If Evolution Were True

[Magic Man]

Evolution is a fact, not a theory

Well, it is a theory, a scientific theory. It is also a fact. It being a theory has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

 

[RemnanteK]

Then you reject religion completely?

Yes, I find religion a pragmatic approach to finding faith.

Then you can accept nothing.

I accept life, living, freedom, and liberty.

So basically you reject all of science, all religion, all history...what do you accept?

I don't accept what can't be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So you're an agnostic then?

No I believe that the relationship I have with my God can be proven.
But to explain it would be like me trying to explain the relationship I have with any friend of mine.
Nobody can disprove I have a relationship with anything, it's a relationship, you either have one or you don't.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I find religion a pragmatic approach to finding faith.

What does this even mean?

I accept life, living, freedom, and liberty.

Are there any propositions you accept as true?

I don't accept what can't be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't know whether you noticed, but I didn't ask you what you DON'T accept. I asked whether there is anything that you DO accept. See the difference?

No I believe that the relationship I have with my God can be proven.

Go for it. If you succeed, you'll be the first person in the history of the world. Cuz y'know, most Christians say if you could prove it, you wouldn't need faith, would you?

But to explain it would be like me trying to explain the relationship I have with any friend of mine.

It can be proven, but you can't explain the proof?

Nobody can disprove I have a relationship with anything, it's a relationship, you either have one or you don't.

Did you notice how this is the exact opposite of what you claimed? You didn't say that you accept things unless they're disproven; you said that you don't accept anything unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now show yourself to be a person of your word, and prove that God, your God, exists, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Prove that God got a woman pregnant, that she gave birth while still a virgin, that her baby was a God and a man, that he died and rose from the dead, and that his death saves all who believe in Him from eternal damnation. And prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't accept what can't be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

OK, so you don't accept anything other than your own existence, right?

No I believe that the relationship I have with my God can be proven.

No, it can't, not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Nobody can disprove I have a relationship with anything, it's a relationship, you either have one or you don't.

That's true, no one can disprove it, but that's not proof that it exists.

 

[RemnanteK]

What does this even mean?

What I meant by this was that I think most Christians go about religion as if it was a behavioral thing. The way I see things its about who you know, and who knows you.

Are there any propositions you accept as true?

Jesus Loves me.

I don't know whether you noticed, but I didn't ask you what you DON'T accept. I asked whether there is anything that you DO accept. See the difference?

I accept a lot of things, life, love happiness, emotions, sunshine, Dr. Pepper, ect.

Go for it. If you succeed, you'll be the first person in the history of the world. Cuz y'know, most Christians say if you could prove it, you wouldn't need faith, would you?

Well how I did it was by putting 'God' to a test, yes I tested 'God'. I did what the bible states on how to get to know him.
First I started reading the new Testament , Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
I then started praying, kinda praying because I didn't know how to, I just talked to 'God' as a someone i was getting to know.
I remember asking him, In the Bible you say if we come to you and ask we will get it.
Well at the time I didn't want to got back to Iraq, so I ask him to find a way for me to not have to go again. During the physical before we leave the Doc's wound I had something wrong with my knee and I couldn't go. The day after they left, I was find again. I didn't have faith, at the time I had forgotten I had even ask for that.
That is just one of the many tests I put before God. I keep track of the things I ask for, an to day I have gotten all of them.

It can be proven, but you can't explain the proof? Did you notice how this is the exact opposite of what you claimed? You didn't say that you accept things unless they're disproven; you said that you don't accept anything unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It can be proven to ones self, but yes I find it hard to explain the proof, but I can try.
I have a friend names Jesus, I look up to him like a big brother, I tell him my problems and he takes care of them.
When I'm in need and I can't find a way to get what I need I ask him and he find a way for me to get what is needed.
I love him like I do my wife or son, but I still do things that are against his will, but he still love me and helps me because he knows my heart.
When I talk to him I know I'm talking to a friend who is listening and cares.

