I carefully point out that a christian is using false information to attack science - IE< I prove that he is a liar - and the best you can do is call me names? Aside from the fact that you are, implicitly, supporting a liar (which is, presumably, a sin) you are also ignoring the teachings of jesus vis Tolerance and Turning the other cheek.
I suppose you find it easier than actual debate? But by all means, carry on. Every time you post insults, you help persuade the undecided that I'm on the right side and you are on the wrong one.
dude, god made the universe so that a tiny dot exploded into a huge universe. then, he invented evolution, which has been going on since the beginning of time.
In your project notes you "Poison the well" by simply stating that creationist are ignorant.(and in essance you are saying that b/c of that they are not to be trusted.)
the example is an example! not literal! He basically ment(I think) that over time(acording to the LAW of entropy) that things ware down over time. And that is a real law in physics BTW.(just look at my room!)
The law of Entropy only applies to a closed system into which no additional energy is being provided. The earth is NOT a closed system, the sun is continuously pumpin new energy into the earth's ecosystem, therefore the rules of entropy do NOT apply.
Actually, the project to which this is a response was dicussing belief in it - stating that both the process and the theory are false. This project was created to refute the specific points he made.
Its a question that makes no sense. Science is about explaining natural processes. You don't "prove" that the processes happen - they are observed. What you do is come up with a reason for them happening and then test your reasoning by making predictions and carrying out experirments or further observations. You don't, therefore, "prove" the events of history scientifically. What you *might* do is, having observed the events of history, come up with a social-science theory explaining why they happened - and then try to prove your theory.
But I will ask - can you find anywhere a creation story that meets the criteria required for a scientific theory? As even the most avid proponent of Intelligent Design, the "science" version of the creation story admits:
'I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.' ~ Philip Johnson, Founder of the Intelligent Design movement.
Start here: (link to project), as you need to have a basic understanding of what the theory of evolution is about before you can be shown the evidence for it. Comment on that project when you are ready to hear more.
There is no credible evidence for intelligent design, which probably explains why most anti-evolution statements concentrate on attacking the theory of evolution rather than presenting their own theory or any evidence for it.
I'm aiming to stop people who were undecided from making their mind up based on deception rather than fact - the original project contained lots of false information. By pointing out the falsehood, I give people a chance to make an informed choice.
I have a question. What dose all our rehtoric do? I don't think you will change your biliefs because of it and I know I won't. So is this discussion only good for venting hot air? (which I have way to much of.)
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
evolution:3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
just a question. what dose all this religious retoric do? besides argue? (yes Evolution is a religion.)
but before you dispute this. let me get those defanitions..or we'll just run around in circles
ok, before we start ripping each other apart again, we need to establish some defanitions of:
evolution.
religion.
natural selection.
science.
let me look at dictionary.com for a sec
My information is from scientific sources. You might consider that biased, in a "we will only consider things that can be detected, not the unproven activity of a hypothetical indetectable entity" fashion.
Pro-creationist groups - yes, groups that BELIEVE in biblical creation as the literal truth - also criticise Hovind for persistently using false and discredited arguments. THAT, I think, tells you a lot about how reliable Hovind's so-called evidence might be.
we don't have evidence for either. We must, therfore, prove beond a reasonable doubt in our minds, not only using the scientific method, which is not the only and most reliable method to prove all things, but the evidential method, which is usedf to...
2) Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, and cannot be tested, thus failing to meet the basic criteria of a scientific theory. It is philosophy, not science.
3) Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. We KNOW that evolution takes place. The Theroy of evolution doesn't discuss whether evolution happens (it does!) but HOW it happens.
just to throw a little info into the debate.... there IS MICRO evolution. NOT MACRO Evolution.
micro evolution is the kind we SEE in bacteria etc, macro evolution is THEORETICAL change from one MACROSCOPIC(visible with the naked eye) organizm to another.
That's a distinction invented by creationists, not scientists, who use it to distinguish between "evolution that I am sadly unable to deny because it can be physically witnessed" and "evolution that despite all the evidence I can still deny".
Based on 
Comments
You need to be logged in to post comments
Add a Comment
1 | 2
you are the most ignorant person on the planet. and you have a lot of time on your hands. I'm so angry I'm sick. You are a falsehood.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
I carefully point out that a christian is using false information to attack science - IE< I prove that he is a liar - and the best you can do is call me names? Aside from the fact that you are, implicitly, supporting a liar (which is, presumably, a sin) you are also ignoring the teachings of jesus vis Tolerance and Turning the other cheek.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
I suppose you find it easier than actual debate? But by all means, carry on. Every time you post insults, you help persuade the undecided that I'm on the right side and you are on the wrong one.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
you're a stupid atheist and I hope you go the other way!
