Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Deacon Cole]

There is no scientific evidence for creation.

Apologetics is an aptly named discipline as it is nothing but making excuses.

 

[mrblakemiller]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

 

[martin's a madman]

Creationism isn't science. It hasn't predicted or contributed anything to our understanding of the universe.

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

This paper claims a universe forming on its own is already falsified.

Is this a joke?


It also claims that abiogenesis is falsified.

It misuses the second law of thermodnymaics by not acknowledging that the Earth is not either a closed or isolated system.

It's using the bible, an unsupportable source as the basis for its understanding (specifically the flood), even when no scientific experiment has confirmed that this event occured. On the contrary, it has actually found that no flood did occur.

Did you expect that this horrid paper would blow anyone's minds? It's presenting arguments which have been defeated repeatedly.

 

[Jabberwock King]

But the most important question of all was not yet answered, which god are we talking about?

Athe, god of Atheism.
For he is the god of nothing. The dark void that will devour all other gods and those who do not worship and fear him!
All hail Athe, for he does not exist!

Oh man, that was a good laugh. I tried chanting that last line enthusiastically in a high pitched voice, and it was perfect lolfuel... Wait a minute, what happens if you do worship and fear him?

Is this Captcha trying to tell me something?

 

[DracoSuave]

yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time

The conspiracy theorist aspects of your post were snipped.

In the context of trying to advance a scientific agenda, no, experiments are not a waste of time. They are, in fact, the entire basis of science. No experiments = Not science.

 

[InevitableFate]

I have never seen any evidence for Creationism and am quite convinced there isn't any. When the arguments come around, all Creationists do is poke some holes in evolution, most of which don't actually exist and are purely a complete misunderstanding of the theory. If they do manage to get it right once and a while, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. Science knows evolution isn't perfect. Nor is Gravity, or just about anything. The whole point is that we try to find out solutions to those holes. They do NOT mean that the rest of the theory is wrong and it CERTAINLY doesn't magically mean Creationism is correct.

Critisisms of something else is not evidence.

 

[DracoSuave]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

We're not blocking creationism from making a defense of itself in scientific debate.

We're simply pointing out the fact that creationism has yet to produce any scientific research or experimentation means that there's no point even discussing it in a scientific debate.

No one is stopping creationists or intellegent design proponents from going out and doing the research needed to advance their hypotheses. You're free to do that.

However, what you are not free to do is lie. You are not free to state that something without any research, without any experimentation, and without any evidence collected to back it up is in any way science. You're free to advance your hypothesis, you're just not free to deceive people about scientific validity that simply does not exist.

Instead of linking to polifical rhetoric or fallacious debates... what you creations need to do is simple. Show. The. Work. Point to scientific research. Show experiments, and their results, and what you're doing with those results. Show some fucking science.

It's that last part that your camp has trouble with, and it's that last part that gets you kicked out of the scientific debate. Because you're not being scientific. You're not doing science. You're trying to STOP science, and that is not permissible.

Your solution is simple. I've given you the answer. It's so easy children do it at science fairs. Why can't creationism?

 

[Sight Unseen]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

I took a look at this website and had to stop reading about halfway through... It's a load of bull. Table 2 is so full of crap I don't even know how to describe it.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Why are there so many of these threads all the time, it's always x is wrong because y is correct. Maybe one in a hundred thousand people change their religious views due to an online debate, it's just like politics, there's no changing people's opinion no matter the side. All atheists online are assholes and all religious people are retards. That's essentially what most people are trying to prove in these type of threads. Sorry 4 rant.

OT: I've heard the creationist arguement many a time at my church and every time I hear it I just think about how incorrect it is. People at my church literally ignore things like carbon dating, fossils, and history that goes past about 6 thousand years. I just keep my head down and try to ignore it most of the time to be honest though.

lol i tried not to challenge any views but people are people more then business is business

Yea I know. Sorry if it seems like I'm crapping on your thread, it's nothing personal it's just more of a me yelling "Whhhyyy!!??!" at the sky with my hands thrown up. Nothing particular about this specific thread.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

Double post ignore. Unless you want to read it

 

[DracoSuave]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

I took a look at this website and had to stop reading about halfway through... It's a load of bull. Table 2 is so full of crap I don't even know how to describe it.

They lost me at 'The bible is empirical data.'

 

[robotam]

In the primary schools around here, from the ages of 4 up to 11 we are taught about Christianity.

