Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Clearly you still haven't got it straight and are profoundly confused both about the scientific method and the claims of religion. I can't help you.

That's the second time you've questioned my intelligence you want to play that game, no prob.

Clearly you haven't got it straight sir.

FACT= CAN BE, and has been PROVEN WITH IRON CLAD EVIDENCE.
THEORY= work in progress to becoming a hypothesis to becoming a might be, or a maybe. or an imaginary back up using science has a scapegoat. when you are wrongeace

 

[Ikari]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well when you use irrelevent and divorce in the same sentence with evolution ...WELL?

Of course the stuff the big bang came from is "UNKNOWN"
Which begs to question the big bang ever happening , for it is difficult to have something whose parts are unknown is it not?
Just as the beginning of evolution is unknown.
However, the universe does exist, mankind did evolve science proves that , but as far as how the universe was created or the happening of the universe UNKNOWN
Just like evolution science proves mankind evolves but what the beginning was to evolve from , again.... UNKNOWN.
I ll go one step further to prove I'm not bias .
Is all of the Bible true..... UNKNOWN
Is any part of the bible true... again ..UNKNOWN.
HOWEVER, THE BIBLE HAS SOME GOOD POINTS ON HOW A SOCIETY SHOULD ACT "THOU SHALL NOT KILL, OR STEAL COMES TO MIND AND OTHER GOOD POINTS

What has the big bang to offer society?eace

Well vacuum genesis could have created the big bang. The observables point to a big bang. Many religious texts have "good ideas" about how to live, but many religions have fell short of that ideal. So it's not a cure all nor has it come without cost. Science in general, including the big bang, serves humanity's base nature...pursuit of knowledge.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

There is no scientificically valid data or evidence at all to support creationism. ---Not one single solitary shred. Generall speaking, creationist "research" consists solely of quote-mining and pontification, none of which contains any scientific data for creation. No creationist, alive or dead, has ever put forth any scientific theory of creation that was not based directly on divine revelation or religious faith.

What factual evidence do you have to prove the big bang happened .
Remember FACTUAL not the ole "well according to our measurements " or the old "we think this is what happened " FACTUAL.eace

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What factual evidence do you have to prove the big bang happened .
Remember FACTUAL not the ole "well according to our measurements " or the old "we think this is what happened " FACTUAL.eace

oh pick me, I know I know!!!!

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

You are drawing analogies between appealing to imagined fear and appealing to one's intelligence?

Besides, scientists do not use the threat of calling their followers as retards should they choose to criticize the findings! We do not use such critique bashing methods to secure followers. What we do is in fact encourage critical thinking so as the followers would put some thought before they may potentially choose to believe (not fear that not believing would punish them).



Is this a question of what I think how the priest, the telavangilist, and the preacher get away with it as easily?



Because scientists promote critical thinking they empower followers to make up their own mind. Hence it is not the case of "Yes men" as it may be with religion and its appeal to imaginary fear and rewards.



Vague.



This is deism. Saying that there is a God but not follow religion (No Jesus, holly spirit, etc) makes one a deist. Searching for answers for none have proof.



Okay.

As I said I'm a faith believer organized religion is my worst enemy .
Yet my intelligence has been questioned more than once on this thread .
So was it Atheist or scientist that said I was out of my mind , didn't have a clue, couldn't understand??
So your first point is weighed in the balance and found failed.

Actually that was more of a statem,ent of what's really going on in organized religion today .
These are facts not hearsay with some research you can find these to be true or perhaps you already know.
However I am a faith believer none of these are our way.

Uhh, excuse me.
You might want to read some of the post of Religion spaghetti monster, unicorns fairies those are the good names and that's for God..

Anybody that believes in God has a lower intelligence automatically, idiot crazy you don't understand you are stupid , those are the good adjectives.
However I am not exactly clean from mudsling to an atheist my self but only in defence I don't back down that easy.


That's a fair spin , but lacking something ... oh yeah meaning.



Is there something wrong with searching for truth while having faith in God?.

If any atheist has the answer backed with iron clad facts present them I'll listen.

