Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[S.J.]

There are no proofs in science, as this implies absolute certainty, which is not afforded in science. There are degrees of certainty, and considering evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and there has not been one contradictory piece of evidence against it, it is pretty near certain that it is the correct explanation for what we see. Genetics makes this even more certain. Why don't you shown evidence for you god? (I misspoke when I said show proof, although not entirely, as logical proofs have been attempted to try to define god into existence since Aristotle, and all failed).

I don't seek to prove the existence of God. That's because I believe in leaving it up to the individual to believe what he or she chooses to believe. You, on the other hand, are hell bent on forcing everyone else to believe in your theory, a theory that cannot be proven. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "degrees of certainty", "no evidence to contradict it" What I'm not hearing is "here's the proof".

Proof is a term for math, so please stop using it, as it carries a connotation of certainty. No theory is ever proven, including the theory of gravity or the theory that the earth orbits around the sun, so the problem is that your expectations are too high, as you are unfamiliar with scientific epistemology and what it offers. It's understandable I guess, being a theist, where absolute truths are around every corner. Here in reality, no absolute truths exist. We can only approximate reality as best we can. It is a humbling proposition, perhaps too much for some theists.

Your logic would dictate that we throw out science altogether. No scientific explanations are certain. We have scientific models or explanations of reality that seem to map to reality so closely, that we term it "true." Yet, there could always be something in the model that is false. However, as long as a model accurately describes and offers predictions that are demonstrable, the model is generally considered to be accurate. We do the best we can. Evolution makes an enormous amount of sense, and fits the evidence if you stop being to mad at it.

No, not saying we should throw out science, just saying don't teach a theory as absolute fact to impressionable young minds. Teach your own kids anything you want but leave mine alone. I like your attempt to have it both ways. On the one hand you say "science doesn't require proof", but you require absolute proof of the existence of God. Do you think no one is going to notice this double standard?

 

[newpolitics]

I don't seek to prove the existence of God. That's because I believe in leaving it up to the individual to believe what he or she chooses to believe. You, on the other hand, are hell bent on forcing everyone else to believe in your theory, a theory that cannot be proven. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "degrees of certainty", "no evidence to contradict it" What I'm not hearing is "here's the proof".

Proof is a term for math, so please stop using it, as it carries a connotation of certainty. No theory is ever proven, including the theory of gravity or the theory that the earth orbits around the sun, so the problem is that your expectations are too high, as you are unfamiliar with scientific epistemology and what it offers. It's understandable I guess, being a theist, where absolute truths are around every corner. Here in reality, no absolute truths exist. We can only approximate reality as best we can. It is a humbling proposition, perhaps too much for some theists.

Your logic would dictate that we throw out science altogether. No scientific explanations are certain. We have scientific models or explanations of reality that seem to map to reality so closely, that we term it "true." Yet, there could always be something in the model that is false. However, as long as a model accurately describes and offers predictions that are demonstrable, the model is generally considered to be accurate. We do the best we can. Evolution makes an enormous amount of sense, and fits the evidence if you stop being to mad at it.

No, not saying we should throw out science, just saying don't teach a theory as absolute fact to impressionable young minds. Teach your own kids anything you want but leave mine alone. I like your attempt to have it both ways. On the one hand you say "science doesn't require proof", but you require absolute proof of the existence of God. Do you think no one is going to notice this double standard?

I don't require absolute proof of anything. Any evidence for god would be accepted, but there isn't any at all.

You don't realize that you are contradicting yourself. You are, in fact, saying that we should throw science out. All scientific theories are provincial and not therefore, not absolute or permanent. Being that your standard of knowledge is set at "absolute certainty," all scientific theories would fail to meet your criteria, which means no science would be admissible, according to you. This demonstrates your dilemma. You want that science be taught, but only certain science. Yet, the standard by which you evaluate the sciences would make none of the viable. Therefore, you are left with nothing. Either you must lower your standards for what is considered knowledge below absolute certainty, in which case you are forced go accept evolution along with the other sciences, or you dont, and you throw out science altogether. you can not mix these two options. Do you realize the logical dilemma you face? i dont think youve thought about this much.

You have a special problem with evolution merely because it conflicts with deeply held beliefs you already have, not because the methodology or level of certainty that is attained is any different than other scientific modalities.

 

[S.J.]

You have a special problem with evolution merely because it conflicts with deeply held beliefs you already have, not because the methodology of level of certainty is any different than other scientific models of reality. That much IS certain.

No, I have a special problem with you trying to push a "THEORY" as fact on our children. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[newpolitics]

You have a special problem with evolution merely because it conflicts with deeply held beliefs you already have, not because the methodology of level of certainty is any different than other scientific models of reality. That much IS certain.

No, I have a special problem with you trying to push a "THEORY" as fact on our children. What part of this do you not understand?