They teach us all about Creation, and since we knew nothing to begin with we accept this as complete truth. Well I say "teach us ABOUT", it's more like "Tell us". They don't present it as a theory, or as something that might have happened. They tell us that it DID happen. We had to pray several times a day and also recite hymns.

So everyone around this area grows up being a Creationist really. We have science lessons about nature and our bodies, but the subject of the universe and creation is avoided really.

Yeah, that's what it was like when I was in primary. I remember a girl saying she didn't believe in god, and we all found this shocking.

OT: So yeah I've (sort of) done the research, but I treat evolution as fact now-a-days.

 

[Jabberwock King]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Holy... Fucking... Shit... I feel like 10 percent of my brain died from reading that. Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? You know what, please don't even respond. There is no facepalm big enough, and if you do respond, it will go beyond that.

By demanding a "how" explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to "how" everything "happened" all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose. Unable to explain exactly "how" matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly "how" genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know "how" it was done by the Creator.

You see this part? Those questions are not relevant to evolution, they refer to cosmology and abiogenesis respectively. I put this part down to prove that I read that "thing". And once again, no response is necessary.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

I took a look at this website and had to stop reading about halfway through... It's a load of bull. Table 2 is so full of crap I don't even know how to describe it.

They lost me at 'The bible is empirical data.'

Yeah, pretty much. Also the bullet point in the table that says that the view that the bible isn't a good source of history and knowledge isn't falsifiable. Of course it is. If the bible, you know, were HISTORICALLY ACCURATE or you know, wasn't filled with magic that's never happened since the supposed events of the bible, then that theory would be falsifiable. Of course, the bible is bullshit and offers no such insight, and so it turns out we're right, and they think that means our claim isn't falsifiable.

sometimes I hate humanity.

 

[IceStar100]

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

 

[DracoSuave]

I wonder what you guys who are blasting any thought of creationism even being allowed to make a defense for itself would think about the following page:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

I took a look at this website and had to stop reading about halfway through... It's a load of bull. Table 2 is so full of crap I don't even know how to describe it.

They lost me at 'The bible is empirical data.'

Yeah, pretty much. Also the bullet point in the table that says that the view that the bible isn't a good source of history and knowledge isn't falsifiable. Of course it is. If the bible, you know, were HISTORICALLY ACCURATE or you know, wasn't filled with magic that's never happened since the supposed events of the bible, then that theory would be falsifiable. Of course, the bible is bullshit and offers no such insight, and so it turns out we're right, and they think that means our claim isn't falsifiable.

sometimes I hate humanity.

To be fair, I got nothing against religion or the bible.

What I do have a problem with is lies and misrepresentation. When you take said bible (a book written by people a long time ago) and pass it off as empirical data (the results of experimentation) you're lying. You're not even stretching the truth, you are 'bearing false witness' and doing so knowing what the hell you are doing. Either you're lying to others and misusing words on purpose, or your lying to yourself hoping to make a point.

There's a commandment against that sort of thing.

On top of that, when you're passing something that lacks scientific rigor as a scientific theory (when it is nothing more than a hypothesis) you are committing the same sin... you are lying. Bearing false witness.

Again, there's a commandment against that sort of thing.

Either you believe in the bible and ergo, will not misrepresent it as science, or you do not believe in the bible, and have no reason to misrepresent it as science.

There is a third option: Hypocritical douchebag.

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

Athiests don't have a messiah figure telling them not to judge. Christians do... and yet....

 

[stinkyrobot]

Yes and there is none

 

[Thyunda]

The Escaist Proof Athist are no better then religous fanatics.

I assume you're trying to say that atheists on this site are no better than religious fanatics.

Which is a load of shit. Reading through this thread, all I've seen are atheists and...uh...what was the term? Theistic evolutionist? Is that the one? Believing in God and accepting evolution?
Whatever.
Point is - the atheists have pulled up scientific evidence and shot down the unprovable pieces of propaganda the creationists have thrown up in response. They have not been superior or arrogant. They have invited the creationists to bring their evidence. How is that proof that we atheists are in any way to be compared to religious fanatics?

 

[sinterklaas]

How can I study something that isn't there?

No, I don't want to watch your propaganda videos.

Religion is fine. The problem starts when religious people try to present their baseless opinions as facts or as empirical truth, and do not want seperation of church and state. Denying certain scientific theories is also a problem.

 

[evilneko]

What gets me is most creationist crap boils down to "I don't understand x so therefore evolution is wrong and goddunnit."

I mean, seriously. Would anyone say "I don't understand every little detail of how my car's engine works therefore it works on magic" and actually mean it?