I have now met a real life creationist.

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What i find the most hilarious is that the same general group that insinuates that the term 'atheist' means atheists define themselves by what they're not are largely overlapping with creationists who can offer nothing FOR their theory except failures in science.
Some of these holes are real, some are just their own ignorance being highlighted, but still isn't positive evidence FOR their side.

Um.... what holes in ToE? There's no holes. The support of ToE is incredibly robust. You don't need hard evidence for every single detail in a theory. You just need enough to make robust inferences. The demands that Creationists have on evidence for ToE are way beyond Occam's razor. Scientific truth is just whatever is supported by the most evidence. What is the most reasonable. But none of them are perfect. They all have holes. Plate tectonic theory, evidence is kinda light. What is has going for it is that it is the only one that fits ALL the evidence. And that's all you need. Gravity. We've got one little solar system with readings to formulate a theory for the entire galaxy. That's a very weak theory by comparison. Whenever a Creationist tries to create a little doubt about the theory it always comes down to them just having misunderstood some fundamental aspect of how science works.

When it comes to ToE the competing theories is ToE or nothing. There is no other alternative theory. Creationism or Intelligent Design isn't science. Even if we agree on rejecting ToE Creationism still isn't a contender. If ToE would be a weak theory with little evidence supporting it, still the best theory. Something is always better than nothing.

What Creationists need to do is formulate their... well... idea into an actual theory. And then we can compare them. I'm guessing why no Creation Scientist have done it yet (yes there are people who call themselves that) is because there's absolutely nothing to back it up. There's no evidence to even start building a theory upon. Once we have a competing theory we can start having a discussion. But until then ToE wins.

The girl who was the reason for this thread, she sent me a blog post with 10 reasons why ToE is false. Each one missed the target completely because of ignorance of the subject matter. The blog post was affiliated with Jehovas Wittnesses, and was some official thing. Even an organisation like that failed to do just the most basic homework. And that's always what supporters of ToE are up against.

View attachment 9976

Those other theories are unimportant because it isn't in their magic books. If there had been something in their magic book about Noah turning a fish into a snake they might pay attention.

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

 

[Learner]

Yeah. Why do electrons end up in quantized orbitals? Why are all of them made following the Universal Spacetime and Interaction Standardization Committee's specs?

Yes it does seem to be routinely the case. Doing the same old thing never changing. Yes indeed why?

 

[Learner]

Those other theories are unimportant because it isn't in their magic books. If there had been something in their magic book about Noah turning a fish into a snake they might pay attention.

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

Pretty much the same with every historic book being unscientific unless dedicated to science history.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Those other theories are unimportant because it isn't in their magic books. If there had been something in their magic book about Noah turning a fish into a snake they might pay attention.

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

Pretty much the same with every historic book being unscientific unless dedicated to science history.

But does anyone try to use 'The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Empire' to legislate against teaching evolution in school?

 

[Learner]

Um.... what holes in ToE? There's no holes.

If there are no holes in evolutionary theory, then there is no reason to put any more research into it.
There are holes. There are things we don't fully understand.
Yet.
But they're just details being worked out, not gapes in the supporting structure. They aren't as significant as the critics of evolution would like to believe.
And the questions posed or admitted to by researchers are fodder for quote mining and claims that it's something that'll never be answered, therefore Goddidit.

True. It's a common criticism brought by Creationists. They highlight biologists disagreeing over what amounts to be very minor points. They then conclude that IF evolution was all that then there would be no disagreements. Therefore Jesus.

However we are finding holes gradually each day unless the 'updates' can keep up with more research. Already for example Darwinian evolution is dwindling (if not gone already depending where we are today) thats a big hole - without a missing link ie evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

However we are finding holes gradually each day unless the 'updates' can keep up with more research. Already for example Darwinian evolution is dwindling (if not gone already depending where we are today) thats a big hole - without a missing link.

Um, Darwin formed his theory before the discovery of DNA. Moving from his understanding of evolution to another, better explanation of evolution with the addition of a mechanism for transmitting inherited changes is not finding a 'hole.' It's improving the theory. Claiming that this is some sort of problem for evolutionary theory is exactly the sort of misinformation that James and I were talking about.

Asimov may have put it the best when he said, "...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

 

[Learner]

[Um, Darwin formed his theory before the discovery of DNA. Moving from his understanding of evolution to another, better explanation of evolution with the addition of a mechanism for transmitting inherited changes is not finding a 'hole.' It's improving the theory. Claiming that this is some sort of problem for evolutionary theory is exactly the sort of misinformation that James and I were talking about.

Asimov may have put it the best when he said, "...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Changes while 'maintaining the same concept' will not help without actual evidence let alone being a scientifically observable method as mostly requested by atheists in regards to the (inbetween stages) proposed between species ie ape to man. Its therefore unproven yet deduced in a manner similar to that of faith and still being taught in schools. No problem with that really when learning about Darwin.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Changes while 'maintaining the same concept' will not help without actual evidence let alone being a scientifically observable method as mostly requested by atheists in regards to the inbetween stages between species ie ape to man.

