1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Esquilax]

[downbeatplumb]

[Tonus]

What's a/f/k?

Away From Keyboard. It's what happens when your Orc wizard idles for too long.

[downbeatplumb]

[Undeceived]

[Esquilax]

[Undeceived]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Time to split the thread or start a new one. It stopped being about ASK and moved into creationism/evolution.

[downbeatplumb]

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There can be more than one way to explain and interpret the present facts. How do you choose? By presupposing. Creationism also explains the facts.

scientific theory
Web definitions
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable".
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The idea of creationism is not falsifiable because it relies on the impossible deity so does meet the criteria.

I can make up any old shit to explain things that fit the facts.

But to have a chance of being true they must also have evidence for them.

I could say invisible pxies punch creatures into new shapes in the egg/womb so that they develop into the "right shape" or I could say that tabitha from bewitched has made herself immortal and wiggles her little nose to make the animals the way she wants.

These explain the facts but are wrong they also have as much evidence for them as creationism.

You attack evolution because:

A: You don't fully understand it. It is a complex ever developing theory which is one the most exciting in modern science, which when appreciated is amazing.

B: You really want it to not be true.

But what you have missed is that even if evolution was wrong (which it isn't) it would not be evidence for creationism.

That is why you focus on destroying evolution, (and piss poor you are at it too), your beliefs have not factual basis that you can point to, Creationism no proof at all.

[Esquilax]

There are other reasons for believing God exists. From those, we derive Creationism. Creationism did not appear in response to Evolution, but has been a staple belief since the beginning of humanity.

It's also been a staple belief since then that the earth was flat. Surprisingly, that was wrong; so's creationism.

The number one reason: life/material cannot create itself. In order to avoid infinite regress there needs to be a first efficient cause. By definition, any cause outside of the natural world is supernatural. Even if you throw the (circular) “quantum fluctuations” argument at me, that process would still be called supernatural and therefore, to use your word, "magical".

You're conflating abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution deals with life that already exists, abiogenesis is the theory of life's beginnings. This isn't even an argument against evolution.

Do you see the big difference between the digits of the Tiktaalik and Acanthostega? We are looking for transitional fossils between these two. None of the species here are close enough to be considered a modified version of another. They each boast tremendous differences, and are found across the world. The Acanthostega is half the size (or less) of the Tiktaalik. It's skull is stouter, and so on. Every part is slightly or moderately different. Hundreds, if not thousands, of beneficial mutations lie between.

So? They're still transitional forms, no matter whether you feel like the changes are distinct enough. People who actually study this stuff have come to that conclusion, and yet you're going against people who know better because they disagree with your presupposition.

Besides, there probably are additional organisms in the lineage between these things. But that doesn't change the facts. Saying it is would be like saying I'm not my father's son because you never met my great great grandfather. Morphologically, these fossils are transitional, even if you don't think they're transitional enough.

Of course the species are well mapped. That only shows good artistry. Do you have any links to hard evidence for the dino-birds and fish-tetrapods-- some that are actually close in relationship? The links you have provided so far have only further demonstrated to me how vague arguments are for Evolution. Which suggests (to finally being the point around) how much the theory is reliant on one's prior beliefs. There is no confirming, undeniable evidence for macroevolution, and it doesn't appear there will ever be.

Do I have to keep mentioning the indisputable genetic and laboratory data, or are you going to keep spouting fanfiction about your pet god? Only one of us has actual evidence, dude; focusing on this one little area of it doesn't discredit everything else that proves evolution.

Look, I'm aware this is a divergence from the thread topic. It probably should be split off, or we should make a new one to continue this, I don't wanna step on anyone's toes here.