Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[thau]

For the record, the following clarification is for anyone reading this, as it will more than likely be ignored by the above poster. I have found this clarification from Wilstar.com to be the clearest.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon tested hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

(Wilstar)


Any Creationist who complains that biological evolution is "just a theory" and not "fact" is only confirming their ignorance of what science in general actually is, and how the scientific method works.

Who cares? It's basically semantics we are dealing with when throwing out those terms anyway.

Everyone knows what we are (or even you are) referring to when we talk about evolution being merely "a theory." What we mean is that a lot of your claims have no concrete evidence for saying "it happened."

The articles I couls cite (which you would not bother to read) lay waste to your beloved "belief" that evolution is how we got here. Why? Because all those who doubt the evidence are all expert paleontologists or biologists who beleive evolution definitely occurred ---- and yet ---- they are honest enough to say "the fossil record does not demonstrate it at all based on all they have observed." And that includes all those "transitional fossils" your web sites parade out there as though the matter is settled. No. Some of your closest friends say "No."

"Science is way too far along in so many advancements and techonology that if they cannot demonstrate with far, far greater credibility that evolution occurred, we can safely say that is because it did not." [that quote is from me. ]

 

[camanintx]

Who cares? It's basically semantics we are dealing with when throwing out those terms anyway.

Everyone knows what we are (or even you are) referring to when we talk about evolution being merely "a theory." What we mean is that a lot of your claims have no concrete evidence for saying "it happened."

Do you understand the difference between the fact and theory? When one says that evolution is a fact, they are saying that organisms change over time which has been repeatedly observed and documented. When one talks about the Theory of Evolution, they are refering to the idea that these observed changes explain the diversity of species through descent with modification from a common ancestor. This theory has been repeatedly questioned and challenged over the last 150 years and has yet to be found lacking.

Home - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

 

[tumbleweed41]

Who cares?

Only those concerned with accuracy and honesty apparently.

The articles I couls cite (which you would not bother to read) lay waste to your beloved "belief" that evolution is how we got here. ]

You obviously are not aware of the depth I go into critiquing ideas before I post.

I look forward to the articles you can cite that "lay waste" to the scientific theory of biological evolution.

 

[camanintx]

YAWN.

Go read the article I linked to and get back to me after you have told all those evolution experts they are liars.

The only liars are those who quote mine in order to mis-represent someone's position on a subject.

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

From p. 131-133 of Patterson's book "Evolution",

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, ***** and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
​

 

[shawn001]

Well, sorry, but all your claims cannot hold water without the transitional fossil record supporting it. So please understand this in another way:

What you call fact, certain highly respected and well known scientists of evolution studies--- specifically Stephen Gould and Steven Stanley plus "world-renowned fossil expert" Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History --- they say based on decades of study and analysis there is de facto no transitional fossils they can honestly say exist in the known fossil record.

So are you smarter than they are? Are you here to tell me they do not know what they are talking about? Every fossil you or your scientist folks say is a transitional fossil --- every one they have observed for themselves, they are saying they do not see the proof for it. And the 1941 date was Dr. Stanley's birth, not the date of his quote.

Simple as this: Read the article I linked to. It says it all.

"

Dr. Patterson does believe that there are transitional fossils, as witness this quote from the book in question:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, ***** and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes ..." Evolution 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. pp. 131-133
​

Quote: Colin Patterson on Transitional Fossils



By genetically back engeenering chickens they will be able to produce a "dinosaur."

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken

Ted Talks

"Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus"."

[youtube]0QVXdEOiCw8[/youtube]
Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The articles I couls cite (which you would not bother to read) lay waste to your beloved "belief" that evolution is how we got here.

Please. 'Wow' us.

 

[McBell]

Who cares? It's basically semantics we are dealing with when throwing out those terms anyway.

Everyone knows what we are (or even you are) referring to when we talk about evolution being merely "a theory." What we mean is that a lot of your claims have no concrete evidence for saying "it happened."

The articles I couls cite (which you would not bother to read) lay waste to your beloved "belief" that evolution is how we got here. Why? Because all those who doubt the evidence are all expert paleontologists or biologists who beleive evolution definitely occurred ---- and yet ---- they are honest enough to say "the fossil record does not demonstrate it at all based on all they have observed." And that includes all those "transitional fossils" your web sites parade out there as though the matter is settled. No. Some of your closest friends say "No."

