The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

a reply to: Deetermined

k

And yes, with empirical scientific evidence ie process and experiments, I will fully embrace evolution, so, your opinion is a little silly, a lot silly in fact

Well there you go, if you embrace evolution with it's scientific method doesn't that imply that the deity of your choice has to take a step back? Because you don't need that deity to play an active role in evolution mechanics

Everything about life shows that there is a pattern, cycle, and order to things. We're born, we grow, we change, and then we deteriorate, but science can't tell us why we have this pattern and why we only live to max out by the time we're 100 years old. Science hasn't proven that our material universe has an intelligence all of it's own to be able to determine these things.

Just because the current theory of evolution has gaps in its knowledge does not imply there must be something else or that the current theory is wrong. And science will never prove the 'intelligence' that the universe needs to determine, thats just you speculating

a reply to: Jubei42

I find it interesting how the only thing that challenges evolution involves a diety or higher up intelligence that has no evidence at all.

Meanwhile basically all fields of science fully accept evolution and csnt even begin to attempt to think of antithesis.

a reply to: strongfp

Science accepts evolution because that's all they've got, yet they still can't tell you where/how the original life form came to be.

a reply to: Deetermined

Science created the theory of evolution using the scientific method that tries to deduce how life on this planet changes, it is an ongoing dynamic process with new evidence leading to new insights.
In contrast to religion that just provides a static story about how things are and came to be using the most powerfull tool they have, imagination

It makes sense to refuse debating evolutionists, especially while armed with only a flimsy outlook as creationism.

a reply to: Jubei42

Science created the theory of evolution using the scientific method that tries to deduce how life on this planet changes, it is an ongoing dynamic process with new evidence leading to new insights.

In contrast to religion that just provides a static story about how things are and came to be using the most powerfull tool they have, imagination

So, you really think that it was "imagination" that convinced man thousands of years ago that we originated from the dust of the earth?!

From Dust to Dust...

answersingenesis.org...

a reply to: Deetermined

Absolutely, that and indoctrination ofcourse.

If you never read the bible or was told about the bible you'd never come to the same conclusions. Never in a million years
But science on the other hand, science if practiced correctly always gives the same conclusion, no matter who when or where

a reply to: Jubei42

LOL! What a silly and worthless response, because I'm sure in your imagination, no one ever contemplated (or should have contemplated) the origins of life before scientific textbooks came along. Hahahaha!

In the meanwhile...

SCIENTIST Richard Dawkins, renowned for his passionate debunking of God and religion, has suggested human beings were born when MUD simply came to life.

www.express.co.uk...

The Idea that Life Began as Clay Crystals is 50 Years Old

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: Jubei42

And yes, with empirical scientific evidence ie process and experiments, I will fully embrace evolution, so, your opinion is a little silly, a lot silly in fact

Well there you go, if you embrace evolution with it's scientific method doesn't that imply that the deity of your choice has to take a step back? Because you don't need that deity to play an active role in evolution mechanics

Everything about life shows that there is a pattern, cycle, and order to things. We're born, we grow, we change, and then we deteriorate, but science can't tell us why we have this pattern and why we only live to max out by the time we're 100 years old. Science hasn't proven that our material universe has an intelligence all of it's own to be able to determine these things.

Just because the current theory of evolution has gaps in its knowledge does not imply there must be something else or that the current theory is wrong. And science will never prove the 'intelligence' that the universe needs to determine, thats just you speculating

What? This is so dumb, why do you think I can’t believe in evolution and God, what in your head makes you think that. That’s just ludicrous
Many christians believe in evolution and God, what’s in your head?

It doesn’t imply anything of the sort, do you think before typing?

a reply to: Jubei42

Science didn’t create evolution, you don’t even think before commenting, this is
Pure ignorance on a seismic scale. Darwin was centuries late to the story

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: TerryDon79

You can't prove evolution either so what a ignorant comment,the truth in history,man has devolved,we are stupider and much smaller,true recorded history proves this

Nothing "devolves" evolution is a one way process getting smaller and "stupider" is a good thing so long as the species survives.
on a side note i do not agree with your statement.

a reply to: Raggedyman

See the thing is, you don't have to believe in science/evolution. It's not a religion.

Just know that if you subcribe to the scientific method in any field, your diety just became a little less.... godlike

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why would you think the theory of evolution is NOT created by science?
What is evolution but a mere scientific theory attempting to discribe natural phenomenon?

