 

[Photonic]

Ah well, if YEC believers had the constitution or curiosity to cuddle up with some Sagan for an evening, we wouldn't be having this debate. For my part, I wish they'd read Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth.

I do so love his books.

Both of theirs.

Reading "The Ancestor's Tale" right now.

 

[Copernicus]

Most of the people who hate Dawkins only read excerpts that were quote-mined in order to vilify him. He is the best known atheist of our times, and that has made him the object of a great deal of hatred.

 

[Photonic]

Most of the people who hate Dawkins only read excerpts that were quote-mined in order to vilify him. He is the best known atheist of our times, and that has made him the object of a great deal of hatred.

He is also one of the worlds leading experts on evolutionary biology.

 

[Hawkins]

why do you post things you know little to nothing about???

The point is, you can't even point out where the fault is. Say something to refute what I said. It should be easy if I "know little about".

All your kind can do is just keep throwing out empty statements with bold assertion but no argument.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

A simple question I would ask a creationist. Why don't you just admit you are wrong?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Another simple question. Why don't you read a proper book for once instead of one written by goat herders over 2000 years ago?

 

[Hawkins]

Another simple question. Why don't you read a proper book for once instead of one written by goat herders over 2000 years ago?

Again, can you make a point out other than attacking aimlessly! C'mon you can, you are educated, right!?

Gee, evolutionists!

 

[PennyKay]

Ok, sorry I've been quite on this thread, been pretty busy.

The points creationists seem to be making are the following:

- There are no links from species to species.
- Fossils support creation, not evolution (how, I have no idea?)
- There aren't enough fossils to support the theory of evolution.
- They are the result of the animals that didn't make it on to Noah's Ark.
- They are animals that exist today, but their bones have just been fossilized.

(If I've missed any off, apologies, if you'd like to add anymore, please do)

Here's my personal view and response:

- The 'there is no link from species to species' argument is flawed. The important thing to remember is that evolution doesn't mean that a monkey one day gave birth to a human. It means that over millions of years, each tiny positive mutation in the genes of an animal accumulates to a point where the animal no longer resembles the ancestor it originated from millions of years ago.

It’s only because humans like to give things labels, that we get into the mistake that we think there should be a link between the ancestor of a human, and a human. In truth, every single creature that is born is a link between species, with every tiny mutation, gradually changing one species to another.

I regards to the amount of fossils that we have found, that is simply a result of how rare it is for bones to actually become fossilized and also how little time we have known about them. My cousin is an amateur fossil hunter, and he goes for weekends away and comes back with bags full of them. You've just got to look in the right places.

Another question I'd like to ask people who don't think evolution is correct is this:

We see on the TV all of the time, adverts for charities like the WWf, to help save endangered species. If evolution wasn't correct, how does your God explain species that do become endangered and eventually die out? I thought the Christian God was 'all-loving'. Evolution explains extinction remarkably well, it's simply the result of a species of animal losing out to all of the other species in that particular environment. If it's weaker than all the rest, it will most likely die out. The stronger species survives.

Another point I'd like to make, which I think is quite important, is to remember that the theory of evolution isn't our best description of how life got started of earth. It is however, our best description on what happened to life once is got started. How it actually got started, is still pretty much anyone’s guess.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just to point out creationists have never claimed that "creation" is testable, or part of the scientific method, I am not a creationist, but I have read a couple of their books and none claim creationism is testable. The reason for this is that most believe it was a one off event, or events that took place along time ago.

Heres a more important question. Can "natural selection" be tested?

Your find that actually natural selection and the creationist explanation of God creating things, are both metaphysical, both theories of the past. And both sides of the debate put either in the gap. Both are not scientific.

This is cute.....

See Copernicus' post....
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2635080-post119.html

 

[Looncall]

That's truly deceptive statement. Manipulation in bacteria can hardly apply to, say, human evolution. You actually need faith to believe that humans went through the same behavior as bacteria do.

Worse is, replace 'human' above with whatever organism you know (besides bacteria that is), you'll find that the so-called 'natural selection' won't apply to over 99.99% species/organisms.

Another dillema is, even when you can manage to observe macro-evoluton in most species, you still need faith to belief that macro-evolution actually can bring species change do occur. As long as you can't predictably demonstrate how organs such as human eyes, human hearts, lungs...etc. come to existence in a laboratory, your theory is just an assumption one needs faith to swallow.

Again, replace 'human' in the above paragraph to see how ToE failed in most species.

i hope you have a good dentist ... lieing through your teeth like that.

 

[johnhanks]

Paleontologists-the scientists who study fossils-are the most disenchanted of all the evolutionary scientists. Despite the claims of the non-scientific community, fossils DO NOT support the hypothesis of evolution. In fact, there are so many missing links in the fossil study, evolutionists rarely even rely on fossils for any kind for evidence...

And here we go again, with another under-informed creationist telling paleontologists what they think.

There may be findings some day that support the missing links but it is highly unlikely anything will be found amongst fossils.

Many decades ago, when I first took an interest in the evolution-creation confrontation, creationists absolutely loved whales. 'Show us the missing links', they jeered, 'Show us a whale with legs'.

Oddly, creationists rarely mention whales these days.

 

[Photonic]

And here we go again, with another under-informed creationist telling paleontologists what they think.
Many decades ago, when I first took an interest in the evolution-creation confrontation, creationists absolutely loved whales. 'Show us the missing links', they jeered, 'Show us a whale with legs'.

Oddly, creationists rarely mention whales these days.

Hehe, yea. The whale bit was surprisingly unsurprising to me as well, when they genetically linked whales with elephants. (Among many others)

 

[EarthAlive]

This is cute.....

See Copernicus' post....
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2635080-post119.html

Yes the link he posted is from a lab. Labs are not natural, the observers were manipulating the results. When it comes to nature, yes the outdoors, natural selection is not testable. It can not be observed, tested or weighed/measured etc.