A few points for argumentative Creationists to consider.

1. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and therefore unable to be critiqued by faith-based arguments. It is not something that can be understood through a completely literal, biblical interpretation.

2. The theory of evolution is not associated with the origin of life itself. It does not attempt to explain the process that created life, only the process of how existing life is observed to adapt with its environment over time.

3a. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is at best a hypothesis that cannot be used to make falsifiable predictions, and at worst, pseudoscience.

3b. The highly influential philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper, in his now classic; The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), focuses upon one major criterion for distinguishing between legitimate science and pseudoscience. He labels this criterion "falsifiability" and contends that any theory claiming a legitimate scientific status must be, at least in principle, falsifiable. That is, there must be some conceivable observation that could disprove the theory. It is most relevant to note that Popper explicitly recognizes that a legitimate scientific theory may be falsifiable in principle but, due to limitations of time, space, or technology, unfalsifiable in practice.

I think it is safe to say that for most modern scientists and philosophers of science Popper's concept of falsifiability has come to completely replace the concept of proof as the major criterion for evaluating the worth of scientific theories. It is now generally recognized that the concept of proof was improperly transferred from the domains of pure mathematics and logic, where it still retains its legitimacy, to the realm of the empirical sciences.

The reason for this is basically a logical one; given that every theory is a product of human reason and thus potentially fallible, it therefore follows that there is always the possibility that someone may develop a superior theory. That is, one that explains more or one that explains better. Hence, as long as there is this logical possibility, we now realize that no legitimate scientific theory can be "proven" in any kind of absolute sense. (in fact, it is really superfluous to qualify the word proof with the modifier absolute.)

Hence, when we do run across the use of the term "proof", or some variation on it, we should automatically translate the language into a form consistent with this modern view. For example, the claim that some theory has been "proven" should be read to say no more than that there is "overwhelming evidence" supportive of the theory.

The basis of a theory being "scientifically proven" is the amount of evidence in support of it and the lack of evidence opposing it. If one were to evaluate the hypothesis of creationism by scientific standards, it is not only "unproven", it is also unprovable.

In light of this modern view of the superiority of falsifiablity over the concept of proof, it is in a very basic sense illogical or reflective of a deep ignorance of the modern scienctific method to demand that any theory must be "proven" before it can be considered legitimately scientific. Yet, one of the most persistent claims to be found in the literature of "scientific creationism" is the contention that the theory of evolution is not a valid scientific theory because it has not been "scientifically proven".

It is important to note that Popper pointed out that a theory is to be judged just as much for what it predicts will not occur as for what it predicts will occur. In other words, a legitimately scientific theory not only predicts various allowable observable events but also forbids the occurrence of a whole domain of possible events. While the occurrence of one of the allowable events does not prove the theory (because the same event could have been predicted by other theories as well), the occurrence of one of the forbidden events does falsify it. (it should be pointed out, however, that, when confronted with one or a few such falsifying events, a theory that has withstood numerous attempts at falsification and which has no serious, legitimately scientific competitor, will still be retained, in spite of such anomalies.)

Let us now consider how "scientific creationism" on the one hand and the theory of evolution on the other stand up to the criterion of falsifiability. Here we shall see the most basic reason why "scientific creationism" is forever doomed to remain in the realm of pseudoscience.

By definition, "scientific" creationism is irrevocably grounded in an appeal to the existence and operation of an obviously omnipotent supernatural being—that is, a being that by its very nature is capable of virtually anything. It therefore follows that there is literally no conceivable observation that cannot be reconciled with the virtually limitless actions of such a being. "Scientific" creationism thus lacks the central defining characteristic of all modern scientific theories. It is absolutely immune to falsification. Literally any problem confronted by "scientific" creationism as it is applied to the empirical world can be resolved through an appeal to unknown and unknowable supernatural operations. And although "scientific" creationists are extremely fond of pointing out various alleged problems with the theory of evolution (problems that are more often than not the result of their own strawman conceptions of both science and evolution), they appear to remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that any legitimate scientific theory must generate problems. (apparently, once again under the influence of their theology, "scientific creationists" feel that "true" science is some kind of quest for absolute certainty—a conception of science that is totally rejected by modern scientists.) It is extremely important to emphasize again that "scientific" creationism is not, as is the case with some legitimately scientific theories, only unfalsifiable in practice; it is also unfalsifiable in principle.