Darwin was late to the story? What does that even mean?
Is who ever says something about a subject first always the winner? Of what
Or is it perhaps a just story, to you?

a reply to: edmc^2

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Creationism is a fairy tale with zero facts or evidence. Evolution has 150 years of being tested and confirmed over and over again, and now with genetics the evidence is almost conclusive.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Wow, you have it completely backwards. No wonder any creationist cant mount any reasonable defense.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: edmc^2

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Creationism is a fairy tale with zero facts or evidence. Evolution has 150 years of being tested and confirmed over and over again, and now with genetics the evidence is almost conclusive.

To the contrary, this 150 years of testing is not evidence of evolution but it's a confirmation of the complexity of life. We're only at the tip of the iceberg as to understanding the inner world of how cells function.

Like I've been saying, evolution is a dead end. You can't produce life from non-life unless you're G.

a reply to: edmc^2

As soon as I read the thread title I knew exactly who it was and that is was pure ignorance. How is it you STILL don't realize that the reason evolution is so staunchly backed in academia is because there is SO MUCH testable evidence and it's fully falsifiable, unlike ANY alternative hypothesis. You pretend the whole thing is fabricated, but never once refuted a single piece of evidence.

If creationist idiots were attacking gravity or cell theory, people would say the same thing. Attacking science is dumb. If you disagree with it then become a scientist yourself andrun the tests and experiments. Embracing pseudo-science and denying proven theory over your religion is absurdity of the highest caliber.

The only thing that is going to change this position is a refutation of the evidence or a falsifiable alternative position. Unfortunately such has NEVER been done, so evolution is still the best explanation backed by evidence. Don't like that? I don't care. Banter doesn't refute evolution, neither does your failure to understand it or the lies of unscientific preachers on youtube.

1. Rules are dictated by the opponent. - WRONG, the only rule in science is to follow the scientific method. Being butthurt over the results does not make them wrong.

2. Winners are decided by the opponent. - No. It is decided by testable evidence

3. Criteria are designed by the opponent - in favor of evolution. - Because the EVIDENCE shows such. LOL!

4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question). - Again, that is because ALL the research demonstrates evolution. LMAO @ claiming it's just accepted without question. Blatant lie.

5. Players (proponents of evolution theory) are already favored by the judges. Players (proponents of evolution theory) themselves are the judges. - There are no judges. There is testable evidence. Again you fail.

6. Proponents of Creation are rejected as kooks and Luddites. - because they usually are and don't use evidence to support their claims. That's a YOU problem, not a science problem. If you want that to change, you guys need to start offering testable evidence an experiments to support your position. Y'all never have, yet you claim we are the biased ones when you don't even have a single conflicting experiment, just uneducated idiots on youtube that think they know more than scientists that actually do the research.

7. Proponents of evolution are widely recognized as authorities on the subject - especially by the scientific community that is widely populated by evolutionists. - No, BIOLOGISTS and GENETICISTS are widely recognized as authorities on biology and genetics... BECAUSE THEY ARE.

8. No journals or studies done by proponents of creation are accepted as valid in major universities. In other words, you can't use these publications. - Again, that is because they NEVER follow the scientific method, they don't follow evidnence to the most likely outcome, the choose the conclusion ahead of time and work backwards cherry picking stuff that doesn't conflict while ignoring all that does. It's not science. If you can find a single valid experiment supporting an alternative hypothesis that was blindly rejected in science, please post it instead of talking crap.

9. Majority of evolutionists are atheist. Majority of atheist are proponents of evolution. - There are many many scientists who are theists. Stop lying. More than half of scientists believe in god or a higher power and yet the vast majority of them support evolution, even the theists. Science doesn't care about offending your personal beliefs, it cares about what is actually true. Evidnece talks, regardless of whether somebody is a theist or atheist. What matters is following the scientific method.

10. Scientific academia is mostly under the supervision of proponents of evolution. - pure BS. It is under the "supervision" (LOLWUT) of WORLD LEADING SCIENTISTS. Dismissing them out of hand because you don't like their conclusions is dishonest. Look at the actual evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

> my reply (to save time)

As soon as I read the thread title I knew exactly who it was and that is was pure ignorance. How is it you STILL don't realize that the reason evolution is so staunchly backed in academia is because there is SO MUCH testable evidence and it's fully falsifiable, unlike ANY alternative hypothesis. You pretend the whole thing is fabricated, but never once refuted a single piece of evidence.

> Evidence of evolution had been refuted many times over. The problem is, you can't accept it because it destroys your faith in it.

If creationist idiots were attacking gravity or cell theory, people would say the same thing. Attacking science is dumb. If you disagree with it then become a scientist yourself andrun the tests and experiments. Embracing pseudo-science and denying proven theory over your religion is absurdity of the highest caliber.

> Actually it's evolution that is attacking science by inventing something not supported by facts. As in, mud turning into a living cell by its own volition. As if BLIND CHANCE is the Almighty All-Powerful God.

