Was stumped by a Creationist

[ThisIsMe]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.

What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.

 

[ThisIsMe]

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.

 

[Olde Europe]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.

What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.

Of course, there is evidence of the Big Bang. Why don't you do a bit of research, for instance on cosmic background radiation?

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.

Maybe mutations are random, but natural selection most assuredly is not. And that is why evolution also is not random. Why don't you do a bit of research?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.

What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.

Of course, there is evidence of the Big Bang. Why don't you do a bit of research, for instance on cosmic background radiation?

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.

Maybe mutations are random, but natural selection most assuredly is not. And that is why evolution also is not random. Why don't you do a bit of research?

Just because there is movement around earth of cosmic dust does not prove it is doing so anywhere else.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.

many animals are capable of speech and even understand the words. I know this for a fact. How do you know no other animal is "self-aware?" I believe most mammals are. This does not mean humans are not unique, I believe they are, but the differences are more subtle. They are also more capable of good and evil beyond the understanding of any other animal. This quality separates us from all the rest of God's creatures, for better or worse.

 

[harmonica]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang. It seems neither have any evidence and both require faith to believe.

What one believes, however, really comes down to the dispensation of that person, how they were raised, and the influences on their lives.

1. yes there is proof of the Big Bang

Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today.

The Big Bang | Science Mission Directorate
2. Creationists claim god created the universe/etc...?
there is definitely, undeniably no proof of god--no science/math/etc involved

....creation deals with religion beliefs/faiths/etc where as evolution does not deal with religion
..religion is just a story/fairy tales/fake
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

That is so hilariously stupid and false.

Goddamn, you fools should not ever open your mouth about any scientific topic. Ever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals?

Why would "random evolution" produce the exact same thing, down to every detail, in two different species? You're incoherent.

 

[sealybobo]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Everything you believe has survived the scientific process. Creation science doesn’t. There is mountains of evidence, all good, that proves evolution occurs. There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor. All these scientific theories have survived the scientific method.

When his stuff is peer reviewed by the scientific community and survives as a viable option, let us know. You are no expert and you can’t take on a slick creationalist the same way you can’t wake every Mormon up. The two are no different. You can’t convince a Mormon they’re nuts can you? You just know what they believe is fringe thinking. Look at the muslims. Can you convince all the Muslims in the Middle East what they believe is foolish? Can your creationist friend? No. But science calls bullshit on all of their crazy unbelievable stories.

So this Karl Popper bullshit is just an example of how conservatives have been able to convince their supports that it’s the scientists who are lying. They are not.

 

[sealybobo]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

Why?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

 

[sealybobo]

There are things we can assume like we came from pre humans and before them small rodent like mammals who survived the dinosaur meteor.

And THAT is where you begin to go off course. There is zero evidence that one life form changes into another.

Ok then it’s a scientific theory. It’s a possibility that survives the scientific process and is now one theory or possibility.

Creationist, mormon, Old Testament, muslims stories are not theories. Only hypothesis and lies from ancient goat herders.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

Why?

Because evolution relies on ancestral lines (Species didn't poof into existence, they evolved from other species). Finding a species in the cambrian that, by all the evidence and theory, evolved from animals which lived after the cambrian would seriously undermine evolution, if not outright refute it.

 

[sealybobo]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

Why?

Because evolution relies on ancestral lines. And finding a species in the cambrian that, by the evidence and theory, evolved from animals which lived after the cambrian would seriously undermine evolution, if not outright refute it.

No because a rabbit species could have stayed a rabbit species.

Wolves are still wolves even though we have beagles

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No because a rabbit species could have stayed a rabbit species.

Not in the Cambrian, there were no mammals in the Cambrian period. And we know rabbits share a common ancestor with all rodents, and we know about how long ago that ancestor lived.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

sealybobo

Speaking of wolves:

We know right about when and where they appeared. And we know right about when and where their apparent ancestors appeared and disappeared. Same for those creatures' apparent ancestors. These ancestors were not wolves. So the wolf's appearance in the record and its physiology can be traced backwards 10s of millions of years, across the globe.


Now, to find examples of wolf bones in the Cambrian in sub saharan Africa would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Darkwind]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

A shame you lack the skills to think this through yourself.

I wonder if you realize that an argument for creation is also an argument for evolution?

Something tells Me that you don't get it.

 

[sealybobo]

sealybobo

Speaking of wolves:

We know right about when and where they appeared. And we know right about when and where their apparent ancestors appeared and disappeared. Same for those creatures' apparent ancestors. These ancestors were not wolves. So the wolf's appearance in the record and its physiology can be traced backwards 10s of millions of years, across the globe.


Now, to find examples of wolf bones in the Cambrian in sub saharan Africa would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.

Ok. Did they find any?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

sealybobo

Speaking of wolves:

We know right about when and where they appeared. And we know right about when and where their apparent ancestors appeared and disappeared. Same for those creatures' apparent ancestors. These ancestors were not wolves. So the wolf's appearance in the record and its physiology can be traced backwards 10s of millions of years, across the globe.


Now, to find examples of wolf bones in the Cambrian in sub saharan Africa would be a huge problem for evolutionary theory.

Ok. Did they find any?

Ha, no, of course not. But the point is that evolution theory is, indeed, falsifiable.

 

[RandomPoster]

One of the problems i have with evolution is that everything is so organized and has its place.

If everything was random in evolution, where are the talking animals? I mean those able to communicate like humans? You would think that evolution would have created some. Why did humans end up being the only creatures to develop via chords, and the capacity for speech, or being self aware, and higher thinking.

We are the only ones who have all of these traits, nothing else comes close.

Wolves communicate verbally and so do whales and dolphins. That's simply off the top of my head. It is my understanding that their verbal communications do constitute a language of sorts as there are different messages conveyed by different sounds.