Fallacies of Evolution

Please show a supporter of TOE demanding proof of anything.

 

I'm sure you will learn nothing that doesn't already fit your Creationist beliefs. However, when you come back, please give us a list of those "scientists that support the theory of Creation".

 

I am and I do.

 

We eagerly await your findings
If I may, I would like to suggest that during your visit you clarify some basic unanswered questions that I I have raised. These questions are regarding how creation science regards science outside of evolutionary theory.

For instance... scientific investigation into the age of the earth is totally independent of evolutionary theory. Darwin had no idea of the age of the earth and none of his ideas depend upon this, and scientists doing this research are not investigating or trying to support evolution. Nor are these scientists trying to deny god or creation.

So the Age of the earth is independent from the creation vs evolution dispute. Never the less, wheather you believe in either theory... you still gotta fit all the facts together. And if the world is 14 billion years old... you gotta incorporate that data into your theory of evolution or creation.

Likewise with the fossil record that shows life extending back billions of years and changing over time.both creationists and evolutionists gotta incorporate this information into their theory... right?


I am familiar how evolutionist reconcile the data with their theory.

I am not familiar with how creationists do this.

So I am politely asking that those who propose a scientific non evolutionary world should tell us how they reconcile non evolutionary science with their non evolutionary theories. How did a creator structure the billions years long, intricate, and changing fossi record as we are finding it?

 

A Startling Lie. The usual
The Fossil record gets filled in EVERY Year, and with intermediate species that are Only predicted BY Evolution.
Millions of fossils, any of which, if found in the wrong age strata, could have been fatal.
What are the odds of that if Evo is wrong?
Evo is as reliable as Gravity.

Another Breathtaking Boner.
Even most of the few loonies who disagree with Evo would agree it's a Coherent Theory, but with some fatal flaws.
And again, Evolution TOO, works every day.
The Intermediate Species predicted by Evo, are Filled in more Every year.
AND they are all found in the right age Strata, as only Evolution would Predict.

Every New science that's emerged in the last 150 incredibly active years has been Consistent with, or Helped CONFIRM Evolution. (Isotopic Dating, DNA, etc). Of Course!

More Dishonest 'Quote Mining':

Six things Darwin never said – and one he did
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/people/about-darwin/six-things-darwin-never-said

I have systematically refuted All of your garbage claims/methods with Facts/Citations.
So, as in Real Life, you must Ignore facts to maintain your Mythical belief system
Your posts All Baseless Disingenous Garbage, and you have been beaten so Badly, you've had to put a good part of the board on "Ignore." (23+ were visible before board format change) Why post here?
`

 

We're often left to wonder if those expressing these opinion are feigning ignorance or if they really are ignorant when they attempt to dispute that evolution occurred.

There's never actually been a "Theory of Evolution" because evolution of the species was an Observation of science.

What is often referred to as the "Theory of Evolution" is, in fact, the "Theory of the Mechanics of Evolution" and it is true that the "Theory of the Mechanics of Evolution has not been fully demonstrated by scientific methodology although it's clearly evident in nature outside of the laboratory.

None of this has anything to do with whether evolution occurred of course because the evolution is merely an observation of what has occurred in nature over time. Scientists don't "prove" what the can clearly see in nature. They attempt to explain what they see in nature.

 

The Theory of the Mechanics of Evolution, such as Darwin's Natural Selection is a legitimate scientific theory where the known information supports the theory and no evidence exists to discredit the theory.

There are no scientific theories of Creationism or Intelligent Design. These are beliefs that aren't required to comply with known information and as a belief they can't be discredited by evidence.

APPLES =/= ORANGES

 

I'd say you don't understand science here. The reason people claim there are gaps in the theory is because either:

- They are missing links in the process which is an unreasonable request (do you want samples of all generations?)
- They question sources and methods. A process like carbondating isn't accurate to the exact year, but that doesn't mean it's flawed. Either that or a personal attack is lauched on the source; fake news, scummy scientist etc.
- You devaluate arguments because it doesn't suit you yourself.


By all means, present evidence that supports creationism. I said before I'm open to it, but I have yet to receive evidence that supports creationism. Evidence as you put it; not "leap of faith texts" that say life is so complicated it needs intelligent design.

 

So you fashion your self an Elitist? Quite fitting for an arrogant atheist. You have all the answers and everyone other than yourself is ignorant, why do you even play here?

 

I'm sure you could find them yourself. You just like the ones that support your theory.

