A challenge for creationists.

[ecoli]

Religion can be flexible...I'm not so sure about Scientists ...

[ecoli]

... look for fossiles of talking snakes with legs .....

 

You don't to look for fossils: http://www.visual-evolution.com/images/content/snakes%20with%20legs.jpg

[root]

Well, I have to say I certainly don't want to cloud this thread in the sense of what is theary and what is fact. Generally it's accepted that a theory predicts and a fact qualifies, but we don't need to bother ourselves with that to understand my point. Firstly, creationisms does not imply a biblical connection for much the same as evolutionists beleif's differ within the theory of evolution and so to does creationists.

 

The simple fact of the matter is. How did life start on this planet! One could simply read a bible and find out, or reject that notion and go for evolutionism. But how do evolutionists account for life developing on the planet?

 

Since some say it was chemical related with amino acids and I presume (though I don't know) close to the beginning of the DNA trail, or life came to the planet on the back of a meteorite or comet and has it's DNA origins in an infinate past. And Evolution as you seem to suggest is wrong, though evolvement was inevitable and did occur but in a creationist way. I hate evolutionists that pass off the theory of evolution as a fact, and try to ram down our throats without keeping an open mind to a created past but not at all God as the bible suggest's.

 

It's a very plausable theory, not fact.

 

 

Root

[ydoaPs]

How did life start on this planet! One could simply read a bible and find out, or reject that notion and go for evolutionism. But how do evolutionists account for life developing on the planet?

 

evolution says NOTHING about the beginning of life.

[atinymonkey]

It's a very plausable theory' date=' not fact.

 

 

Root[/quote']

 

It's the theorys of evolution, as in plural. Some are proven, and some debunked. It seems you have confused those theorys that have become fact with those that have not.

[ecoli]

Darwin's doesn't... but there is a theory that does give a chemical explaination, though it'ss not necesarly under the title "Evolutionary Theory"

[atinymonkey]

Darwin's doesn't... but there is a theory that does give a chemical explaination, though it'ss not necesarly under the title "Evolutionary Theory"

 

Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species', which is one of the texts taken to be in contradiction with the Bibles account. It doesn't deal with the origin of life, but then few people actually read it.

 

I'm including me on the 'haven't read it' list btw. Even though I have the book on my shelf (stolen from sayo, heh).

[swansont]

And, by the way, Creationism and Evolution are two seperate things...they don't have anything to do with each other. They are 2 different and completely[/i'] valid theories.

 

 

No, really, they aren't. Creationism is in no way a valid theory. It can't be a theory because it's not science - it's religion masquerading as science. But a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

[ydoaPs]

evolution, on the other hand, HAS been proven. AVIDA proves that evolution isn't even restricted to biological life.

[swansont]

Hi Guys' date='

 

Wehey my first post. I think it's lame to ask a creationist to prove themselves right! Afterall their proof is that they are here. On the same tune I think it is lame to suggest one can prove "The theory of evolution". It is to this day just a theory, a theory has yet to establish itself as fact. Not only are evolutionists really struggling with the theory, your failing yourself for what you accuse others as being "Uneducated".

 

Thoughts?

[/quote']

 

Theories can never be proven in the mathematical sense. They can only be disproven.

 

Evolution is both a fact and theory. That it has been shown to happen is the fact, and the explanation for how it happens is the theory. Anyone who argues that evolution is "just" a theory is just demonstrating their ignorance of the scientific process. And if you don't understand the scientific process, how can you validly criticize it?

[swansont]

Not to dispute what you say, but I seem to recall someone on this forum postulating a theory about little green magicians (or was it little green elephants?) creating the world. What type of evidence would you consider possible to disprove such a theory? Until such "proof" is presented to you, would you consider it a valid theory that should be accepted on equal terms with evolution?

 

There were the invisible pink fairies...

 

"I can explain just about everything with invisible pink fairies, and you can't disprove their existence. But it's useless as a theory, as there is no predictive power, and nothing that is explained that isn't already.

 

(feel free to substitute the deity of your choice into that)" (me)

[swansont]

Religion can be flexible...I'm not so sure about Scientists ...

 

Science or scientists?

 

That religion can be flexible is why it isn't scientific. It can explain anything, even two mutually exclusive points. There is no way to disprove it, in principle, so it is unscientific.

[Cadmus]

(feel free to substitute the deity of your choice into that)"[/i'] (me)

It's settled then. I'll go with little green elephants. The only point still open to debate is just how little.

[Hellbender]

Hi Guys' date='

 

Wehey my first post. I think it's lame to ask a creationist to prove themselves right! Afterall their proof is that they are here. On the same tune I think it is lame to suggest one can prove "The theory of evolution". It is to this day just a theory, a theory has yet to establish itself as fact. Not only are evolutionists really struggling with the theory, your failing yourself for what you accuse others as being "Uneducated".

 

Thoughts?

 

Root[/quote']

 

yeah here's my thoughts. The word "theory" means something different when speaking about a 'scientific" theory. This is a typical tactic used by creationists. A scientific theory is well proven and well tested. Gravitational theory and atomic theory are theories as well. That means they, as well as evolution are estabilished as fact. Try reading a real scientific source on this instead of parroting the propaganda that creation "scientists" write.

 

Evolutionists struggling? *sigh*. It is good for scientists to "struggle" or to use a less melodramatic term, to continually test out and find out new things about something. But are we just struggling to find any sense in this theory? No. If you can provide a source of this, I would be grateful.

