Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

Period.

If you guys wanna believe that you're a scientific mistake that took billions of years to create, yet ironically ever since we evolved into human have so quickly grown in every area (as would suggest that we've only been alive for so long), go ahead. I'm not here to change your mind.

However, there are undeniable large gapping holes in the Evolutionary theory, deny it, and I'll have fun laughing.

Perhaps it takes a little Faith to believe what I believe (as it should; I wasn't around 2,000 years ago to witness the events myself), but it takes more Faith to believe what you keep saying you do, whether you like it or not.

Burnout,

You're going to find that if you want to get anywhere on the opinions forum, you have to actually read and think about what is being posted rather than simply repeating yourself. Let's start from the top of this post...

If you guys wanna believe that you're a scientific mistake that took billions of years to create

I don't think anyone believes this. It shows that you do not understand the position of those who disagree with you - which means you should pay more attention to their posts. I do not think that I am a "scientific mistake" I think it is extremely likely that I am the product of nature's laws - the eventuality of biology meeting logic.

, yet ironically ever since we evolved into human have so quickly grown in every area (as would suggest that we've only been alive for so long), go ahead. I'm not here to change your mind.

This is a very weak argument. The data suggests that we are growing exponentially in those areas, which would suggest that we'd have a very slow beginning. However, mankind has not been around all that long in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean that there wasn't something here before us.

However, there are undeniable large gapping holes in the Evolutionary theory, deny it, and I'll have fun laughing.

You keep saying that, but you keep not wanting to discuss them.

Perhaps it takes a little Faith to believe what I believe (as it should; I wasn't around 2,000 years ago to witness the events myself),

Just because you have limitations does not mean you have to rely on faith (see my tree example and read it this time).

but it takes more Faith to believe what you keep saying you do, whether you like it or not.

This (again) fundamentally misunderstands the position of those who disagree with you. Over and over we have posted that we do not need faith to follow science - that we follow evidence and the path of highest perceived probability... yet you seem to wish to impose this faith requirement on us. It isn't so, saying it over and over doesn't make it any less wrong.

Ironically, it seems to be you who does not understand the nature of faith and its relation (or lack thereof) to logic.

 

[Burnout]

This (again) fundamentally misunderstands the position of those who disagree with you. Over and over we have posted that we do not need faith to follow science - that we follow evidence and the path of highest perceived probability... yet you seem to wish to impose this faith requirement on us. It isn't so, saying it over and over doesn't make it any less wrong.

This is the only thing I'm going to reply to.

Not one person has shown me where we come from, other than 'widely believed theories'.

How do you believe in a theory if you don't know where it began? It would then, without choice, that belief.

 

[Sage]

Why must you know now? I'm quite content knowing that M-Theory might, if there are enough hurdles, not be completed until after I'd dead, and that doesn't make my life any less worthwhile, nor does it mean I have to switch over to "faith".

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean that science has failed. Just because scientists don't know something doesn't mean that science has failed. Just because anybody doesn't know something doesn't mean that faith is the only other logical conclusion.

 

[Burnout]

Why must you know now? I'm quite content knowing that M-Theory might, if there are enough hurdles, not be completed until after I'd dead, and that doesn't make my life any less worthwhile, nor does it mean I have to switch over to "faith".

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean that science has failed. Just because scientists don't know something doesn't mean that science has failed. Just because anybody doesn't know something doesn't mean that faith is the only other logical conclusion.

It does mean, however, that you have no proof, or "Scientific Evidence" challenging my theory as the source of origin. Therefore, you cannot say that I am wrong.

 

[Sage]

Huh wuh uh? No scientific evidence? Did you completely ignore the past 50 pages of this thread?

 

[Burnout]

Huh wuh uh? No scientific evidence? Did you completely ignore the past 50 pages of this thread?

You just said that you were completely content in not knowing exactly where we originated.

Therefore, you have no proof against a Creationists theory of devine intervention as the source of origin.

