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.
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.