Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[PLAYER57832]

This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists ) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !

http://qc.createdebate.com/img/blog_article_images/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg
Check it out

Nice link.

The problem is (and not just on this topic) too many people today don't actually bother to even know their opponents views well enough to counter them, they instead create irrelevant or plain fictitious "arguments", refute those fictitious or irrelevant points and then claim they have "disproven" the topic.

The above reference to waves and the age of the Universe is one good example. A better one, in the case of Widowmaker, is his assertion that because God must have created the Universe (I agree with that point), the Big Bang did not occur and therefore Evolution is wrong.

A program I saw on CBN talked about vestigial parts in human beings (they mentioned something like 70) and complexities of the hemoglobin molecule as if they were proof that evolution is false. Instead of facts, is "this just doesn't make sense". Well, of course things don't make sense when you cannot be bothered to study real data and information!

[PLAYER57832]

there has to be a God.
Every time i see this thread has reared its ugly head again I mutter Ohhhh Godddd....

I know right? These young earth creationists make all religion look bad...

Very true!

[jonesthecurl]

This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists ) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !

http://qc.createdebate.com/img/blog_article_images/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg
Check it out

yes, but you are an ass hat.



(what's an ass hat?)

[MeDeFe]

This thread has been a fraud from the start, the OP made no attempt to make a scientific case for Creationism ( wisely so considering that no case exists ) and instead , like all Young Earthers, seeks instead to discredit Evolution in the mistaken belief that somehow that strengthens his own cause, as I said before it doesn't !

http://qc.createdebate.com/img/blog_article_images/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg
Check it out

yes, but you are an ass hat.



(what's an ass hat?)

Are you still being willfully stupid?




(Let's work our way up the pyramid)

[jonesthecurl]

What sort of a question is that? What's that got to do with the price of beans?

[MeDeFe]

It is a perfectly reasonable question and has everything to do with the topic at hand.

[jonesthecurl]

Well, the fact is that that hierarchy thing is nonsense, as is plain to everyone.

[MeDeFe]

Actually it is a very reasonable model for debate, as we are currently demonstrating. You need to reflect on the behaviour you yourself have been displaying as well as take the other debater's behaviour into account.

[jonesthecurl]

Merely because one can "Maslowise" the argument does not make the point any more valid. The "Hierarchy of needs" is a model based on deep thought and with serious philosphical implications. The "Maslowized" triangle model of "hierarchy of argument" is merely a prettification of an obvious insight of dubious value.

It also only applies when one side of the argument is clearly wrong.

[Snorri1234]

there has to be a God.
Every time i see this thread has reared its ugly head again I mutter Ohhhh Godddd....

It could also be an Ohhh God.

[Neoteny]

Hey look. States graded based on their standards for teaching evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/9u0 ... ltext.html

[john9blue]

Hey look. States graded based on their standards for teaching evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/9u0 ... ltext.html

I think it's interesting how they claim that evolution cannot be fully understood by high-school students, yet they want them to take the teachings on faith anyway, while at the same time condemning intelligent design for not being "scientific". ID, in its very broadest sense, is a scientific theory and not mutually exclusive from evolution, and it is worth at least a mention in biology classrooms. Also I don't think the theory of evolution, properly taught, is beyond the reach of most high school students.

[Neoteny]

I agree on the last part, but I disagree that ID is scientific in any capacity. Attempting (unsuccessfully) to poke holes in a theory while posturing an untestable alternative is not scientific in the least.

Evolution is not a particularly difficult topic to understand, it's just extraordinarily broad.

[Frigidus]

Hey look. States graded based on their standards for teaching evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/9u0 ... ltext.html

That's very depressing.

[thegreekdog]

Player, Pennsylvania got an "A" on this comparison. Thoughts?