So much wrong in so little time...
We ARE apes, Learner.
We HAVE evidence. You missed the DNA bit? That ADDS evidence to the theory of evolution exactly because it ADDS a mechanism for transmitting changes over generations.
And if evolution were only an Atheist theory, it wouldn't have made it into the textbooks. Real Christains and other Theists have contributed to the science that supports evolutionary theory.
And I'm guessing you're not using 'observable' in the same way that reasearchers are.

Its therefore unproven yet deduced in a manner liken to that of faith and still being taught in schools.

No.
Not even close.
Evolution is unproven, yes, because nothing in science is proven.
PROOF is for concepts like math, where you can establish an answer that is THE answer for all time.
Any science is technically falsifiable. Technically, at any point, one might find evidence to overthrow the existing theory in any scientific branch. So we can't ever say that we've really PROVEN gravitational theory, atomic theory, four-color-map theory, evolutionary theory, etc. Then we'd have to form new theories that incorporate all the existing evidence AND the new evidence.
So, no, it's not proven.
That does not mean it isn't science. Science actually MEANS that it's not proven.
And just because you don't understand or accept or know about all the evidence that does support the current theory of evolution, that does not make it a matter of 'faith' to accept it.
It's the best existing story we can find that explains all the observations we've made to this point. And we keep making more observations that keep slotting into the theory, rather than being problems for it.

 

[Learner]

So much wrong in so little time...
We ARE apes, Learner.

Evidence of transition should be abundant between 'species' (apes/man by convention)...not touching on aspect of kinds.

We HAVE evidence. You missed the DNA bit? That ADDS evidence to the theory of evolution exactly because it ADDS a mechanism for transmitting changes over generations.
And if evolution were only an Atheist theory, it wouldn't have made it into the textbooks. Real Christains and other Theists have contributed to the science that supports evolutionary theory.
And I'm guessing you're not using 'observable' in the same way that reasearchers are.

I'm sure we have much DNA similar to quite a range of creatures and plants .
I too believe in evolution up to a lesser point but not in within the concept of seemingly great jumps without inbetween transitions which there are none evident of any various kinds.

No.
Not even close.
Evolution is unproven, yes, because nothing in science is proven.
PROOF is for concepts like math, where you can establish an answer that is THE answer for all time.
Any science is technically falsifiable. Technically, at any point, one might find evidence to overthrow the existing theory in any scientific branch. So we can't ever say that we've really PROVEN gravitational theory, atomic theory, four-color-map theory, evolutionary theory, etc. Then we'd have to form new theories that incorporate all the existing evidence AND the new evidence.

No problem with that .. oddly enough religion would seem to be like maths because creationists have often been asked for proof.

So, no, it's not proven.
That does not mean it isn't science. Science actually MEANS that it's not proven.
And just because you don't understand or accept or know about all the evidence that does support the current theory of evolution, that does not make it a matter of 'faith' to accept it.
It's the best existing story we can find that explains all the observations we've made to this point. And we keep making more observations that keep slotting into the theory, rather than being problems for it.

Yes something not to really rely on in court in a manner of speaking. But a good valid explanation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No problem with that .. oddly enough religion would seem to be like maths because creationists have often been asked for proof. .

Well, not by anyone who understands what 'proof' means as a scientific term.

For instance, I usually ask for evidence, for support, for any fucking reason whatsoever to accept the bare assertions that creationists keep making.
Wilson, for example, says 'life is spiritual' and cannot be quantified in physical terms, then refuses to explain or support it, pretending that it 'speaks for itself.'
I didn't ask for 'proof.'

Yes something not to really rely on in court in a manner of speaking. But a good explanation.

I read a vampire novel one time.
One of the characters was a vampire who had been a doctor a long time before the events in the novel. He moved through society, he kept up with the fashion trends, he matched changes in the spoken language, he observed customs as they grew. He even read the medical journals being published. THe problem was, his brain was locked on the science of his profession as he had understood it when he was alive. To him, all the science was poppycock, because disease was clearly caused by an imbalance in the bodily humours.
He had difficulty presenting himself as a doctor, because his vocabulary almost instantly identified him as anachronistic, out of touch, laughably old fashioned. No one deals with humours. That medical theory had been abandoned for germ theory.

When you ask for the 'missing link,' you betray your misunderstanding of the state of the science. No one's looking for it any more.
WHen you talk about transitional forms.... EVERY species is a transitional form.
WHen you talk about 'kinds,' you betray your bias.
When you talk about court of law, comparing the legal use of, say, a police officer's theory of who did the crime, to the scientific use of 'theory,' you are instantly identifying the depth of your ignorance.

It would be amazing if the forces of law could bring as much evidence against a criminal as science has to support evolution. Completely separate disciplines of science bring such agreement on the overall story of the Earth's history, and the events that have happened upon it, the combined efforts of cop, sheriff, FBI, Interpol, Homeland Security, CIA, Coast Guard and all the acronym agencies couldn't begin to match the preponderance of evidence that's been amassed.


And you're suggesting it can't be relied on in court.

That's silly.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Those other theories are unimportant because it isn't in their magic books. If there had been something in their magic book about Noah turning a fish into a snake they might pay attention.

