Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

With this I must conclude that you indeed have nothing to say in support of your original claim, ergo it's now by definition invalid

 

If you want to believe that, go right ahead. Have a nice life.

 

In fact I don't go ahead and believe a theory to be scientifically valid just because someone else says or believes it to be so (without producing a shred of evidence or plausible argument required to confirm it's scientifical validity).

But you are indeed free to believe what you want and, likewise, I wish you have a nice life.

 

Hi jumbuli55,
It seems you have run into what I have come to think of as the “Wall of Evolution”.

Such as;

There is mountain of proof, there is so much proof for Evolution, that no one needs to prove Evolution because it has already been proven. Hasn’t it?

The fact that we are here, proves that Evolution is a fact.

Humans having a tail and an appendix are obvious proof that mankind is a product of Evolution.

Microevolution is proof of Macroevolution.

Everything evolved from a simple one celled life form. (even though there is no such thing as a “simple” one celled life form)

Animals mutate into a species that has a higher chance of survival. (even though many of the animals who had a “lower” chance of survival still survive)

Given enough time, Evolution is inevitable.

Since you can’t come up with a alternate “scientific” explanation of how we got here, Evolution is valid.

Since you are not a Evolutionist, you don’t know what the latest Evolutionary theory is and so your proofs are invalid because they don’t address the latest Evolutionary theory.

If there is something Evolution doesn’t answer, an answer will be forthcoming.

If the above comments don’t convince you that evolution is fact then they always seem to fall back on this last one:

Since Evolution is one of the finest scientific theories ever produced, anyone disagreeing with it obviously does not have a “scientific mind” and is uneducated and stupid. Thus there is no reason to even consider what they may say.

 

You got it OWB!

Congratulations :cheers2:

 

Greetings, OWB !

Please read my responce on this subject.
I posted it on another thread, copy-pasting it here

Jumbuli's Responce :

Don't waste your time , there are no advocates of evolutionary theory on this site who have a clue about what exactly theory they defend claims let alone how to plausibly prove it's validity.



In general, I would say that the real evolutionists ( I mean those who work in labs , get PhDs and what not ) should do a better job in convincing more sceptical minds of validity of the theory.
They have not succeeded in doing that yet.

As much as I tried to get a real grip of the theory , whenever I tried to find a hardcore argument in it's support it usually got too fuzzy (well, may be I didn't look in the right places. I have only libraries , bookstores and internet at my disposal. Or may be I was not knowledgable enough to truly understand it).

My impression was that they basically get a tiny bit of an evidence or perform some lab experiment, then they try to make it sound as big and complicated as possible [knowing that great majority of people not in a field won't comprehend what much of it implies anyway and will get confused in the process of information processing, to the degree that they(readers/public) will lose their own train of thought and ability to critically judge and apply strict rules of logic to the argument],
then based on that bit of an evidence evolutionists draw some very far reaching conclusions that sound almost arbitrary (I say arbitrary because there is no place you can find reasoning and logic behind conclusions elaborated in very detailed and convincing fashion as you would expect from the scientific theory. There are just tiny bits of evidence and very far reaching conclusions based on each one of those evidences).
Among scientists in evolutionary biology there is apparently no need of convincing proof or strong evidence since they all accept the validity of theory apriory and hold it to be agreed upon truth and thus declare it to be valid by definition.

This being said, you can't really challenge it if you yourself are not highly aware of all the details and intricacies of the theory , evidence and all lab results performed so far.
If you argue against it they will go in spiraling circles, getting the argument more and more complicated until you get to the point where you lack further academic knowledge of subject to dispute it.

And that's where most of those who attempt to seriously challenge it fail.


