Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
There’s never been a miracle that couldn’t be debunked. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
One can deny anything supernatural if they are clever. However, that does not mean it really did not happen.
 
Hume said:
don’t expect irrational things in my daily walk because the world appears to operate rationally - at least in concordance with physical laws.

Let’s start with an ark.

If you can make a wooden ship that big that could stay afloat in a storm, I’d consider converting. You’d have to defy the size limits of wooden ships to accomplish it. Past a certain size they break up under their own weight.
Click to expand...
It is precisely because the universe operates rationally that we understand there was a rational creator. In fact that is what science rests on. the universe is understandable. It has laws, given by a law giver.

You are going to rest your argument on the ark? So answer - if I show you it could be done will you convert?
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
tafan2:
Why do you deny the evidence of macroevolution is insufficient?
Click to expand...
  • What evidence?
  • Macroevolution’s explanatory power of observed complexity in living beings is grossly inadequate.
  • How many microevolutions eventuate in a macroevolution?
  • What is the precise definition of “species”?
  • What predictions of speciation have macroevolutionists made that have come to be true?
  • What mathematical equations does macroevolution offer that support a speciation event?
  • What schemes does macroevolution offer for verification?
  • What test methods does macroevolutionists offer that can support the hypothesis?
Science is a closed system. i.e., it may only appeal to natural causes for observed effects. Macroevolution, as inadequate as it is as a scientific hypothesis, is science’s only option. So, as they say in the brokerage business, the macro boys chant, “Let’s put some lipstick on this pig and sell it hard.” Yes, today macroevolution is the soup de jour.

Science does not prove anything and one cannot prove a negative. Therefore, the truth of macroevolution, as are all science claims, is in the realm of probability. Those advocates who claim more than the possibility of macroevolution as a science fact are in error.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and evolution has been supposedly going on for billions of years, but when you look around nothing is evolving…I guess evolution has stopped.
 
Techno2000 said:
Yeah, and evolution has been supposedly going on for billions of years, but when you look around nothing is evolving…I guess evolution has stopped.
Click to expand...
It was never upward, it has been devolving from the beginning. That is what the science is showing.
 
So your scientif argument against macroevolution is that since there are varying definitions of what a species us, there has never been any macroevolution, and none of the evidence is even worth looking at?

Got it. Not convinced at all, but I understand your scientific position.
 
tafan2 said:
So your scientif argument against macroevolution is that since there are varying definitions of what a species us, there has never been any macroevolution, and none of the evidence is even worth looking at?

Got it. Not convinced at all, but I understand your scientific position.
Click to expand...
You may make your act of faith in macroevolution. I withhold mine.
 
tafan2 said:
Its nit an act of faith. I have read evidence.
Click to expand...
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould
 
buffalo said:
The universe and all there is has no cause? Is that your claim?
Click to expand...
It is certain that “all there is” has no cause. Anything that is not part of “all there is” does not exist, by definition. Everything that exists is a part of “all there is”. Since something that does not exist cannot be a cause, then “all there is” does not have a cause. Any existing cause will already be a part of “all there is”. QED.
 
Techno2000 said:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould
Click to expand...
I too can quote Gould:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether though design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. (emphasis added)

S J Gould “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Discover Magazine May 1981.
Click to expand...
Your own source tells us that transitional fossils are “abundant” between groups larger than individual species.
 
Well, I gave the Wikipedia article, which has lots if further references. We could start there. I am nit a biologist, but in the scientific fields which I have graduate education in, I have found Wikipedia’s pages regarding science extremely accurate. So I have no reason to believe biology iages would nit be very well vetted.
 
tafan2 said:
Well, I gave the Wikipedia article, which has lots if further references. We could start there. I am nit a biologist, but in the scientific fields which I have graduate education in, I have found Wikipedia’s pages regarding science extremely accurate. So I have no reason to believe biology iages would nit be very well vetted.
Click to expand...
Faith…
 
It’s not faith, no more than if I use it as a resource for economics or computer science. It may not be perfect, but it gives a good presentation if current thinking if the subject. From there we can debate if that thinking is valid or not. But if you refuse to consider it, then you cannot say your opposition is based on science.
 
tafan2 said:
I am nit a biologist, but in the scientific fields which I have graduate education in, I have found Wikipedia’s pages regarding science extremely accurate.
Click to expand...
Did you know that scientific knowledge is always provisional and tells us nothing that is universal, necessary, or certain about the world? (Do I detect a Scottish accent?)
 
Fine, no need to argue that. The question is why one are not willing to consider it at all, yet makes the claim their position us scientificly based.
 
rossum said:
Your own source tells us that transitional fossils are “abundant” between groups larger than individual species.
Click to expand...
“The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Stephen J Gould

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study.” Stephen J Gould

Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.” Stephen J Gould

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” Stephen J Gould

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen J Gould

“Fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.” Stephen J Gould

“The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” Stephen J Gould
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top