 

You are polite....more important respectful. I can respect that. Tell you what. Personally I am more into the realm of faith. I am caught up in the wisdom I find in the Bible and that preoccupies a lot of my time. I learn new things all the time. I do listen too and read a little about scientific exploring of all kinds. The evolution theoryt is promoted all the time and taught in our schools. I have heard the arguments also of Creation Scientists who have a vast knowledge. They ask questions that the other scientists cannot answer. One thing that fascinates me about evolutionists, they always seem to be able to add a few billion years to enhance the chance that we are accidents of chance. It never seems to stop. Other experts will show that a man does just not evolve from a different species. I have heard of carbon dating from the Mt. St. Helens eruption puts it as thousands of years old. I'm not an expert. If you honestly look into some of the scientist that explain Creationism, I believe you might have some new questions.

 

Yes, but leaving aside evolution... I asked questions about the age of earth and life and the fossil record. These are all questions that can be scientifically addressed without touching on evolution

at this moment there are two salient unanswered questions

What is the approximate age of the earth?

Appropriately how long has life existed on earth?

These seem like fairly direct and simple questions that creation scientists should be able to answer

I have tried to be clear that I am asking what creation science shows... I am not now defending evolution

My St. Helens is about 40,000 years old
No scientist Would say the earth is only as old as mt St. Helens
And, for that matter, no creationist will agree that it is 40,000 years old

At your urging I did a google search asking my question
The top result was from "answers in genisis

Conclusion
When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.

Cultures around the world give an age of the earth that confirms what the Bible teaches. Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error.

The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?


Are you supporting the above ... which seems to rely upon faith in gods word and not science


With all respect... I have tried google and not found any scientist or web site saying the earth is 6000 years old as answers in genisis claims it to.be.

And this provokes one of my great confusions on this topic

If I want to get a scientific opinion on the age of the earth.... there is a superabundance of resources

Otoh, if I want a creation scientific answer... the best I can come up with is....believe the Bible. Not saying that people should NOT believe the Bible. But the Bible should not be presented as scientific evidence?

 

Why take either?

 

How about we compromise

Evolution is a unproven theory... that at least attempts to explain the facts we see around us

And creationism is also an unproven theory.... which disregards science and instead relies upon the bible

 

Horrible posting.
Scientific Theories don't get "proven," they get affirmed over time.
Evolution (like Gravity) Is a FACT, as well as a 'theory.'

Creationism doesn't rise anywhere near a Scientific Theory, (which takes other facts to establish), it's superstitious BS.
Different religions have different and Contradictory creation Myths.

Hideous attempt that unwittingly gives credence/equivalence to pure crapola by imposing the "proof" standard instead of the [overwhelming] 'Evidence' one.
There is No evidence for god/s.
`

 

Because I personally don't think those made up gaps are highly relevant to the bigger picture and mostly "delaying tactics" from people that do not agree with the evolution theory. It's probably possible to hurdle obstacles in the way for coming century by demanding additional proof, or more accurate proof, while it doesn't change the fact that it's accepted a scientific theory.

 

That is not a compromise, it is a complete failure to understand science.

Theory is a word that has a definite meaning in science.

Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for it. At the moment there isn't a competing theory that is even in the same universe as the current ToE is. One more thing, if the current ToE was shown to be wrong, that still doesn't default to Creationism.

 

I find your own conclusion reasonable and similar to my own. Things I myself ponder.....does the Bible hold fast to six thousand years or is that an assumption made on figures of speech? (to the Lord a thousand years is as a day) Modern science has reached many many conclusions only to reverse them later. There is much controversy on strata laid down in the earths crust. Living in Arizona I see it exposed routinely and marvel at the cataclysmic events that at one time took place. Sea shells on top of the Mogollon Rim (a thousand foot escarpment) as well as below seems to indicate changes can happen very rapidly. We have heard it said it takes thousands upon thousands of years to create a diamond yet industrial diamonds are made in a relatively short time.

 

I think you should be more clear....
It is a fact that the earth is very old, and life is very old, and that life and species have changed over that long time, and that this change has a pattern of moving from simple to advanced forms, and that this process of change is conventionally referred to as evolution

The TOE is a speculative explanation for processes that may have been invoked in causing evolution. Imo there is no better explanation, Certainty mutations combined with natural selection played a role in evolution. But we cannot exclude that other processes and factors may have been involved. Nor have we contrived any reproducible test of the TOE, so it necessarily remains a theory

Yes, I agree. But then years ago people would have said the same thing about the flat earth or geocentric solar system

. Yes... I absolutely agree. And will further assert that even if there were some some creative god like force.... there is little reason to believe that force and the god of the Bible must be the same thing. I personally cannot reconcile a god creator with a peeping Tom god who checks up on my bedroom behavior

 

Yes, but that is the nature of science. We keep examining our conclusions and revising them as necessary.