The bible is a very unscientific piece of writing which therefore appeals to unscientific individuals. That's why they oppose Evolution Theory, not because it's wrong.

Pretty much the same with every historic book being unscientific unless dedicated to science history.

The collected stories of the bible are hardly history. People don't fly, or come back to life half a week after they're dead. You may have meant every fantasy book.

 

[Kosh]

Man, it's been a long time since the days of Internet Infidels and our weekly smack downs if people like Wilson.

This thread reminds me of those days, and why I quit caring.

It's like having an science discussion on the short yellow bus.

 

[Lion IRC]

Internet Infidels Mocking Disability since the 80's

Urban Dictionary.
Short Yellow Bus : Slang
"The bus the "special" kids take to school."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=short bus

Is that what Internet infidels do to 'win' arguments?

Not very PC. Not very rational.

 

[Learner]

It's like having an science discussion on the short yellow bus.

An interesting experience no doubt for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's like having an science discussion on the short yellow bus.

An interesting experience no doubt for you.

Why do you think it would be interesting?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Um.... what holes in ToE? There's no holes.

If there are no holes in evolutionary theory, then there is no reason to put any more research into it.
There are holes. There are things we don't fully understand.

Yet.

But they're just details being worked out, not gapes in the supporting structure. They aren't as significant as the critics of evolution would like to believe.
And the questions posed or admitted to by researchers are fodder for quote mining and claims that it's something that'll never be answered, therefore Goddidit.

Ok. Sure there's still lots we don't know. But there's no big holes that might threaten the truth of the theory. At this point we can confidently say that ToE is true.

The only thing further research can do is help with the details

 

[DrZoidberg]

If there are no holes in evolutionary theory, then there is no reason to put any more research into it.
There are holes. There are things we don't fully understand.
Yet.
But they're just details being worked out, not gapes in the supporting structure. They aren't as significant as the critics of evolution would like to believe.
And the questions posed or admitted to by researchers are fodder for quote mining and claims that it's something that'll never be answered, therefore Goddidit.

True. It's a common criticism brought by Creationists. They highlight biologists disagreeing over what amounts to be very minor points. They then conclude that IF evolution was all that then there would be no disagreements. Therefore Jesus.

However we are finding holes gradually each day unless the 'updates' can keep up with more research. Already for example Darwinian evolution is dwindling (if not gone already depending where we are today) thats a big hole - without a missing link ie evidence.

Sources? I have no idea what you mean by this?

What missing link? At no point have Creationists managed to come up with one that is a true problem for ToE. Whenever they present one it's always easy to explain. Every single time. Will they never learn?

What do you mean by Darwinian Evolution. It's a synonym to Theory of Evolution. That's still going strong. I did a quick google to learn that "Darwinian Evolution" or "Darwinism" are terms that have special usages within Creationism. Which have different meaning than the scientific terms with the same names. But Creationists try to pass these off as genuine scientific terms. Which is just dishonest argumentation. Do you want to talk about Creationist bullshit theory or are you interested in the science? Yes, the Creationists critique against Darwinian Evolution is incoherent and idiotic.

Creationists often have a go at all of Darwin's ideas. Not just the core idea (which is solid). And when they find anything wrong with it they proclaim Darwinism as bullshit. Good for them. But they've misunderstood how science works. It's a completely irrelevant attack on ToE. Do you seriously not understand why this isn't a problem for ToE?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sources? I have no idea what you mean by this?

HE means that people tell him it's a theory in crisis and he doesn't know enough to examine the claim critically.

Probably using quote mines where someone points out that Darwin made mistakes, thinking that we treat Darwin's discoveries as 'revealed' knowledge, just like in a religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sources? I have no idea what you mean by this?

HE means that people tell him it's a theory in crisis and he doesn't know enough to examine the claim critically.

Probably using quote mines where someone points out that Darwin made mistakes, thinking that we treat Darwin's discoveries as 'revealed' knowledge, just like in a religion.

Unlike something as stupid as soteriology, you can't make a given scientific theory into whatever you want it to be. But invent a story about a demigod that gets nailed to boards so we can go live with it and you've got a gold mine of infinite possibilities, an answer for anyone and everyone. Nothing new to learn or test, just invent what you need to know.

There's never been a war waged over science. If anything, people have waged wars to steal scientific knowledge. But religion, you could fill an ocean with its dead bodies. Religion even wages war to destroy knowledge. Ignorance truly is bliss, and religion is its fortress.

 

[bilby]

Urban Dictionary.
Short Yellow Bus : Slang
"The bus the "special" kids take to school."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=short bus

Is that what Internet infidels do to 'win' arguments?

Not very PC. Not very rational.

Kosh wasn't mocking disability.

He was using disability as an analogy - He was mocking YOU. And with considerable justification too. People who cling to false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence are worthy of mockery.

Those who would impose their false beliefs on others are deserving of far worse than mere mockery.

People are laughing at you (and other creationists), because you are ridiculous. And you can't even set us on fire for it anymore. The dark ages ain't coming back, so you had better either get smart, or get used to the sound of folks laughing at you.