Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?

[tumbleweed41]

You would need that missing link...which is still missing.

What "missing link"?
For example...
If we find fossil (1) and fossil (3), and through anthropological and biological evidence find that (3) is descended form (1), the uninformed will insist this is not proven because we have not found fossil (2). But say we did find fossil (2). What about fossil (2.5)? Fossil (2.25)? Fossil (2.75)? etc, etc, etc.
Evolution is often a slow process. Must we find a fossil from every year of development for a species? Ridiculous. Fossilization is a rare process.
To insist on finding examples of every slight differentiation in a species is to show an ignorance of how fossilization occurs,
Every fossil that that has been found provides further evidence of biological evolution. They confim predictions made by biological evolution.

Example...
Biological evolution says, if evolution is true, we will find (example A) in a fossil found from time period (B).
When a new fossil is found from time period (B), we find that it is has (example A).
This is added to the abundance of empirical evidence in support of the scientific Theory of Evolution.

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

But there is a difference.

Yes, there is indeed a difference.
Just as there is a difference between objective, empirical evidence and proof.
Scientific Theory =/= Proof
Scientific Theory =abundance of objective, empirical evidence, verified hypothesis, and verified prediction.

Your continued misuse of words concerning the scientific method only highlights your ignorance of the subject.

 

[DeistPrimate]

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.

Yeah I asked this question as well, still waiting for the answer.

Excellent response though Penguin.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

What do you think the Theory of Evolution is?

 

[andys]

It troubles me that simply entering into a debate with the ill-informed creationist, over the Theory of Evolution, invites the illusion that this is truly a debatable issue in the first place. Of course, it is nothing of the sort.

The only reason we, the informed, should, and do bother to educate these deluded throwbacks to the dark ages, is to avert the increasing threat they pose to our modern society and to the legitimacy of our science. Increasingly, creationists abuse their positions of authority by promoting their backward beliefs any way they can. Textbooks, for example, that teach Evolution are relentlessly targeted. Many have had all reference to Darwin and Evolution stricken, or have been edited to include Intelligent Design as a legitimate, alternate "theory". Recently, an elaborate museum of pure creationist propaganda was opened to the unwary public featuring life-size dinosaurs living alongside prehistoric men, women and children.

So as we enter into this "debate" let us be clear that there is nothing to debate. There is no contoversy. No alternative theory. No issue. All there is, is a group of remarkably uneducated closed-minded people (likened to belivers in a flat Earth), who persist in denying what is irrefuted scientific fact of the highest order of certainty.

We do not debate with creationists, we can only hope to educate them.

 

[outhouse]

We do not debate with creationists, we can only hope to educate them.

very true.

what i see here is a group of creationist that no matter what you try and teach or evidence they are shown they deny it to the grave.

there are a few that are reachable but most of them are new to the site.

it amazes me how many times I have seem some people try to teach certain people. I have seen the evidence pointed out to three people on this board atleast 30 times like somehow that nexy time will sink in [face palm]

when it gets to that point it is beyond hope and you can only reply in hopes someone else reading doesnt fall for the creationist lies and plagiarism

 

[bobhikes]

What do you think the Theory of Evolution is?

\


Personally and reasonably I Like the theory of Evolution. But I see gaps and problems that need to be resolved. I don't believe they will ever be resolved unless scientist's have more freedom with challenging it.

Battling Creationism is a waste of time and takes away from the theory itself. Instead of a scientific discovery it becomes a anti-religious philosophy. You are either an evolutionist or a creationist(ID) no other choices. Truthfully evolution really has nothing to do with God or Religion.

This is Religious Forums and it is the only scientific theory that has its own category. All you need to do is ask yourself why that is and you should be able to see the problem.

 

[Autodidact]

\


Personally and reasonably I Like the theory of Evolution. But I see gaps and problems that need to be resolved. I don't believe they will ever be resolved unless scientist's have more freedom with challenging it.

Battling Creationism is a waste of time and takes away from the theory itself. Instead of a scientific discovery it becomes a anti-religious philosophy. You are either an evolutionist or a creationist(ID) no other choices. Truthfully evolution really has nothing to do with God or Religion.

This is Religious Forums and it is the only scientific theory that has its own category. All you need to do is ask yourself why that is and you should be able to see the problem.

Can you tell us what you think the Theory of Evolution says?

Thank you.

 

[Big_TJ]

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

Just out of curiousity: if a person is arrested for killing someone else, what "proof" would you require to say "ha ha, there is your killer!"

Also, can you please define what you mean by "proof"?

 

[LuisDantas]

It troubles me that simply entering into a debate with the ill-informed creationist, over the Theory of Evolution, invites the illusion that this is truly a debatable issue in the first place. Of course, it is nothing of the sort.

(...)

So as we enter into this "debate" let us be clear that there is nothing to debate. There is no contoversy. No alternative theory. No issue. All there is, is a group of remarkably uneducated closed-minded people (likened to belivers in a flat Earth), who persist in denying what is irrefuted scientific fact of the highest order of certainty.

We do not debate with creationists, we can only hope to educate them.

Frubal. Precisely.

 

[bobhikes]

Can you tell us what you think the Theory of Evolution says?