 

If you use that fact that "we are here" as proof of something unprovable like creation, can't that fact also be used as proof of evolution? Its not lame to ask a creationist to prove their facts. This is a science forum. Thats what we do. You make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up. And pointing to the bible and saying "it says so here" is a source, but not an acceptable one.

[Gnieus]

You don't to look for fossils: [url']http://www.visual-evolution.com/images/content/snakes%20with%20legs.jpg[/url]

 

How many languages does it speak?

 

And didn't God say it would loose it's legs after the apple thingy..

[Hellbender]

No, really, they aren't. Creationism is in no way a valid theory. It can't be a theory because it's not science - it's religion masquerading as science. But a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf.

 

I agree with swansont here. I love how some people think of creation as a "alternative explanation" When something is fact and explains occurances naturally, there is no alternative to it. But still some creationist claim their religious texts are seperate answers to evolution. There is no multiple choice here. What you see is what you see. Sorry.

[ecoli]

I agree with swansont here. I love how some people think of creation as a "alternative explanation" When something is fact and explains occurances naturally, there is no alternative to it. But still some creationist claim their religious texts are seperate answers to evolution. There is no multiple choice here. What you see is what you see. Sorry.

 

You say creationism is not a valid explaination, yet, desite all your bashings nobody has come up with sufficent evidence to disprove it.

[swansont]

I agree with swansont here. I love how some people think of creation as a "alternative explanation" When something is fact and explains occurances naturally, there is no alternative to it. But still some creationist claim their religious texts are seperate answers to evolution. There is no multiple choice here. What you see is what you see. Sorry.

 

Note that I said that Creationism isn't a theory, not that it wasn't an explanation. "God did it " and "rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot caused it" are both explanations - explanations need not be scientific. (they probably aren't correct, but that's another issue)

 

A religious text can be a separate answer. An answer without proof, to be sure. Wrong answers are still answers, after all.

 

My issue isn't whether some people want to believe something (even though in my opinion they are deluding themselves). It's when they want their beliefs to be accepted as facts by all, and as science by all, that I have a problem. It's when they lie about the issues, and denounce with nary a whiff of understanding, that I have a problem.

[ecoli]

How many languages does it speak?

 

And didn't God say it would loose it's legs after the apple thingy..

 

My point is that lines in the bible can be related to science. Snakes wiht legs is not far-fetched at all. Vestigial appendiges is quite common, in the theory of evolution.

[Hellbender]

You say creationism is not a valid explaination, yet, desite all your bashings nobody has come up with sufficent evidence to disprove it.

 

I can observe and prove evolution at work, naturally. I don't see any god doing it.

[swansont]

You say creationism is not a valid explaination, yet, desite all your bashings nobody has come up with sufficent evidence to disprove it.

 

"God did it" can't be disproven. It's not science. I know you were replying to Hellbender here, but I never said it wasn't a valid explanation - I said it wasn't a valid theory. Big difference. Calling it one is to try and attach an internet-diploma-mill-like legitimacy to it; it sounds nice but has no actual value.

[Cadmus]

Note that I said that Creationism isn't a theory' date=' not that it wasn't an explanation. "God did it " and "rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot caused it" are both explanations - explanations need not be scientific. (they probably aren't correct, but that's another issue)

 

A religious text [i']can[/i] be a separate answer. An answer without proof, to be sure. Wrong answers are still answers, after all.

 

My issue isn't whether some people want to believe something (even though in my opinion they are deluding themselves). It's when they want their beliefs to be accepted as facts by all, and as science by all, that I have a problem. It's when they lie about the issues, and denounce with nary a whiff of understanding, that I have a problem.

Good post.

 

I also have nothing at all against people who want to believe in the bible. I do not appreciate people who expect creationsim to be taken seriously as an alternative to evolution in a scientific forum, given that the creationists that I have read seem to feel no need to provide scientific support for their idea. The notion that "evolution has problems, and dumping it leaves us with creationism" does not qualify as scientific support.

[Hellbender]

Note that I said that Creationism isn't a theory' date=' not that it wasn't an explanation. "God did it " and "rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot caused it" are both explanations - explanations need not be scientific.

 

My issue isn't whether some people want to believe something (even though in my opinion they are deluding themselves). It's when they want their beliefs to be accepted as facts by all, and as science by all, that I have a problem. It's when they lie about the issues, and denounce with nary a whiff of understanding, that I have a problem.[/quote']

 

Sorry, I left topic there. Its an explanation, but not a valid, proven one. Not a scientific one.

 

I agree with you here, as well. Its fine to believe something, but when you want it accepted by all, taught in southern schools, for example, I have a problem with that, especially when no evidence is presented. I too have a problem when facts and quotes are subtly and cleverly bent to enforce religious doctrine. Most creationists simply deny evolution because it disagrees with what the bible says.

[ecoli]

ok... so it's not a theory, in the scientific method form of the word, but it still a valid explaination (I know you agree, swansont, but others wouldn't)

 

Of course you don't physically see God, hellbender, but that's the entire nature of God. We see only the result of his work, not the creator himself. Sorry, you'll have to do better then that to convince me...

[Hellbender]

feel no need to provide scientific support for their idea. The notion that "evolution has problems, and dumping it leaves us with creationism" does not qualify as scientific support.

 

like root's post earlier. Its all about character attacks, false notions and propaganda. ecoli is the exception. I can tell he is simply not going to creationist sites and copy/pasting the crap that they write there.