The challengers themselves don't know the theory well enough to be able to fundamentally challenge it.
Spetner, even though PhD in physics from MIT, has no background in evolutionary biology.
He took what evolutionists claimed yesterday, using the math of probability theory made some calculations based on his understanding of evolutionists assumptions (random mutation + natural selection = evolution in progress) and shown it couldn't work the way evolutionists claimed.
Next day evolutionists came up with another, newer interpretation of theory and some additional evidence which they claim Spetner did not address in his calculation and now Spetner or anyone else has to come up with a new challenge to what new evidence and interpretation is claimed to be there or they have to show that it was already addressed and there is nothing new to address.
This can continue ad infinitum.

As long as challenge does not come from within the ranks of evolutionary biologists themselves any challenge to it will be an opportunity for them to show how their theory can function in practice, by providing ever more complex evidence and newer, even more complex interpretation of it to support their general assumption.
And it is very unlikely for the challenge to come from within because you have to accept the premises of the theory to get in the field in the first place and once you are IN it is self-defeating and practically unsound thing to destroy it, since your livelyhood and that of all around you depend on it.


As to Creationists or ID advocates I don't know what those guys hope to achieve by challenging the evolutionary theory from religious standpoint.

Why do you think Evolutionists got it wrong?
Because God or Intelligent Designer has created universe.
But that's a religious assumption?
I can prove it scientifically.
Where do you get the premise of your argument?
In Bible.
How do you know it's so?
Because it's a word of God.
How do you know that?
Because I feel so.

That will never be taken seriously by anyone except those who share those feelings. And when it comes to assumptions based on feelings it is no longer scientific activity anyway. You are in effect trying to prove that the other theory lacks scientific grounds while your own which counters it is based on religion.


As I said earlier there are no advocates of evolutionary theory on this site who have a clue about what exactly theory they defend claims let alone how to plausibly prove it's validity.

I could add that there are no serious challengers of the Evolutionary theory either, on this site or elsewhere.

So it's basically a waste of time to discuss it , unless you want to do it for the sake of having a fun which I always approve of :cheers2:

 

It was pretty easy since those are the only things evolutionists say.

 

Although I do believe in creation, I do not consider myself a "Creationist or ID advocate" seeing as I don't believe most of what they say.

I will defend the Bibles view point but do not use it to try and disprove evolution, really don't need to, as evolution tends to collapse on it's own with out much outside help.

I don't claim that creation, as mentioned in the Bible' is a "scientific" theory but I do believe that it fits the scientific facts of the world around us and even better than does evolution.

The only problem that people have with creation is that you have to believe in a God for it to work and many people do not seem to want to do that.

 

Sometimes it becomes all to clear why christianity is in a terminal decline, you summed it up very clearly thanks.

 

I think there are other reasons why Christianity is in a decline and it doesn't have to do with distressful compromises

 

And what do you tell me?!

I am neither Christian nor was raised in any Religion.

So, what is your argument against me?

 

Sorry but you are mistaken, Christianity is not in a terminal decline but you can believe anything you want, you usually do anyway.

But anyway whether Christianity is in decline or not still doesn't make evolution a valid theory.

 

Your right, the overwhelming amount of evidence does.

 

Our arguments are never against each other. Our arguments are with the entity of the obstinate position, that is the positions we hold that are not allowed scrutiny.

 

Yep, reason #1 in my post 124, please see above.

The "overwhelming amount of evidence" proof of evolution, so no one ever has to show proof that evolution is proved, because there is so much proof that proves evolution has been proved, thus no proof is needed.

 

.

 

That's exactly how evolutionists argue their point, btw, no kidding

 

I see man walking on the Moon.
The only means of transportation known to me is the horse.
Since I don't know of any other means of transportation I must assert that the man I see walking on the Moon rode the horse up there.
Anyone who doubts this assertion of mine is an idiot.
Case proven

 

Can you prove that the Roman empire existed at one time?

 

Did anyone ask you to prove that you exist and post on this forum as opposed to some ghost from netherworld ?
Or did anyone ask you to prove that dinosaurs walked the Earth 60 million years ago? Who doubts that?

How can you equate the necessity of proving the claim that certain theory is scientifically valid to a necessity to prove that certain State existed as evidence shows?