I wonder, is BLIND CHANCE the god of evolutionists, or is ith the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


The only thing that is going to change this position is a refutation of the evidence or a falsifiable alternative position. Unfortunately such has NEVER been done, so evolution is still the best explanation backed by evidence. Don't like that? I don't care. Banter doesn't refute evolution, neither does your failure to understand it or the lies of unscientific preachers on youtube.

> "so evolution is still the best explanation backed by evidence." - nope, it's not since blind chance is its foundation. All the evidence that evolutionists had found so far points one thing: Life is complex and has the ability to ADAPT.

1. Rules are dictated by the opponent. - WRONG, the only rule in science is to follow the scientific method. Being butthurt over the results does not make them wrong.

> Ha! Scientific Method continues to be violated by evolutionists whenever it goes against the theory of evolution - then calls it science and imposed their own rule. That's the truth.

2. Winners are decided by the opponent. - No. It is decided by testable evidence.

> Name one Creationists publication that's widely accepted in academia - i.e. scientific community. 0 zip nada!

3. Criteria are designed by the opponent - in favor of evolution. - Because the EVIDENCE shows such. LOL!

> Nope. It's designed in order to rig the game. Not due to evidence.

4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question). - Again, that is because ALL the research demonstrates evolution. LMAO @ claiming it's just accepted without question. Blatant lie.

> Nope. It's favored and accepted because of items 1, 2 and 3.

5. Players (proponents of evolution theory) are already favored by the judges. Players (proponents of evolution theory) themselves are the judges. - There are no judges. There is testable evidence. Again you fail.

> See items 1-4.

6. Proponents of Creation are rejected as kooks and Luddites. - because they usually are and don't use evidence to support their claims. That's a YOU problem, not a science problem. If you want that to change, you guys need to start offering testable evidence an experiments to support your position. Y'all never have, yet you claim we are the biased ones when you don't even have a single conflicting experiment, just uneducated idiots on youtube that think they know more than scientists that actually do the research.

> For sure, they have evidence but since items, 1-5 are in place, it's expected.

7. Proponents of evolution are widely recognized as authorities on the subject - especially by the scientific community that is widely populated by evolutionists. - No, BIOLOGISTS and GENETICISTS are widely recognized as authorities on biology and genetics... BECAUSE THEY ARE.

> If so, why then are there no widely recognized Creationists among them that are widely accepted as equals? Is it not because of #6?

8. No journals or studies done by proponents of creation are accepted as valid in major universities. In other words, you can't use these publications. - Again, that is because they NEVER follow the scientific method, they don't follow evidnence to the most likely outcome, the choose the conclusion ahead of time and work backwards cherry picking stuff that doesn't conflict while ignoring all that does. It's not science. If you can find a single valid experiment supporting an alternative hypothesis that was blindly rejected in science, please post it instead of talking crap.

> Nope. They follow it to the tee. But because of items 1-7, it's expected.

9. Majority of evolutionists are atheist. Majority of atheist are proponents of evolution. - There are many many scientists who are theists. Stop lying. More than half of scientists believe in god or a higher power and yet the vast majority of them support evolution, even the theists. Science doesn't care about offending your personal beliefs, it cares about what is actually true. Evidnece talks, regardless of whether somebody is a theist or atheist. What matters is following the scientific method.

> I said, MAJORITY of EVOLUTIONISTS. not many scientists. Do you understand what the word MAJORITY mean? If not get a dictionary.

10. Scientific academia is mostly under the supervision of proponents of evolution. - pure BS. It is under the "supervision" (LOLWUT) of WORLD LEADING SCIENTISTS. Dismissing them out of hand because you don't like their conclusions is dishonest. Look at the actual evidence.

> Let me be precise: Scientific Academia - as in BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE (since the discussion is evolution). Name one academia that's being supervised a proponent of Creation? 0 zip, nada.

Note:
Creationists - a term I use to identify proponents of Creation. Not a to degrade but just to save time.
Evolutionists - a term I use to identify proponents of Evolution. Not a to degrade but just to save time.

This whole debate is stupid.

Whether or not there is a "god" or "gods", evolution is a real thing.

IF there is a god (I don't know, nor care if there are any deities.. the way I see it, IF a god or gods exist, we are obviously not supposed to know or understand them. Religions are ALL man made. None have it right... but I digress) then evolution is quite obviously a part of the plan. We share 99% of our genes with chimps! That is proof enough for me (and most people with at least half a brain) that evolution is real.

It doesn't matter if we are a creation, or a happy accident. Belief in a creator(s) should not preclude you from believing in evolution. To do so is to be blinded by your religion's ideology. They're trying to keep you stupid, Stupid!