Creationists Have Questions. I Have Answers.

But it doesn't mean science is incompatible with the existence of a God or divine creative force.

 

Really? You just copied and pasted, from a blog no less? That's just lame.

Im neither an evolutionist nor a creationist. There are obvious holes in both theories, but people believe both just as blindly.

 

...do you know how this forum works? People post articles, they're discussed, etc. If you read the article, you would see that the original title was "Creationists have questions. I have answers".

No, they are not equatable. Evolution has mountains of evidence, creationism has zero. Show me any peer-reviewed study that finds evidence for creationism.

I have no problem with religious people being involved in science, I just wish they would keep their agenda at home. The supernatural has no place in our classrooms.

 

No, that is not "how this forum works." People can post articles for discussion, but the rules here require more than just that. see rule #11.

Regardless of what the rules say, it's still lame to use another's work as a substitute for your own opinion.

Who said they are equatable? Who made any claims about amounts of evidence for each? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least make an honest attempt to understand what is being said before you reply to it.

what the heck does this have to do with what I said?

Maybe I'll quote your post and talk about the winter Olympics.

 

I posted an article and gave my opinion on it. Pretty sure that constitutes most of the posts in current events, which is where this was originally. I'm not a scientist, although i'm sure I could draw every conclusion the author does with a little research.

You did say they were equatable by referring to them both as "theories" in the scientific sense. See, in the scientific community, "theory" is not the same as "hypothesis". Gravity is a theory, for example. It's also a fact, like evolution.

Again, evolution has mountains of evidence. Creation has none. To even suggest they are on the same footing shows you have little understanding of biology.

 

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. So your assumption is already flawed. Science could claim to be a methodology to obtain answers, but it wouldn't claim to have all the answers.

So what Hawkings was wrong? Change your beliefs once you realize they are wrong. This is called learning. Not changing your beliefs would be a problem, since you would never learn anything new. This is how evidence works. When new evidence is found that disproves your beliefs, you change them and learn something new.

And yes that chart is not meant to portray and exact model, its an oversimplification of what happen. Its a tool to help visually represent "small changes" over large periods of time, equals large changes. If you were to draw a chart that represents the overall picture of evolution, for simplicity reasons, your diagram probably wouldnt be pictorially or historically accurate, but it would portray the context of evolution properly.

You clearly don't understand how science works, which is exactly what the original poster was talking about. When you misrepresent science in such a wrongful way, its quite clear that you don't understand.
Right now, some evolutionist may believe we came from Homo Habilis. Some evolutionists may believe we came from Homo Erectus. Some may believe we came from Australiopithecus. But no matter if every single one of them are wrong, it doesn't disprove evolution. We evolved, period, even if what we think we evolved from turns out to be incorrect.

Even if it is discovered tomorrow that we really evolved from Neanderthals, notice how evolution is still true, but each one of the above scientists who believe it was Erectus, habilus, or australiopithecus were wrong.

You clearly don't understand how science works..........as proven above.

 

lol, you're no scientist. Simply taking a basic college level science course would have left you better informed than that. You've clearly never heard of the geocentric theory, which was once the dominant theory (pretty much until Copernicus), and neither as little as a hypotheses nor as solid as a fact.

Are you really going to insist on straw men and parroting?

 

Some evolutionists may believe we came from Homo Erectus. Some other evolutionists may believe we came from Homo Habilis. Note that even if both of these scientists were wrong and we really evolved from Neanderthals..............we still evolved, no matter if both scientists were wrong about what we evolved from.

This is not a hole. People that think evolution has holes or gaps, really don't understand biology, science, or evolution.

 

The theory of evolution is not, "we evolved at some point, from something."

 

No we've heard of it, but we still don't understand why you can't differentiate between a scientific theory and an opinion theory. Dont WANT to know or have you tried and just CANT figure it out. If I were you, I would prove that you don't WANT to know because the other doesn't make you look good.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the definition of evolution! It doesn't matter what we evolved from..........we evolved! LMAO!

This proves that even if those scientists current beliefs are wrong, we still evolved.

 

You're comparing geocentrism to the modern scientific process? Talk about straw men. I'm just asking you to back up what you said, these "giant holes" in evolution.

While we're on the topic of geocentrism though, did you know some modern day creationists also believe the universe revolves around the Earth? Let's teach that in the classroom too, I want to make sure the kids have all sides.

