Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Nicrux

You are most welcome and at liberty to question the texts. That's being human, to question, and be skeptical. But, you learn to not over do it.
What I wa getting at, was I accept people who find comfort and truth in religious scripture, it's not my place to tell others how they take in and metabolize the natural universe.

And to drag in another post you replied to, yes, I agree, some people do indeed view the universe as God, an eternal force. Which brings up a whole new can of worms to understand that sort of thinking, which in includes crazy thought processes such as alchemical epiphanies and such.

Humans are made of the same stuff as stars, and kelp, just that stuff found a way to congregate in different ways, it doesn't matter how that stuff all started off, or has always been, that's the point most of us need to get into our heads, everything is connected. Just my take.

Well put.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

Since you are framing this debate on the Appeal to Authority fallacy, please link for me the Law of Evolution.

Last I had checked it was a theory.

I'm old and could be wrong though....

a reply to: MrGashler

It also seems like many people are having a knee-jerk reaction to my statements and assuming that because I dare question science, or even worse that I would dare say evolution is not a fact, I must support the creationist ideology.

I am just glad I don't have to explain isotope decay on this one.

I didn't see it as necessarily creationist, just along the truth/fact/observation lines.

Is creating definitions and grouping things based on their properties as they correspond to those definitions science?

Well, we created the language. The language we created says science is...

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

So if we are going to find what's true. It's that things exist and have immutable traits.

The Sun. We observed it. Learned we don't have to cut heads off to get it to return from the underworld, and now scientifically classify it.

The [star] is a [main sequence] [yellow] [drawf] with [hydrogen] and [helium] [fusing] under [pressure.]

Say a distant alien civilization takes the old bypass from the edge of the universe to observe our little world. The alien notes:

The [zorp] is a [quiblox] [gazorninplat] with [zilspar] and [floozals] [zur klingal] under [klaglor]

There is still a zorp at the center of the solar system. And whether you say it fuses hydrogen or zilspar, there is still a star fusing the most basic element in its core.

Truth would be the things happening regardless of what they are called, or whether the process has been correctly noted yet. Like when people thought it died and was reborn every day.

Science gets it to the ultimate explanation.

There's no other way to explain our sun now. Eventually when the constituant parts are known down to the elementary particles. There's only different terms to explain the thing that happens anyway.

Any advanced species would have the spectrum charted. They would have a periodic table. They would know of atoms and elements. Because atoms exist everywhere. Ubiquitous things have a natural form that don't need our subjective understanding to exist the same way. Hydrogen is still the most abundant element regardless of how you scientifically value it.

And that would be "the truth".

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat
a reply to: Venkuish1

I am stating a fact not making a claim.
Evolution is a fact. This directly implies creationism is false.

Hold on there, Sparky.

Evolution is NOT a fact as evidenced by it's moniker in any decent science magazine or documentary.

It's referred to as the "Theory of Evolution".

It is a very well supported theory and is most likely a fact but unless/until we see something *actually* evolve in front of our eyes, it remains a theory.

Just like the theory of natural selection. Again, well supported theory, but still a theory.

Pardon the pun but I just wanted to get the facts straight,

Not only it's a fact but one of the most successful scientific theories we have.

And you are making the classical mistake to call it 'just a theory' as if you are referring to a scientific hypothesis or even worse a speculation. But a scientific theory is something very different to a hypothesis or speculation.

Look it up: Scientific Theory

Here is a peer reviewed scientific publication written by two scientists

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

First few sentences of the Abstract:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

Since you are framing this debate on the Appeal to Authority fallacy, please link for me the Law of Evolution.

Last I had checked it was a theory.

I'm old and could be wrong though....

It's a scientific theory and not a scientific hypothesis or some sort of speculation. It's a classical mistake made and repeated.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ...

originally posted by: ColeYounger2
...
It's strange how an internet search for "intelligent design" brings up numerous sites that immediately make the "it's pseudoscience" argument. For instance, here's Wikipedia:
Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about .

Intelligent design makes no statements about God or his existence. Talk about a straw man. It makes no (official) statements about the identity of the designer or designers at all. If we're talking about what the Discovery Institute refers to as "the theory of intelligent design".