I would respectfully note that the Biblical interpretation has not remained unchanged. For example you likely eat shrimp and wear shirts with blended fabrics,... even ultra Orthodox Jews longer stone people as punishment or engage in animal sacrifice.

But the changes in science are based upon new information and proofs.... which is not the case with changing biblical interpretation

The exacting study of these strata are relatively recent. And so there are some changes. But I would say that it is not correct to say there is "much controversy "

Cataclysmic? Not for the most part. What we see is the result of geophysical forces taking place over unimaginable billions of years. The resulting changes have been enormous.... but mostly gradual an not what we would think of as cataclysmic.... except for things like super volcanoes and asteroid impacts

I see no reason to conclude these things happened rapidly

I think this is not relavent to the discussion... except in so far as previously we might have felt that GOD created diamonds and now we see that diamonds can be created naturally... even by humans..

 

I think you should be more educated on 'Theory'/Scientific Theory. It is NOT "speculation."
In your last post, you made large errors on it as well. Equalizing/equivocating Evo and Creationism as mere "unproven" beliefs.
Alas, this needs posting every few pages.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
[.....]

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.".."
​

`

 

This is getting into an interesting are of discussion... removed from the whole dispute about creationism... so thx for that... let's begin

So lets discuss

As you should be aware, I am not a creationist, I do not advocate it as a viable possibility, nor do I defend it as other than an opinion that others have a right to maintain for their own lives and beliefs

So my friend, here is the crux
if we are talking about evolution as "decent with modification". I agree that is fact
Hopefully I do not have to repeat this several times with increasing emphasis to be understood
Ok? We agree here... this is not speculative... it is fact... ok?

But then there is the further question of how the above fact came to be... and this is what I am describing as speculation. Is this clear?

I agree that "survival of fittest" certainly must have played a role in the FACT of evolution

BUT what exactly caused those changes? Is gene mutation A contributing factor.... probably.
Is there any evidence that random gene mutation is THE ONLY FACTOR driving Change... i have not seen that evidence and welcome you to present that evidence... prove it... simple... prove it

I assume that you cannot prove it... since no one can prove a negative as I am asking you to do

Well then let me set a lower bar of proof for you. Where is the repeatable experiment that proved that random gene mutation has ever made a significant alteration in a living organism?

Ultimately, imo, random gene mutation is not a proven exclusive driver of evolution. Random gene mutation is not even proven to be a major contributor to evolution. It is simply our best guess as to how evolution happened. And therefore i think it is reasonable to describe this theory it as speculative

 

But whatever their belief is, I/others have a right (perhaps 'duty') to tell them it's wrong.
ie, Young Earth Creationism is Wrong.
That's a Fact.
That Humans evolved, rather be being "created" in their present form, is also a Fact.

'First Spark/Life Creationism' is possible, but Evolution happened thereafter. Fact.

Most Creationists, and about 40% of the populace, believe man was created in about his present form within the last 10,000 years!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
This is Grotesquely Wrong, either ignorant or deluded/indoctrinated.

Once again, this time definitely intentionally, you mix-and-match/Strawman with 'Evidence and/or Proof.' Asking for Evidence or proof something/something-else Didn't happen/a Negative.
No, I still can't prove a Negative .. just as I can't "prove" there's no god..
and NO ONE here can "prove" I'M not god.

"Proofs" are for math only. The earth operates on Evidence and Facts.

People are put to death on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is NOT "proof" in the absolute or mathematical sense you ask for.
Eyewitness accounts are well known to be Less reliable than a good circumstantial case. And 150 years of Evo has an infinitely better circumstantial case than the vast majority of those convictions.
Any and ALL evidence we have, points to Evolution through mutation.

NO evidence of divine/anything else, just Messy Trial-and-error Mutation.. leaving most creatures with app 98-99% of the same DNA as their closest Specie ancestors, and Anatomical Remnants of shared ancestors.
Only Common Descent explains anatomical vestiges.
`

 

Diamonds are created by pressure, not time.
It can take millions of years for water or wind to cut into rock. Modern machines do it in minutes.

 

Could you get back at me still? I'm genuinely interested as a sociologist student what arguments there could be in favor of creationism that have some scientific base.