If you have any direct evidence against it, please show me. I'll be waiting.

 

[Duke]

Evolution, as I've come to understand it through this thread. Is on species going through changes to become another completely seperate species but possibly sharing the same traits as the old species.

So why is it such an awkward question to ask, "Has anyone seen a new species come from an old one?"

It's not an awkward question to ask or answer - I already did. At a microevolutionary scale, it's easy to see the evolution of bacteria and virii. It's the reason that diseases become resistant to drugs all the time. They go through enough generations to see notable changes in a measurable time.

On a macroevolutionary scale, such as insects, birds, or higher organisms, the pace is slow and the changes broken down over thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations. In things that may have a life span of months or years, obviously you'll never see a complete shift.

That's precisely how we observe these changes in the fossil record, because we see the waypoints in the process preserved.

 

[Duke]

You just said that you were completely content in not knowing exactly where we originated.

Therefore, you have no proof against a Creationists theory of devine intervention as the source of origin.

If you have any direct evidence against it, please show me. I'll be waiting.

If you read any other of the several long threads on this topic, you'll see my answer. In fact, various bits of it have been quoted in people's sigs from time to time.

You are correct. We can never negatively prove something. I can never prove that God doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But the burden of proof is not on proving something didn't happen or something doesn't exist, because it's a logical impossibility. The burden of proof is POSITIVE - you need to demonstrate that something DID happen a given way in order to logically choose that as the proper answer.

If the police arrest me and haul me into court for murder, they have to prove that someone was killed before they can even begin to think about proving that I did it. I don't have to go find the live person and show the police he's not dead. All I have to do is wait and see if they can prove a murder happened and that I did it. This is logically sensible since it would be a logical impossibility for me to prove the person was still alive if they just skipped town.

Do you follow?

I can't prove God didn't create the Earth and life. But I also can't prove that the Keebler Elves didn't. Nor can I prove that Yog-soggoth didn't. Nor can I prove that the Earth wasn't laid like an egg by the Eagle of the Universe. You can't prove that either. You've picked your favorite, arbitrarily, out of all the infinite numbers of Creation myths the human race has conceived, and you've staked your life on it. But you have no proof other than your self-referential Bible, which must be true... because it says it must be true.

I on the other hand, have an incredible volume of detailed evidence and analysis performed by thousands of individual scientists, in a constant process of self refinement, and laid out for me logically so I can follow it. This tells me that life was apparently self-generating and definitely grew slowly in complexity and adaptation. It offers proof positive that it DID happen this way, and like ANYTHING, it lacks the ability to negatively prove God or the Elves or something else DIDN'T.

So, confronted with positive logic on one hand, and uncorroborated assumption on the other, it's simply not a choice for me. I choose reason. Reason lets me follow the logic of M-theory and evolution to a tentative conclusion that gets continually refined as new information comes in. Continually improving understanding based on observation of data - what could be more satisfying than that?

On the other hand, there is absolutely no logical way to select the Judeo-Christian Creation myth over, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or that of Tagaloa-fa'atutupu-nu'u, the Samoan Creator who made the Papa-ta'oto, the Papa-sosolo, the Papa-lau-a'au, the Papa-'ano-'ano, the Papa-'ele, the Papa-tu, and finally the Papa-'amu-'amu.

Personally, I rather like old Tagaloa, since he apparently he liked to work in detail. Those names are all types of rock, which is where he started his creation, and moved on from there.

My point is that you've got nothing to back up your myth but the myth itself, which doesn't distinguish it in any way from hundreds if not thousands of other myths, all of which had many followers at one time or another. How do you choose?

 

[PS]

If you read any other of the several long threads on this topic, you'll see my answer. In fact, various bits of it have been quoted in people's sigs from time to time.

You are correct. We can never negatively prove something. I can never prove that God doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But the burden of proof is not on proving something didn't happen or something doesn't exist, because it's a logical impossibility.

