Creationists, please provide evidence

[jarofthoughts]

Neither, i made it a Haiku.

Ah!!!
Excellent!
:clap

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Only by making the assumption do you figure out whether it is a valid assumption or not. Make no assumptions, learn nothing. The more assumptions you make, the more you'll learn.
Of course this is all dependent on the fact that you KNOW you're making an assumption. If you don't, you won't see any need to change what you think is 'fact', when in reality, it is only assumed to be 'fact'.

Agreed.

Assumptions are great. But without evidence they are NOT proof.

 

[Created_Madness]

I read on one of the post in here that irreducibly complexities have been refuted, explained, and debunked. Can I please have the source for that I would like to read up on it? Also from what I have read so far on both sides of the arguement, neither can show positive evidence for how we got here! Still doing research though so please don't jump down my throat for not being on either side!

 

[jarofthoughts]

I read on one of the post in here that irreducibly complexities have been refuted, explained, and debunked. Can I please have the source for that I would like to read up on it? Also from what I have read so far on both sides of the arguement, neither can show positive evidence for how we got here! Still doing research though so please don't jump down my throat for not being on either side!

Sure.
Which item of "irreducible complexity" do you want to see the refutation for?

The eye?
The bacterial flagellum?
Or some other item of your choice?

In either case you could start by reading this article: Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote: "Irreducible complexity is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations. The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience."


As for the evidence for Evolution I generally recommend Richard Dawkins' excellent treatise of the subject, The Greatest Show on Earth: Amazon.com: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (9781416594789): Richard Dawkins: Books

 

[Tristesse]

I read on one of the post in here that irreducibly complexities have been refuted, explained, and debunked. Can I please have the source for that I would like to read up on it? Also from what I have read so far on both sides of the arguement, neither can show positive evidence for how we got here! Still doing research though so please don't jump down my throat for not being on either side!

Here ya go! just skip down to the part where it says, "answering the argument." Irreducible complexity is one big argument from ignorance.
The Flagellum Unspun

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by, how we got here. But evolution only explains genetic change over time, it doesn't address origins.

 

[painted wolf]

I read on one of the post in here that irreducibly complexities have been refuted, explained, and debunked. Can I please have the source for that I would like to read up on it? Also from what I have read so far on both sides of the arguement, neither can show positive evidence for how we got here! Still doing research though so please don't jump down my throat for not being on either side!

I would recommend, in addition to the other sources provided that you check out the ruling from Kitzmiller v. Dover here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.

I think the section "Whether ID is Science" covers the issue quite nicely.

wa:do

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Agreed.

Assumptions are great. But without evidence they are NOT proof.

That's why they're called assumptions. You assume that something is true to see if it is, not to take it blindly.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

That's why they're called assumptions. You assume that something is true to see if it is, not to take it blindly.

I am in complete agreement with you.

However without evidence it cannot be considered a fact.

-Q

 

[outhouse]

Lets get this over with

evolution is real and there is no question about this. Its nailed down tight with science. From fossil evidence, DNA ect its solid. we see many things evolving today the way they always have.

The tragedy that the christian myth has made it this far into the 21rst cetury amazes me. It shows how low the intellegence levels go in america. Most other country's dont blink an eye about this even the pope and vatican find valid scientific evidence for human evolution.

Like everything else christianity is evolving with evolution. with new scientific discoverys the church has to dance around its belief's it holds true

now if you want to debate abiogenesis thats another story alltogether.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Lets get this over with

evolution is real and there is no question about this. Its nailed down tight with science. From fossil evidence, DNA ect its solid. we see many things evolving today the way they always have.

No argument here.

The tragedy that the christian myth has made it this far into the 21rst cetury amazes me. It shows how low the intellegence levels go in america. Most other country's dont blink an eye about this even the pope and vatican find valid scientific evidence for human evolution.

I don't think its about low intelligence. I think it shows just how much people are willing to ignore in order to get something they think they need. Most of the time, they don't even know what they need, but they think they find it in religion. When they think they find it, but really don't, they latch on to the beliefs themselves, rather than the core idea.
To use a visual, they've built their faith castle up in the air, without any foundation at all, so the slightest breeze will knock it over.

now if you want to debate abiogenesis thats another story alltogether.

I wouldn't care to. Life happened. What more do we want to know? Unless of course you want to create life, then figuring out how life started naturally would be incredibly useful.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

However without evidence it cannot be considered a fact.

-Q

O RLY!? :sarcastic

Theists may hate you, but I bow to your wisdom. :bow:

 

[outhouse]

No argument here.



I don't think its about low intelligence. I think it shows just how much people are willing to ignore in order to get something they think they need. Most of the time, they don't even know what they need, but they think they find it in religion. When they think they find it, but really don't, they latch on to the beliefs themselves, rather than the core idea.
To use a visual, they've built their faith castle up in the air, without any foundation at all, so the slightest breeze will knock it over.



I wouldn't care to. Life happened. What more do we want to know? Unless of course you want to create life, then figuring out how life started naturally would be incredibly useful.

Theres actually graphs on this that show a persons education directly related to belief.

 

[painted wolf]

Education is not a measure of intelligence... merely educational achievement.