Now show yourself to be a person of your word, and prove that God, your God, exists, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Prove that God got a woman pregnant, that she gave birth while still a virgin, that her baby was a God and a man, that he died and rose from the dead, and that his death saves all who believe in Him from eternal damnation. And prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

For me those things are not the point the Bible was trying to make.
The point of the bible was that Jesus wants to be our friend and help us where we need it.
Does knowing how on of your friends was born help you know them, is that a stipulation you have before getting to know someone?
To me it doesn't matter, what matters is I know Jesus and he knows me and everything else will be known to me in time.
I don't believe we go to 'hell' for doing bad, we a damned because we don't know Jesus.
Jesus never said be perfect and go to heaven, he said know me and be saved.

You want me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is a 'God' but is 'God' the only thing you want this proof with?
You ask me for 100% proof there is a 'God' and I think you would be wiser to test 'God' as I did.
You loose nothing by trying, and if you get nothing from it well then I Guess there really is no god for you.
I know there is a 'God' because I talk to and know his son.
And please don't think I look down on you because you don't believe, because I've been there.
I would like nothing more that to have someone know Jesus as I do, he is a great friend.
But like all relationships you have to try, it even works at way to this day.

Please ask questions, and give me time, I'm no expert, I didn't go to college and learn about religion.
And I suspect most of us here are not all Evolutionary scientists, so it kinda makes it hard to prove science we didn't do ourselves.
I'm just a computer guy that has a friend names Jesus and I did do the research myself.
If I can find him I think anyone can, but if you don't want to and your happy then I'm happy for you.

 

[Autodidact]

What I meant by this was that I think most Christians go about religion as if it was a behavioral thing. The way I see things its about who you know, and who knows you.

So it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe?

Jesus Loves me.

O.K., then, you think the statement "Jesus loves me," has been proven beyond doubt. Would you please share this absolute proof with us please?

I accept a lot of things, life, love happiness, emotions, sunshine, Dr. Pepper, ect.

Statements, Remnant, what statements do you accept "beyond the shadow of a doubt." (Duh, it's hard to communicate with someone who's doing their best not to understand.)

Well how I did it was by putting 'God' to a test, yes I tested 'God'. I did what the bible states on how to get to know him.
First I started reading the new Testament , Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
I then started praying, kinda praying because I didn't know how to, I just talked to 'God' as a someone i was getting to know.
I remember asking him, In the Bible you say if we come to you and ask we will get it.
Well at the time I didn't want to got back to Iraq, so I ask him to find a way for me to not have to go again. During the physical before we leave the Doc's wound I had something wrong with my knee and I couldn't go. The day after they left, I was find again. I didn't have faith, at the time I had forgotten I had even ask for that.
That is just one of the many tests I put before God. I keep track of the things I ask for, an to day I have gotten all of them.

Cool, interesting. Would you please pray for the war in Iraq to be over tomorrow, and all the soldiers to come home the next day, and let's see how that works, O.K? Or, I have a friend whose arm had to be amputated. Would you please ask your God to grow it back? Thanks.

It can be proven to ones self, but yes I find it hard to explain the proof, but I can try.
I have a friend names Jesus, I look up to him like a big brother, I tell him my problems and he takes care of them.
When I'm in need and I can't find a way to get what I need I ask him and he find a way for me to get what is needed.
I love him like I do my wife or son, but I still do things that are against his will, but he still love me and helps me because he knows my heart.
When I talk to him I know I'm talking to a friend who is listening and cares.

O.K., that's interesting. Where does the proof come in? Proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.

For me those things are not the point the Bible was trying to make.

Really? Because it goes to a lot of trouble to say those things.

The point of the bible was that Jesus wants to be our friend and help us where we need it.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Does knowing how on of your friends was born help you know them, is that a stipulation you have before getting to know someone?
To me it doesn't matter, what matters is I know Jesus and he knows me and everything else will be known to me in time.
I don't believe we go to 'hell' for doing bad, we a damned because we don't know Jesus.
Jesus never said be perfect and go to heaven, he said know me and be saved.

So you don't think the resurrection is important? Or that Jesus is God?

You want me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is a 'God' but is 'God' the only thing you want this proof with?