[john9blue]

WOW I just read more. Look at these standards:

• “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student;” (The revised Process Skill 3A, for all scientific subjects)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;” (7A, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell;” (7G, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life;” (9D, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data;” (4A, for Earth and Space Science)
• “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation and current theories of the evolution of the universe, including estimates for the age of the universe.” (8A, for Earth and Space Science)

Reasonable, right? Not to these people- they gave it an F because it encourages students to analyze and evaluate evolution rather than taking it on blind faith! It's like these people are afraid that others might reach a different conclusion than they do. Even the title is misleading: "Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up". Funny how a report centering on criticism against states for not having the word "evolution" in their standards doesn't even have evolution in its own title. These people won't even treat evolution as a theory; they give it a different standard. This is the most dogmatic excuse for a "scientific report" I've ever read.

[Frigidus]

WOW I just read more. Look at these standards:

• “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student;” (The revised Process Skill 3A, for all scientific subjects)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;” (7A, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell;” (7G, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life;” (9D, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data;” (4A, for Earth and Space Science)
• “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation and current theories of the evolution of the universe, including estimates for the age of the universe.” (8A, for Earth and Space Science)

Reasonable, right? Not to these people- they gave it an F because it encourages students to analyze and evaluate evolution rather than taking it on blind faith! It's like these people are afraid that others might reach a different conclusion than they do. Even the title is misleading: "Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up". Funny how a report centering on criticism against states for not having the word "evolution" in their standards doesn't even have evolution in its own title. These people won't even treat evolution as a theory; they give it a different standard. This is the most dogmatic excuse for a "scientific report" I've ever read.

Well, evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. There's a difference between analyzing evolution and putting evolution in a doubtful light.

[jonesthecurl]

I think they should teach'em about phlogiston too.
Just because the scientists all say there's no such thing doesn't mean the theory shouldn't get an equal chance.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, Pennsylvania got an "A" on this comparison. Thoughts?

I was surprised. I don't believe my local district would rate that high, but I am glad the state is.

[PLAYER57832]

Hey look. States graded based on their standards for teaching evolution.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/9u0 ... ltext.html

I think it's interesting how they claim that evolution cannot be fully understood by high-school students, yet they want them to take the teachings on faith anyway, while at the same time condemning intelligent design for not being "scientific".

No, on several levels. That's like saying that not understanding geometry fully means kids should not be taught that a square has four equal sides. Or like saying that because your child cannot understand the full implications of right and wrong, you should not teach them "no".

That KIDS don't understand it does not mean its not real, first of all. Everything kids are taught is, to a point "taken on faith" until they get to the point that they can understand what has been taught. That is why it is critical to be sure that what we do teach them is real and factual.

Evolution itself is not that difficult to understand. What's more difficult is understanding the full and complete proof. And THAT is why Creationists, including those that use the term "intelligent design" (unless you mean Evolution, by the hand of God) take advantage of the confusion, the difficulty and insert statements like "[their theory] just doesn't make sense" or "this is more probable than that"... BUT ignore completely the evidence. Worse, what is provided (and I say this after a great deal of study on it!) is NOT PROOF at all.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are the ultimate "straw men". They purport to claim that Evolution just cannot be right, but anything they claim is proof is extremely flimsy, not backed by credible scientists and generally does not in any way use the scientific methods... that is, they make completely unproven statements and then attempt to lay these against Evolution and they declare "see how silly thier ideas are". Meanwhile, what THEY provide is plain garbage.

[ID, in its very broadest sense, is a scientific theory and not mutually exclusive from evolution, and it is worth at least a mention in biology classrooms.

In its broadest sense, the sense that many Christians have of Intelligent design, it is Evolution run by God. That is not science.

However, when that term is used for schools, textbooks, etc, it refers to theories largely created by Dr Morris. The problem is there is absolutely nothing new about his ideas, just the so-called "proof" he puts forward. The idea is the very idea that was disproven, not just by Darwin, but by many scientists before and since Darwin. Darwin happened to put it all down in a book mostly before the others, but he was hardly alone.

To claim that intelligent design is equal to Evolution, is in any way a scientific theory means, flat out, that you have either never learned real science and Evolution OR you are plain unaware of what is actually being taught under the heading "Intelligent Design".

Also I don't think the theory of evolution, properly taught, is beyond the reach of most high school students.

