Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[McBell]

I am not a creationist but my understanding of evolution is that you are not allowed to challenge evolution and must except evolution as 100% accurate or you are a religious nutcase.

 

[DeistPrimate]

ScienceAn explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. (references)

Webster's On Line Dictionary
Dictionary - Definition of theory

 

[Autodidact]

I am not a creationist but my understanding of evolution is that you are not allowed to challenge evolution and must except evolution as 100% accurate or you are a religious nutcase.

What do you think ToE is?

This isn't really a hard question, creationists, why the evasiveness?

 

[bobhikes]

OK find a challenge, I dare you. I dare all people that believe in evolution. I could post a thread like the creationist one where your looking for real data.

A simple challenge to evolution where the challenge is a legit scientific challenge even if it is faulty and the scientist is not label as a creationist or religious nutcase.

I'll even take a scientist who falsified evolutionary data for self promotion. From a legitimate scientific source.

 

[DeistPrimate]

I am not a creationist but my understanding of evolution is that you are not allowed to challenge evolution and must except evolution as 100% accurate or you are a religious nutcase.

It's pretty much the same thing as if you challenged the Theory of Gravity by insisting the Sun and other planets travel around the Earth, quote mining those who describe the direct observation of these bodies appearing to do so and ignoring modern Physics' explanation as the propaganda of 'elitists'.

It's not so much that challenges to theory aren't welcome, but creationist attempts are just plain so stupid to someone with a real education on the topic as to be insulting.

 

[JustWondering2]

I am not a creationist but my understanding of evolution is that you are not allowed to challenge evolution and must except evolution as 100% accurate or you are a religious nutcase.

You got that bss ackwards there Bob. If one considers themselves a Creationist they must believe the "book" to be 100% accurate and the word of God and no challenges are allowed!! Anyone can challenge ToE, they only need evidence to prove their challenge. If someone found such evidence they would win a Nobel Prize!! :yes:

 

[scitsofreaky]

Wow, bobhikes, you are a one trick pony. This thread is about what you think evolution is.

 

[camanintx]

I am not a creationist but my understanding of evolution is that you are not allowed to challenge evolution and must except evolution as 100% accurate or you are a religious nutcase.

Maybe you could give an example of an alternative to evolution proposed in the last twenty years that isn't religiously motivated.

 

[outhouse]

here's your sign.....

....imaginative contemplation of reality...
...an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principals or circumstances.
...as distinguished from applied art or science.
...the coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual, and pragmatic principles forming the general frame for a field of inquiry
...a judgment, preposition, or formula formed by speculation
...a hypothetical entity or structure explaining or relating to an observed set of facts.

...a working of hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis...BUT NOT conclusively established or accepted as law.

...something taken for granted esp. on trivial or inadequate grounds

syn...conjecture...speculation...supposition

Through out the entire definition ...which you can read....in Webster's...
the word 'proof' is not there.

There are many 'facts' that you can fall back on.
And the collection of facts led to theory.

No proof yet.

let me show you how to properly post without being a plagiarist, first we post a link to the source like this.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then we post our data

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data)

AND

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory




Evolution is a Fact and a Theory



When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

 

[Autodidact]

OK find a challenge, I dare you. I dare all people that believe in evolution. I could post a thread like the creationist one where your looking for real data.

A simple challenge to evolution where the challenge is a legit scientific challenge even if it is faulty and the scientist is not label as a creationist or religious nutcase.

I'll even take a scientist who falsified evolutionary data for self promotion. From a legitimate scientific source.

Are you going to state what you think ToE says, or what are you doing here? Cuz, y'know, that is what this thread is about.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

On the contrary....I am not contrary.....

I do believe in evolution.

There simply is no proof it.
You would need that missing link...which is still missing.

That you prefer to use the word 'theory' as a substitute for 'proof'
does not bother me.

But there is a difference.

You're mistaken....there is no missing link....

 

[Thief]

In spite of all discussion offered.....
there is no proof of evolution.

Plenty of fact and indication.....no proof.

Still...I believe in it.

I also believe God is behind it...all the way.

And I would like to so a picture of that 'link'.

 

[bobhikes]

Maybe you could give an example of an alternative to evolution proposed in the last twenty years that isn't religiously motivated.