However don't tell me about a theory that is based on a fact .
Because if a theory was based on a fact it would no longer be a theory it would be a F.A.C.T.eace

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What factual evidence do you have to prove the big bang happened .
Remember FACTUAL not the ole "well according to our measurements " or the old "we think this is what happened " FACTUAL.eace

What would people who believe despite the evidence do with a fact?

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well vacuum genesis could have created the big bang. The observables point to a big bang. Many religious texts have "good ideas" about how to live, but many religions have fell short of that ideal. So it's not a cure all nor has it come without cost. Science in general, including the big bang, serves humanity's base nature...pursuit of knowledge.

Religions fall under the Organized Religion ind..
Which not all people do , as a matter of fact faith believers critisize organized religion all the time.
Faith believers simply believe in doing good works try to be nice and searching for the truth ..

You need not be an atheist to pursue knowledge or to search for the truth.
I need nobody , Organized Religion or Atheist to tell me what the truth is as long as I take their word for it but no facts.
So I'll search for the truth myself at least I won't be a yes man or a kiss ass to look trendy.

How has the big bang served humanity; an unproven theory based on unproven theories and speculation??
What has this done for humanity sell more books give more lectures make more money, but those few atheist/scientist ain't humanity pal.
Hell the Salvation army has done more for humanity eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What would people who believe despite the evidence do with a fact?

I ask no more than what atheist has ask from me they ask prove God exist.

I ask prove the big bang happened , prove the atheist beliefs.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

oh pick me, I know I know!!!!

Pick me ??
What the hell is that?

Oh well it has been a slow day only 4 or 5 atheist to one me.

Ok whatcha got?eace

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Pick me ??
What the hell is that?

Oh well it has been a slow day only 4 or 5 atheist to one me.

Ok whatcha got?eace

I was being sarcastic, I am on your side. They don't have anything.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I was being sarcastic, I am on your side. They don't have anything.

LOL, Sir I turn my king over to you , you got me that time .eace

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well, I have said I have no proof that God exist , because I don't have the "facts "to prove he does, that does not stop me from having faith. just no "FACTS"

Now atheist come along and say so you admit you can not prove God exist ?
I say yes because I have no facts now I could bring up miracles but that is an assumption, unexplained happenings but that is yet another assumption. no "FACTS.

However Atheist have invented a word called theory and tried to use it to replace facts , but it can not for a theory , like a miracle is but another assumption.
Hypothesis , theory, miracle all assumptions.
I ask for facts not assumptions.
Assumption could be another word for speculation both are far from being FACT .eace

For the THIRD Time in this string..
Presluc is LYING.
A [Scientific] Theory is NOT "like a miracle" and is NOT "far from being fact".
How Clownish/Ridiculous/Ignorant.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...olution-vs-creationism-81.html#post1062012905

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

1. Evolution is 'Only a theory'. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific Theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate Facts, Laws, inferences, and Tested Hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the Theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In Addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."

Does that sound "like a miracle"?
Gravity is ALSO a Theory AND a Fact.

This now goes well beyond Grotesque Ignorance and well into Willfully Dishonest posting.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I ask no more than what atheist has ask from me they ask prove God exist.

I ask prove the big bang happened , prove the atheist beliefs.eace

You ask the impossible, your question is hopelessly confused, atheists (no capital "A") are atheists because they lack a belief in Gods. Other than that, they don't all have anything else in common, so atheists don't have "atheist beliefs", they have an atheist lack of one belief.
While the Big Bang might technically be said to be the start of evolution, the term is normally used to describe the development of life on this planet, and not the wider question of Astrophysics.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

You ask the impossible, your question is hopelessly confused, atheists (no capital "A") are atheists because they lack a belief in Gods. Other than that, they don't all have anything else in common, so atheists don't have "atheist beliefs", they have an atheist lack of one belief.
While the Big Bang might technically be said to be the start of evolution, the term is normally used to describe the development of life on this planet, and not the wider question of Astrophysics.