Thank you.

I have been blasted to many times by Unreasonable RF People who think they actually know the theory of evolution to take you up on that.

Personally, feel free to believe what you want my idea's and thoughts do not really matter that much. I do this just for fun.

If you wish a private open minded discussion that is fine. Feel free to contact me.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Personally and reasonably I Like the theory of Evolution. But I see gaps and problems that need to be resolved. I don't believe they will ever be resolved unless scientist's have more freedom with challenging it.

Such as?

Because I have seen NO "gaps".....

Battling Creationism is a waste of time and takes away from the theory itself. Instead of a scientific discovery it becomes a anti-religious philosophy.

Yes and No. Science marches on even in spite of the deluded individuals. There are very few public debates hosing the subject. You mainly see it discussed online (i.e. religiousforums.com).

You are either an evolutionist or a creationist(ID) no other choices.

Incorrect. There's no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution It's not a movement or a religion

Truthfully evolution really has nothing to do with God or Religion.

True.

This is Religious Forums and it is the only scientific theory that has its own category. All you need to do is ask yourself why that is and you should be able to see the problem.

Are you charging the Mods, Admins and Staff member with conspiracy? While this is a religious site there are threads dedicated to games, philosophy and a host of other topics. Evolution has always been a hot button topic amongst the religious and skeptics alike.

 

[Big_TJ]

I have been blasted to many times by Unreasonable RF People who think they actually know the theory of evolution to take you up on that.

Personally, feel free to believe what you want my idea's and thoughts do not really matter that much. I do this just for fun.

If you wish a private open minded discussion that is fine. Feel free to contact me.

Does this, in some way, explain what you understand by the TOE? I would really be interested in knowing what is your understanding of it.

 

[bobhikes]

Does this, in some way, explain what you understand by the TOE? I would really be interested in knowing what is your understanding of it.

I know it will be wrong but I feel like being dangerous.

Evolution in simplist form is change but it has a slight twist the only changes that survive are those that are beneficial.


Have at it.

 

[Autodidact]

I know it will be wrong but I feel like being dangerous.

Evolution in simplist form is change but it has a slight twist the only changes that survive are those that are beneficial.


Have at it.

I don't think it's wrong, just a bit incomplete. More specifically, it tells us that the way we get new kinds of organisms is that when organisms reproduce, the changes that are beneficial survive, as you say, and this results in substantial change over time, enough change to be considered a new species.

Further, that this is the way we get different species, and accounts for all the species on earth.

It follows from this that every species on earth is descended from a single common ancestor a long, long time ago.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't think it's wrong, just a bit incomplete. More specifically, it tells us that the way we get new kinds of organisms is that when organisms reproduce, the changes that are beneficial survive, as you say, and this results in substantial change over time, enough change to be considered a new species.

Further, that this is the way we get different species, and accounts for all the species on earth.

It follows from this that every species on earth is descended from a single common ancestor a long, long time ago.

To piggy back on this for Bobhikes, here's somewhat of an example. I think this is known as Allopatric Speciation;

[youtube]YCoEiLOV8jc[/youtube]
YouTube - Speciation

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Here's another great video that gives more details but should be easy enough to follow along.

[youtube]LEGQu3cm3CE[/youtube]
YouTube - How Evolution Works 7: Speciation

 

[Thief]

What "missing link"?
For example...
If we find fossil (1) and fossil (3), and through anthropological and biological evidence find that (3) is descended form (1), the uninformed will insist this is not proven because we have not found fossil (2). But say we did find fossil (2). What about fossil (2.5)? Fossil (2.25)? Fossil (2.75)? etc, etc, etc.
Evolution is often a slow process. Must we find a fossil from every year of development for a species? Ridiculous. Fossilization is a rare process.
To insist on finding examples of every slight differentiation in a species is to show an ignorance of how fossilization occurs,
Every fossil that that has been found provides further evidence of biological evolution. They confim predictions made by biological evolution.

Example...
Biological evolution says, if evolution is true, we will find (example A) in a fossil found from time period (B).
When a new fossil is found from time period (B), we find that it is has (example A).
This is added to the abundance of empirical evidence in support of the scientific Theory of Evolution.


Yes, there is indeed a difference.
Just as there is a difference between objective, empirical evidence and proof.
Scientific Theory =/= Proof
Scientific Theory =abundance of objective, empirical evidence, verified hypothesis, and verified prediction.

Your continued misuse of words concerning the scientific method only highlights your ignorance of the subject.

Your accusation is altogether incorrect is bordering childlike stubbornness.

Was it this thread I posted the definition for theory?
Did you read it?

The definition I posted will never fail.

syn....speculation....concept....supposition....etc.

Proof was not in the list of items.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the point of ignoring the actual definition of Scientific Theory, Thief?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your accusation is altogether incorrect is bordering childlike stubbornness.

Was it this thread I posted the definition for theory?
Did you read it?

The definition I posted will never fail.

syn....speculation....concept....supposition....etc.

Proof was not in the list of items.

What is the point of ignoring the actual definition of Scientific Theory, Thief?

A need to be right despite contradictory evidence?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm a creationist, and I think that ToE is the best way to understand the natural sciences.