(view all replies)Comment Reply
not 2 mention how stupid u are
(view all replies)Comment Reply
dude, god made the universe so that a tiny dot exploded into a huge universe. then, he invented evolution, which has been going on since the beginning of time.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
got it? u had better. all of u ignorant people are posting untrue stuff either way. God INVENTED science
(view all replies)Comment Reply
In your project notes you "Poison the well" by simply stating that creationist are ignorant.(and in essance you are saying that b/c of that they are not to be trusted.)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
just curious hy you are not giving us a fair chance.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Mayhem? Are you aware that natural selection dose happen? However it takes AWAY information.(such as in dog or finch breeding.)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
I know the first question was not very intelligent...but it lead into my point.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
the example is an example! not literal! He basically ment(I think) that over time(acording to the LAW of entropy) that things ware down over time. And that is a real law in physics BTW.(just look at my room!)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
The law of Entropy only applies to a closed system into which no additional energy is being provided. The earth is NOT a closed system, the sun is continuously pumpin new energy into the earth's ecosystem, therefore the rules of entropy do NOT apply.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
what about mars? It recieves energy from the sun, yet it has reached chemacle equilibrium.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Actually, the project to which this is a response was dicussing belief in it - stating that both the process and the theory are false. This project was created to refute the specific points he made.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
but are your refutatins valid?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Some of them are...but are all of them?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
may I ask that we both ask questions. And that we do not point fingers(I'm not saying we have yet.) Just wanted to clear that up:)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
we must also estalish "fact"
(view all replies)Comment Reply
*about what you think.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
can you "prove" history with the scientific method? (its not a loaded question. I'm just curious what you think.)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Its a question that makes no sense. Science is about explaining natural processes. You don't "prove" that the processes happen - they are observed. What you do is come up with a reason for them happening and then test your reasoning by making predictions and carrying out experirments or further observations. You don't, therefore, "prove" the events of history scientifically. What you *might* do is, having observed the events of history, come up with a social-science theory explaining why they happened - and then try to prove your theory.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
But I will ask - can you find anywhere a creation story that meets the criteria required for a scientific theory? As even the most avid proponent of Intelligent Design, the "science" version of the creation story admits:
(view all replies)Comment Reply
'I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.' ~ Philip Johnson, Founder of the Intelligent Design movement.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
what are those criteria? (in your mind.)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
where and how dose evolution meet those criteria?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Start here: (link to project), as you need to have a basic understanding of what the theory of evolution is about before you can be shown the evidence for it. Comment on that project when you are ready to hear more.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
*present your own...
(view all replies)Comment Reply
could you, in order to prevent you from commiting what you just pointed out, your theory and evidance?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
There is no credible evidence for intelligent design, which probably explains why most anti-evolution statements concentrate on attacking the theory of evolution rather than presenting their own theory or any evidence for it.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
ok...do you believe there is credible evidance on both sides of the issue? if so, is that evidance missused (which side?)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
I'm aiming to stop people who were undecided from making their mind up based on deception rather than fact - the original project contained lots of false information. By pointing out the falsehood, I give people a chance to make an informed choice.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
I have a question. What dose all our rehtoric do? I don't think you will change your biliefs because of it and I know I won't. So is this discussion only good for venting hot air? (which I have way to much of.)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
good discussion. I will be back with you later, however I can't sit at the computer all day. farwell. You shall hear from me again.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
(science.)
(view all replies)Comment Reply
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation
(view all replies)Comment Reply
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
evolution:3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
religion:1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
(view all replies)Comment Reply
just a question. what dose all this religious retoric do? besides argue? (yes Evolution is a religion.) but before you dispute this. let me get those defanitions..or we'll just run around in circles
(view all replies)Comment Reply
ok, before we start ripping each other apart again, we need to establish some defanitions of: evolution. religion. natural selection. science. let me look at dictionary.com for a sec
(view all replies)Comment Reply
im not saying the guy is quaified. I am just asking questions.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
and is your information from biased sources?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
My information is from scientific sources. You might consider that biased, in a "we will only consider things that can be detected, not the unproven activity of a hypothetical indetectable entity" fashion.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
you cant judge someone by tax offenses.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Pro-creationist groups - yes, groups that BELIEVE in biblical creation as the literal truth - also criticise Hovind for persistently using false and discredited arguments. THAT, I think, tells you a lot about how reliable Hovind's so-called evidence might be.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
It is a good indication of their general character and honesty, don't you think?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
but do animals reproduce without third party aid?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
Do you have any reason to suppose that they don't?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
mayhem. Do you believe natural selection as a means for Evolutionary(with a capital E) change?
(view all replies)Comment Reply
It is almost certainly one factor, and quite a significant one, especially in organisms with a short generational cycle.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
.."prove" history.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
we don't have evidence for either. We must, therfore, prove beond a reasonable doubt in our minds, not only using the scientific method, which is not the only and most reliable method to prove all things, but the evidential method, which is usedf to...
(view all replies)Comment Reply
There is an astonishing amount of evidence for evolution available, including the creation of new species being witnessed under laboratory conditions.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
evolution is not a science. It is a theory. Just like creationizm. We can't prove either of them 100%.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
1) If you describe something as 'just' a theory, you clearly have no real understanding of what the term theroy means in scientific circles.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
2) Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, and cannot be tested, thus failing to meet the basic criteria of a scientific theory. It is philosophy, not science.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
3) Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. We KNOW that evolution takes place. The Theroy of evolution doesn't discuss whether evolution happens (it does!) but HOW it happens.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
just to throw a little info into the debate.... there IS MICRO evolution. NOT MACRO Evolution. micro evolution is the kind we SEE in bacteria etc, macro evolution is THEORETICAL change from one MACROSCOPIC(visible with the naked eye) organizm to another.
(view all replies)Comment Reply
That's a distinction invented by creationists, not scientists, who use it to distinguish between "evolution that I am sadly unable to deny because it can be physically witnessed" and "evolution that despite all the evidence I can still deny".
(view all replies)Comment Reply