In this article entitled "What is Intelligent Design?" on discovery.org, God isn't even mentioned once. Instead it says:

The theory of intelligent design simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Now for some people who don't shy away from talking about God* when the subject of "purposeful design" comes up (*: referred to as "the Creator" at the end of part 2, or the article; along with a reference to "the Bible") :


Textformat:

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

Still not "creationism" either (talking about ID as presented by the Discovery Institute again, but it also counts for what's discussed in the article above). I already elaborated on why not. Key point:

... It is no longer a neutral term, but embodies extreme fundamentalist views of the Bible, such as the view that God created the earth and everything upon it in six days of 24 hours each. There are now more than 350 books in circulation setting out such “creationism” dogma. ...

Source: Is there a distinction between “creation” and “creationism”? (Questions From Readers; 1986)

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Coming back to my previous response and wikipedia's description that "Intelligent design is a[n] ... argument for the existence of God", "pseudoscientific" or otherwise (since they're talking about what the Discovery Institute refers to as "the theory of intelligent design"). As the man below puts it: "It's a wanton distortion of our position." (after 0:30)

And just because I feel my comment is too short now, here's the "Evidence of Design from Biology" as presented by biochemist Michael Behe:

Talking about my previous comment where I quoted Isaac Newton and the Encyclopædia Britannica on the topic of inductive reasoning. He explains inductive reasoning quite well somewhere after 26:47 (to be more exact, after 30:10 with the key points after 35:24 and concerning inductive reasoning at 36:08; the first time I mentioned concerns the broader context).

Context (playlist, starting with video nr. 29, but the evidence for purposeful design in biology already starts with the 1st video, entitled: "Molecular Machinery of Life"):

Darwin VS Design Molecular Machines

Inductive reasoning is based on drawing conclusions by induction from established facts that have been discovered by means of observation and experimentation (as Isaac Newton explained it; as quoted by me in this comment on page 18). It should be at the very heart of any proper so-called "scientific method". As Newton put it: "[so] that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” [or worse, fanciful stories that only sound plausible to the indoctrinated and biased beholder, who have also forgotten, by means of brainwashing, indoctrination, conditioning and propaganda, how important inductive reasoning should be to any proper and historically proven effective method to discover new facts/certainties/truths/realities, the very essence of the original meaning of the word "science", which comes from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"; which is also still a synonym. Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I.e. things that are factual/certain/true/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error (all synonyms where you see a /).]

Well-established and observed fact #1: life is made up of molecular machinery.
Well-established and observed fact #2: machinery is the product of engineering (or to use a broader term, creation)

You can add more well-established facts concerning the mental requirements for performing the act of engineering (a corresponding minimum level of knowledge, intelligence, technological know-how, etc. that corresponds with the machinery and technology in question), but those are the main 2 well-established facts on which the argument of induction (and conclusion by induction) concerning life being the product of engineering or creation, is based on (design being one step in that process).

The following argument of induction (technically, it's a statement of fact, but it highlights the usefulness of inductive reasoning concerning that subject) as penned by the Apostle Paul nearly 2000 years ago, has stood the test of time (even though it has been "evaded" by unverified and often unverifiable hypotheses, fanciful stories, religiously rooted and motivated ancient philosophies/ideas and myths/false stories numerous times during those 2000 years, quoting Newton again; and the evasion will continue unabated, as it will in this thread which may have the presence of at least one propaganda chatbot, you get 1 guess who that might be... my suspicion is primarily based on a 'refusal' (neglecting), perhaps caused by an inability, to answer a simple question, or questions, concerning 3 pictures about the topic of "hollow bones" in another thread on this subforum; but it's tricky nowadays to tell the difference, not because chatbots have gotten so good at mimicking human intelligence, but because human beings have gotten so bad at honestly answering simple questions in a reasonable manner when the obviously correct answers to those questions are inconvenient to their strongly and zealously held blind and biased beliefs in myths/false stories, compare 2 Tim 4:3,4). Romans 1:19-22 (including a bit more information than just the argument of induction, I'll bold the argument, which as mentioned before, is technically a statement of a fact/truth/certainty/reality):

19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish . . .

A small sample of the evidence (established facts/certainties) as referred to in red bold color above:

The first video in the playlist that covers some more examples of the evidence for the conclusion by induction that life is the product of engineering/creation:

Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist link)

The same playlist also gives credit where credit is due, i.e. at some point it will get into the topic of the identity of the engineer or engineers, creator(s). As Paul did.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

Since you are framing this debate on the Appeal to Authority fallacy, please link for me the Law of Evolution.

Last I had checked it was a theory.