My point is that you've got nothing to back up your myth but the myth itself, which doesn't distinguish it in any way from hundreds if not thousands of other myths, all of which had many followers at one time or another. How do you choose?

Very, VERY well put, Duke. Did you ever belong to a debating club or anything like that back in highschool?

 

[Touring Mars]

So why is it such an awkward question to ask, "Has anyone seen a new species come from an old one?"

I tried to answer that question in this post....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1766544&postcount=960

This is the only thing I'm going to reply to.

Not one person has shown me where we come from, other than 'widely believed theories'..

Shown you? Why can't you find out for yourself? There is screes and screes of literature on this subject, even right here on the internet....

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

This website shows how we are related to the species that preceeded us... they know this through close study of the fossil record, in particular, the gradual variation in the phenotype (appearance) of skulls...

Also, read the post I've linked to above...

One core problem that Creationists have with the theory of evolution is that of the timescale required for evolution to occur.... Evolution theory only really accurately explains reality if our theories about the age of the Earth are correct i.e. billions of years old. This is ample time for myriad forms of life to have evolved from very basic beginnings.... sadly, Creationists won't even believe that the Earth has been there for that long, preferring instead to take the literal approach from the Bible that the Earth is only 6000 years old....

but this idea (of the young Earth) is completely false... as I argued in this post (which, by the way, nobody even tried to respond to), the universe must be much much older than that....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1704692&postcount=904

If you can't be bothered to read it, I challenge you to explain how we can see objects that are well over 6000 light years away if the 'heavens and the Earth' were created only 6000 years ago.... it is not possible for light to have reached us from these objects if they are further away than 6000 light years....

 

[Flame-returns]

Daniel Adams writes:

Christians must take either one of two positions on the bible. Either...

(i) They must accept that every single word in the bible is infallible truth. These type of christians end up looking stupid, becuase they have to accept major logical fallacies as being the Word of an all-knowing God. For example, they would have to simultaneiously accept that all men were descended from just two people (Adman and Eve. This would have entailed Adam and Eve's children having sex with one another in order to provide the next generation). In other parts of the bible, however, there are words written strictly against sex within ones own family. Yet a strict christian must accept both "God says it is bad to have sex with your own family" and also "God planned life in such a way that every single man is descended from a family whose members had sex with one another".

(ii) The second type of Christian is the one who says that the bible is mainly true but some parts are "analogies, not fact" or are "illustrative and not _really_ true". Since they choose which parts are true arbitrarily, we would be equally justified in saying "I choose that every section is analogous and none of it happened." as they are in saying "There wasn't really Adam and Eve. but the rest is basically true"



A article on wikipedia about miricles has a smalll section on the parting of the Reed Sea. Red sea is a western translation, we have all heared of the Red Sea wheras the Reed Sea is little more than a glorified lake.

http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Miracle

 

[Flame-returns]

It's not an awkward question to ask or answer - I already did. At a microevolutionary scale, it's easy to see the evolution of bacteria and virii. It's the reason that diseases become resistant to drugs all the time. They go through enough generations to see notable changes in a measurable time.

On a macroevolutionary scale, such as insects, birds, or higher organisms, the pace is slow and the changes broken down over thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations. In things that may have a life span of months or years, obviously you'll never see a complete shift.

That's precisely how we observe these changes in the fossil record, because we see the waypoints in the process preserved.

Hey I thought I answered that one...

 

[Touring Mars]

Daniel Adams writes:

Christians must take either one of two positions on the bible. Either...

(i) They must accept that every single word in the bible is infallible truth. These type of christians end up looking stupid, becuase they have to accept major logical fallacies as being the Word of an all-knowing God. For example, they would have to simultaneiously accept that all men were descended from just two people (Adman and Eve. This would have entailed Adam and Eve's children having sex with one another in order to provide the next generation). In other parts of the bible, however, there are words written strictly against sex within ones own family. Yet a strict christian must accept both "God says it is bad to have sex with your own family" and also "God planned life in such a way that every single man is descended from a family whose members had sex with one another".

