Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. The anti -evilutionists ignore the fact that only evolution explains the detail of the biological evidence and creationism explains nothing. Indeed, Creationism has little evidence to present. It is almost all based on trying to knock holes in the evidence for evolution.
I have asked several times for the evidence for creationism rather than evidence against evolution and have had none.
Of course, the evidence for creation goes beyond evolution - theory dealing with abiogenesis, the way the earth was formed just to enable us to exist and the universe and where it came from and back past the Big Bang (the evidence for which is ignored, misunderstood and denied just as the evidence for evolution) and back to First cause.
There is precious little in all this to support Creationism.
First cause might look good as we really can't explain how a big bang could happen out of nothing -but neither can I explain how a fully developed creator could appear out of nothing. If a Creator has always existed fully formed without needing to be crated itself, then there is no logical reason to deny that simple potential for atomic particles could always have existed.
While it is remarkably convenient that conditions are right for the emergence of life on the earth, the fact that there was the need for several massive extinctions to give mammals the chance to dominate is strong evidence that we have indeed been lucky. We are not what the earth was designed to produce but what was produced by the eventual conditions on the earth.
Abiogenesis is not seen in fossil form, but at least some feasible mechanisms and supporting evidence exists to make it absurd to assert that it could not happen. Creation has no explanation other a god waving a magic wand.
About evolutionary development I need only say that DNA, the Cetan sequence, the evidence that dinosaurs did indeed turn into birds and the evidence for hominid development shown by the 'Lucy' skeleton is strong evidence that all life evolved- including our own.
I did a post where I had researched the evidence for a creationist alternative to evolution and there was almost nothing. I ransacked the creationists sites and the best I could find was geological evidence for a Young earth -and that wasn't too young - I tried to find again the figure given at a Creationist conference - it caused a stir of dismay amongst the faithful as it was hugely bigger than the '10,000 BC' that they favour.
Again I invite any evidence for Creation -not objections to evolution - 'evolution could never produce diversity' or 'the giraffe could never evolve a long neck' but some evidence or even a sound evidence -based theory making Creationism look like anything more that Bible- based denial of the evidence.
Your ignorance, for someone who is so prolix, is astounding. Science has been quite clear for some time as to what scientific theories are, and their requirements. The "figuring out" burden is not on science, but for those who wilfully misunderstand it or for the sake of their own agendas, try to obfuscate it.
There is no controversy here, none at all. The only issue is those who fight science, tooth and nail, because they perceive it to be a threat to their mythologies. This is nothing new. The Church as been fighting the bright spotlight of truth for centuries.
LOL! A flat out, "Your ignorance...is astounding"! Whooo Hoooo!!! You're all twisted up! HaHaHa!
Look..."science" can label what they've figured out, or are working on figuring out, "law", "theory", etc...but that is really inconsequential when you get right down to it.
Why the need to put any tag or classification on it? It is what it is...no matter what. Just say "evolution", or "gravity", or "thermodynamics", or "relativity", or whatever...then explain what has been concluded and what hasn't. No need for "octane booster".
I don't debate those that do things like deny evolution...people that do that, in the face of all the research has been done, are just "too far gone" to argue with. It gets me all tweaked out, and messes up my usual chill constitution. So I steer clear of those kind of "banging my head against the wall" confrontations.
The work done to figure out evolution is solid and accurate...so, we can see the merit in that explanation of how things came about...nothing else needed for the handle it is given than "evolution".
I stand by what I said about about the operatives of different genres of vocation trying to embellish the result of the work they do.
Trying to purport that something is "more" than it would be otherwise simply by virtue of it's attachment to your "merchandise"...is just a bunch of blowing and puffing to try to make your "product" more than what it really is.
Just lay it on the table...I'll look it over and make my own assessment and appraisal. You can throw the fancy wrapping you brought it draped with in the trash over there.
GldnRule
I understand where you are coming from about inflating one's product, but I am not sure that really applies to the confusion surrounding the word theory in a scientific context. To me it appears to be, quite simply, a domain specific definition.
