The creationists are BACK

[cbirch2]

Im not being a dishonest hack. Havent i provided enough evidence for evolution already? Didnt you read even one of my posts?

 

[AllieBaba]

Why on earth are you proving evolution to me? When did I deny it takes place within species?

 

[Newby]

Some Further Clarification on 'Theory' tho thankfully several here already addressed it.
Probably the most common Fallacious response by creationists.

Original link lapsed/by subscription.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American
now mirrored in entirety (except illustration or two) at
15 Answers

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from Paleontology, Genetics, Zoology, Molecular Biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt.
Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known,
creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy."....

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution."..."

Within species or traversing species? No one has argued the theory of evolution within species here. There is no evidence of evolution across species.

 

[AllieBaba]

That matters not, they're arguing an argument against an argument that has never been made!

Don't disturb them! They are feeling all smart and stuff.

 

[cbirch2]

Some Further Clarification on 'Theory' tho thankfully several here already addressed it.
Probably the most common Fallacious response by creationists.

Original link lapsed/by subscription.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American
now mirrored in entirety (except illustration or two) at
15 Answers

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from Paleontology, Genetics, Zoology, Molecular Biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt.
Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known,
creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy."....

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution."..."

Within species or traversing species? No one has argued the theory of evolution within species here. There is no evidence of evolution across species.

Except the brain stem, the entire structure of the brain, the respiratory system of every animal, the placenta, the skeletal structure of every mammal, and the genetic relationship tracing humans to primates to other mammals to birds to reptiles to amphibians to fish.

Or maybe all that was just fake....biology is a lie! The romans were right get the leeches!!![

 

[AllieBaba]

God created biology, and evolution...to the extent that it exists, within each species.

So of course they are perfection, silly.

 

[cbirch2]

God created biology, and evolution...to the extent that it exists, within each species.

So of course they are perfection, silly.

And how do the dinosaurs fit into your cool little fantasy....?

 

[AllieBaba]

Not at all.

So explain to me how evolution explains the creation of new species...and yet has nothing to do with creation???

 

[Newby]

Some Further Clarification on 'Theory' tho thankfully several here already addressed it.
Probably the most common Fallacious response by creationists.

Original link lapsed/by subscription.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Scientific American
now mirrored in entirety (except illustration or two) at
15 Answers

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

Within species or traversing species? No one has argued the theory of evolution within species here. There is no evidence of evolution across species.

Except the brain stem, the entire structure of the brain, the respiratory system of every animal, the placenta, the skeletal structure of every mammal, and the genetic relationship tracing humans to primates to other mammals to birds to reptiles to amphibians to fish.

Or maybe all that was just fake....biology is a lie! The romans were right get the leeches!!![

None of that proves evolution between species. Where are all of the fossils of these creatures that were inbetween one species on its way to another? No one has said biology was a lie, now you're grasping at straws.

 

[Newby]

God created biology, and evolution...to the extent that it exists, within each species.

So of course they are perfection, silly.

And how do the dinosaurs fit into your cool little fantasy....?

Could you explain further? What do dinosaurs in particular have to do with it?

 

[cbirch2]

Within species or traversing species? No one has argued the theory of evolution within species here. There is no evidence of evolution across species.

Except the brain stem, the entire structure of the brain, the respiratory system of every animal, the placenta, the skeletal structure of every mammal, and the genetic relationship tracing humans to primates to other mammals to birds to reptiles to amphibians to fish.

Or maybe all that was just fake....biology is a lie! The romans were right get the leeches!!![

None of that proves evolution between species. Where are all of the fossils of these creatures that were inbetween one species on its way to another? No one has said biology was a lie, now you're grasping at straws.

Ill even give you transitional fossils between chimp and man: Australopithecus >> homo habilius >> homo erectus >> homo sapien

 

[AllieBaba]

When I asked the most intelligent poster on the board (that would be cbirch, just ask him) how he could say that new species are created via evolution...but also say that evolution has nothing to do with creation...his response was...

"I have no idea what your talking about now. All im saying is evolution is fact. Every species on earth today at one point descended from more primitive life forms. Unless is misunderstood you, you dont believe that. Your wrong.I have no idea what your talking about now. All im saying is evolution is fact. Every species on earth today at one point descended from more primitive life forms. Unless is misunderstood you, you dont believe that. Your wrong."

lol...Obviously, he is just too smart for me.

 

[cbirch2]

God created biology, and evolution...to the extent that it exists, within each species.

So of course they are perfection, silly.

And how do the dinosaurs fit into your cool little fantasy....?

Could you explain further? What do dinosaurs in particular have to do with it?

Well did humans coexist with dinosaurs? Did mammals? Or did god mold them out of clay 6000 years ago?

 

[cbirch2]

When I asked the most intelligent poster on the board (that would be cbirch, just ask him) how he could say that new species are created via evolution...but also say that evolution has nothing to do with creation...his response was...

"I have no idea what your talking about now. All im saying is evolution is fact. Every species on earth today at one point descended from more primitive life forms. Unless is misunderstood you, you dont believe that. Your wrong.I have no idea what your talking about now. All im saying is evolution is fact. Every species on earth today at one point descended from more primitive life forms. Unless is misunderstood you, you dont believe that. Your wrong."

lol...Obviously, he is just too smart for me.

All you did was find an instance when i used "creation" to refer to speciation instead of creation of life from nonlife. You live in a fantasy world.

 

[Newby]

And how do the dinosaurs fit into your cool little fantasy....?

Could you explain further? What do dinosaurs in particular have to do with it?

Well did humans coexist with dinosaurs? Did mammals? Or did god mold them out of clay 6000 years ago?

Did humans coexist with dinosaurs? Seriously?? You make the mistake of thinking that I believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, I don't. There is no definitive time line in the Bible.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief.

 

[cbirch2]

Could you explain further? What do dinosaurs in particular have to do with it?

Well did humans coexist with dinosaurs? Did mammals? Or did god mold them out of clay 6000 years ago?

Did humans coexist with dinosaurs? Seriously?? You make the mistake of thinking that I believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, I don't. There is no definitive time line in the Bible.

The exact length of time is meaningless. You said god created every species specifically. So dinosaurs existed didnt they? So did god just let dinosaurs and bacteria roam the earth for 3.8 billion years and then just decide to bring civilized humans into the mix a few thousand years ago?

 

[Newby]

Except the brain stem, the entire structure of the brain, the respiratory system of every animal, the placenta, the skeletal structure of every mammal, and the genetic relationship tracing humans to primates to other mammals to birds to reptiles to amphibians to fish.

Or maybe all that was just fake....biology is a lie! The romans were right get the leeches!!![

None of that proves evolution between species. Where are all of the fossils of these creatures that were inbetween one species on its way to another? No one has said biology was a lie, now you're grasping at straws.

Ill even give you transitional fossils between chimp and man: Australopithecus >> homo habilius >> homo erectus >> homo sapien

Really? Then that's a scientfic discovery that's gone way under reported. So, I suppose only a specific sub species of chimp evolved into man then? The rest just never did?

 

[AllieBaba]

And he reports that dogs have evolved into a separate species from wolves...

Not true.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Dog is the common use term that refers to members of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris (canis, "dog"; lupus, "wolf"; familiaris, "of a household" or "domestic").

Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia