Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stripe]

Explain why?

Nah. It's better if you figure it out for yourself. :thumb:

Now, are you going to find these elusive posts, or are you going to continue whining?

 

[6days]

Hey, 6days,

If "in the beginning my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created (X, Y, Z)", doesn't mean "Goddidit!!!" please explain what it DOES mean.

In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth, and everything in them. Genesis 1:1

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nah. It's better if you figure it out for yourself. :thumb:

Now, are you going to find these elusive posts, or are you going to continue whining?

I'd appreciate some direction in finding said posts, since they are yours

 

[Silent Hunter]

Hey, 6days,

If "in the beginning my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created (X, Y, Z)", doesn't mean "Goddidit!!!" please explain what it DOES mean.

In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth, and everything in them. Genesis 1:1

Well, thanks for admitting your, "Strawman!!!", claim was a lie. You've admitted to one lie... only 999,999 lies left... time for you to man-up.

"In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z", Genesis 1:1.

How creationists explain everything... I don't/can't/won't try to understand X, Y, and Z, therefore, "Goddidit!!!"

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, thanks for admitting your, "Strawman!!!", claim was a lie. You've admitted to one lie... only 999,999 lies left... time for you to man-up.

"In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z", Genesis 1:1.

How creationists explain everything... I don't/can't/won't try to understand X, Y, and Z, therefore, "Goddidit!!!"

At least we have a theory of origins. You don't even have that.

 

[6days]

Well, thanks for admitting your, "Strawman!!!", claim was a lie. You've admitted to one lie... only 999,999 lies left... time for you to man-up.

How creationists explain everything... I don't/can't/won't try to understand X therefore, "Goddidit!!!"

Hunter...you obviously do not know what a straw man argument is. You have been repeatedly asked to provide a quote and context when someone uses 'goddidit or 'God created' to explain everything. YES... God created.... the evidence supports that... We believe it.

So... once again, if you think someone uses 'God Did it' as an argument, and without context, then challenge it. But to just keep hollering 'Strawman' suggests you are unable, or unwilling to respond to a persons actual argument.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, thanks for admitting your, "Strawman!!!", claim was a lie. You've admitted to one lie... only 999,999 lies left... time for you to man-up.

"In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z", Genesis 1:1.

How creationists explain everything... I don't/can't/won't try to understand X, Y, and Z, therefore, "Goddidit!!!"

Hunter...you obviously do not know what a straw man argument is.

Sure I do. Would you like to see an example of one of your (many) straw men? Read on.

You have been repeatedly asked to provide a quote and context when someone uses 'goddidit or 'God created' to explain everything. YES... God created.... the evidence supports that... We believe it.

Explain everything? No, that's YOUR straw man. Context, remember? Creationists use, "Goddidit!!!" to explain everything they don't/can't/won't try to understand... such as biological evolution.

The creationist idea of "evidence" consists of... "I've concluded X is too complex to have occurred naturally therefore, goddidit!!!".

So... once again, if you think someone uses 'God Did it' as an argument, and without context, then challenge it.

I've pointed out your use of, "Goddidit!!!" on multiple occasions. Those examples have been ignored by you and are now buried in multiple threads.

"In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z", Genesis 1:1", is a prime example.

But to just keep hollering 'Strawman' suggests you are unable, or unwilling to respond to a persons actual argument.

What? Yelling, "Strawman!!!" at every opportunity is YOUR M.O., not mine.

6days, your dishonesty is appalling but I know you can't help yourself. Perhaps you should seek professional assistance to help you figure out why you lie so often.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, thanks for admitting your, "Strawman!!!", claim was a lie. You've admitted to one lie... only 999,999 lies left... time for you to man-up.

"In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z", Genesis 1:1.

How creationists explain everything... I don't/can't/won't try to understand X, Y, and Z, therefore, "Goddidit!!!"

At least we have a theory of origins.

You don't even have that.

Creationists have a religious conviction, that's not a "theory". Creationists are uncomfortable with, "I don't know", so they invented "god" to explain everything they don't, can't, or won't try to understand.

 

[6days]

Creationists have a religious conviction, that's not a "theory".

Correct... We consider it a fact.(A fact based on evidence)
In the beginning, God created!

 

[Stripe]

I'd appreciate some direction in finding said posts, since they are yours

On the right of your screen is a scroll bar. At the top of the page are page numbers. :up:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Creationists have a religious conviction, that's not a "theory". Creationists are uncomfortable with, "I don't know", so they invented "god" to explain everything they don't, can't, or won't try to understand.

Correct...

FINALLY!!! You will find it liberating as you admit to even more of your mistakes.

We consider it (the religious conviction, "Goddidit!!!, SH) a fact. (A fact based on evidence.)

