Evolution 'controversy'.

[LuisDantas]

Man of Faith, are you even aware that the ToE is the basis for widespread research and technical development worldwide? And that the evidence for it has been mounting with remarkable consistence and quality for around a century now?

Just because you say that "there is no evidence" does not make it so.

 

[Wotan]

Here is the difference. Creationists don't have a problem admitting that, evolutionists do. Ones worldview determines what they believe. I will admit that all day long. But evolutinists will say they have science on their side when they really don't. They have the commonly accepted theory is all, not anything that can be proven. They have a requirement of naturalism on their side is all.

Could you provide us with the "proof" of the Germ theory of Disease? Or perhaps "proof" of the Theory of Relativity?

Your mistake MoF, one of MANY, is the use of the word "proof." The word has no place in natural science. It only works and has relevance for formal logic math and - whiskey.

 

[Man of Faith]

Man of Faith, are you even aware that the ToE is the basis for widespread research and technical development worldwide? And that the evidence for it has been mounting with remarkable consistence and quality for around a century now?

Just because you say that "there is no evidence" does not make it so.

Science has a commitment to naturalism and any data is obtained is interpreted with the assumption that naturalism, hence evolution is true. And like I said evolution is true to an extent. The evidence is starting to fall apart the more we learn.

 

[Man of Faith]

Could you provide us with the "proof" of the Germ theory of Disease? Or perhaps "proof" of the Theory of Relativity?

Your mistake MoF, one of MANY, is the use of the word "proof." The word has no place in natural science. It only works and has relevance for formal logic math and - whiskey.

That maybe be true, I get confused because people call evolution a fact, that is why I sometimes use the word prove. I should us observed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science has a commitment to naturalism and any data is obtained is interpreted with the assumption that naturalism, hence evolution is true.

You have a lot of faith in the lack of personal ambition of biologists.

How many do you think would not itch to become famous if they ever found evidence against evolution?

It did not happen, but only because there is no such evidence.

And like I said evolution is true to an extent. The evidence is starting to fall apart the more we learn.

Really? Where is that happening, outside of Creationist propaganda?

 

[Atomist]

There are many definitions of evolution and many of the definitions are scientific.

Yeah... but only one scientifically accepted ToE the rest are like creationist propaganda/strawman

 

[Skwim]

Science has a commitment to naturalism and any data is obtained is interpreted with the assumption that naturalism, hence evolution is true.
And like I said evolution is true to an extent. The evidence is starting to fall apart the more we learn.

And just what is it we are learning that is making the evidence fall apart? Three or four examples should suffice.

 

[Man of Faith]

You have a lot of faith in the lack of personal ambition of biologists.

How many do you think would not itch to become famous if they ever found evidence against evolution?

It did not happen, but only because there is no such evidence.



Really? Where is that happening, outside of Creationist propaganda?

Creation can't be observed either so no scientist is itching to find or report evidence for it. They will be the laughing stock of their career.

 

[Skwim]

Creation can't be observed either so no scientist is itching to find or report evidence for it. They will be the laughing stock of their career.

Let me get you right here.

1. Creation can't be observed.
2. Scientists aren't looking for it
______________________________
∴ They will be the laughing stock of their career
​

Care to explain how your conclusion follows from your premises?

 

[Atomist]

Creation can't be observed either so no scientist is itching to find or report evidence for it. They will be the laughing stock of their career.

yeah I suppose no one is trying to find evidence to support for abiogenesis because it can't be observed.... oh wait...

 

[Man of Faith]

yeah I suppose no one is trying to find evidence to support for abiogenesis because it can't be observed.... oh wait...

Again, abiogenesis is in support of naturalism, that is a requirement of science, everything has a natural explanation.

 

[Man of Faith]

Let me get you right here.

1. Creation can't be observed.
2. Scientists aren't looking for it
______________________________
∴ They will be the laughing stock of their career
​

Care to explain how your conclusion follows from your premises?

All scientists know that if they take a creationist model of the world they will break the code of naturalism only and not be taken seriously after that in the mainstream scientific community. That is not in dispute. Ask any scientist. Well, you don't even have to ask any scientist, just look how creation science is treated.

 

[Wotan]

All scientists know that if they take a creationist model of the world they will break the code of naturalism only and not be taken seriously after that in the mainstream scientific community. That is not in dispute. Ask any scientist. Well, you don't even have to ask any scientist, just look how creation science is treated.

You ARE aware that the body of knowledge about the natural world is called "Natural Science" - right?

If you want to believe it creationism - or magic poofing - have it. But don't pretend it is science.

 

[Man of Faith]

You ARE aware that the body of knowledge about the natural world is called "Natural Science" - right?

If you want to believe it creationism - or magic poofing - have it. But don't pretend it is science.

Correct, started by theists who believed in God.

 

[Gunfingers]

Correct, started by theists who believed in God.

You get that we're advocating science, right? Not atheism? Yeah, there are christians who are scientists, we know. That's not news to anybody. Ken Miller, on of the most respected biologists and an ardent advocate of evolutionary theory, is a Catholic. RF's resident biologist, Painted Wolf, follows an American Indian religion. I myself am a devout worshiper of well structured butts.

 

[Atomist]

Again, abiogenesis is in support of naturalism, that is a requirement of science, everything has a natural explanation.

Science doesn't require everything to have a natural explanation... just presupposes it.I mean what? are you suppose to presuppose it doesn't and work from there? That's absurd.

Anyways it seems you get it... there is no controversy scientifically... it's more of a religious controversy created because of how big of a threat evolution has on their core beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

Creation can't be observed either so no scientist is itching to find or report evidence for it.

Since you admit that the evidence can't be found, you can hardly expect others to be looking for it, now can you?

They will be the laughing stock of their career.

I can't help but notice that you failed to answer my question.

Again, where (outside of Creationist propaganda) is there any evidence of fragility in the ToE? Why exactly is that fragility real instead of just Creationist wishful thinking?

 

[McBell]

There are many definitions of evolution and many of the definitions are scientific. Therefore there will be plenty of evidence of evolution. Creationists accept evolution to a point. The problem comes in when the concluson of what we see becomes evidence of what we don't see. What we are taught is evolution did its think in the darkness of the past and we just have to accept it. That isn't science.

So you agree that creation is NOT science, right?
Especially given that creation was not witnessed by any human AND that creation is merely something that we are taught happened in the dark a long long time ago and that we are to "just accept it".

 

[McBell]

Here is the difference. Creationists don't have a problem admitting that, evolutionists do. Ones worldview determines what they believe. I will admit that all day long. But evolutinists will say they have science on their side when they really don't. They have the commonly accepted theory is all, not anything that can be proven. They have a requirement of naturalism on their side is all.

How does that look for creationists, who have even less evidence than the ToE?

 

[McBell]

The evidence is starting to fall apart the more we learn.

Are you honestly this ignorant of evolution or are you merely being dishonest?