"Science is way too far along in so many advancements and techonology that if they cannot demonstrate with far, far greater credibility that evolution occurred, we can safely say that is because it did not." [that quote is from me. ]

All I see are a whole bunch on of bold empty claims.
I wonder when you are going to start citing these alleged articles.

I mean, with your proven history of dishonest tactics in order to push your agenda foward..I.E your quote mining, your strawmen

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Everyone knows what we are (or even you are) referring to when we talk about evolution being merely "a theory." What we mean is that a lot of your claims have no concrete evidence for saying "it happened."

The ToE encompasses numerous (mechanisms). The field of Biological Evolution is very broad. If a doctor/scientist is unfamiliar with the the mechanisms that may pertain to their field of study then they would be doing the rest of us who rely on their expertise a great disservice. The ability to develop new vaccines, treat disease or even determine family lineage is dependent on doctors and scientist understanding of Evolution.

The articles I couls cite (which you would not bother to read) lay waste to your beloved "belief" that evolution is how we got here.

I'll read them if you want to list them.

Why? Because all those who doubt the evidence are all expert paleontologists or biologists who beleive evolution definitely occurred ---- and yet ---- they are honest enough to say "the fossil record does not demonstrate it at all based on all they have observed."

Opinion is one thing but the ability to present evidence is another. Unfortunately for those you mention the evidence is against them. The other side to this is Evolution isn't dependent on the fossil record. Even without a single fossil Evolution would remain a fact. Again, I'll read anything you can present that contradicts the ToE provided it meets the Scientific Method.

And that includes all those "transitional fossils" your web sites parade out there as though the matter is settled. No. Some of your closest friends say "No."

Saying "No" is fine but can you present to us their reasoning and maybe their evidence as to what leads them to a ("No").

"Science is way too far along in so many advancements and techonology that if they cannot demonstrate with far, far greater credibility that evolution occurred, we can safely say that is because it did not." [that quote is from me. ]

The problem with that statement is it's wrong. Evolution isn't something that "occurred"..because we know for a fact it is still happening (it's continuous).

 

[shawn001]

"ToE encompasses numerous (mechanisms)"

yeah plate tectonics for one.

Nationa Academy of Science.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If there is any fear of threat it is for those who think evolution could have happened without a supreme intelligent designer. That is my fear.

Mm, no, based on your confused posts, it's your fear, not his.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Who cares? It's basically semantics we are dealing with when throwing out those terms anyway.[that quote is from me. ]

The fact that you don't care, is part of the reason why all your stances on this subject have been shown to be in error.

 

[rusra02]

I know, I know...goddidit.

Is that what keeps you from accepting biological evolution? The notion than despite the scientific impossibility of Creationism/ID, despite the mountains of scientific evidence in favor of biological evolution, if you just throw godidit in there, it all makes sense yo you?

I believe that God created all life, because of the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of direct creation, and the mountain of scientific evidence against evolution. Despite the propaganda machine that churns relentlessly, claiming over and over "evolution is a fact", all around us plants and animals and our own bodies keep shouting "Design! Intelligence! Unfathomable complexity! Wisdom! Power!"
As Romans 1:20 declares: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."

​

​

 

[johnhanks]

I believe that God created all life, because of the mountain of scientific evidence in favor of direct creation, and the mountain of scientific evidence against evolution. Despite the propaganda machine that churns relentlessly, claiming over and over "evolution is a fact", all around us plants and animals and our own bodies keep shouting "Design! Intelligence! Unfathomable complexity! Wisdom! Power!"

No, rusra, it's you who keeps shouting these things. When asked to show us these mountains of scientific evidence, all you can ever do is post a list of living organisms or their properties and say "Look - design!" You have yet to come up with anything that cannot be better explained by evolution.

As Romans 1:20 declares: "For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship."

Paul of Tarsus was a 1st century hellenised Jewish proselytiser whose knowledge and understanding of biological matters was precisely zero. Why on earth do you think we should take any account whatsoever of what he thought?

 

[rusra02]

No, rusra, it's you who keeps shouting these things. When asked to show us these mountains of scientific evidence, all you can ever do is post a list of living organisms or their properties and say "Look - design!" You have yet to come up with anything that cannot be better explained by evolution.
Paul of Tarsus was a 1st century hellenised Jewish proselytiser whose knowledge and understanding of biological matters was precisely zero. Why on earth do you think we should take any account whatsoever of what he thought?