 

So you don't even know what the theory of evolution is. Stop wasting my time, little one.

Attention to detail. Learn it, or I won't continue to waste my time with you. My time is valuable.

And I gladly will, once the current matter is resolved. That requires you to: learn what evolution is, learn what a scientific theory is, stop the straw men, stop the off topic bs. Make an honest attempt to understand what you're responding to. There is a limit to how much puerile crap I can take.

completely irrelevant idiocy. It's sad that you don't even see how hypocritical your method of argument is.

 

keep proving that you can't understand. It allows me to question your intelligence!

I bet you run away because you CANT hang with the intelligent people.

WHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I get it, you like using GIFs. How is referring to what you said a straw man? You used a dark ages belief to somehow suggest that the theory of evolution is flawed because they're both "science" in your view.

I'm starting to think you're just talking out of your ass. It's a hypothesis of mine.

I do actually understand evolution, which is why I don't think it requires "faith" as you ascribe. So, again, i'm simply asking you to back up your incredibly asinine insistence that there are "giant holes" in evolution. Your words, not mine.

 

A scientific theory is, "a theory that explains scientific observations." The Geocentric theory, formulated by a Greek thinker named Ptolemy in Egypt, was actually a great feat of science. It doesn't matter that it was correct, it was an amazingly intelligent and thought through theory explaining scientific observations. Oh, and it was formulated well before the dark ages, guy.

dude, do you even know what a straw man is? Where did I say evolution requires faith? This is the bs I'm talking about - you're not worth my time.

 

Sigh. Theory is not Hypothesis. From Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

You said: "There are obvious holes in both theories, but people believe both just as blindly."

If you are following something blindly, is faith not in play? If anyone's time is being wasted, it's my own. That's ok though, I come here precisely to waste time debating internet nobodies

 

Wow. OK first off evolution, like all theories, isn't just a BELIEF, it's how we think things work given the evidence at hand. The scientific community isn't saying evolution and abiogenesis are real because some guy thought it up to turn science into a relgion or whatever nonsense creationists believe, they say evolution and abiogenesis are real because that's where the evidence points. The reason they are not facts is because they cannot be proved conclusively, however they are supported by evidence.

Let me put it this way. If you were going to have a class that taught how engines work who would you hire; the guy who said he read a book that says the engine is filled with gremlins who need to drink gasoline to make the engine run or would you talk to the guy who doesn't know how the whole engine works but has studied various parts and has a good idea of how it all goes together? Would you treat both points of view equally? Would you even mention the gremlins one being that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and the other point of view, while not complete, actually makes sense and can be shown to be on the right course? That's why we teach evolution and that's why we don't teach creationism.

It's not a slight on religion and what is being taught are not "beliefs" in the same way as a religious belief; it is a belief based on the evidence at hand. That's why it's a theory and not a hypothesis; it's already been shown to have good supporting evidence and is the best explanation of how things work given the evidence. The only evidence for creationism is an old book of stories which, lets face it, is not a scientifically sound source of evidence.

 

Which is not equivalent to fact. I mean I drew my definition from a dictionary, but sure, wikipedia is fine. The definition given is actually just about the same, and geocentric theory fits the bill.

How does, "people believe both just as blindly" mean "faith is required to believe in either"? See, that's a strawman. You might want to wikipedia that, too.

 

You keep dodging the question, show me evidence for these "giant holes" in evolution. See, evidence is the key difference here. You're referencing a Greco hypothesis while the topic at hand is a modern scientific theory. Again, theories can also be facts. Nothing ever stops being a theory. Hate to harp on gravity, but it's a prime example. Do you need more evidence that gravity is real? No, obviously it is, but that doesn't mean it ceases to be a theory.

 

So now it's evasion? You said theory=fact. Do I need to get the post # for you?

 

Gravity is also a "theory". Are you saying gravity is not a fact?

 

Theory can be fact. I think you're confusing the scientific definition of theory with the colloquial variant, which is closer to a hypothesis, or just an idea even. Still waiting for the evidence against evolution.

 

Geocentricism is/was a theory. Theories can be factual, they are not necessarily factual as Cloak suggested.

 

So now you're waiting for something I never claimed to possess, w/o accepting your previously mistaken definition of evolution? That's very boyish. There's no point in poking holes in something if we cant agree on what that something is.

 

.

You do know that by merely assuming the Earth is stationary you can prove mathematically that very thing, don't you? It's just a matter of defining a frame of reference.