Not me, Remnant, you. YOU said that YOU only believe things that are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So I assume that you wanted this proof before deciding to believe all the things that you believe, such as that you have an invisible friend named Jesus who helps you all the time.

You ask me for 100% proof there is a 'God' and I think you would be wiser to test 'God' as I did.
You loose nothing by trying, and if you get nothing from it well then I Guess there really is no god for you.

You guessed it. I did that. After all, I'm very, very careful about what I do and don't believe. So I did as they suggest, and put my faith in God, and prayed. My friend is still missing an arm. I guess there is no God.

I know there is a 'God' because I talk to and know his son.

Actually, wouldn't His son have to talk to you?

And please don't think I look down on you because you don't believe, because I've been there.

Uh, O.K. I couldn't care less.

I would like nothing more that to have someone know Jesus as I do, he is a great friend.
But like all relationships you have to try, it even works at way to this day.

Believe me, I tried. There was no one there.

Please ask questions, and give me time, I'm no expert, I didn't go to college and learn about religion.
And I suspect most of us here are not all Evolutionary scientists, so it kinda makes it hard to prove science we didn't do ourselves.
I'm just a computer guy that has a friend names Jesus and I did do the research myself.
If I can find him I think anyone can, but if you don't want to and your happy then I'm happy for you.

So you did the research? I assume then you're familiar with the research on intercessory prayer in a medical setting? In other words, when devout Christians prayed for one group of heart patients, and not for the other, without the doctors knowing which group was prayed for, which group got better or had fewer medical problems? Do you know? Because, you know, if you wanted proof beyond the shadow of a doubt I would think you would want that information. And of course, if it turned out there was no difference, you would then reject your belief in Jesus Christ, because it would definitely NOT be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, don't you agree? Guess what the answer was, Remnant? There was no difference. So I guess you'll be deconverting now?

btw, Remnant, what about all the Muslims who have a wonderful relationship with Allah, who gives them everything they pray for, are they just delusional? Liars? What?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't accept what can't be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.

followed by

No I believe that the relationship I have with my God can be proven.

What utter hogwash.

Rene Descartes must be rolling over in his grave.

 

[themadhair]

Just tidying up some of sandy whitelinger’s gish gallop.

It is the obvious sneer (which you previously exhibited) by the followers of the established norm that stifles alternate explanations or a unifying concept between [size=+2]evidentiary-based[/size] thought and Biblical perspectives.

Fix’d that for you. There are numerous examples that show how people with the biblical ‘perspective’ were forced to alter their preconceptions due to the weight of the physical evidence. The development of the field of geology is testament to it.

With that in mind let me put your statement in a different light. “So it's the DNA and what we assume about it, and/or the fossils and what we assume about them, and/or the homological similarity and what we assume about it, and/or the geographical distribution and what we assume about it, and/or the pattern of vestigial structures and what we assume about them -- all of these then seem to be consistent and appear to point in the same direction. That's what leads us to our conclusion.”

Do you know what concordance is? Being a creationist I suspect you don’t so I’ll enlighten you. It is when numerous fields of independent evidence across different scientific fields all point to the same conclusion. Think about the fact that DNA, homology, biogeography and vestigial organs are all CONCORDANT. You can throw as many misguided absurdities and misinterpretations at any one of those fields until you are blue in the face, but until you start manning up and confronting the concordance itself, and the sheer strength of evidentiary support concordance brings, then you will continue to look very foolish.

There is no geographical evidence of the amount of tar or carbolic acid that would have been produced by that process if it generated usable quantities of amino acids. Nor does it account for the other large majority of amino acids that are required. Nevertheless this is used to “prove” a necessary step in abiogenesis.

This experiment did indeed prove that a necessary step for abiogenesis was possible. It proved that simple organic molecules, believed to be the building blocks of life, could indeed form via natural processes. That was the intention of the experiment.

I’m amused at your use of the Miller-Urey experiment for three reasons.
Firstly you state, quite brazenly it seems, that there is no geographical evidence for byproducts – can you, pray tell, what geographical evidence, of any description, there is regarding the early earth? If you do research this you might learn something.
Secondly, you’d almost think based on your comments that abiogenesis research stopped with Miller-Urey. It didn’t and many more steps in the abiogenesis hypothesis have been given the stamp of experimental evidence. Juan Oro and the work on montmorillonite clay springs to mind.