The creationist idea of "evidence" consists of... "I've looked at the 'evidence of X' and have concluded X is too complex to have occurred naturally therefore, goddidit!!!".

In the beginning, God created!

In other words, "In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z!"

I've pointed out your use of, "Goddidit!!!" on multiple occasions. Those examples have been ignored by you and are now buried in multiple threads. I'm sure your latest, quoted above, will soon join them.

6days, your dishonesty is appalling but I know you can't help yourself. Perhaps you should seek professional assistance to help you figure out why you lie so often.

 

[6days]

The creationist idea of "evidence" consists of... "I've looked at the 'evidence of X' and have concluded X is too complex to have occurred naturally therefore, goddidit!!!"

Will you provide an example?

 

[Greg Jennings]

On the right of your screen is a scroll bar. At the top of the page are page numbers. :up:

Is it on this thread?

 

[jsanford108]

Interesting thread, good sir or madam.

There are a few key issues/fallacies within your OP, which I will lovingly address.

Intro

I have created this thread for the single purpose of settling the long-running discussions about the veracity of evolution in the scientific sense (yeah, very ambitious, I know).

I would like to keep this thread as concise as possible by providing a summary for all the arguments from both sides that I will be keeping up-to-date in the first few posts.


IMPORTANT:
The purpose here is solely to talk about science - not about faith, philosophy, theology or ethics or anything else unrelated.

Sounds like a plan. Let's stick to it.

Any feedback is appreciated and I'll try to adjust accordingly.

I assure you, logic and data will test this. Especially regarding the philosophy parts.

Proposition

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact. It explains every observation concerning biodiversity on our planet and is not contradicted by anything in the natural world.

And, false. Evolutionary theory is not an established scientific fact. A fact would be a constant or a law. Theory, by definition, is not a law. A theory is a proposed explanation for observable data, providing a possible phenomenon as an explanation. If said theory can be replicated or reproduced, yielding the same resulting data that corresponds to what is readily observable, then the theory can be classified (officially) a law, and thus, a fact.

One need look no further than Heliocentric theory. The earth was flat and solar system revolved around the earth. This theory was defended as "established fact." Naturally, evidence was presented and observed that conflicted with this theory. Long story short: Heliocentric theory and flat earth theory was disproved.

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!

Is this philosophy creeping in?

Definitions

Evolution:
Gradual change over time

Biological evolution:
Evolution of populations of living organisms.
Commonly known as: "descent with modifications"
Formally known as: "changing of allele frequencies across generations"

Scientific method:
The process of systematic investigation of the properties and behaviour of any system by empirical means and inductive inference, which improves its own conclusions by repeated validation of predictions and deductive hypotheses.
a.k.a "methodological naturalism"
Formally: Ask a question --> design experiment/observation --> analyse data and draw tentative conclusion --> critically evaluate the conclusion by asking deeper questions and attempting to falsify the conclusion

I appreciate that you outlined definitions, as it truly enables progressive conversation and discussion.

I would also add that science deals solely with the natural. Scientific methodical experiments can only hypothesize and test natural phenomenon. This is the very core of science: to explain that which occurs naturally.

Scientific theory:
A comprehensive body of knowledge corresponding to the current consensus about a particular scientific subject. A theory is comprised of all relevant facts, laws and explanations. A scientific theory is the highest degree of confidence available for any field of study.

False again. Law is the highest degree of confidence available for any field of study.

A theory is comprised of all relevant observable facts, laws, constants, etc. It also includes possible, highly probable explanations, based on the observable facts, laws, constants, etc. This is what makes it a "theory."

Rules

• Be polite!
• Stay on point
• Address every argument and explain your position
• Don't assume that others know what you mean - provide references
• Keep an open mind
• Enjoy!

VERY IMPORTANT:
In order to guarantee a fair discussion and that everyone is on the same page here, I'd like to ask all of you to be patient and first let's establish a consensus regarding the format that I have proposed before we delve into the actual conversation.
So please, don't start arguing just yet, I'll announce in due course when the preparations are complete. Right now, I'd like to ask for feedback on what you think about this idea and the current setup.


I propose the following order:

STEP 1: Agree on terms

STEP 2: Agree on initial positions

STEP 3: fight!

Again, I think this is a very productive approach to conversation and discussion. I thank you for this, as I do think it will always allow a referential point to keep us on task/point.

This is the position of accepting the proposition as stated in the initial post.


Why should biological evolution be accepted
(sorted by argument strength)

• Science works!
• Opposition to evolution is generally led and perpetuated dishonestly

The second point here is opinion and not based on fact. Sure, many opponents to evolutionary theory are dishonest or ignorant (usually intentionally) of evidence and facts.

If you are truly making a generalization, then I would agree that you are accurate. If not, and you are stating that all opposition is as stated, then you are promoting an aggregate falsehood.