The article did not really say it was. It said that understanding the full breadth of Evolution is beyond most high school students.

[Neoteny]

WOW I just read more. Look at these standards:

• “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student;” (The revised Process Skill 3A, for all scientific subjects)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;” (7A, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell;” (7G, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life;” (9D, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data;” (4A, for Earth and Space Science)
• “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation and current theories of the evolution of the universe, including estimates for the age of the universe.” (8A, for Earth and Space Science)

Reasonable, right? Not to these people- they gave it an F because it encourages students to analyze and evaluate evolution rather than taking it on blind faith! It's like these people are afraid that others might reach a different conclusion than they do. Even the title is misleading: "Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up". Funny how a report centering on criticism against states for not having the word "evolution" in their standards doesn't even have evolution in its own title. These people won't even treat evolution as a theory; they give it a different standard. This is the most dogmatic excuse for a "scientific report" I've ever read.

Did you read the bit about creationist jargon?

A second strain of creationist language is perhaps more dangerous because it is more subtle. This strain directs the student to judge the validity of evolution—to “critique,” “assess,” or “evaluate” it. The Louisiana Science Education Act over-egged the pudding by urging teachers to help their students to “understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.”

To many Americans, this seems harmless or even laudable—why shouldn’t students practice evaluating the scientific theories they study? Of course, the answer is that students should do so—but only in a way that will in fact promote their understanding of science and that is otherwise pedagogically responsible. In the case of Louisiana, there is certainly reason to think that, on the contrary, evolution will be invidiously singled out for attention and that creationist critiques of evolution will be used. When Louisiana’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy about what types of supplementary classroom materials will, and will not, be allowable under the new law, a draft provision that “materials that teach creationism or intelligent design... shall be prohibited from use in science class” was deleted (Rosenau 2009).

The aspiration to have middle and high school students evaluate evolutionary theory, moreover, is not entirely realistic from a pedagogical perspective. Students should evaluate the scientific theories they study—but not before they fully understand those theories! As the foundation to the entire science of biology, evolutionary theory is vast and complex, resting on a variety of evidential bases from a number of scientific fields—all of which students are generally being introduced to for the first time in high school. Students will not finish learning about it in detail until, at minimum, their later years of college, and they will not begin seriously analyzing it and synthesizing their knowledge until graduate school. Expecting high school biology students to be able to evaluate evolutionary theory is no more reasonable than expecting high school physics students to evaluate quantum field theory. If students had the necessary knowledge and skills to make such judgments, there would be little reason for college science courses! Thus, the language we classify as “creationist jargon” is pedagogically unsound in and of itself, gives license to the use of creationist teaching materials, and is known in several cases to have been introduced by creationist legislators and policymakers for precisely this purpose.

[jonka]

These people won't even treat evolution as a theory; they give it a different standard.

Yes, they are taking away from its proven status as a theory, and treating it as mere postulation.

Anyways, public school is time for scientific study.
Private or Sunday school is time for ID.

[PLAYER57832]

WOW I just read more. Look at these standards:

• “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student;” (The revised Process Skill 3A, for all scientific subjects)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;” (7A, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell;” (7G, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life;” (9D, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data;” (4A, for Earth and Space Science)
• “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation and current theories of the evolution of the universe, including estimates for the age of the universe.” (8A, for Earth and Space Science)

Reasonable, right? Not to these people- they gave it an F because it encourages students to analyze and evaluate evolution rather than taking it on blind faith! It's like these people are afraid that others might reach a different conclusion than they do. Even the title is misleading: "Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up". Funny how a report centering on criticism against states for not having the word "evolution" in their standards doesn't even have evolution in its own title. These people won't even treat evolution as a theory; they give it a different standard. This is the most dogmatic excuse for a "scientific report" I've ever read.

Again, what you really show is that you were never taught real science. What is taught as fact IS fact. What is taught as theory is not 100% proven, but has a LOT of evidence backing it.

The ideas that all animals were created at once, that dinosaurs and other ancient animals did not make the ark, that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not millions are plain and simply PROVEN FALSE.