Note how when science doesn’t know something it produces hypothesises which produces research in an effort to try and find out. This research produces increased knowledge (which can have application – an example being new discoveries on protein folding) which continues to fill in the gaps of knowledge. The entire field of abiogenesis is based on chemistry and is an attempt to take the knowledge we have (i.e. chemistry) and attempt to use it to discover the origins of the simplest organisms.

Here is the third reason I find your use of the Miller-Urey experiment amusing. You are using the age-old ‘god of the gaps’ argument. You are looking at a hole in scientific knowledge and saying ‘goddidit’. Never mind that you are failing to produce any evidence that ‘godditit’, or how ‘godditit’. It is this mentality that makes creationistic thinking corrosive to science. Why bother with research or experiment or any effort to make new discoveries if a bunch of scientific illiterates can wave their bibles and decree that ‘godditit’ is the answer.

For a long time physicists wanted to believe in a static universe because an expanding universe pointed to a beginning.

This rewriting of history is plain embarrassing. The irony to this is that the Steady State theory was championed strongly by Fred Hoyle, a staunch creationist. The Big Bang versus Steady State controversy was settled by the only relevant metric in science – that of what the physical evidence agrees with.

A beginning smacks of a creator and that was unacceptable. Incorrect models of the universe resulted. Einstein went so far as to conceive a “cosmological constant” out of thin air to satisfy his model.

Firstly, are you seriously suggesting that one of the most respected and famous scientists of all time introduced a term into to his equation solely to deny a universal creation?? You might want to read up on the thinking at the time and learn enough about why Einstein introduced the cosmological constant. He introduced it because he believed the universe would be unstable (something which is true and makes sense but mentioning any of that would be inconvenient to your caricature).
Secondly, it seems Einstein was right after all in that there does appear to be a cosmological constant. But let’s not talk about any of that.

The “Punctuated Equilibrium” theory scared Darwinists crapless for a while because it would have tossed the mechanism for evolution out the window.

This quote is so utterly wrong, so thoroughly steeped in ignorance and so misrepresentative of the terms used within it that I genuinely don’t know whether to laugh hysterically at its stunning margin of error or weep for the sad state of science education it implies. I find it difficult to believe that a person can undertake a thorough review of punctuated equilibrium theory and honestly conclude it violates the gradual mechanisms at the core of evolutionary theory.

Rather than give you an introduction into punctuated equilibrium (something that I feel would be wasted on someone not even knowing the most basic concepts of evolutionary theory) I will illustrate the idea by way of an example. Suppose you had a creature in a (relatively) stable environment. That creature, under the selective pressures of that environment, may well reach an ‘optimum’ (there is no suitable word here) within that environment. Because the selective pressure has ‘run its course’ (in terms of shape, one of the few things we can determine from the fossil record) the creature has reached a sort of ‘stasis’ scenario. As long as the environment remains stable the creature’s shape (referred to as morphology in biospeak) will also remain stable across the generations. When the environment ceases to be stable a new selective pressure will result causing the creature’s morphology to alter in a new direction. In the fossil record you would find this represented by a prolonged period of morphological stasis followed by a sudden morphological change. The gradualistic mechanisms of evolution are still occurring (they cause the morphological change after all) but, in this example, the (geologically temporary) stationary selective pressure would give the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ effect that Gould proposed.

The above is a grossly oversimplified example to illustrate the idea of punctuated equilibrium. It does not violate evolutionary theory in any way, shape or form.

I firmly believe there is a “common ancestry” of thought in the ToE community and a “gradual evolution” of original thought that is guided by the “natural selection pressures” of “artificial selection” that leads to their favored conclusions. I say that much of these types of conclusions are based on an amount of faith that science will never admit.
…
Yet, it makes perfect sense that similar organisms have similar genetics (even though God spoke them into existence).