And do you believe that living organisms and their properties are not evidence?

As to why we should consider what the Bible says, the Bible claims to be the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)And while evolution has no answers as to how life began, and how life developed, I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more. (Psalm 36:9)

 

[Debater Slayer]

And do you believe that living organisms and their properties are not evidence?

As to why we should consider what the Bible says, the Bible claims to be the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

This is circular reasoning.

"'X' has property 'Y'".

A flawed, circular argument would justify this by self-referencing the premise and restating it as truth:

"'X' claims to have property 'Y', therefore it does".

And while evolution has no answers as to how life began, and how life developed, I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more. (Psalm 36:9)

1) The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life originated on Earth; only how it evolved and branched off into a variety of species.

2) I know that the Bible has an account of creation - specifically in Genesis - but why do you necessarily think that the Bible rejects evolution, when many Christians accept it (including the Pope of the Catholic Church)?

 

[Looncall]

And do you believe that living organisms and their properties are not evidence?

As to why we should consider what the Bible says, the Bible claims to be the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)And while evolution has no answers as to how life began, and how life developed, I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more. (Psalm 36:9)

So you believe these things. So what? That cuts no ice unless you can demonstrate that they are true. The ravings of ancient savages do not count as demonstrations.

 

[johnhanks]

And do you believe that living organisms and their properties are not evidence?

Not by their mere existence, no. Living organisms contain within them lots of evidence for evolution - the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the GULO pseudogene and the vestigial nictitating membrane in human eyes come quickly to mind - but these are evidence only insofar as they are markers of past changes. To point as you have to, say, cetacean echolocation and say "The very fact that this exists is evidence of creation" is futile.

As to why we should consider what the Bible says, the Bible claims to be the Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)And while evolution has no answers as to how life began, and how life developed...

It has been pointed out to you (many times) that the theory of evolution does not address the issue of how life began: if you want to argue about that, you must address theories of abiogenesis; as to how life developed, that is exactly what ToE does address, with magnificent success.

... I believe the Bible has clear answers to these fundamental questions, and many more. (Psalm 36:9)

You are entitled to believe what you wish; you cannot, however, expect those beliefs to carry any evidential weight with those who do not share them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So you believe these things. So what? That cuts no ice unless you can demonstrate that they are true. The ravings of ancient savages do not count as demonstrations.

If you want to help explain science/ToE to others, mocking their beliefs is no way to do it and will most likely just alienate people.

 

[rusra02]

This is circular reasoning.

"'X' has property 'Y'".

A flawed, circular argument would justify this by self-referencing the premise and restating it as truth:

"'X' claims to have property 'Y', therefore it does".



1) The theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life originated on Earth; only how it evolved and branched off into a variety of species.

2) I know that the Bible has an account of creation - specifically in Genesis - but why do you necessarily think that the Bible rejects evolution, when many Christians accept it (including the Pope of the Catholic Church)?

1) The origin of life is certainly relevant to how the various species of plants and animals came into being. Evolutionists ignoring the question as having nothing to do with evolution, do so simply because they have no answers.

2) The Bible clearly teaches that God created the birds, plants, and animals "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1:21-25) The Bible also says that "God
proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) Other Bible writers confirmed that God created the first man and woman. (1 Corinthians 15:21,22)
Those who reject the Bible's creation account are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, who believed and taught what Genesis recorded. (Matthew 19:4,5) The teaching of evolution is in direct conflict with why Christ came, to give his soul a ransom to cover our sins. (Matthew 20:28, 1 Corinthians 15:22) The implication of this should be clear. The thousands of sects calling themselves "Christians", all teachings different doctrines, and many espousing evolution, are not following the Christ. (Matthew 7:21-28) Not just their teachings belie their claims, but their conduct as well.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[johnhanks]

1) The origin of life is certainly relevant to how the various species of plants and animals came into being. Evolutionists ignoring the question as having nothing to do with evolution, do so simply because they have no answers.

No, rusra, they do so because when you raise 'origin of life' issues you are addressing a different set of theories. If you want to argue against these theories, perhaps you should get acquainted with them first: the references at the end of this link should provide a basic grounding.