If I read about a vast array of something in a literature book, I cannot interpret the word "array" in the same way I would if I was reading a Data Structures text. In computer science, and mathematics in general, words like "set", "array", and "vector" have different meanings than they would in other fields or in general literature. In the same way, the general usage of the word "theory" more closely matches to "hypothesis" in the terminology of the sciences. Just like every other field, it has developed its own language which must be taken into account when trying to communicate about that topic.
There are certainly those who may inflate the amount or reliability of evidence in support of a theory, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the way the word is used.
I don't debate those that do things like deny evolution...people that do that, in the face of all the research has been done, are just "too far gone" to argue with. It gets me all tweaked out, and messes up my usual chill constitution. So I steer clear of those kind of "banging my head against the wall" confrontations.
Well, I'm glad to hear it. I'm used to dealing with the lowest common denominator of religious Moderator cut: edit
Yes Evolution of the species with out a creator is just a theory, And Has Never Been Proven....See evolution of the species may have a lot of convincing discoveries, but still has never been proved intellectually honest , so to speak.....
It's frighteningly awesome that there are still such blatantly illogical believers here today. People who continue, even in the face of a thread like this pointing out the correct use of the word "theory" in the English Language, to claim "No, it's only a theory!"
As in, a silly, irrational and unproven guess. What idiocity. Can't you folks open a Webster's and see how primally stupid you are? I guess not.
(PS, Sci Fi Fan, I'm now pretty convinced that there really are two distinct sub-species of hominids that came out of the last post ice-age: the logical ones (us) and those who rely only on fear and sheeple-bleeting of "Wolf! Wolf".
As in: 1) Homoerectus logicalus rationalius, and 2) Homoerectussublogicalus intransicans
In FACT, it has been categorically proven that chance mutations do occur frequently within an organism's genome, changes that affect both it's outward appearance and it's functional operational status. Eventully enough changes do accumulate to re-label it as a new sub-species, en-route to becoming a new species.
This has now been more than well documented via DNA lineage tracking and mapping, a fabulous and inarguable new tool that the fundamentalist Christian fringe network, incl. several members who regularly post here, are very reluctant to even consider, much less read up on and accept.
And remember, that definition (Evolution...) is ours to create and keep, hljc. It's not open to speculation or re-definition by even the most ardent and devout Chrisitan. Especially when those who would re-define i have literally no training in The SM or in how science works. At all. Total and utter mis-information and denial.
Anyhow, such genotypical changes affecting an organisms' phenotype is called & technically defined as Evolution.
As for proving it happens, you have only to look up and read the most recent proof of these dramatic and purely chance changes in a population of a particular species, done in 2008 by Dr. Richard Lenski, Univ. of Chicago I believe. That "little" (22 yrs long, and >32,000 generations of organism for which he assiduously kept samples of each generation's DNA. IProof that is at once Inarguable. Infallible. Unambiguous. Absolute. And all the other colorful adjectives that apply.
Especially "Green with Envy" as it applies to the dumbfounded Christian denialists who will never stop denying this one.
But... OK then...go ahead. Deny or argue away! It only proves your absolute intransigence.)
"Evolution! It's How We Got Here! No Magic Needed!" Great Bumper Sticker!
Well, I'm glad to hear it. I'm used to dealing with the lowest common denominator of religious Moderator cut: Orphaned
Oh man! For that ^^, you have my sympathy.
I've been in the porn biz for the last 27 years...so those people see me as the "lowest". Can't really claim it's a virtue myself.
Anyway...the people I work with, and those I sell to...if they are religious, they are very passive about it...what with the glass house we are all sitting in. So it kinda insulates me from the Hardcore Fundies. OTOH...I deal with my own set of weirdos. It's all the worse for me, because I'm not at all into porn myself.
How can gravity just be a theory when it can be measured? And calculated.
Gravity is both a theory and a fact, just like evolution is.
Gravity is modeled using the THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Newton's laws of gravity are WRONG and have been WRONG for quite some time, the reason they are still around is because they are accurate enough to be used for most everyday things (that don't involve satellites and the like).
We really do not understand gravity. We do know that masses attract. But why do they attract? Are the Higgs boson and the graviton, both hypothetical particles, the cause of gravity?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evolution! It's in every family tree!