This is what I have come up with. Evolution as a science has been adopted by the anti-religious and has created a stigma so great with creationism that you can't find an alternative.

If a scientist suggests one he will be shut down by his peers.
If a School or Business believes the scientist is working against evolution all monies will be pulled.
If a scientist puts out bad work and is challenged he will pull out the religious jargon and the challenge will be dropped.
No scientific organization or scientist wants the label of creationist or ID to the point of just ignoring problems.

For me, Until evolution can be tested and challenged by schools and businesses without being called out. Until scientific review can happen without threat it can not be a real science and in fact it is not. Biologists do most of the work with evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

 

[LuisDantas]

In spite of all discussion offered.....
there is no proof of evolution.

Plenty of fact and indication.....no proof.

What would a proof be like? I'm serious. Any realistic standard of proof has been met for decades now.

Still...I believe in it.

I also believe God is behind it...all the way.

Maybe he is. It is, after all, impossible to know for sure that he isn't.

And I would like to so a picture of that 'link'.

Which link?

 

[LuisDantas]

This is what I have come up with. Evolution as a science has been adopted by the anti-religious and has created a stigma so great with creationism that you can't find an alternative.

If a scientist suggests one he will be shut down by his peers.
If a School or Business believes the scientist is working against evolution all monies will be pulled.
If a scientist puts out bad work and is challenged he will pull out the religious jargon and the challenge will be dropped.
No scientific organization or scientist wants the label of creationist or ID to the point of just ignoring problems.

For me, Until evolution can be tested and challenged by schools and businesses without being called out. Until scientific review can happen without threat it can not be a real science and in fact it is not. Biologists do most of the work with evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

That is paranoia. You are forgetting that the decisive factor is that Evolution is proven, while Creationism can't even assemble a convincing hypothesis that doesn't contradict known facts.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In spite of all discussion offered.....
there is no proof of evolution.

I'm sure you've been told over and over that science is not about "proof". It's not about the absolute because science is self correcting in light of new discoveries. Proof is something you'd see in Mathematics.

Plenty of fact and indication.....no proof.

Exactly. The evidence let's us know evolution is fact. Proof is for math.

Still...I believe in it.

Why would you believe in it? Evolution isn't a religion. I don't "believe in it". I accept the facts of evolution based on the evidence.

I also believe God is behind it...all the way.

No problem here if that is your belief.

And I would like to so a picture of that 'link'.

Can you clarify what you mean here?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

On the contrary....I am not contrary.....

I do believe in evolution.

There simply is no proof it.
You would need that missing link...which is still missing.

That you prefer to use the word 'theory' as a substitute for 'proof'
does not bother me.

But there is a difference.

Your belief that there is a 'missing link' reveals that you do not know much about the history of human evolution.

Not that the want of a human fossil would negate all the other overwhelming evidence of evolution...which is basically DNA.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You're mistaken....there is no missing link....

And I would like to so a picture of that 'link'.

 

[camanintx]

For me, Until evolution can be tested and challenged by schools and businesses without being called out. Until scientific review can happen without threat it can not be a real science and in fact it is not.

Biologists do real science on evolution every day, just read the papers. Until someone comes up with a valid alternative to evolution that doesn't begin with the proposition "God did it" then they will be called out, and rightfully so.

Businesses are free to do all the research they want whether the scientific community accepts them or not. Just look at the Institute for Creation Research and the IDEA Center. No one is preventing them from doing anything, but don't expect their work to be accepted uncritically.

As for schools, while professors have some freedom to pursue research of their choosing, such research must be productive otherwise it risks being cancelled. Professors Marks and Dembski were given a lot of freedom at Baylor University with their Evolutionary Informatics Lab until they began misrepresenting the university's position.

 

[DeistPrimate]

For me, Until evolution can be tested and challenged by schools and businesses without being called out. Until scientific review can happen without threat it can not be a real science and in fact it is not. Biologists do most of the work with evolution. There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

You are correct, the proper nominclature rather than "evolutionist" would be 'Biologist' or 'Paleotologist' or 'Geneticist'. But the testing and challenging you demand has been going on for 150 years, perhaps you should look into it.