(ii) The second type of Christian is the one who says that the bible is mainly true but some parts are "analogies, not fact" or are "illustrative and not _really_ true". Since they choose which parts are true arbitrarily, we would be equally justified in saying "I choose that every section is analogous and none of it happened." as they are in saying "There wasn't really Adam and Eve. but the rest is basically true"

Hmmm. I'm no Christian, and certainly not a creationist (obviously), but I don't agree with the categorisation as detailed above... even most non-Christians will readily accept that much of the New Testament is based upon some sort of fact, that it is some sort of historical record, and that people who don't take the entire Bible literally do not merely arbitrarily select which bits are fact and which bits are analagous....

I think that people who take the Bible totally literally are missing the point of it myself.... but I also think that people who believe the whole Bible is a pile of nonsense are also missing the point of what the Bible seeks to do... I don't think it is right, even for a rationalist/non-Christian, to disregard the fact that many people are using/reading the Bible in a critical and intelligent way - even if I choose to not read it myself.

Creationists - in my eyes - subvert science in order to justify their belief that the whole Bible is literally true, especially Genesis... but in response, a non-creationist should accept that most Christians are not creationists, and gain much value from the Bible without feeling the need to take the whole thing literally or at face value...

 

[Flame-returns]

These are not necessarily my opinions, just background material from Daniel Adams, one of the most intersting ethicists.

 

[Touring Mars]

These are not necessarily my opinions, just background material from Daniel Adams, one of the most intersting ethicists.

Do you mean atheist? He sounds like an atheist... I'm non-religious myself, but I don't see how an argument based upon undermining people's beliefs as Christians helps in this particular debate...

Creationists are merely a sub-section of the Christian community - tarring all Christians with the same brush is unfair. Creationists openly spout scientific falsehoods - like the fact that man walked the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs, or that we were created exactly in the form as we are today. Most Christians don't subscribe to that belief. Most Christians, and virtually all scientists (note that these groups are not mutually exclusive) know that the actual truth behind the mysteries of creation are far more complex and stranger (and longer ago) than Creationists will have you believe....

 

[Flame-returns]

He is an ethicist, he is also athiest.

What that extract from his several page article displays is not tarring all Christians with the same brush, it is trying to explain that the Bible is not taken by the intelligent as total fact, it is part fact part fiction.

He is saying that creationists are hypocritical and they might as well breed with their sisters as that is essentialy what they beleive they are doing. The Bible is against this so if you take the creationist bit as ppure fact both you and the Bible are hypocritical.

 

[Touring Mars]

He is an ethicist, he is also athiest.

What that extract from his several page article displays is not tarring all Christians with the same brush, it is trying to explain that the Bible is not taken by the intelligent as total fact, it is part fact part fiction.

He is saying that creationists are hypocritical and they might as well breed with their sisters as that is essentialy what they beleive they are doing. The Bible is against this so if you take the creationist bit as ppure fact both you and the Bible are hypocritical.

I see... this makes more sense.... I think it's very important to make clear the distinction between Creationists and Christians. Both are equally entitled to their beliefs, but Creationists (in my book), overstep the mark by demanding that Creationist 'science' (which is pure pseudoscience) is taught alongside evolution theory as if it were comparable.... obviously it's not.... biblical literalism has no place in science class - not even to 'Teach the controversy', their latest way around the legislation preventing creationist babble from reaching the ears of students across the US (and indeed the world)...

 

[Burnout]

Daniel Adams writes:

Christians must take either one of two positions on the bible. Either...

