Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Mathematics is used in physics, chemistry, and biochemistry also but I have yet to see an application of the theory in the real world that would make it as acceptable as the aforementioned fields.
Denial of evolution IV
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
The theory doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me at all perhaps if it did I would have more confidence in it not that I don't agree with many consistencies that are present in it. The main point being it seems too reliant on unknown history and fossil evidences and observations don't make all of it's parts reliable.
Evolution seems pretty straightforward to me too.
And the denial threads are like Jason, they just keep returning, no matter how many times you kill them.
:bravo: :roflmao:
Yeah! Yeah!. Blah!
"It is good that you can see that evolution is not perfect. What areas of evolution need work and could new insight inot these areas help the current imperfect theory?
Can you answer that?
jan.
Well the theory of rain fall is not perfect either. Its difficult to predict how much and where with total accuracy, but still the generalities of the theory are facts without need of revision: water evaporates, it condenses into clouds and it falls back down as rain, its not angels piss on us, or god crying or what ever! The same for evolution: life evolves, in the present and the past, fact as unquestionable as rain fall, heliocentrism and spheroid nature of the earth.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
My contention is not with evolution itself but the theory really seems pretentious to me.
What does that mean? How can a theory be pretentious?
ahwilliams
Registered Member
Creation vs evolution?
I have never understood why religious people are against evolution. A god who created the world like a painting seems to pale in comparison to a god who created a single type of paint, spread it across the universe which spontaneously created an infinate number of worlds with infinate variations of life.
I am not a religous person but if I were I'd be more impressed with the second god.
I have never understood why religious people are against evolution. A god who created the world like a painting seems to pale in comparison to a god who created a single type of paint, spread it across the universe which spontaneously created an infinate number of worlds with infinate variations of life.
I am not a religous person but if I were I'd be more impressed with the second god.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Evolutionary theory breaks down under scrutiny. It usually boils down to these basic discussion-ending arguments:
1) "Given enough time, anything is possible. It just happened gradually...so there."
2) "Well here's a story...err, I mean hypothesis.... about how such an improbable thing must have happened."
3) "Let's not talk about how DNA works...that's not important."
4) "What you're talking about is abiogenesis. This is an evolution thread, which is totally unrelated...
You should read some text books..."
5) "Evolution is such a well-established theory which all credible scientists agree on.... so if you disagree you must present a counter-well-established theory which all credible scientists agree on. Good luck with that...."
6) "You've been banned from sciforums"
Did I miss anything?
1) "Given enough time, anything is possible. It just happened gradually...so there."
2) "Well here's a story...err, I mean hypothesis.... about how such an improbable thing must have happened."
3) "Let's not talk about how DNA works...that's not important."
4) "What you're talking about is abiogenesis. This is an evolution thread, which is totally unrelated...
You should read some text books..."
5) "Evolution is such a well-established theory which all credible scientists agree on.... so if you disagree you must present a counter-well-established theory which all credible scientists agree on. Good luck with that...."
6) "You've been banned from sciforums"
Did I miss anything?
Last edited:
Yes, to name the place that failed to give you an education.
Whereas the argument for creationism boils down to one very simple argument:
"I cannot comprehend evolution; therefore, God did it."
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Or, in the reverse case again...
I cannot comprehend creation, therefore we evolved naturally.
I cannot comprehend the language of DNA, therefore it's not relevant.
I cannot comprehend how complex life could have started naturally, therefore I'll split it into a "separate" field of study and hope it goes away.
ahwilliams
Registered Member
What's to say that god didnt create life on earth using evolution? If not then why did he leave all that evidence lying around.
Well, how would you discern that He did it? What evidence is there of His actions, as you imply them?
matthew809:
No. What I mostly find is that Creationists know so little about evolution that all they are really capable of in an argument is setting up and knocking down straw-man versions of the "theory of evolution". In such arguments, the evolutionists invariably spend most of their time attempting to educate the Creationist, who has no intention of listening or learning anything.
For example:
Evolution doesn't say that "anything is possible", as you know. And nobody who actually understands evolution would ever make this argument. i.e. this is one of those straw men.
While there are some conjectures like that in evolution, the basic theory is well established by convincing evidence, as you know.
This one really depends on context. Most Creationists are not molecular biologists, I find. Their ability to understand how DNA works is even worse than their ability to grasp the basic concepts of evolution.
Fair comment. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different topics, as you know.
As you know, a full-blown alternative theory is not necessary to refute an accepted scientific theory. All that is needed is sufficient evidence that contradicts the theory.
It's hard to tell, but I'm beginning to suspect you missed being educated about evolution.
Creationism boils down to "God did it". Not too hard to comprehend.
Is that from the Creationists?
The question of the origin of life is a separate question from how life evolved after its origin, obviously.
If I ask you to describe how you grew up you don't start talking about the time your Mum and Dad had sex and conceived you.
No. What I mostly find is that Creationists know so little about evolution that all they are really capable of in an argument is setting up and knocking down straw-man versions of the "theory of evolution". In such arguments, the evolutionists invariably spend most of their time attempting to educate the Creationist, who has no intention of listening or learning anything.
For example:
Evolution doesn't say that "anything is possible", as you know. And nobody who actually understands evolution would ever make this argument. i.e. this is one of those straw men.
While there are some conjectures like that in evolution, the basic theory is well established by convincing evidence, as you know.
This one really depends on context. Most Creationists are not molecular biologists, I find. Their ability to understand how DNA works is even worse than their ability to grasp the basic concepts of evolution.
Fair comment. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different topics, as you know.
As you know, a full-blown alternative theory is not necessary to refute an accepted scientific theory. All that is needed is sufficient evidence that contradicts the theory.
It's hard to tell, but I'm beginning to suspect you missed being educated about evolution.
Creationism boils down to "God did it". Not too hard to comprehend.
Is that from the Creationists?
The question of the origin of life is a separate question from how life evolved after its origin, obviously.
If I ask you to describe how you grew up you don't start talking about the time your Mum and Dad had sex and conceived you.
superstring01
Moderator
It does? When did this happen? And, specifically, what scrutiny? Which studies? What peer reviewed experiments? When did all this happen?
Or, are we talking about "creationist" scrutiny, as in: I lack the intellectual capacity to actually study the theory of Evolution, ergo I will simply say that "it breaks down under scrutiny", type scrutiny.
Oddly enough, I know of not a single molecular biologist who has made such a claim, though I'm open to feedback on the specifics of Evolution--as in, the scientific principles and whatnot--that you struggle in understanding.
~String
Understandable; there's lots to learn. Here are a few resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
That's OK; many people can't. Education can help you overcome that.
That may well be true for you. Again, education is a good way to overcome that.
- Status