Do you believe in creation or evolution?

[Gandalf]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

[Alpha]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

There would be millions of these in between/ transitional fossils.

Evolution doesn't even hold up to the scientific method of being able to be observed, measured and repeated.

[goti71]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

There would be millions of these in between/ transitional fossils.

Evolution doesn't even hold up to the scientific method of being able to be observed, measured and repeated.

A crucial aspect to this matter is that the actual meaning of the word theory in a scientific sense (based on observation and on the scientific method) doesn't have anything to do with its meaning in common parlance; the colloquial meaning of theory would be equivalent to the concept of a mere hypothesis or conjecture in science.

So in science, a theory is formulated precisely because there is evidence to support it.

And it can be observed and measured too; a greater genetic difference is observed between species, the more apart they are .

And repeated; mutation/selective pressure on bacteria and viruses leading to different strains, etc.


So even if the fossil record disappeared in a puff of smoke, the genetic evidence would lead to the same conclusions (branching apart more and more the further apart two species are in evolution).

And all fossils are transitional. Even the bones in the graveyard are transitional.


That's just my basic understanding of it.

[walrus]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

People use that but the fact that fossils of 200 million year old fossils of sponges exist show most things can remain

[Spicoli]

A man has to know his limits and this may be above my paygrade . But I'm much more of a evolution kinda guy. Can someone give me the quick..real quick..definition of creationism and when it was God is said to have snapped his fingers, the big bang?

[Spicoli]

Just pointing out, that if there was plenty of 'evidence' it would no longer be a theory.

If there was some much evidence why would they keep trying to fabricate it?

If there was a perfect fossil record, then there would be something truly wrong. It is not as though over hundreds of millions of years the corpses of creatures were archived and kept in perfect underground crypts. If anything we are lucky enough to have the pieces of the jigsaw that we have. Thus it must remain a theory as that is a reasonable and scientific thing to do.

Does the iceman count?

Isn't it fairly easy to see some physical evidence of how we've evolved.

[Gandalf]

I think so. There are plenty of fossils to suggest Darwin was right and it is the best idea posited. If there was no evidence it would be a problem but all the evidence fits into the puzzle. It can never be complete due to erosion. Shouldn't be an issue unless you take the Bible as absolute truth. In which case you likely have a low IQ and should be ignored.

[Alpha]

The ad hominem stuff is weak Gandalf, I therefore apologize to anyone offended by me calling evolution a joke, although I was attacking the substance of the argument itself, rather than persons associated with the argument. If that's your opinion, your are entitled to it. And I have already said I don't believe in the God or Jesus of the bible.

In reply to Fenster, there is a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.

The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to construct the past does have a lot in common with modern day CSI. In both cases, there is an attempt to use to use good science to reconstruct the past.

CSI shows try to give us the impression that CSI is all about the facts and that the facts speak for themselves. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science works. The facts can't speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past. Basically the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic interference is large, and filled with questionable assumptions.

Take the dingo ate my baby case, Lindy Chamberlian her conviction was based on scientific forensic evidence, interpreted by fallible human beings, which lead to the false reconstruction of the past. Despite these uncertainties and spectacular failures, forensic science and historical science can be useful in helping to investigate the past. Cases can be built primarily on forensic evidence that is sufficient to lead to convictions that match with eye witness accounts or later confessions.

However, CSI is a methodology, not a conclusion. The same forensic approach can be used by creationists, using a different starting point (i,e, different assumptions about the past) to reach a different conclusion from the same facts.

It's usually obvious when a crime has been committed. But CSI teams typically don't just assume that one happened. An investigation will close if suspicious circumstances turn out not to be so i.e there's been no crime. But what about when it comes to rocks and fossils, and even the structure and patterns of living organisms today? There, it's like always assuming that a dead body is always indicative of a crime, evolution and long ages are assumed in advance to be the only reasonable explanation available. CSI leaves open the possibility that a crime didn't cause the crime scene, but evolutionists always assume the rocks and fossils reserve an evolutionary story. The question for them is not so much whether evolution happened, but how.

This is getting a bit long, but timeline is an important part of establishing what happened in a crime. But establishing a timeline based on forensic evidence alone is tricky and fraught with many questionable assumptions. This is the case when CSI teams have decades worth of data showing that their clocks are generally reliable. Many forensic investigators have seen their clocks work, they have been verified by eyewitness reports. they have also seen when and how they fail.

Evolutionists have never seen their clocks work. Ho could they? We haven't been investigating anywhere near long enough to verify million year timelines!
Radiocarbon dating is flawed and carbon dating is only reliable and accurate to around 60,000 years.

I'll just leave a few quick things, I'd ask anyone to look into geology, it's huge jigsaw, but look at coal, granite, strata, basalt columns, mudfloods etc in regards to secondary plutonium halos and how quickly they can be created.

For conspiracy theorists, the elite use National Geographic and the history channel to mind control us and sway the masses. Now National Geographic was owned by 20th century Fox, a mass media corporation, but has now been purchased by Disney. The History channel was already owned by Disney.

[Gandalf]

Alpha that was not Ad Hominem as such and certainly not an attack on you as you do not appear to be religious. There are no doubt highly intelligent religious people and you treat everyone as an individual, but there are numerous studies that have looked at the correlation between intelligence and religion. Here is a piece that summarizes dozens of investigations. I find these kinds of topics interesting thus I bring up IQ every now and then. Anyone who believes in the Bible at face value has to be, inevitably, less of a critical thinker than someone who questions what it is they are reading.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...planations.pdf

[Fenster]

Not sure what Alpha believes, he keeps copy and pasting creationist "science" but not even they believe in flat earths and what not, do they? They're all about god and the bible literally.

[Alpha]

Alpha that was not Ad Hominem as such and certainly not an attack on you as you do not appear to be religious. There are no doubt highly intelligent religious people and you treat everyone as an individual, but there are numerous studies that have looked at the correlation between intelligence and religion. Here is a piece that summarizes dozens of investigations. I find these kinds of topics interesting thus I bring up IQ every now and then. Anyone who believes in the Bible at face value has to be, inevitably, less of a critical thinker than someone who questions what it is they are reading.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-conte...planations.pdf

Yea but it's directed at a person rather than their position.

Like I have said before, people are like sheep and easily manipulated by propaganda and by those in authority. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a low IQ.

Not sure what Alpha believes, he keeps copy and pasting creationist "science" but not even they believe in flat earths and what not, do they? They're all about god and the bible literally.

Sure I copy and paste, some but not all, don't we all? I agree with what's being stated, just don't won't to type it out myself.

I think it would be safe to say that most flat earthers disagree with evolution. I could be wrong tho. I wouldn't be able to tell you what % believe in god and the bible tho. Most that I deal with tho don't. Preferring to focus on things we have experience with rather than speculate.

Intelligent design seems right to me. But not god or the bible.

Anything you want to ask, by all means go ahead, I'm more than happy to tell you what I believe, but I think it's already been stated.