Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

reply to post by Lasheic



I am not familiar with the 'same creator, same gene argument', but I do see a hole in your counter presented in the video.

I think the video presentation is clear and very logically presented. I completely agree with the conclusions given the assumptions. That is that 'given' means the assumptions are true.

Again, I am not familiar with the argument that you are countering, but logically, your assumptions are NOT given.
Your philogenetic tree for creation assumes three things, the second two of which are stated by you:

1) There are previous life forms currently extinct for which evidence exists in the fossil record
2) That the tree structure is produced by a creator
3) That the genetic coding would be random.

I see no logical reason to accept assumption (2) and every reason to assume the opposite.

Assuming a creator assumes some pretty powerful abilities to organize even if the assumption is a fantasy. Therefore, you must assume a non-random approach to the creative process. You can't even enter into the argument without assuming (1) above, so you have to accept as a premise that a creator created things in the same order that evolution does. This would produce a very ordered result and an ordered descent result is a reasonable outcome.

So, to keep it short and resist explaining further and giving multiple examples of how this reasoning is required: loved your proof, but it is based on an illogical assumption and therefore fails.

If someone can come up with a proof that forcibly excludes a creator, we can quit this discussion and move on to what ever is next. But sorry, this isn't it.

VBW

reply to post by MEAT10AF

Originally posted by MEAT10AF


It takes a only a brief look at history to see that humanity alone should not be trusted.

I find teachings that are said to be based off of the words of those from far beyond the Earth to be much more trustworthy than those of a civilization that is frankly, still quite ignorant of what's actually out there.

"Said" to be based off the words of those from far beyond Earth? How do you know the words came from far beyond the earth? Because a fundamentally untrustworthy human TOLD you they did and you believed them? I agree with you that mankind can be dishonest, manipulative, exploitative, confused and uninformed (as well as many other things), this is why I tend not to believe people when they tell me an angel appeared to them in a vision and told them the world was going to end etc. This is also why I find the Bible hard to swallow. No-one out there can deny that the books of the Bible were penned by human beings. So if humanity should not be trusted surely you can't expect those who authored these scriptures to have done an honest job of it? I certainly don't.
The difference with science is that scientists offer up evidence to substantiate their claims. You can either agree with their conclusions or not, but you will also need to substantiate your objections too, not just claim that it's all just some anti Christian conspiracy.
Science does change, and maybe we are too sure of ourselves sometimes. But we are learning more and more all the time. The evidence for evolution is building everyday, and the only evidence its opponents have are the ever decreasing 'gaps'. Just because theories change doesn’t even necessarily mean they’re fundamentally wrong either. Developments in science can simply make calculations and predictions increasingly accurate – they rarely necessitate a complete paradigm shift.
Modern science may still be in relative infancy but look how far it’s taken us, even in the last fifty years. What has religion given you? A vague and occasional sense of purpose and belonging? Science has given us electric guitars and internet pornography dude. Internet pornography.
You also made the mistake of referring to religion as solid. Well, whilst the text in the writings may have remained unchanged their interpretations have been anything but solid. Even today people can’t agree on which parts of the Bible are intended to be literal and which are allegory. There is no universal consensus amongst Christians as to how to get into heaven and avoid hell. There’s even disagreement amongst Christians as to whether hell even exists. Science has forced religion to abandon the assumption that the sun revolves around the earth, and modern morality tends to consider public stonings to be a bit unjustified and barbaric. There are plenty of other examples but I think these are sufficient to make a point.
If you're going to refer to the ignorance of our civilisation you'd do well to remember that that includes you too dude. And me

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang! BANG


And that, is the theory of evolution summed up...and if you believe in that your more nuts that the religious ones you critisize.

O.K.

Science means what exactly?

What would the opposite of science be?

Hope you get* help

Mr medinet

P.S. your goin'jj to need it

evolution and science are both based upon a set of beliefs just like any religon.

See Newtons theory of Gravity if you have any problems understanding the concept

The only perfect science is math. 1 + 1 will always equal two.

One evolutionist plus one creationist will almost alays result in both sides making retarded unfounded claims based upon belief passed off as fact...

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
evolution and science are both based upon a set of beliefs just like any religon.

See Newtons theory of Gravity if you have any problems understanding the concept

The only perfect science is math. 1 + 1 will always equal two.

One evolutionist plus one creationist will almost alays result in both sides making retarded unfounded claims based upon belief passed off as fact...

What a load. Scientific theories are based on facts that can be observed, tested and falsified. Creation is based on faith. They aren't even close to the same. It's funny how so many people resort to this nonsensical type of thinking. Stop blindly following fundamentalist websites. Learn for yourself.

