Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[LastPoet]

How much time its needed for people to understand that their ignorance and lack of understanding isn't a basis to refute knowledge? Even worse, its not basis to stipulate a completely unwarranted dogma.

IMO, its that old chestnut that is pride, I mean, some people have invested so much into the belief in gods, probably have mistreated so many fellow humans in the process, that any admission that remotely attacks their cheerished belief system is unbearable psychologically. It is easier, philosophically and psychologically more pleasing to refuse any evidence given than to study evolution. Why should they go to the troubles of reading a bunch of books and understand what is explained in them about evolution, when you can memorize just one and claim it to be the irrefutable truth?

I never memorized any science books, I understood what was being explained in them. It takes work, it takes thinking. I remember school times: I always had grades like 18-20 out of 20 in Biology and never memorized text from the books, but the colleages that did so, struggled to get 10 out of 20 (grades here are 0-20, not A,B... F like in the US).

So yeah, creationism is just the paradigmatic banner of ignorance and lazyness, coupled with the pig arrogance of claiming it to be knowledge.

[Cyberman]

Unfortunately A2E I am forced by your posts on this forum to agree with the mod's assessment of you. The only difference is I would add intentionally ignorant before moron.

ALTER2EGO -to- POPEYES PAPPY:
Unfortunately, popeyespappy, when the moderator Stimbo referred to me as a "maroon," it was because Stimbo thought I was the one making the fallacious claim that evolution "theory" is fact. It turns out that Esquilax was the one making that fallacious claim about "theory" being fact and I was merely correcting Esquilax.

Unfortunately, EasterEgo (apologies; bloody autocorrect), when I referred to you as a maroon I was neither posting in my capacity as moderator nor thinking that which you ascribe to me. You don't get to speculate on my thought processes without comment. Read my words again, in context this time. Better yet, have an appropriate adult read them to you. Either way, quit cherry picking people's words to prop up your own sad points.

Did you see why Stimbo used to word "maroon"? It was directed at the person who argued that evolution "theory" is fact, and Stimbo thought I was the one arguing it. As you can see, I was arguing against evolution theory being fact.

Do you see why I called you a maroon? You are the one deliberately conflating the biological, observable fact of evolution with the theory of evolution which describes how that fact works. I was pointing out that they are two very different things and only extreme dishonesty or pathological idiocy cannot recognise that after it's been pointed out numerous times. Which is it in this case?

Now you have also made the same fallacious claim about "theory" being "fact." According to Stimbo, a person who thinks "theory" is fact is a "maroon". You follow my drift?

With reference to my previous paragraph, if you are confusing theory with fact after repeatedly being corrected, you are getting off lightly with "maroon". You follow my drift?

[Tonus]

Now, I know wikipedia isn't a great source,

Don't worry, you're talking to someone who uses the Watchtower Society's book on creationism as a source.

[Alter2Ego]

Unfortunately A2E it turns out you are wrong again. Evolution is both theory and fact. Since you seem to be having such trouble comprehending that something can be both theory and fact I suggest you give Maelstrom's little experiment from post 124 a try and experience this truth for yourself.

ALTER2EGO -to- POPEYESPAPPY:
Don't you wish it were.

Of course certain things can be Fact or Law and also have a theory. For instance, the Law of Gravity is a description of the actual phenomena and the Theory of Gravity is simply an attempt at explaining why and how the phenomena occurs. Two entirely different things.


The same cannot be said for evolution theory. There is no such thing as "evolution fact" or "evolution law". There is only evolution theory. And as previously stated, a scientific theory is a group of hypotheses that can be disproven.


Evolution theory has long since been disproven by the gaps in the fossils record. Not one single bone has ever been found that connects one creature with something entirely different. That's why the proevolution scientists frequently lament the "gaps" in the fossils record.

[Cyberman]

Oh ffs, not this shit again:

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

---

Also see:

What is the Scientific Method?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

[Michael Schubert]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously).