(i) They must accept that every single word in the bible is infallible truth. These type of christians end up looking stupid, becuase they have to accept major logical fallacies as being the Word of an all-knowing God. For example, they would have to simultaneiously accept that all men were descended from just two people (Adman and Eve. This would have entailed Adam and Eve's children having sex with one another in order to provide the next generation). In other parts of the bible, however, there are words written strictly against sex within ones own family. Yet a strict christian must accept both "God says it is bad to have sex with your own family" and also "God planned life in such a way that every single man is descended from a family whose members had sex with one another".

In one way or another, every word in the Bible is true. However, you cannot just read a sentence and think that it's as simple as that. It does throw some confusing things in the air, for example, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." Alright, sure, you could take that as "Well, hey, that's just something that Christians believe to make them feel better when their so called 'God' doesn't asnwer a prayer or something." Or, rather, it could mean that God is patient with us. He's not going to get mad and send a plague to our house because we do something stupid one day.

You've got to learn that the Bible is not just as it would plainly read, you have to study it, the whole thing, connect everything, and Pray about it.

I recommend that you guys check out this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

 

[Duke]

I've seen it dozens of times, and it's still not science no matter how it's dressed up.

If you would, I'd appreciate it if you'd address my long post on the last page.

 

[Touring Mars]

In one way or another, every word in the Bible is true. However, you cannot just read a sentence and think that it's as simple as that. It does throw some confusing things in the air, for example, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." Alright, sure, you could take that as "Well, hey, that's just something that Christians believe to make them feel better when their so called 'God' doesn't asnwer a prayer or something." Or, rather, it could mean that God is patient with us. He's not going to get mad and send a plague to our house because we do something stupid one day.

You've got to learn that the Bible is not just as it would plainly read, you have to study it, the whole thing, connect everything, and Pray about it.

I recommend that you guys check out this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Thanks for recommending the number one Creationist website in the world... I've read many articles from that site and it is total nonsense. I strongly recommend ignoring it completely. Do you honestly think that in order to be a good Christian that you have to believe in Creationism? Because you don't... if you'd read some of this thread, you'd see that there is a clear distinction between creationists and Christians... Creationists go for biblical literalism whereas most Christians do not necessarily go for that....

With specific reference to biblical literalism, you can't have it both ways... you either take every word of the Bible literally or you don't... if you don't, then you are open to the possibility that some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation - this would allow one to adapt his or her own beliefs to accommodate/reconcile the findings of modern science.

But if you insist on taking the Bible totally literally, then you leave yourself in a predicament. What happens when science comes along and directly contradicts what it says in Genesis? You create a website like answersingenesis.org, that's what.... it takes science and dumps on it from a great height.... it takes any science that appears to contradict the literal word of the Bible and rubbishes it, despite the fact that the Bible has far less evidence to support it than much of the science rubbished by Creationists...

edit:

Duke - you may wait a long time for a decent argument about your post - you make alot of good points - but for me the argument is not about Creation per se... obviously something happened - we just don't know what - but that science cannot yet answer the question of Creation, neither can Creation theory - yet creationists tell you that they do know the answer. Also, 'creationism' takes what we (as scientists) do know, and throws it away because it contradicts the bible - and this is what creationists want to teach your children in school.... pah

 

[Burnout]

Thanks for recommending the number one Creationist website in the world... I've read many articles from that site and it is total nonsense. I strongly recommend ignoring it completely. Do you honestly think that in order to be a good Christian that you have to believe in Creationism? Because you don't... if you'd read some of this thread, you'd see that there is a clear distinction between creationists and Christians... Creationists go for biblical literalism whereas most Christians do not necessarily go for that....

With specific reference to biblical literalism, you can't have it both ways... you either take every word of the Bible literally or you don't... if you don't, then you are open to the possibility that some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation - this would allow one to adapt his or her own beliefs to accommodate/reconcile the findings of modern science.