Many very smart people are unable to get the level of education they would most benefit from... this does not make them stupid... it makes them unfortunate. If a smart but otherwise uneducated individual never learned about the scientific method and how to critically evaluate evidence, they may well hold a viewpoint that they otherwise would not.

Even educated people can be terrifically unintelligent, as evidenced by the anti-vaccine woo movement.

wa:do

 

[Created_Madness]

I'm not sure I'm following the arguement here. Are you asking creationist to prove how life got started on earth? Also, is the evolutionary side of the arguement coming from a microevolution standpoint? I have been reading arguements from both sides for a couple of weeks now and realize that I have nowhere near the knowledge of each that some of you have, but I am unbiased to either of them, an find after reading from both sides that one says we got here by a spoken word an the other says we came from nothing that exploded into what we see today! It is my experience that if you want to get to the bottom of an arguement that you have to start from the beginning.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm not sure I'm following the arguement here. Are you asking creationist to prove how life got started on earth?

Not really. We're asking the creationists, mainly YECs, to explain how all living things were created, in contrast to, say, evolved.

Also, is the evolutionary side of the arguement coming from a microevolution standpoint?

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are nonsense terms from an Evolutionary point of view. They are terms used by creationists to explain away the fact that species and genomes DO indeed change and that this is an observable fact. By these terms they mean that while some changes within a species is possible an animal cannot change into another "kind" of animal. So far they have not been able to show what would stop cumulative changes over time from changing an animal into another "kind", nor have they been able to show what, exactly, a "kind" is.

I have been reading arguements from both sides for a couple of weeks now and realize that I have nowhere near the knowledge of each that some of you have, but I am unbiased to either of them, an find after reading from both sides that one says we got here by a spoken word an the other says we came from nothing that exploded into what we see today!

I would suggest picking up some textbooks on the subject of Evolution if you want to learn more about it. Also, neither Cosmology, Physics nor Evolution claim that the universe came from nothing.

It is my experience that if you want to get to the bottom of an arguement that you have to start from the beginning.

Well, at the very least one should agree on what different terms actually mean. So far we have yet to achieve even that.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Theres actually graphs on this that show a persons education directly related to belief.

Of course, it doesn't help that 'belief' in God is directly tied to things like literal truths of the bible. Those aren't true, so when people finally find this out, they abandon belief all together. So any study about that kind of belief not only will, but SHOULD show a direct, negative correlation with education.

 

[outhouse]

but SHOULD show a direct, negative correlation with education

its negative for creation

positive for evolution.

more education = belief in evolution

 

[strikeviperMKII]

its negative for creation

positive for evolution.

more education = belief in evolution

That's what I said...
Are you even reading what I'm posting?

 

[outhouse]

I thought maybe you missunderstood my post lol

 

[Krok]

Hi Created_Madness
Please, can I give you a bit of advice on where to look for information? I’ll explain why I give this advice.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that basically states that all current life on earth evolved from pre-existing life, which consisted of one or more original (common) ancestors. Nothing else. Nothing to do with a “Big Bang”, nothing to do with how life started on earth, nothing to do with how the earth formed, nothing to do with how oceans formed, nothing to do with how continents formed.
A very small percentage in the fundamentalist religious community has grave doubts about this theory, and is insisting on teaching their creation story as science to our kids. This is why this thread exists: if they want to teach our kids their story in the science class, they should at least pretend to have a scientific hypothesis for their story. For a scientific hypothesis you need evidence. That’s why this thread exists. We want these fundamentalists to at least provide one piece of scientific evidence for their hypothesis. They haven’t so far.

I'm not sure I'm following the argument here. Are you asking creationist to prove how life got started on earth?

No, not proof. Just evidence. Evidence is the most fundamental unit of information in science. You can’t do any science without it.

Also, is the evolutionary side of the argument coming from a microevolution standpoint?

The "evolutionary" side consists of Biologists who see micro-evolution and macro-evolution as the same thing, because lots of micro-evolution results in macro-evolution. Macro-evolution starts when enough micro-evolution has occurred for speciation to occur. We have seen this happening numerous times, in nature and in the laboratory.

I have been reading arguments from both sides for a couple of weeks now and realize that I have nowhere near the knowledge of each that some of you have,

You must be very careful in getting arguments from the creation side. They pretend to do science, using sciency sounding terms, but they don’t do science at all. They mislead a lot of people who are not really well-versed in science by doing it. The scientific community calls this pseudo-science. One of the favorite methods employed by creationists is lying. Both outright lies and subtle lies. The practioners of pseudo-sciences are very good at it.

..... but I am unbiased to either of them, and find after reading from both sides......

When you want to learn something about science, you read scientific material. There’s no other way of doing it. Don’t let the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and Intelligent Design websites fool you. They do pseudo-science.

..... that one says we got here by a spoken word an the other says we came from nothing that exploded into what we see today!

See, you have already been lied to. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t even mention the origin of life at all. It states that all life we see today have common ancestors. That’s it. There’s not even one scientific theory that states that “nothing exploded into what we see today” at all. Again, they lied to you.

It is my experience that if you want to get to the bottom of an argument that you have to start from the beginning.

Start reading accepted scientific material then. Watch out for people with a hidden agenda lying to you.