What new route will creationists go?

reply to post by defcon5

I hate to point this out, but the theory of evolution is only a theory, it's not proven fact.

Clearly you don't understand much about science. I'm getting sick and tired of people saying this as it means nothing. Let me explain with a post I made in another thread.

Secondly, you have fallen into the 'theory' trap.

The way of which scientists prove what they find is accurate is the ‘Scientific Method’.

Let’s look at that next:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Here’s a flowchart.

A theory is not an

intellectual guess

, and it certainly isn't

sometimes backed with observations, and sometimes with nothing

Scientists don't

think of it and then try to find facts to back it up

scientists think up hypotheses after making an observation- which is then falsifiable by tests.

Hypotheses is not equal to theory.

And a flooding event around 3000 - 5000bc doesn't do anything to disprove evolution or validate anything in the bible, bat rather it eludes to the myth status of the events depicted therein.

[edit on 10/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
...We've observed speciation in countless organisms. ...

Oh, we have? Show me a worm who's offspring have slowly turned into a beetle, or fly, or centipede, or some other creature besides a WORM, then we will talk. You must show every (or nearly every) transitional form.

A different colored moth is still a moth.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by sir_chancealot]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


[snip]

Transitional fossils for many kinds of speciation have been found. Claiming they haven't, while convenient for your ridiculous argument, is a lie.



Mod Edit - removed insulting remark

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 21-10-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by sir_chancealot


How about ardvarks to elephants, or elephants to manatees? Or Mesonychids to whales?

reply to post by sir_chancealot


You *do* realise that 'worm' is not a species, and that there are many different worm species that can not reproduce together? Right?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
A different colored moth is still a moth.

Yes and my house cat and Alfred the Lion at the local zoo are both cats. This is the uselessness of your statement AND creationism.

There is no laws in the U.S. that bans creation teaching, there have been attempts at banning evolution but the courts have regularly held that they can not ban evolution from being taught. The only thing I would like to see in the teaching of evolution is the truth, tell them it is a theory and unproven and I have no problem with that teaching. But when they say evolution is scientific fact I have a huge problem. Science should teach Science, known repeatable facts, but evolution has none to use so they use known falacies and debunked arguments to try to make the kids believe their theory is fact.

I actually think that neither evolution nor creation should be taught in Science classes to our kids. Neither can be proven and that is not science but speculation.

I would love to see one transitional fossil, give me one just one...

[edit on 10/21/2008 by theindependentjournal]

...I would love to see one transitional fossil, give me one just one...

Condylarths

www.britannica.com...=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Condylarthra%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyc lopedia

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
...We've observed speciation in countless organisms. ...

Oh, we have? Show me a worm who's offspring have slowly turned into a beetle, or fly, or centipede, or some other creature besides a WORM, then we will talk. You must show every (or nearly every) transitional form.

A different colored moth is still a moth.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by sir_chancealot]

Worms? Which worm do you mean? There are an estimated ten million species running across several phyla. They differ vastly in structure, metabolism, etc. Significant evolution is possible while still remaining a "worm".

By that matter, do you consider caecilians "worms" as well? How about muraenids? Can you even define "worm"?

Also, to demand that we show "every transitional form" is akin to demanding that we have video evidence of an entire crime, short not a single frame, from beginning to end, before convicting a criminal. What a generous proposition!

One cannot expect to argue scientifically unless one has the slightest idea of what he/she is attacking. Read a biology textbook.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
There is no laws in the U.S. that bans creation teaching, there have been attempts at banning evolution but the courts have regularly held that they can not ban evolution from being taught.

en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing I would like to see in the teaching of evolution is the truth, tell them it is a theory and unproven and I have no problem with that teaching. But when they say evolution is scientific fact I have a huge problem. Science should teach Science, known repeatable facts, but evolution has none to use so they use known falacies and debunked arguments to try to make the kids believe their theory is fact.

I actually think that neither evolution nor creation should be taught in Science classes to our kids. Neither can be proven and that is not science but speculation.

I would love to see one transitional fossil, give me one just one...

[edit on 10/21/2008 by theindependentjournal]

Pikaia, en.wikipedia.org...
Tiktaalik, en.wikipedia.org...
Pakicetus, en.wikipedia.org...

Or hell just pick one from the list
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


They will just have to wait until God himself proves his existance, then the route for evolutionists will end altogether.

True Creationist believers have never had to go in any different direction.

We have always wondered, amazed, at how evolutionists have had to come up with new theories to explain our postion.

We have always maintained that God created us. In His own image.


Theories come and theories go. But each one of us will have to answer to our Creator. Personally.

One minute after death.


The internet is not the 'be all and end all' of knowledge.

We must wait until the final breath leaves our body, and our spirit returns to God, who gave it.

When you have experienced that, please return here and post of your experience.

reply to post by Old Man


Oh yes, the appeal to ignorance. You're on the wrong forum, mate.


Myself and many others are a bit more proactive.

reply to post by Good Wolf


Then I will meet you on the other side, Good Wolf....who is staring me down.


Do we have a date?

Originally posted by Old Man
Then I will meet you on the other side, Good Wolf.

The afterlife is not a given/preconceived conclusion, so I doubt it, not that it has any bearing on the discussion of evolution.

Even if we could be certain that it does exists, your willingness to wait till you die before you bother with education is bewildering. Your God is thought/believed to have given you a brain after all. Waiting is just laziness.

[edit on 10/27/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
tell them it is a theory and unproven and I have no problem with that teaching. But when they say evolution is scientific fact I have a huge problem. Science should teach Science, known repeatable facts, but evolution has none to use so they use known falacies and debunked arguments to try to make the kids believe their theory is fact.

Science teachers do teach the kids what 'scientific theory' means, and will indeed tell the kids about the masses of evidence in support of evolution. No fallacies and debunked arguments - just actual facts. Clearly you missed that part in your science lessons.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I would love to see one transitional fossil, give me one just one...

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Some are transitional between two species, and some are transitional between a species and a now-extinct species.

Clearly it would suit your understanding of evolution to at least learn the basic principles. Banging on about how something is untrue, when you don't even understand it, only shows the hollowness of your argument. You clearly aren't arguing against evolution, but what it means to your faith, which is clearly on far more shaky ground than the theory of evolution.

here is the best argument, if god created humans in his own image , why did he create atheists.. let along how many different religions?

God must have multiple personalities?

Originally posted by E-ville
here is the best argument, if god created humans in his own image , why did he create atheists.. let along how many different religions?

God must have multiple personalities?

Always liked this

reply to post by theindependentjournal

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

U.S. Constitution

Creationism/I.D. is not in the realm of science, it takes the supposition of a god and therefore is religion. TUSC protects us heathen citizen's from a state sponsered religion . . . which is what Judeo/Christian dogma becomes if taught in public schools.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

en.wikipedia.org...

SO . . . if I.D. or Creationism is to be compared to evolution, as an alternative . . . what observable or experimental evidence has I.D./Creationism produced to support their hypothesis and, thus, make it theory.

Seems the only camp misuseing or misrepresenting the word Theory to the masses are those in support of I.D/Creationism . . . not the scientific community or "evolutionists".

As far as the OP goes . . . When you can't beat 'em and you can't join 'em . . . the next step is to crush them and wipe out a generation of knowledge (dark ages, inquisition, et. al)