I'm old and could be wrong though....

It's a scientific theory and not a scientific hypothesis or some sort of speculation. It's a classical mistake made and repeated.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ...

So it's a theory....

Thank you for explaining to me that I told you that it is a theory and you explained to me that it is indeed a theory.

Please link for me where it is considered a law...

You know... like the Law of Gravity and not the Theory of Gravity.

I'll wait...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MrGashler
You think of facts as mutable. Cool. That's a very unstable foundation to build a logical understanding on, but you do you.
I'm sorry you find my fascination with the use of the word "fact" so boring. I'll be sure to consult you next time about my fascinations to make sure they're entertaining enough for you.

I left it out because I misread your point and I didn't read all 21 pages to catch up, so I stuck to the main topic you addressed. So either they are somewhat mutable or NOTHING is a fact and we just remove that word from our vocabulary. I think it was your post that said even 99.999999999999% is still not a fact, so in your case, a fact is an impossibility. I suggest we use that word as a short cut than a long-ass statement to suggest a point has some validity.

I thoroughly enjoyed that last bit though, because we are in agreement. "You can't disprove that God created man" is an absolutely terrible point to hitch an argument on, and the inability to disprove it doesn't make it true. I absolutely agree with you. So.....why are you arguing with me again?

I'm not... really... At least you come with a point.

But I can paste a passage from the bible that is proof of God..

That's a new approach to the problem. It seems like religious people are trying to cancel the word fact from the vocabulary...Evidence and facts don't serve the religious narratives and are inconvenient to the revealed truths.

The new trend which is reflected on both the surveys I have linked in my OP is what we call guided evolution which is very different to creationism despite the attempts made by some creationists to argue differently.

Guided evolution is the belief that evolution is true but it is guided by God. It's the moment when religious people realise that evolution is true or probably true but they don't want to give up their God.

It has been mentioned creationism is compatible to evolution but that's not true. Creationism doesn't accept evolution either it's guided or unguided.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

Since you are framing this debate on the Appeal to Authority fallacy, please link for me the Law of Evolution.

Last I had checked it was a theory.

I'm old and could be wrong though....

It's a scientific theory and not a scientific hypothesis or some sort of speculation. It's a classical mistake made and repeated.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ...

So it's a theory....

Thank you for explaining to me that I told you that it is a theory and you explained to me that it is indeed a theory.

Please link for me where it is considered a law...

You know... like the Law of Gravity and not the Theory of Gravity.

I'll wait...

Scientific Theory.

That's very different to 'just a theory'.

See my posts above and this peer reviewed scientific publication explaining it very well.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It means scientific theory and not a speculation. I don't think you have understood what a scientific theory is. But the two scientists who authored the paper explain it very well.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

Since you are framing this debate on the Appeal to Authority fallacy, please link for me the Law of Evolution.

Last I had checked it was a theory.

I'm old and could be wrong though....

It's a scientific theory and not a scientific hypothesis or some sort of speculation. It's a classical mistake made and repeated.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ...

So it's a theory....

Thank you for explaining to me that I told you that it is a theory and you explained to me that it is indeed a theory.

Please link for me where it is considered a law...

You know... like the Law of Gravity and not the Theory of Gravity.

I'll wait...

Scientific Theory.

That's very different to 'just a theory'.

See my posts above and this peer reviewed scientific publication explaining it very well.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It means scientific theory and not a speculation. I don't think you have understood what a scientific theory is. But the two scientists who authored the paper explain it very well.

Again, you are just using the Appeal to Authority fallacy debate tactic.

Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day, a theory is not a fact.

Perhaps you should read up on what the scientific method actually is.

What I found amusing about this topic is the level of bigotry you portray in the OP and the thread.

Some scientists have said some things, you believe it so everyone else should too.

It's comical.

At the end of the day, you are just parroting the opinions of people that you think are smart so you think that makes you smart too.

Pro Tip... it really doesn't make you look smart.

At all.

It just makes you look... bigoted.

Like anyone cares what you think about religion... like that will change anything because of what you have posted.

Roughly 5 billion people on this planet believe in a religion.

But I guess you have solved the riddle and all those people are stupid.

And you are the smart one.

What are the odds?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

Since you are framing this debate on the Appeal to Authority fallacy, please link for me the Law of Evolution.

Last I had checked it was a theory.

I'm old and could be wrong though....