The same point can be expressed in another way: Science is concerned with explaining why the world is one way rather than some other way. The introduction of an omnipotent supernatural being into any explanation immediately precludes this possibility. As the scriptures tell us, "With God, all things are possible." This may be fine theology, but it stands in direct opposition to the central goal of all science. This is why "scientific creationism" actually acts as a brake on any valid scientific research. It is an antitheory; a void which has the function of knowledge but which conveys none.

Thus, The Theory of Evolution can be accepted as a method of divine creation, (ala Theistic Evolution) or rejected completely in favour of a biblical literalist perspective. It can not be evaluated or dissected in any meaningful way from a fundamentally Creationist perspective, even when it is masquerading as "scientific creationism".

All debate on the Theory of Evolution should be made in the Science and Technology forum and only from the standpoint of scientific enquiry and discussion, not dogmatic theological fundamentalism. Scientists don't argue with or attempt to undermine theology, theologians shouldn't argue with or attempt to undermine scientific findings. /rant

a reply to: spygeek
Copasetic Creationists are fodder. No apologists allowed in this arena; if show any weakness get clobbered/creamed by the "Faked You Out" in believing this load of dirt presented by the "Evolutionary opposing team".

Sorry but its a waste of time presenting a scientific or worse a logical case to the
Religiously handicapped their illness puts them beyond rational argument.

give it a few more decades and the affliction will have been bred out of
first world society with just remnants hanging on in the less developed
and primitive parts of the world.

a reply to: spygeek

A few points for Evolutionary Scientists to Consider.

So let me get this circular reasoning straight.

I have to believe in evolution from single cell to man even though it's not proven because science doesn't claim to prove anything.

I have to believe given enough time an organism will create a new genus even though the hypothesis can not be proven through experimentation, which means it fails the scientific method. But I have to believe it can and did happen because evolution said it happened and science doesn't claim to prove anything.

I have to believe in single cell to multi cell evolution, even though the hypothesis can not be duplicated through experimentation which means it fails the science method. Yet I have to believe in single cell to multi cell evolution because science doesn't claim to prove anything.

I have to believe in a common ancestor between man and ape because evolution says it happened. And since scientists don't have to prove anything they can hypothesize anything that sounds possible and I have to believe it.

So let me get this straight.

I have to believe in unproven science because science doesn't claim to prove anything?

Isn't that the same as saying you have to believe in God because theists don't claim to prove anything?

Circular Reasoning is Very Evolutionary.

originally posted by: ShayneJUK

Sorry but its a waste of time presenting a scientific or worse a logical case to the
Religiously handicapped their illness puts them beyond rational argument.

give it a few more decades and the affliction will have been bred out of
first world society with just remnants hanging on in the less developed
and primitive parts of the world.

Spoken like a true, committed member of the Nazi party.

a reply to: spygeek

Yea but the opening to you thread says.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
The definition of theory is from my websters is.
A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

So if evolution is just a theory and not an actual fact then dont you have to have faith
that your theory is right.

Not trying to prove the whole God argument or nothing but it seems to me science and religion
both seem like religion sometimes.

So if you cant prove as a fact that evolution is true. And cant prove as a fact that God is true.
Then are not the scientist and preacher both just saying trust me its true lol.
Just a thought people we are still aloud to be open minded here right.

a reply to: NthOther

ha ok i'll bite firstly i have no issue with "faith" i held it myself for many years (then i recovered)
nor do i have an issue with people having a "religion" if they choose.
but from my own experience the devoted are some of the most closed minded judgemental
and frankly delusional people i have ever met.

for example faith in the bible ALL of it so the old testament is obviously a rehash of story's passed down
from the Babylonians and others around the region carefully edited to fit a monotheistic system
and then the new testament again a collection of story's attributed to several people all of which
had been passed down by word of mouth and translated and re translated many many times
on most cases century's after the original telling so both the languages have evolved or died out
and the meanings of a lot of the words have changed over that time. then in the middle ages
the new Vatican decided to bin several whole sections all together such as the book of Enoch.
and and Jews and Christians accept this book as the word of god and his reps on earth!

are you kidding me!! they say faith is blind but does it also have to be flippin stupid
or is ignorance a virtue?

oh and i haven't and wouldn't encourage wholesale extermination of the religious (well perhaps ISIS)
either but well done in invoking Godwins law within 5 posts!

a reply to: ShayneJUK

I wasn't just throwing the word "Nazi" around haphazardly, like is done so often by so many. When you start talking about breeding certain kinds of people out of existence...

...you can't get much more Mengele than that.

Replace "religious" with "homosexual" and what do you have?

a reply to: Isurrender73

I have to believe in evolution from single cell to man even though it's not proven because science doesn't claim to prove anything.