They are proven false in many, many, many ways.

Could Evolution be false? As a whole theory, there are parts of it that could be wrong, in fact are constantly being revised. For example, whether T-Rex was a predator (as is popularly believed at least by average folks) or was a scavenger, is debateable. How close T-Rex is to modern birds, is debateable, as are the exact connections between various ancient and modern species. (NOT connections between all species.. some are very well documented/represented in the fossil record.)


As a broad theory that animals evolve from other animals, that the Earth is old and that the fossil record presents a transition of species, that geologic layers are evidence of different time periods, that species change over time, that mutations occur, .. those things are fact.

[PLAYER57832]

This article comes directly from the Institute for Creation Science website. It is an excellent example of why these supposed proofs are so heavily criticized by true scientists:

Note if anyone else can add more to my critique, please do!


Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.[/quote]

First, where is the evidence that this is true?

Finding soft tissue preserved in fossils would be phenomenal! Any paleontology journal, most natural science journals would welcome any such evidence with open arms. If this is original research, then it needs to be presented to such a journal before it will be considered credible by the scientific community. No such data or proof has been presented to any scientific journal. It was not presented and rejected, it was not even presented!

IN FACT, the Smithsonian article in which the information was presented actually came to a very, very different conclusion!

If it is not original research, then it needs a citation to the original source. Again, the author provides nothing, just expects the reader to plain accept that this is true because he says it is true. Only when information is very widely accepted and proven are citations not needed. Most informatio in textbooks meets that definition ... so long proven, such widespread evidence that a citation is just not needed. You don't need a citation that H2O us water, you don't need a citation when saying that bees spread pollen from flower to flower, etc. Even so, most textbooks do provide those citations partly to show students what citations look like, to help those who wish to research the matters more and, yes becuase some people are still challenging information.

Since many think of a fossil as having had the original bone material replaced by minerals, the presence of actual bone--let alone pliable blood vessels, red blood cells, and proteins inside the bone--is quite extraordinary. These finds also present a dilemma. Given the fact that organic materials like blood vessels and blood cells rot, and the rates at which certain proteins decay, how could these soft tissues have been preserved for ten thousand, let alone 65 million or more, years?

Again, NO time at all was spent proving that this statement is true... the reader just has to take the author's word on it.

But, even if it were true, would this really and truly prove either that fossils are not original bone replaced by minerals OR that the bones were not really ancient? In fact, no.

What it would prove is that in some rare cases, living material can be encased and preserved within fossil material. How this could happen, etc would be a matter of further study.

These soft tissues have met with hard resistance from mainstream science, and some scientists have even discounted or ignored them. But fresh studies keep finding fresh tissue, making the issue difficult to dismiss. Either the vast evolutionary ages assigned to these finds are dramatically erroneous, or "we really don't understand decay" rates of the soft tissues and proteins.1

Again, where is the proof that this is real? Of course it is "met with hard resistance from mainstream science!" Science required proof. Further, look at any journal article presenting anything truly new and what follows? HUGE controversy. Science IS very slow to change ideas, becauase the standards of proof are very, very high. Creationists like to paint this as some kind of special attack against Creationism, but it really just how science works. If the proof is there, then science moves forward/changes. Creationists simply do not provide the proof.

Paleontologists who have analyzed the tissues, visible through their microscopes and squeezable with their tweezers, insist that something is fundamentally wrong with laboratory data on biochemical decay rates.2 In turn, biochemists are confident that their repeatable experiments show that the soft tissues should not be there after all this time. To try to get around the hard facts of soft tissues, some scientists have even proposed that the blood vessels and red blood cells in question were bacterial slime. This was thoroughly refuted, however, by research showing that the dinosaur tissue contains a collagen protein that bacteria do not produce.3

Again, more unsupported statements. Sounds perfectly logical, IF you take the initial assumption that these soft tissues were found as proof. However, the author neatly bypasses this and moves on to "arguments" for why this information reasonably presented is just being ignored. Its not being ignored, it was not presented in a factual way!