Do not atheist ask the impossible from me?
I do not have God on speed dial , God doesn't appear at my say so..

I ask atheist for facts to prove their theories and beliefs but they say "well as far as we know" , or "the universe is expanding " or "theoretically" it is what it is,.or in theory which is a work in progress, in short this might work , might be true , might not work might be false.
Just don't present atheist beliefs as factual law .
I don't present mine that way , if my beliefs are questioned however I will question, if my beliefs are critisized ... WELL?eace

 

[Mach]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I ask no more than what atheist has ask from me they ask prove God exist.

That's the wrong question for anyone to be asking if you want to talk philosophy. Their mistake, I agree.

I ask prove the big bang happened , prove the atheist beliefs.eace

Independently verifiable evidence, consistent establish science, supports the big bang theory. If you attempt to go from theory, to "proof", that's a misunderstanding of the terminology (a common one).
Atheism while perhaps technically the definition is some strange "negative" belief god does not exist, that's just bad reasoning.
More reasonably, atheism is the absence of a belief in gods. There's no evidence associated with that, other than asking someone if they believe in gods. If they say no, they are likely an atheist. If they say no but are lying, they are probably not an atheist, but just being deceitful about it. That's about all there is to that.

It's just not a big freaking deal. Religion is not about what's real, it's about what you believe, and trying to argue it's about what's real just defeats the purpose.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

For the THIRD Time in this string..
Presluc is LYING.
A [Scientific] Theory is NOT "like a miracle" and is NOT "far from being fact".
How Clownish/Ridiculous/Ignorant.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...olution-vs-creationism-81.html#post1062012905
Does that sound "like a miracle"?
Gravity is ALSO a Theory AND a Fact.

This now goes well beyond Grotesque Ignorance and well into Willfully Dishonest posting.

Lying am I?
Not the first time I've been accused of that.
Very well lets have a test shall we?
In a place in France 3 girls was said to have seen the Virgin Mary although it was called a "miracle" by the Catholic church no facts or other witness were available .
I ask you now present factual proof that this miracle happened, or are we to take the word of 3 teenage girls?

It has been said that the Big Bang "theory" started the universe.
I ask you now present factual evidence that can be confirmed with out a doubt iron clad evidence, or are we to take the word of hearsay spread by atheist?

Do these I will admit I'm lying , do not well whose really lying?

Gravity inside the earth's atmosphere is fact been tried and tested, you want to test it walk up 50 flights of stairs walk out on the balcony above a street and step off

IF GRAVITY DOESN'T WORK HAVE YOUR NEXT OF KIN GIVE ME A CALL , I'll want pictures of course.eace

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Do not atheist ask the impossible from me?
I do not have God on speed dial , God doesn't appear at my say so..

I ask atheist for facts to prove their theories and beliefs but they say "well as far as we know" , or "the universe is expanding " or "theoretically" it is what it is,.or in theory which is a work in progress, in short this might work , might be true , might not work might be false.
Just don't present atheist beliefs as factual law .
I don't present mine that way , if my beliefs are questioned however I will question, if my beliefs are critisized ... WELL?eace

The lack of a belief in Gods is the only "belief" (is not having a belief a belief?) that all atheists share. The rest of your post is off the evolution/creationist topic.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Do not atheist ask the impossible from me?
I do not have God on speed dial , God doesn't appear at my say so..

I ask atheist for facts to prove their theories and beliefs but they say "well as far as we know" , or "the universe is expanding " or "theoretically" it is what it is,.or in theory which is a work in progress, in short this might work , might be true , might not work might be false.
Just don't present atheist beliefs as factual law .
I don't present mine that way , if my beliefs are questioned however I will question, if my beliefs are critisized ... WELL?eace

These are all based on measurements, from the cosmic microwave background to the universal doppler shift. Repeatable, demonstrable measurement. Measurement defines reality. It's a bit more than what can be said about gods. It's also accepted and expected that theories be challenged and other explainations proposed. Whatever can explain the observables best and make the predictions which pan out is what gets to survive. That structure isn't so much encouraged in religion, though it does happen. It's why our gods of the past are not the gods of the present. It's also why the gods of the present will not be the gods of the future. It's just that the evolution of religion is not well acknowledged by theists.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

That's the second time you've questioned my intelligence you want to play that game, no prob.