But if you insist on taking the Bible totally literally, then you leave yourself in a predicament. What happens when science comes along and directly contradicts what it says in Genesis? You create a website like answersingenesis.org, that's what.... it takes science and dumps on it from a great height.... it takes any science that appears to contradict the literal word of the Bible and rubbishes it, despite the fact that the Bible has far less evidence to support it than much of the science rubbished by Creationists...

I think it's funny that you brush off the largest Creationist website on the internet as complete rubbish.

How can you go and tell me that everything I believe is scientifically incorrect, the leading scientists in the Creationist field are complete morons, and yet, all of the scientists against my beliefs are correct?

 

[Burnout]

If you read any other of the several long threads on this topic, you'll see my answer. In fact, various bits of it have been quoted in people's sigs from time to time.

You are correct. We can never negatively prove something. I can never prove that God doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But the burden of proof is not on proving something didn't happen or something doesn't exist, because it's a logical impossibility. The burden of proof is POSITIVE - you need to demonstrate that something DID happen a given way in order to logically choose that as the proper answer.

If the police arrest me and haul me into court for murder, they have to prove that someone was killed before they can even begin to think about proving that I did it. I don't have to go find the live person and show the police he's not dead. All I have to do is wait and see if they can prove a murder happened and that I did it. This is logically sensible since it would be a logical impossibility for me to prove the person was still alive if they just skipped town.

Do you follow?

I can't prove God didn't create the Earth and life. But I also can't prove that the Keebler Elves didn't. Nor can I prove that Yog-soggoth didn't. Nor can I prove that the Earth wasn't laid like an egg by the Eagle of the Universe. You can't prove that either. You've picked your favorite, arbitrarily, out of all the infinite numbers of Creation myths the human race has conceived, and you've staked your life on it. But you have no proof other than your self-referential Bible, which must be true... because it says it must be true.

I on the other hand, have an incredible volume of detailed evidence and analysis performed by thousands of individual scientists, in a constant process of self refinement, and laid out for me logically so I can follow it. This tells me that life was apparently self-generating and definitely grew slowly in complexity and adaptation. It offers proof positive that it DID happen this way, and like ANYTHING, it lacks the ability to negatively prove God or the Elves or something else DIDN'T.

So, confronted with positive logic on one hand, and uncorroborated assumption on the other, it's simply not a choice for me. I choose reason. Reason lets me follow the logic of M-theory and evolution to a tentative conclusion that gets continually refined as new information comes in. Continually improving understanding based on observation of data - what could be more satisfying than that?

On the other hand, there is absolutely no logical way to select the Judeo-Christian Creation myth over, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or that of Tagaloa-fa'atutupu-nu'u, the Samoan Creator who made the Papa-ta'oto, the Papa-sosolo, the Papa-lau-a'au, the Papa-'ano-'ano, the Papa-'ele, the Papa-tu, and finally the Papa-'amu-'amu.

Personally, I rather like old Tagaloa, since he apparently he liked to work in detail. Those names are all types of rock, which is where he started his creation, and moved on from there.

My point is that you've got nothing to back up your myth but the myth itself, which doesn't distinguish it in any way from hundreds if not thousands of other myths, all of which had many followers at one time or another. How do you choose?

That post means absolutely nothing, it's just a stretched "You're right, I can't prove that you're wrong. But You can't prove that I'm not, either."

But I knew that already, and I don't claim to have all of the answers. However, your theory and belief hardly give me enough evidence to even consider it as the logically correct answer.

 

[Touring Mars]

Because creation theory and the pseudo-scientific claims on that website are rubbish... you can believe what you like, but trying to explain that the Earth is young, that dinosaurs walked the Earth 6000 years ago alongside modern man, and that evolution is 'a belief system' is, i'm afraid, moronic....

If I were a religious person, I would not allow this sort of distorted garbage to influence my beliefs... if you've read my previous posts today, you'd see that I make a clear distinction between Christians and creationists.... As a professional scientist, I can tell you straight off the bat that the scientific claims made on that website are patently false. I don't care what it says about faith and religion and belief, for those are open for valid discussion - but I really resent being shown a dinosaur and being fed this utter crap that they existed just 6000 years ago... it's simply not true...