You don't have to believe in evolution. You're supposed to understand the theory, consider the evidence and come to your own conclusion. But it is clear from an earlier thread you posted that you have never done this. You have no understanding of evolutionary science.

I have to believe given enough time an organism will create a new genus even though the hypothesis can not be proven through experimentation, which means it fails the scientific method.

You don't have to believe it. You can look at evidence in the fossil record. You can look at the experiments that have confirmed hypotheses about how natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms work. And you can, once again, make up your own mind.

But if you have not done these things, your opinions about evolution are worthless — mere ignorant babble, impressive to you and others who are equally ignorant but laughable to those who know better.

I have to believe in unproven science because science doesn't claim to prove anything?

The falsifiability argument applies to every purpotedly factual statement (including every claim made in the Bible), not just to scientific claims.

Philosophy is just like evolution. If you try to use its arguments and its terminology ('circular reasoning') without understanding them, you just make yourself a bit pathetic and hilarious to people who know better.

originally posted by: ShayneJUK
Sorry but its a waste of time presenting a scientific or worse a logical case to the
Religiously handicapped their illness puts them beyond rational argument.
give it a few more decades and the affliction will have been bred out of
first world society with just remnants hanging on in the less developed
and primitive parts of the world.

The breed of your specie/represented AS:
1. A remnant of future past
2. Just hanging on (a few more decades should solve this)
3. One afflicted with a handicap
4. Bred out of the first world automatically into the third
5. The primitive is beyond reach yet exists as HOPE
6. Less developed as an illness is attached
7. Recognize I myself may be even more primitive
8. Handicapped because of religious affiliation
9. First world was a fly by; no attention paid to

a reply to: NthOther

you misinterpret me i did not suggest anyone BREED it out it is and had been naturally dieing
out for many years and as time progresses this trend will continue thus it will breed itself
out of exesitance no assistance is required.

and for the record i dislike genetic engineering of all forms from gmo plants to eugenics via dog breeding.

"Replace "religious" with "homosexual" and what do you have?"
a Catholic priest?

a reply to: sweets777

So if evolution is just a theory and not an actual fact then dont you have to have faith
that your theory is right.

No, since it is an explanation based on evidence and experiments.
It is not a fact, but that is mainly because the nature of science is to not call it a fact but just the best available explanation. Which is great because then people keep studying and exploring different aspects of things and that is what leads to great paradigm shifts.

a reply to: Astyanax

It is likely that I understand Evolution better then 99% of you that claim I must be a moron.

I have read literally hundreds of reports on evolution and I understand exactly what Evolution claims. I understand exactly what the theory implies and I understand exactly where it lies in the land of hypothesis.

I have looked at the Fossil record. I understand adaptation and speciation. I think the yeast study was cool but it doesn't prove anything. I also am more up to date on the genome project then most.

I am tired of the arrogance on ATS. I am literally a genius who understands and can explain evolution better then 99% of you who think you know something.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

i'll take box number 2 bob

a reply to: Isurrender73

Do it then, just don't abandon it like your last thread.
There is plenty there still waiting for answers to your questions.

originally posted by: ShayneJUK

you misinterpret me i did not suggest anyone BREED it out it is and had been naturally dieing
out for many years and as time progresses this trend will continue thus it will breed itself
out of exesitance no assistance is required.

So just continue brainwashing it out of them instead (like what's been going on for many years now), through the "education" system and pop culture, over the course of a few generations?

That's Goebbels' department down the hall.

"Replace "religious" with "homosexual" and what do you have?"
a Catholic priest?

Too good.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Isurrender73

Do it then, just don't abandon it like your last thread.
There is plenty there still waiting for answers to your questions.

No one questioned the science that I presented. I don't post what I don't know. I was attacked repeatedly like I was an idiot without anyone countering the scientific claims I made.

No one ever counters the science I present with any argument other then "you must not understand".

originally posted by: ShayneJUK
a reply to: vethumanbeing

i'll take box number 2 bob

Courageous response ShayneJUK; and the correct one (no one else will respond) guaranteed.

a reply to: NthOther

and this is different to the brainwashing of religious dogma how?

the difference is education teaches what is. and is provable by research or experiment.

religion cannot actually PROVE anything.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Isurrender73

Do it then, just don't abandon it like your last thread.
There is plenty there still waiting for answers to your questions.

NO! not an "abandon my own thread" trend? I thought this was 'spygeeks' thread to consume red Twizzlers as pleased without judgment.