Do you know what nested hierarchies are? Do you know that nested hierarchies apply to almost everything we find in nature? From the biogeographical distribution of organisms, to the fossil record, to the microbiological and phylogenetic trees to the genetic code – all of it confirms to a non-trivial set of nested hierarchies that stem from common descent. Do you know why these continual and constant verifications of nested hierarchies have made evolutionary theory the undisputed theory of biological diversity within the scientific community and the academic literature?

Isn’t the fact that, despite the enormous amounts of research spanning the 150 years after evolutionary theory was first proposed, there hasn’t been a single instance of these nested hierarchies being violated not a stunning verification of common descent?

Final words

I don’t really like these types of discussions. If these discussions were a genuine and honest comparison of two competing ideas then BOTH ideas would be treated the same level of scrutiny. What actually happens is that these discussions become an opportunity for creationists to fire pot shots at science despite being embarrassingly uninformed on the subject. Ignoring the devastating reality that they have no physical evidence whatsoever for creationism they are quite content to proudly display their shocking ignorance across multitudes of different scientific disciplines.

The irony that gets me every single time is that creationists are only able to indulge in discussion because of the fruits of science and what the scientific methodology has discovered. Computers and the internet are the products of the same science they rail against.

But who cares for any of that old nonsense? Why should little things like physical and empirical evidence, experimentation and observational reality get in the way of biblical literalism?

 

[Autodidact]

Did I ask a question about that?

Yes, several.

Sure.

You say related, I say similar.

O.K., so we agree that DNA traces similarity. ToE says that similarity is because of relatedness. Two points:

(1) ToE predicted that there would be a mechanism that worked in this way. Remember, ToE was initially developed before we knew anything about DNA. ToE predicted that there would be a mechanism of some kind involved in reproduction, that mechanism would reproduce closely but imperfectly, that mechanism would be the same in all living creatures, it would cause increased change in sexual reproduction, and it would track exactly with degree of relatedness, that DNA would correspond with similarity in homologousness and proximity in time and geography. That's a lot of very risky predictions. And they all turned out to be correct.

(2) Remember, DNA is the mechanism of reproduction. For that reason, it is central to ancestry. Do you see why? The relationship between reproduction and ancestry? DNA is the link between similarity and inheritance. In short, DNA is inherited.

My rub here is that there are a mountain of options involved in verifying the ToE and when there are competing possibilities the one which points to the existing view is chosen because of the other “evidence” used to support it; evidence which is concluded in the same manner. It is the obvious sneer (which you previously exhibited) by the followers of the established norm that stifles alternate explanations or a unifying concept between atheistic thought and Biblical perspectives.

I don't understand what you're driving at. I sneer at Ken Ham and his colleagues because they're a bunch of liars. The only reason that ToE is now "established" is that it survived the fire of scientific criticism intact. It was sneered at, but it survived scrutiny because of the overwhelming evidence in its favor. That's how science works.

With that in mind let me put your statement in a different light. “So it's the DNA and what we assume about it, and/or the fossils and what we assume about them, and/or the homological similarity and what we assume about it, and/or the geographical distribution and what we assume about it, and/or the pattern of vestigial structures and what we assume about them -- all of these then seem to be consistent and appear to point in the same direction. That's what leads us to our conclusion.”

No, you make a common creationist error. It's not assumptions, it's conclusions. They are directly opposite. When all the evidence points in the same direction, that's when a theory is considered robust and well-supported. That's called consilience, and it's the holy grail of scientific discovery. So it's not the fossils, not the DNA, not the homologies, not the fulfilled predictions, not the vestigial organs, not the geographical distribution of species, it's all of these taken together and particularly, and this is key, the utter complete total absence of a single piece of evidence not consistent with the theory. If you want to argue against ToE, this is what you have to contend with: consilience. It's the one issue that creationists never address, and you will search AIG, CSM and ICR in vain for a single one of the dishonest fakes there to address it.

