Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[konradv]

Sorry, but then these same institutions should be helping in any research to prove Creationism is correct and encouraging thinking outside the establishment box --- just as many Christians did long-ago for secular scientists. Keep the playing field equal and not exclusive or dogmatic. This is what will promote true learning and not mere memorization.

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

In this case the pressure on the species is to not change. If an individual does not breed, they become a dead end in man's hands, while in nature they may roam around and eventually find a compatible mate.

 

[LittleNipper]

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

In this case the pressure on the species is to not change. If an individual does not breed, they become a dead end in man's hands, while in nature they may roam around and eventually find a compatible mate.

With notion of being man's best friend, I'd almost imagine that the dog should now walk around on two legs and be able to hold a conversation... Dogs are still dogs and always will be dogs...

 

[konradv]

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

In this case the pressure on the species is to not change. If an individual does not breed, they become a dead end in man's hands, while in nature they may roam around and eventually find a compatible mate.

With all the notiobn of being man's best friend, I'd almost imagine that the dog should now walk around on two legs and be able to hold a conversation... Dogs are still dogs and always will be dogs...

Domestic dogs will always be dogs, because that's the way we want them. It's a different story out in nature.

 

[LittleNipper]

In this case the pressure on the species is to not change. If an individual does not breed, they become a dead end in man's hands, while in nature they may roam around and eventually find a compatible mate.

With all the notiobn of being man's best friend, I'd almost imagine that the dog should now walk around on two legs and be able to hold a conversation... Dogs are still dogs and always will be dogs...

Domestic dogs will always be dogs, because that's the way we want them. It's a different story out in nature.

Who have you been talking to--- the one who owns a St. Bernad or the toy Chiwawa? Nature clearly could care less. And dogs clearly seem to want to be human. And with all the sexual diversity today, clearly there are some humans who wish they were animals...

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

Good point they also avoid living fossils that had ancestors dated back to as many as 325 million years or more and the organism today showed no evolutionary change.

They're not avoided, rather they prove the random nature of evolution. While some species change rapidly and continually, some hardly change very at all. It has a lot to do with the pressure put on them by the environment and the ability of a change to provide advantage. If there's no environmental pressure on a species, the variations don't become concentrated in the survivors and they change very little.

So it there is change, it proves evolution. If there is no change, it proves the randomicity of evolution.

I see.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk.

Is somebody saying that science is perfect?

 

[konradv]

With all the notiobn of being man's best friend, I'd almost imagine that the dog should now walk around on two legs and be able to hold a conversation... Dogs are still dogs and always will be dogs...

Domestic dogs will always be dogs, because that's the way we want them. It's a different story out in nature.

Who have you been talking to--- the one who owns a St. Bernad or the toy Chiwawa? Nature clearly could care less. And dogs clearly seem to want to be human. And with all the sexual diversity today, clearly there are some humans who wish they were animals...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Could you please rephrase it? It doesn't appear you have the slightest notion of the basics of evolutionary theory and are just spouting off whatever sounds good to you. Like my high school biology teacher told a doubter, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it".

 

[zombiehunter696]

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

Good point they also avoid living fossils that had ancestors dated back to as many as 325 million years or more and the organism today showed no evolutionary change.

/facepalm

This is proof you know nothing about evolution.

 

[zombiehunter696]

So it there is change, it proves evolution. If there is no change, it proves the randomicity of evolution.

I see.

Wow, way to not understand what's going on.

 

[konradv]

Good point they also avoid living fossils that had ancestors dated back to as many as 325 million years or more and the organism today showed no evolutionary change.

They're not avoided, rather they prove the random nature of evolution. While some species change rapidly and continually, some hardly change very at all. It has a lot to do with the pressure put on them by the environment and the ability of a change to provide advantage. If there's no environmental pressure on a species, the variations don't become concentrated in the survivors and they change very little.

So it there is change, it proves evolution. If there is no change, it proves the randomicity of evolution.

I see.

If some species change and some don't, that seems random to me. That's not the point, however. Species don't change because of evolution, but because environmental pressures favor a mutation in certain individuals who then procreate more readily and prosper. If there are no pressures, mutations don't become prevalent and species don't change.

 

[S.J.]

If evolution is a series of spinoffs from other species, then please explain where the very first living species came from. And be specific.

 

[zombiehunter696]

If evolution is a series of spinoffs from other species, then please explain where the very first living species came from. And be specific.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Anyone who knows the basics of it knows that.

There are lots of chemists and biochemists that would be happy to explain to you this concept. Unless you have an extensive chemical and biological science background, they may be hard to understand though.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't consider my self an "evolutionist," but I understand that evolutionary science is not about explaining the origin of life. There may be theorists who contemplate this, but in the end it is simply a branch of science and should be looked at as such. Reactionary theists will have their beefs with it, and that's up to them, but the schism between faith and science has more to do with reactionary groups than with faith or the science itself.

 

[PredFan]

Oh look. Creationists are attacking Evolution.....again.

 

[konradv]

If evolution is a series of spinoffs from other species, then please explain where the very first living species came from. And be specific.

Evolution of DNA

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't consider my self an "evolutionist," but I understand that evolutionary science is not about explaining the origin of life. There may be theorists who contemplate this, but in the end it is simply a branch of science and should be looked at as such. Reactionary theists will have their beefs with it, and that's up to them, but the schism between faith and science has more to do with reactionary groups than with faith or the science itself.

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't consider my self an "evolutionist," but I understand that evolutionary science is not about explaining the origin of life. There may be theorists who contemplate this, but in the end it is simply a branch of science and should be looked at as such. Reactionary theists will have their beefs with it, and that's up to them, but the schism between faith and science has more to do with reactionary groups than with faith or the science itself.

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

I am a religious person and believe in evolution.
My religious faith is so strong that scientific fact does not affect it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Domestic dogs will always be dogs, because that's the way we want them. It's a different story out in nature.

Who have you been talking to--- the one who owns a St. Bernad or the toy Chiwawa? Nature clearly could care less. And dogs clearly seem to want to be human. And with all the sexual diversity today, clearly there are some humans who wish they were animals...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Could you please rephrase it? It doesn't appear you have the slightest notion of the basics of evolutionary theory and are just spouting off whatever sounds good to you. Like my high school biology teacher told a doubter, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it".

I would say that 99% of the evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory. But it would have been educational if your science teacher said that you don't have to believe in creationism but you should understand it. One cannot argue with that with which they do not understand.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who have you been talking to--- the one who owns a St. Bernad or the toy Chiwawa? Nature clearly could care less. And dogs clearly seem to want to be human. And with all the sexual diversity today, clearly there are some humans who wish they were animals...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Could you please rephrase it? It doesn't appear you have the slightest notion of the basics of evolutionary theory and are just spouting off whatever sounds good to you. Like my high school biology teacher told a doubter, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it".

I would say that 99% of the evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory. But it would have been educational if your science teacher said that you don't have to believe in creationism but you should understand it. One cannot argue with that with which they do not understand.

Creationism is not discussed in science class.
That is discussed and studied in religion and philosophy classes.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't consider my self an "evolutionist," but I understand that evolutionary science is not about explaining the origin of life. There may be theorists who contemplate this, but in the end it is simply a branch of science and should be looked at as such. Reactionary theists will have their beefs with it, and that's up to them, but the schism between faith and science has more to do with reactionary groups than with faith or the science itself.

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

I am a religious person and believe in evolution.
My religious faith is so strong that scientific fact does not affect it.

I am a Christian and my faith in God surpasses any faith I have in man's wisdom. I find that scientific FACTS actually support what God Word says.