It's a scientific theory and not a scientific hypothesis or some sort of speculation. It's a classical mistake made and repeated.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ...

So it's a theory....

Thank you for explaining to me that I told you that it is a theory and you explained to me that it is indeed a theory.

Please link for me where it is considered a law...

You know... like the Law of Gravity and not the Theory of Gravity.

I'll wait...

Scientific Theory.

That's very different to 'just a theory'.

See my posts above and this peer reviewed scientific publication explaining it very well.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It means scientific theory and not a speculation. I don't think you have understood what a scientific theory is. But the two scientists who authored the paper explain it very well.

Again, you are just using the Appeal to Authority fallacy debate tactic.

Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

At the end of the day, a theory is not a fact.

Perhaps you should read up on what the scientific method actually is.

What I found amusing about this topic is the level of bigotry you portray in the OP and the thread.

Some scientists have said some things, you believe it so everyone else should too.

It's comical.

At the end of the day, you are just parroting the opinions of people that you think are smart so you think that makes you smart too.

Pro Tip... it really doesn't make you look smart.

At all.

It just makes you look... bigoted.

Like anyone cares what you think about religion... like that will change anything because of what you have posted.

Roughly 5 billion people on this planet believe in a religion.

But I guess you have solved the riddle and all those people are stupid.

And you are the smart one.

What are the odds?

I am not appealing to authority, I am just stating basic definitions and explaining basic principles. On of the best ways to learn science is to read peer reviewed scientific papers. The authors of the paper I linked are just stating facts and explaining concepts given their expertise on the subject.

You seem to dismiss basic definitions and what the scientists stated as if they are somehow conspiring to hide the truth or don't know what they are talking about.

A scientific theory describes why a natural phenomenon/event happens and is based on a body of facts.

www.amnh.org...

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

I don't really care what other people believe. It's their own choice and their right to believe in whatever they want. But when you say 5 billion people believe in some religion that doesn't make their religion and its teaching true.

Scientists and academics don't have an opinion on the subject they are experts. They have knowledge and understanding of the concepts involved as they are experts on their fields.

Evolution is factual just as everyone knows who has studied basic school science. The only people who think evolution is a speculation or a guess are creationists and those who are deeply religious.

What I have described in this thread (and it seems to be very true) is how shocking is the fact that a good number of adults don't have any knowledge of basic science we usually learn in school. And that's a failure of the educational system.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: ColeYounger2
...
Source: Is there a distinction between “creation” and “creationism”? (Questions From Readers; 1986)

Short answer: yes. Which makes the title of the news article about the poll that is the topic of this thread, propagandistic spin (especially once you look carefully what proposition the 37% statistic is based on). Another reason, albeit less convincing than the one I mentioned previously as my "primary reason", to suspect the presence of a propaganda chatbot in this thread. (there are more reasons or pieces of evidence for my suspicion; I'm talking about an actual chatbot, not merely a human behaving as one)

I recommend people here not risking it, trying to have a reasonable conversation with a chatbot. Cause it would be a waste of time. I stress, as I explained before why, that I'm not sure about it. It's a suspicion based on evidence acquired through observation, but it remains tricky to tell these days for the reasons explained in my previous comment.

In light of my previous comment, and for those who claimed that 'science does not deal with facts' or that 'facts can change', please, I beg you to start making sense and use language in the manner agreed upon for centuries before the arrival of the expert propagandist, self-marketeer, deceiver, philosopher, charletan, and conman, Charles Darwin and all his followers and promoters, including his flock of victims (or concerning the correct usage of the term "science", before the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" and rise of the false religion known as "scientism"; click link for details). See for example in my previous comment what I said about the meaning and origin of the word "science" (synonym: knowledge, a familiarity with facts). Or the synonyms for a "fact" (a "certainty", something that does not change, like the unchanging fact/certainty/reality/truth that 1+1=2).

Otherwise it gets so hard to tell the difference between programmed chatbots and 'programmed' (indoctrinated, conditioned, brainwashed) humans that are merely victims of propaganda. I don't want to waste my time trying to converse with chatbots. It's a genuine plea, it has absolutely nothing to do with ridicule, so please don't take offense or act offended, painting some other type of negative (and useless) behaviour on me (or just thinking it).

The situation is already hard enough with the pattern of behaviour described and predicted at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 being so widespread and thoroughly demonstrated on ATS:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14) (synonyms for "right" and "wrong" are "true/correct, without error" and "false/incorrect"; so we're talking also here, besides morally right and wrong, about distinguishing fact from fiction, true science/knowledge from unverified philosophy and proven mythology, i.e. false stories/myths). As per the title of the youtube playlist I have linked before: "Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories". (note the description of the playlist in the box to the left, a little help from Isaac Newton on how to tell the difference.)

If you want to train your mind, your thinking ability, in particular your "powers of discernment", "through use", as recommended there by Paul at Heb 5:14, I highly recommend practicing on that playlist. As people say: 'practice makes perfect'. That counts as much for the mind and your "thinking ability" (quote from Paul again), your ability to process information in a logical and reasonable manner, as it does for complex athletic performances, acrobatic acts, or some other sport. Yes, you can also improve your IQ (don't believe anyone telling you lies/false stories/myths about that). These mental abilities that I've mentioned now, and more (like understanding, insight, wisdom), are not determined at birth (in your genetic make-up), and neither is any affinity for improving them. That is a lie by the one who wants to keep you ignorant of what he's up to concerning the total destruction of everyone's minds and thinking abilities (all of these mental abilities apart from wisdom, which concerns one's behaviour and actions, and feelings, or the figurative heart is as much if not more involved than one's mind when we're talking about wisdom). In this regards, we have all started our lives on equal footing , by design, for the purpose of fairness. (chatbots should not be allowed to participate, but they are an important tool of the master deceiver, propagandist and destructor and poisoner of minds I mentioned before; he also goes for the heart in a combined attack)

a reply to: Lumenari

Well first it's actually closer to 6 billion and some change. Out of a total population of 8.1.
Christianity 2.4 billion
Islam 1.9 billion
Hinduism 1.2 billion
Buddhism .5 billion

Now each of these religions have different beliefs and for that matter creation myths. So I'm unclear how you believe this is somehow relevant in a discussion about science. You are doing exactly what you accused him of. Your using an appeal to authority saying well more people think I'm right. Problem is that's just not accurate.

We don't know how many of these people who believe in a particular religion believe science is correct do we. I've met several scientists in my life that are very religious however they realize science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Theories in science is far more then just a guess to become a theory it has to consistently prove to be correct under any observation or test. The minute there is proof it is incorect in any way its no longer a theory. So if you want to disprove evolution then simply show proof it's wrong and it disappears forever.

One theory I can think of that was proven wrong and no longer exists is the theory that mass was destroyed in nuclear reactions. They thought originally and incorrectly that to create energy mass disappears. This is a direct result of Einsteins equation E=MC squared. What they didn't realize is Einstein said there was no difference between matter and energy there is no conversion mass is just a different form of energy.

Off hand I don't remember who conducted the experiment and to lazy to look but what he did was focus sunlight on iron and it showed an increase in mass. Meaning the sun's rays were adding mass to the iron.

So now we know mass and energy mean the same thing. And thus idea that mass is somehow used in nuclear reactions was wrong. Thinking about it the luminous aether was also disproven as a theory. And no longer exists.

So if you want to disprove evolution you need only show one instant were it's wrong either through experimentation or observation.

originally posted by: pennylane123
Evolution does not disprove a creator at all

100% correct, it does not.

But what it does show, is that evolution works perfectly well WITHOUT a creator and in fact, demonstrates that no intelligent being is involved because, the perceived "decisions" made by evolution (mutations) are pretty stupid if they were decided upon by someone with half a brain.

Maybe our creator planned evolution

Oh please. That's just "let's go reinterprete the bible" whenever science advances our understanding to the point it shows no creator is needed.

a reply to: Lumenari

The problem being Lumenari the religions are not all claiming the same thing or anything reminiscent of the sort hence they cannot all be correct, or more than likely they are all wrong.

Religion is a product of man with all his fears and fallibility laid bare and about control and attendance as opposed to the words of God.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

You may enjoy the playlist I linked a couple of times (best link is the last link where you can read the description first; at the end of the second-to-last paragraph of my last comment). John Lennox is in it as well with some key points:

Can anyone confirm if the embedded video above works for them embedded on this site? Cause I always have to click "watch on youtube" before it plays.

a reply to: whereislogic

Can anyone confirm is the embedded video above works for them embedded on this site? Cause I always have to click "watch on youtube" before it plays.

It works fine.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: LSU2018

...
Keep in mind, concerning the quotations below, that at the time of Newton, the term "natural philosophy" was used for what people nowadays call "science", and an argument can be made that the term "experimental philosophy" is what gave rise to "modern science" (were it not for the fact that so many ignored his warnings and advice below concerning experimental philosophy, as can be seen from the inclusion of hypotheses into "the scientific method" later on, even unverifiable hypotheses, or stories basically, unprovable myths, pseudoscience: string theory, M-theory, multiverse, evolutionary philosophies, Gould's punctuated equilibrium, chromosome #2 fusion myth and postdiction, etc.).

Just to clarify, the term "unprovable myths" is referring to stories or ideas/philosophies that cannot be proven or verified to be true (usually because of their vagueness or just being plain nonsense), they can and have (eg. concerning the list of examples there) been proven and verified to be false. That's why in my later commentary I used the term "proven false stories/myths". It's not a contradiction, just my attempt at being more concise (as the term "unprovable" in that sentence should be viewed in light of my earlier mention of the term "unverifiable" in the same sentence talking about the same subject).

Maybe it wasn't necessary to point that out, but I'm doing it anyway. Only string theory (possibly*) hasn't been proven false yet in that list, but it is still unverifiable, unprovable (if it's true/certain/factual/correct, without error). *: I may be unaware if it has already been done, hence, "possibly". The idea is so far-fetched, that I haven't given it enough thought yet, nor have I spent much time looking if someone else has already debunked that idea/philosophy. In either case, it is not verified science/knowledge, an established fact. Hence, because it is presented as "science" anyway (or under that marketingbanner, relying heavily on the rise of the religion of scientism and the increase of its adherents), it is factually/certainly/truthfully/really "pseudoscience". There are those in La La Land (reference to Alice in Wonderland) who are showered with wealth to lure other people in, to make new converts for the White Queen.

...

Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-​Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.

Source: Fraud in Science—The Greatest Fraud of All (Awake!—1990)

While they know that what they're 'selling' (marketing) is pure fantasy/fiction, as the molecular biologist below, who engages in this business for the White Queen, admits:

In my usage of the metaphor, the "White Queen" is referring to the same one I talked about at the end of my previous comment, the one determined to destroy all of your thinking abilities, and having proven to be extremely succesful in that regards (as demonstrated on ATS, on youtube, on the internet in general, on TV, in the sciences, in religion, in business, in politics, in basically this entire "system of things", 2 Cor 4:4). Oh, not my previous comment, cause that was just a video mostly, but the one before that.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: a potential chatbot [see my commentary for details why I am being entirely sincere about this, and why it's not intended as ridicule or an attempt to discredit.]

So it's a theory....

Please, do not waste your time on debating "minor matters" (1 Tim. 6:3-5). For a better understanding of, insight in and an increased knowledge of this subject (and for training your "powers of discernment" "through use"; Heb 5:14), you can read my commentary and watch the videos, in particular those videos in the playlist I've linked several times in my commentary. You can start with my first comment in this thread, or you can choose to skip ahead to my first comment on page 18. But whatever you do, don't miss my 2nd comment on page 22 (it concerns the crux of the matter). But before you go there, first a little information about the topic of...(and related topics + the full quotation of 1 Tim. 6:3-5)

Understanding (Aid to Bible Understanding)

Understanding must be based on knowledge, and works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental fact is God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards and thereby assess or evaluate such knowledge. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Prov. 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Prov. 2:10, 11; 18:15.

Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Psalm 49:3, 4.) Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is the “prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Prov. 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Prov. 17:24) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1 Tim. 6:3-5; see KNOWLEDGE; WISDOM.

1 Timothy 6:3-5

If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain.

Notice that a corruption of the mind is the equivalent of a mental disease, similar to the way "obsessed with" was rendered "mentally diseased over" in the other translation quoted from at the end of the box about understanding. The particular corruption of mind spoken of here, and demonstrated so often on ATS (I spoke about that subject when I was quoting 2 Tim 4:3,4), is also sometimes termed "insanity" in the scientific field of psychology (if they're still willing to use that term), as it relates to the term "extreme foolishness" in the Bible (slightly different meaning though). It is caused by these propagandists and deceivers:

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.”(1 Timothy 4:1,2).

Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

“... having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power and from these turn away. From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (2Ti 3:5-7)

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

...
How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

Source: Philosophy (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

And some advice now:

“Make sure of the more important things.”—PHIL. 1:10.

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:20,21)

“But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:4)