Now, since you like evidence, I’ll give you some. This comes from the field of abiogenesis but is indicative of the problem. It’s the Miller-Urey experiment that produced a couple of amino acids in a beaker. This was heralded as “proof” that amino acids could be generated upwardly from their precursors. What it failed to further correlate to this discovery was that the two greatest byproducts of this process were carbolic acid and tar. In large quantities. There is no geographical evidence of the amount of tar or carbolic acid that would have been produced by that process if it generated usable quantities of amino acids. Nor does it account for the other large majority of amino acids that are required. Nevertheless this is used to “prove” a necessary step in abiogenesis.

How on earth is this relevant? You need evidence that supports your hypothesis, not an anecdote about an unrelated experiment. Right, wrong or indifferent, it's utterly irrelevant to our discussion here.

Do I take it then that you have absolutely no evidence to support your hypothesis? As opposed to the literal mountains of consilient evidence that ToE has?

(an entire mountain made of fossils, each and every one of which fits perfectly into ToE)

More evidence of science bias comes from physics. For a long time physicists wanted to believe in a static universe because an expanding universe pointed to a beginning. A beginning smacks of a creator and that was unacceptable. Incorrect models of the universe resulted. Einstein went so far as to conceive a “cosmological constant” out of thin air to satisfy his model.

Oh, so your point is that science is bad and wrong. I see, you're opposed to science in general, not just Biology? Your assertion is that science is not the best way to learn about the natural world?

btw, did you happen to notice that the opposite view prevailed? So your anecdote is a good example of how science, unlike religion, overcomes bias?

The “Punctuated Equilibrium” theory scared Darwinists crapless for a while because it would have tossed the mechanism for evolution out the window.

Yup, but now it's pretty widely accepted. Looks like that bias doesn't affect the outcome at all.

I firmly believe there is a “common ancestry” of thought in the ToE community and a “gradual evolution” of original thought that is guided by the “natural selection pressures” of “artificial selection” that leads to their favored conclusions. I say that much of these types of conclusions are based on an amount of faith that science will never admit.

So science doesn't work? Is that your point? You're going to have a hard time persuading us that science isn't the best way to learn about the natural world, now that's learned the shape and size of the universe and atomic particles. Good luck with that.

But you think I eat too much baloney.

You do something with baloney.

Now we are getting back on topic. You pick your best example. I’ve asked for this a number of times. Hopefully it’s not rats. If you need help, perhaps elephants might be a good example.

Why not rats? A good example of closely related genera? What the evidence is that elephants, mastodons and so forth are related? O.K., I'll work on that.

Only this, genetics says they are similar. The ToE says they are kissing cousins.

Correct.

Say I wanted to create an hairy beast of my own. We can call it a VLR (very large rodent). I want it to have beady eyes, hair, a backbone, a skinny tail, etc (and look less like my Aunt Margaret and more like Angellous). The evidence, from genetic study, says that these structures must have certain genetics. For a simple analogy take the word “red.” It has three certain letters. I can change one and get “bed.” To get that specific word (structure or trait) I must use the correct letters (genetics). Now I could say I want a “maroon” rodent. Technically it’s red but I’ve used wholly different letters. Genetics allows for this. The wing of a bat is different than a wing for a sparrow. Therefore a red wood and a red mouse do not need the same genetics in order to be red. In creating my own mouse it would follow existing genetic machinations and therefore genetically resemble other existing mice and rats and not a tree (or Aunt Margaret). Unless of course I wanted my VLR to have leaves.

Perhaps it would satisfy science that God existed if every divisible part of my VLR just showed more uniquely VLR parts. Yet, it makes perfect sense that similar organisms have similar genetics (even though God spoke them into existence).

Remember, sandy, you're talking about an all powerful, unknowable God. God could create things anyway He wanted, exactly that way, or any other way. God could have created large animal species that are not bilaterally symmetrical, species that lay eggs but feed their offspring milk, tiny creatures with exoskeletons that have wings but 4 body parts instead of 3, plants that fly, animals with roots, anything He wanted. For that reason, you can never use a Creator with magic powers to explain exactly why things are precisely as they are and no other way. Do you see why?