Creationist are not delusional, anyone who believes in blind faith in science is delusional.

I suppose you've never heard of Theistic Evolution, Old earth creationism, or really read YEC arguments either.

All three present arguments that are compelling, and theistic evolution goes hand in hand with darwinian evolution and the current scientific model for evolutionary biology and origins of the universe (big bang),

Though the thought of abiogenesis, and trying to imagine how the first baby apes and first baby humans survived, without anyone or any being help them, are pretty outrageous.

Seriously, think about everything most darwinian evolutionists claim happened with no intervention of God....

I do not have a problem with Darwinian evolution, because it makes sense.

I DO have a problem with completely unguided, godless Darwinian evolution, because it's stupid and makes no sense whatsoever.

Amen

Originally posted by Iason321
Creationist are not delusional, anyone who believes in blind faith in science is delusional.

The really nice part about science is that it doesn't require blind faith. All scientific theories are testable and falsifiable, and if you're intelligent enough, you can check them all (or whatever you doubt) yourself.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Did you read anything I said in my post?

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Did you read anything I said in my post?

Yes. If you want to I can trash it more, e.g.

Originally posted by Iason321
trying to imagine how the first baby apes and first baby humans survived, without anyone or any being help them, are pretty outrageous.

What happened to the parents of the first baby apes and baby humans?

reply to post by rhinoceros


And how did the parents come to be?

Did the laws of physics just magically spring them into existence?

I can do this all day, and you will not win.

you will NEVER prove to me that Evolution was a random process that happened with no guidance from our Creator, YHVH.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

And how did the parents come to be?

Did the laws of physics just magically spring them into existence?

No. Their respected mothers obviously gave birth to them. Doh.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Wow dude,

I guess what I'm proposing to you is way over your head.

Nevermind.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Wow dude,

I guess what I'm proposing to you is way over your head.

Nevermind.

No, please continue. I insist. I want to see just how clueless you are about the modern synthesis and science in general. Why did you think that the "first baby apes and humans" didn't have parents?

reply to post by rhinoceros


I don't know smart one,

why don't you explain it to me in detail

Also, tell me, Mr. Omniscient one, what caused the Big Bang and where did the first molecules come from? Where did matter come from? The big bang? Well what caused the big bang?

Oh, and while you're at it, tell me what drives the universe? Why am I conscious right now? What is driving the physical laws of our universe? Is physics causing physics to exist? Is being causing being to exist? Did the laws of the universe create themselves, and govern themselves?

You can't answer these questions, netiehr could Albert Einstein, or Stephen Hawking, or Charles Darwin,

If you say you can, or you do know, you are proving your ignorance.

Cmon, lets keep this going.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

I don't know smart one,

why don't you explain it to me in detail

How should I know why you thought that the "first baby apes and humans" didn't have parents?

Also, tell me, Mr. Omniscient one, what caused the Big Bang and where did the first molecules come from? Where did matter come from? The big bang? Well what caused the big bang?

I'm not a physicist, but I enjoy related documentaries. As far as I have understood, the big bang might have been the result of two branes colliding in higher-dimensional space. Matter is energy, so that obviously came from this hypothesized collision. Notice that this stuff is not related to evolution in any way.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell me what drives the universe? Why am I conscious right now? What is driving the physical laws of our universe? Is physics causing physics to exist? Is being causing being to exist? Did the laws of the universe create themselves, and govern themselves?

Consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain. I don't know about the laws of physics and their origin, but again, these are not related to evolution in any way.

If you say you can, or you do know, you are proving your ignorance.

You definitely proved your ignorance when you revealed that you though that the "first baby apes and humans" didn't have parents.

reply to post by rhinoceros


You didn't answer anything,

And I know abiogenesis and the origins of the universe are not technically part of evolution, but they are common beliefs of people who subscribe to darwins theory of evolution,

Why don't you go read the thread I just made?

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

And I know abiogenesis and the origins of the universe are not technically part of evolution, but they are common beliefs of people who subscribe to darwins theory of evolution,

Abiogenesis and the origins of the universe are NOT parts of the theory of evolution, and in this day and age, I doubt you will find many people who subscribe to Darwin's flawed (brilliant for its time) theory of evolution, which has not been taught at schools for over a century. Further still, evolution (modern synthesis) is not only a theory, but also an observed phenomenon, i.e. modern synthesis attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I agree wholeheartedly with this post.

We are on the same page....sort of.

reply to post by Iason321


Read a book on evolution before saying such blatant ignorance. How did the first baby ape get here? Like are you even serious? You can't be. Learn what a scientific theory is and try actually learning about it before talking about stuff you obviously have no clue about