Yep, I knew you were leading us off the deep end when I first read this. All creationists make this mistake, even after atheists explain it to them again and again and again.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ACCIDENTAL. Every biological step in the evolutionary chain is built upon the previous. We know that evolution is true by examining transitional fossils. Listen to this:

And then there's the direct evidence for evolution, in all its sprawling grandeur. We know evolution is true from genetic studies which show that all species share deep similarities at the genetic level. In fact, by charting which species' genomes share the same one-off mutations, we can build evolutionary trees which show the patterns of relationship between species and allow us to estimate when they branched from each other. This nested hierarchy, the pattern produced by descent with modification, binds all living and extinct species together in an unbreakable web of heredity and kinship, every bit as real as the one that connects you to your ancestors and your living relatives.

If evolutionary science were false, then there would be no vaccines today. Vaccines and all medical science is derived from evolutionary science. Evolutionary science says that all organisms start off as a smaller life form, and with time grow into a larger, more complex life form. That is precisely the model that scientists use when developing vaccines that kill viruses and pathogens before they can evolve into larger life forms and possibly kill the victim.

As for the Genesis creation account, that was not written by (a) God. It was written by mortal men who knew nothing about the process of creation and believed the world was flat. It is not based on anything scientific; in fact, for all we know, the writers of the Holy Bible were making all of that up. The Holy Bible is not based on actual observations that anyone made. Genesis claims that God created the heavens, the earth, and the universe. How did the writers know? They did not witness this. They were born after God supposedly created everything. In contrast to evolution (a proven fact) you are saying God jumped out of nowhere and POOF! it all appeared. There are no science or facts behind that (creation science is an oxymoron). You are also making the A Priori Fallacy, in which you start with the conclusion and cherry pick the facts to support your preconceived conclusion. In science, it is called the God of the Gaps fallacy, in which you say "science can't explain this and this, therefore god did it". All the creationists do is say "this all looks like creation, therefore it had to have a creator".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_...0A&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzF8SMQOxU

---

The same cannot be said for evolution theory. There is no such thing as "evolution fact" or "evolution law". There is only evolution theory. And as previously stated, a scientific theory is a group of hypotheses that can be disproven.


Evolution theory has long since been disproven by the gaps in the fossils record. Not one single bone has ever been found that connects one creature with something entirely different. That's why the proevolution scientists frequently lament the "gaps" in the fossils record.

No, no single certified scientist has ever found evidence against evolution. The quote above shows that you are either making that up, or you don't understand anything about evolution. There are no gaps at all in fossil records. When analyzing the transitional fossils, you will see that different species of animals all share similar genomes, and with those genomes you can build family trees to map out exactly where each species of bird, fish, and other species branched off into different sub sets. Therapsids are the intermediate species between reptiles and mammals; The human-like Homo Hominids are the evolved forms of Homo Sapiens.

You are catering to the biblical ideologies, which reject all concrete evidence that disproves your doctrinaire bible's teachings.

[Esquilax]

The same cannot be said for evolution theory. There is no such thing as "evolution fact" or "evolution law". There is only evolution theory. And as previously stated, a scientific theory is a group of hypotheses that can be disproven.

So disprove it. And remember, we're talking science here; actual, falsifiable evidence is needed. Simply asserting something baselessly, like you did below, hardly counts.

Evolution theory has long since been disproven by the gaps in the fossils record. Not one single bone has ever been found that connects one creature with something entirely different. That's why the proevolution scientists frequently lament the "gaps" in the fossils record.

So, when scientists used evolutionary theory to predict exactly which stratographic layer they'd need to dig in to find a transitional form between fish and tetrapods, and then literally found one there, it was just an accident? Hmm?

[little_monkey]

Explaining evolution to a creationist is like teaching calculus to someone who failed high school algebra. It's a waste of time.

[Esquilax]

Explaining evolution to a creationist is like teaching calculus to someone who failed high school algebra. It's a waste of time.

Oh, I dunno about that. Doing so certainly gets me to research things I wouldn't have otherwise looked at, if just to debunk creationist idiocy. I tend to rage-educate like that a lot, lately.

[little_monkey]

Ok, good for you.