Clearly you haven't got it straight sir.

FACT= CAN BE, and has been PROVEN WITH IRON CLAD EVIDENCE.
THEORY= work in progress to becoming a hypothesis to becoming a might be, or a maybe. or an imaginary back up using science has a scapegoat. when you are wrongeace

Mathematical theorems are proved. Facts are observed.

NEXT CREATIONIST ERROR!

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What factual evidence do you have to prove the big bang happened .
Remember FACTUAL not the ole "well according to our measurements " or the old "we think this is what happened " FACTUAL.eace

Jesus. More fundamental confusion and ignorance.

The universe is expanding. Run the clock backward and guess what you get. A big bang. Probably

Jesus: facts are not your friend.

 

[Hdreamz]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I think it would help to acknowledge here that their is a vast difference between a scientific theory and how a someone of a non scientific background would coin something a theory.

Scientific theory:
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated and exhaustive testing, shown through a multitude of evidence. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid and tested explanation of a phenomenon.

After your point about gravity it might also help to know that electromagnetism, gravity and both the strong and weak forces are all still scientific theories, though they support almost every piece of technology we have created in the past two centuries.

Non Scientific theory:
In everyday use, theory means a guess, hunch, gut feeling or conclusion with little evidence and made with a very large ratio of failing.

 

[obvious Child]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I think it would help to acknowledge here that their is a vast difference between a scientific theory and how a someone of a non scientific background would coin something a theory.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that one side here refuses to educate itself on anything relevant to the discussion. So you acknowledging this doesn't help when the side that is ignorant willfully chooses to remain ignorant.

I've said this at least three times, but here it is again:

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

This discussion is pointless when the creationists refuse to get a basic grasp of understanding of the topic. It's similar to someone who has no understanding of tax law entering into a discussion of CPAs and trying to tell them they're all wrong on technical matters.

 

[shagg]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well, I have said I have no proof that God exist , because I don't have the "facts "to prove he does, that does not stop me from having faith. just no "FACTS"

Now atheist come along and say so you admit you can not prove God exist ?
I say yes because I have no facts now I could bring up miracles but that is an assumption, unexplained happenings but that is yet another assumption. no "FACTS.

However Atheist have invented a word called theory and tried to use it to replace facts , but it can not for a theory , like a miracle is but another assumption.
Hypothesis , theory, miracle all assumptions.
I ask for facts not assumptions.
Assumption could be another word for speculation both are far from being FACT.eace

How about we look at it this way:

+Facts: neither side seems to have these (highly debatable, but I'm granting you an assumption here)
+Theories: Science has these, a combination of educated guesses, experimentation, collection of empirical evidence, and refinement based on the information gathered.
+Faith: a combination of hope, sacrifice, and stubbornness

- Neither Faith nor Theories are Facts, despite Faith being accepted as Fact by some.

- Theories, by nature, strive to become Fact, and move closer to Fact when possible through scientific method. Not all Theories can become Fact, but most if not all Facts started out as Theories.

- For Faith to become Fact, a Theory based on that Faith must first be formed, tested, reviewed, and refined in an unbiased manner.

- Theories are thus more Factual than Faith, for Faith remains untested and unrefined.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

The odds of life happening in the universe hardly matters when there are trillions of examples on one planet. Creationism is the stark denial of the obvious fact that life does exist on its own, right here on Earth. Creationism ignores that a creator is just a theory.

 

[shagg]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Also for your reading pleasure

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[13]
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[14][15]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[27]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
False Authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea
Inflation Of Conflict - The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[33]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Moral high ground fallacy - in which a person assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make himself look good to win an argument.
Moralistic fallacy - inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Naturalistic fallacy - inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[35] in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so[51]
Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[61]
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
Reductio ad Hitlerum (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled (See also – Godwin's law)
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position[66]