This dilemma between the science of biochemistry and the belief in millions of years is not going away. In addition to the well-characterized tissues from a T. rex reported by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer in 1997,4 2005,5 and 2007,6 new soft tissue finds keep surfacing. Schweitzer published a report on another sample in Science in 2009,3 this time from a hadrosaur, in which the precise characteristics of dinosaur biochemicals were verified by a third party. This was necessary to confirm the reality of the soft tissues to an incredulous scientific community. (Similarly, Schweitzer's 2007 results have also been verified.7)

Here might be some kind of proof. I will try to follow up on this if I can access the article in question. However, note that this published data is not verification of soft tissue, it is about the characteristics of dinosaur biiochemicals. Again, I will have to see the original article, but the paragraph is making several leaps in judgement that may or may not be true.

Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9

Schweitzer's team recently concluded that "the most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils."3 But biochemical decay rates showing that soft tissues would be dust after all this time are also thus far unfalsified (i.e., have not been disproved). Therefore, the millions-of-years age assignments must go.[/quote]
Again, suspicious wording, suspicious reference.

Bottom line, that something is not proven false, does NOT mean that "the millions-of-years age assignments must go". Even if all the above were true, (the soft tissue were there, etc.) it would prove that something strange happened in this case, it would not in any way disprove the reams of other evidence that DOES show the earth to be older. At the very best, it might possibly show that this particular dinosaur might have been alive later than was previously thought, though given the fossilized outside, I would doubt that.

However, if the deep time goes, then so does the grand story of evolution that depends on it. For many, that is too sacred an assumption to dare alter. Biblical data, however, not only provide the timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with observable data that their demise occurred when they "fell into a watery grave."8

Again, Evolutionists get accused of "making assumptions", yet that is all this article contains. Scientist rely upon proof and evidence. Creationists pretend to do so, but only to people who are not trained in what real scientific proof must entail.


COMPARE:

Again, I have not had time to look at all the articles cited in the above article, but here is an excerpt from the Smithsonian link:


Proteins are much too tiny to pick out with a microscope. To look for them, Schweitzer uses antibodies, immune system molecules that recognize and bind to specific sections of proteins. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. At an October 2005 paleontology conference, Schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens.

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”


IN OTHER WORDS, the article does NOT support Creationism in any way. So, why would a Christian lie? At best, it comes down to plain poor science knowledge and failure to understand research that is presented. However, after seeing article after Creationist article of this type, I can only believe there is some intentional and knowing false witness occcuring.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... z0Q96wFPT9

[john9blue]

Again, what you really show is that you were never taught real science. What is taught as fact IS fact. What is taught as theory is not 100% proven, but has a LOT of evidence backing it.

The ideas that all animals were created at once, that dinosaurs and other ancient animals did not make the ark, that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not millions are plain and simply PROVEN FALSE.

There's always misunderstanding about this. I don't know why I bother posting in this thread. Okay here we go:

- I was definitely taught "real science", and continue to teach myself "real science" to this day. No baseless personal attacks, thanks.
- "Creationism" is the theory that there was a supernatural force at work in the creation of the universe. That's IT. No arks, no coexisting dinosaurs and humans, or anything like that. Player I know you have a crusade against the latter definition, but try not to form stereotypes.
- What is today considered "supernatural" is not outside the realm of science. Like "creationism" people have pigeonholed the word "science" to encompass less than it really means. In ancient times the "heavens" were simply outer space, considered by most to be the realm of the gods only and outside human understanding. Science is nothing more than asking questions, collecting evidence, and finding answers. The God question and many other aspects of philosophy fall inside this definition.
- Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory. The pink unicorn is a theory. Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.
- The fact that these people treat evolution as a fact doesn't worry me all that much to be honest, seeing as it's almost 100% proven true. It's the people that claim:

• creationism = anything supernatural = Earth is 6,000 years old
• evolution explains the origin of everything
• evolution and creationism are incompatible
• therefore nothing supernatural exists

that bother me. If you buy into this line of thinking then I won't bother debating with you guys anymore.