So of course such a God could have chosen to use DNA in this way. He could also have chosen to use DNA for one species and ABC for another. An all powerful creator God explains anything--and therefore nothing. It can't be explored empirically at all. And let's come back again to remembering that we're all assuming that God created everything, remember? The only question is: how? You say magic poofing aka speaking. What would evidence of that look like? Anything and everything, right? So we can't explore magic with science. That's called methodological naturalism and is fundmental to scientific inquiry. Which is what we're trying to do here. So if a magic God magically created the species, science cannot explore that possibility. What it can do is to try to come up with a naturalistic explanation, and see if it explains and predicts the evidence. And guess what? It does.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sorry for the repost, but this is for Sandy, and all others who want to debate, but reject science.

If you reject the discoveries already made, no one here is going to be able to prove anything to you. You want absolute proof, there is none. Evolution is the accepted theory at this time. It would be up to you to disprove evolution using new discoveries that can be widely accepted by the scientific community.

:banghead3

Submit these discoveries to journals for review, get published, win the Nobel Prize for biology, then bring something new to the table.

I guess there really isn't a better alternative available is there?

 

[linwood]

Well, it is a theory, a scientific theory. It is also a fact. It being a theory has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

Evolution is better than "a fact".

It is a compilation of numerous facts and evidenced predictions all supporting the same concept indisputably.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I guess there really isn't a better alternative available is there?

Nope.

 

[Autodidact]

I guess there really isn't a better alternative available is there?

Sure there is. Do like the creationists do. Don't bother with the hard work of real science. Don't spend decades researching, painstakingly accumulating data, trying to make sense of it, putting together a coherent theory, subjecting it to the withering scrutiny of peer review and so forth. Just throw together a website, use sciencey sounding words, and get some phonies in lab coats to manufacture some fake material that sounds nice. Much easier and cheaper, and quite effective, if what you are looking for is popular support.

 

[themadhair]

Do like the creationists do. Don't bother with the hard work of real science. Don't spend decades researching, painstakingly accumulating data, trying to make sense of it, putting together a coherent theory, subjecting it to the withering scrutiny of peer review and so forth. Just throw together a website, use sciencey sounding words, and get some phonies in lab coats to manufacture some fake material that sounds nice. Much easier and cheaper, and quite effective, if what you are looking for is popular support.

Watch this from 14:30 onwards:
watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic
^ I can't post URL's so just stick that on youtube.com

In response the question of how you would test the ‘godditit’ hypothesis against any other hypothesis one of the staff at the creation museum, a Dr. Georgia Purdom, hits the nail right on the head of what creationism is all about:

“Well, we wouldn’t do that. There would be no point in that because we know god did it like that, we know god created animals according to their kind.”

I defy anyone who is a science enthusiast to watch this clip and not feel like weeping at it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Mad Hair -

You're going about it all wrong. You have to look at the Creation Museum for what it is - a theme park for the mentally challenged.

Don't try to take it seriously, or you will suffer a major contusion to your frontal lobe.

 

[painted wolf]

I defy anyone who is a science enthusiast to watch this clip and not feel like weeping at it.

I didn't weep but I was amazed I made it though without hitting my head on the desk.

You're going about it all wrong. You have to look at the Creation Museum for what it is - a theme park for the mentally challenged.

I want to ride the dinosaur and shout... "Yabba-dabba-do!"

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

You're going about it all wrong. You have to look at the Creation Museum for what it is - a theme park for the mentally challenged.

Don't try to take it seriously, or you will suffer a major contusion to your frontal lobe.

The fact that the good doctor has a phd in molecular genetics totally floors me to be honest.

 

[painted wolf]

The interesting thing is... what has she done since she got it.

Apparently the answer isn't any major genetics work. She has her name on a few papers, but never as a primary researcher. More of a tag-on.

Most of her publications come from her time getting her Phd.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

^ Good point. I can’t find anything from her after 2000 that doesn’t involve that most incredibly prestigious Creation Research Science Quarterly.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

^ Good point. I can’t find anything from her after 2000 that doesn’t involve that most incredibly prestigious Creation Research Science Quarterly.

Prestigious, indeed.

I believe that one would have to subscribe to the monthly standard - Psuedosciences of the 21st Century to find any higher quality.

A future career as a science pundit on Faux News is usually built on being published in far lesser magazines.