Take my advice and don't base your 'scientific knowledge' from this site... try studying the actual peer-reviewed scientific literature... most of the 'science' on this website is self-referential, (i.e. refers to 'journals'/periodicals published by AIG themselves, papers published by other creationists) and not subject to peer-review... that makes it pseudoscience...

 

[Famine]

I've debunked many claims from that site - probably in this thread, looong, ago.

Creation science is NOT science. Setting out to PROVE something is not scientific. "Creation science" is thus an oxymoron.

 

[Burnout]

Because creation theory and the pseudo-scientific claims on that website are rubbish... you can believe what you like, but trying to explain that the Earth is young, that dinosaurs walked the Earth 6000 years ago alongside modern man, and that evolution is 'a belief system' is, i'm afraid, moronic....

If I were a religious person, I would not allow this sort of distorted garbage to influence my beliefs... if you've read my previous posts today, you'd see that I make a clear distinction between Christians and creationists.... As a professional scientist, I can tell you straight off the bat that the scientific claims made on that website are patently false. I don't care what it says about faith and religion and belief, for those are open for valid discussion - but I really resent being shown a dinosaur and being fed this utter crap that they existed just 6000 years ago... it's simply not true...

Take my advice and don't base your 'scientific knowledge' from this site... try studying the actual peer-reviewed scientific literature... most of the 'science' on this website is self-referential, (i.e. refers to 'journals'/periodicals published by AIG themselves, papers published by other creationists) and not subject to peer-review... that makes it pseudoscience...

Say I'm a Christian, a religious man, and in the Bible it tells me that I was created by God, along with all other living things, within a few days, how could I believe in something that claims that the very foundation of everything that I believe is wrong?

I am forced to base my opinion on what I see to be correct, and what goes along with that. Fortunately, for the most part, Creationism follows along with what I believe.

Along with saying that, show me some utter garbage from that site.

 

[Burnout]

I've debunked many claims from that site - probably in this thread, looong, ago.

Creation science is NOT science. Setting out to PROVE something is not scientific. "Creation science" is thus an oxymoron.

Then why do you feel the need to disprove it so much?

I don't walk upto the owner of a cat and tell him that his leashed animal is a hamster; I wouldn't even bother with that.

 

[Famine]

Why would you?

Can you actually read what you're typing? You believe "x", so you're forced to have an opinion which agrees with it, no matter what the evidence?


Science is about disproof, not proof. We attempt to determine the probability of x NOT causing y to happen.

 

[Duke]

That post means absolutely nothing, it's just a stretched "You're right, I can't prove that you're wrong. But You can't prove that I'm not, either."

But I knew that already, and I don't claim to have all of the answers. However, your theory and belief hardly give me enough evidence to even consider it as the logically correct answer.

OK, then you're immune to logical discussion. Therefore I'm done with you. I'd love to say this has been interesting, but it isn't really. Enjoy your life of unquestioning faith.

 

[Burnout]

Science is about disproof, not proof. We attempt to determine the probability of x NOT causing y to happen.

And yet that's exactly what I've been trying to say all along.

Not one person has disproved any evidence brought to the table by me or someone who believes similarly. Rather, they have simply stated that the piece of evidence does not go along with a theory which is backed by scientific research from recent days.

That's like trying to win an argument by saying, "Well, the mountain range on that movie looked like it was from the Blue Ridge Mountains, therefore it must've been filmed in Virginia." Closing your mind to any possibility that it might've been filmed in a distance country.

 

[Burnout]

OK, then you're immune to logical discussion. Therefore I'm done with you. I'd love to say this has been interesting, but it isn't really. Enjoy your life of unquestioning faith.

When you guys start disproving what I've been saying, rather than doing what I outlined on my post above this, then I will merit your theory with some intellectual thought.