What would change your mind

A global century-old conspiracy of fabricating evidence is revealed.

Again, if this is a general projection, then I agree. However if not, my former point stands true.


Is there any particular claim that you wish to begin with or have addressed? I am open to civil, logical discussion, with anyone in the thread. If you are closed in mind, arrogant/dismissive, or willfully ignorant, then there is no need to worry about receiving a response, as you are not seeking discussion, but rather a soapbox to spew your filth.

 

[Silent Hunter]

The creationist idea of "evidence" consists of... "I've looked at the 'evidence of X' and have concluded X is too complex to have occurred naturally therefore, goddidit!!!".

In other words, "In the beginning, my-preferred-personally-constructed-deity created X, and Y, and Z!"

Will you provide an example?

Seriously? I've provided several examples of creationists effectively claiming, "Just look how complex DNA is, there is no way it could have formed naturally. The only possible explanation is, goddidit!!!" Each of which you have ignored and are now buried in this and other threads.

6days, your dishonesty is appalling but I know you can't help yourself. Perhaps you should seek professional assistance to help you figure out why you lie so often.

 

[6days]

Seriously? I've provided several examples of creationists effectively claiming, "Just look how complex DNA is, there is no way it could have formed naturally. The only possible explanation is, goddidit!!!"

Sorry, but you are confused. What I have seen is creationists argue that DNA is EVIDENCE of our Creator.... strong evidence! If you know of any code that is sent, transcribed and requires action that does not have an Intelligent Creator, let us know.


Hunter...what you are trying to say in regards to DNA? Evolutiondidit? Are you saying you only accept explanations that don't involve an Intelligent creator?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Seriously? I've provided several examples of creationists effectively claiming, "Just look how complex DNA is, there is no way it could have formed naturally. The only possible explanation is, goddidit!!!"

Sorry

Well, it is about time you apologized for your deceitful tactics. You should still seek help to find out if you actively lie on purpose or if lying is just a part of your personality.

... but you are confused.

No, I'm not confused, you have been using, "Goddidit!!!" for quite some time now. I'm glad you are finally admitting to your lie that my counter was a straw man.

What I have seen is creationists argue that DNA is EVIDENCE of our Creator.... strong evidence! If you know of any code that is sent, transcribed and requires action that does not have an Intelligent Creator, let us know.

This is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Hunter...what you are trying to say in regards to DNA? Evolutiondidit? Are you saying you only accept explanations that don't involve an Intelligent creator?

We don't understand why or how life exists, however, unlike creationists, scientists who really want to understand aren't ready to throw their collective hands up in the air and declare, "Goddidit!!!", because life is something not completely understood. If our understanding were controlled by creationists, we might as well still believe the source of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!".

 

[6days]

This is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

It is based on evidence and logic that codes which are sent, transcribed and require action have an Intelligent Creator. As Bill Gates says, DNA is the most sophisticated software in inexistence.

We don't understand why or how life exists...

But, you are willing to consider and follow the evidence which may lead to a Holy omnipotent omniscient Creator?

 

[Silent Hunter]

This is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

It is based on evidence and logic that codes which are sent, transcribed and require action have an Intelligent Creator.

"Goddidit!!!" as an explanation simply relocates the problem. If the complexity of DNA demands an advanced designer, then something as complex as your personal-preferred-deity should surely require a proportionally advanced designer to explain his existence.

Investigation of nature tells us that very complex systems exist that are not conscious and therefore cannot intend things, and nonetheless still manage to achieve complex, ordered results. We know that such complex systems can arise from simple components, the behavior of which is determined by their basic physical properties. So if we know that complexity can arise from simple components, and that complexity can be achieved without conscious intent, then it stands to reason that a molecule like DNA could have arisen in such a scenario.

The details of how life began on this planet are as of yet unknown. Surely, whatever they are, they are probably amazing and not at all intuitive. So appealing to incredulity is more than a little out of place in such a discussion.

As Bill Gates says, DNA is the most sophisticated software in inexistence.

Yeah? So?

We don't understand why or how life exists...

But, you are willing to consider and follow the evidence which may lead to a Holy omnipotent omniscient Creator?

I always like how you ask a question and avoid the answer that was there all the time...

Unlike creationists, scientists who really want to understand (the origin of life) aren't ready to throw their collective hands up in the air and declare, "Goddidit!!!", because life is something not completely understood. If our understanding were controlled by creationists, we might as well still believe the source of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!".

For creationists, "Goddidit!!!" is where the "evidence" will always lead because, "Goddidit!!!" is the easiest way to solve a difficult problem.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

It's almost better to avoid the word entirely since evolutionists can't help but equivocate the word from observational science / adaptation, to their belief that 'bacteria' evolved into biologists. IOW, there are is more precise terminology that can be used.

Then what terminology would you use instead?