Then why don't you have a problem with other theories that are taught in school, such as The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, tectonic theory, atomic theory, etc... You are demonstrating my point. You have no issue with these other sciences. Why not? They are just as uncertain as evolution, in that, none of them are absolutely certain. How do you reconcile this obvious need to single out one science that epistemically indistinct from all other with regard to certainty? You prove your position to be highly inconsistent.

 

[S.J.]

You have a special problem with evolution merely because it conflicts with deeply held beliefs you already have, not because the methodology of level of certainty is any different than other scientific models of reality. That much IS certain.

No, I have a special problem with you trying to push a "THEORY" as fact on our children. What part of this do you not understand?

Then why don't you have a problem with other theories that are taught in school, such as The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, tectonic theory, atomic theory, etc... You are demonstrating my point. You have no issue with these other sciences. Why not? They are just as uncertain as evolution, in that, none of them are absolutely certain. How do you reconcile this obvious need to single out one science that epistemically indistinct from all other with regard to certainty? You prove your position to be highly inconsistent.

You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you? I think gravity has been proven.

 

[newpolitics]

No, I have a special problem with you trying to push a "THEORY" as fact on our children. What part of this do you not understand?

Then why don't you have a problem with other theories that are taught in school, such as The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, tectonic theory, atomic theory, etc... You are demonstrating my point. You have no issue with these other sciences. Why not? They are just as uncertain as evolution, in that, none of them are absolutely certain. How do you reconcile this obvious need to single out one science that epistemically indistinct from all other with regard to certainty? You prove your position to be highly inconsistent.

You're really grasping at straws now, aren't you? I think gravity has been proven.

A scientific theory is never proven. It can only be falsified. In other words, as long as a theory is not shown to be false, it remains.

 

[S.J.]

A scientific theory is never proven. It can only be falsified. In other words, as long as a theory is not shown to be false, it remains.

Ok, I can fly. Now prove I can't. And if you can't prove otherwise, it will remain a fact, just like evolution? That means I can demand my ability to fly be taught in school?

 

[newpolitics]

A scientific theory is never proven. It can only be falsified. In other words, as long as a theory is not shown to be false, it remains.

Ok, I can fly. Now prove I can't. And if you can't prove otherwise, it will remain a fact, just like evolution? That means I can demand my ability to fly be taught in school?

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is your job to prove that you fly, with evidence, not my job to disprove it. Until you do, I reject your claim out of hand and it fails outright.

 

[S.J.]

A scientific theory is never proven. It can only be falsified. In other words, as long as a theory is not shown to be false, it remains.

Ok, I can fly. Now prove I can't. And if you can't prove otherwise, it will remain a fact, just like evolution? That means I can demand my ability to fly be taught in school?

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is your job to prove that you fly, with evidence, not my job to disprove it. Until you do, I reject your claim out of hand and it fails outright.

Thank you!!!

 

[ReallyMeow]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg]Evolution Theory AND Fact - YouTube[/ame]

 

[newpolitics]

Ok, I can fly. Now prove I can't. And if you can't prove otherwise, it will remain a fact, just like evolution? That means I can demand my ability to fly be taught in school?

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is your job to prove that you fly, with evidence, not my job to disprove it. Until you do, I reject your claim out of hand and it fails outright.

Thank you!!!

For preventing you from jumping off your roof, in an effort to try and fly? No problem.

 

[S.J.]

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Those who make positive claims bear the burden of proving it. It is your job to prove that you fly, with evidence, not my job to disprove it. Until you do, I reject your claim out of hand and it fails outright.

Thank you!!!

For preventing you from jumping off your roof, in an effort to try and fly? No problem.

No, thank you for confirming that the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your theory, not mine to disprove it.

 

[newpolitics]

Thank you!!!

For preventing you from jumping off your roof, in an effort to try and fly? No problem.

No, thank you for confirming that the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your theory, not mine to disprove it.

... And we are back to square one. You cant prove any theory (including gravity), you merely strengthen it with more and more evidence. Evolution has stood for 150 years.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Theres plenty of evidence for evolution

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY]This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[S.J.]

For preventing you from jumping off your roof, in an effort to try and fly? No problem.

No, thank you for confirming that the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your theory, not mine to disprove it.

... And we are back to square one. You cant prove any theory (including gravity), you merely strengthen it with more and more evidence. Evolution has stood for 150 years.

Um, I think this debate is over. You just gave up your whole argument. The burden of proof is on you, and you are not able to meet that burden. So, why can't you just leave it to the individual to decide for themselves. Teach your theory to anybody who WANTS to listen, but don't push it on everyone else's kids just because YOU buy into it. It's morally wrong to force a captive audience to sign on to your beliefs.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Because evolution is an observable fact, fairy tales have no place in the classroom.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphna9UTCk]Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea - YouTube[/ame]

 

[S.J.]

Because evolution is an observable fact, fairy tales have no place in the classroom.

Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea - YouTube

A little late, aren't you? The debate is over.

 

[NoNukes]

Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

Because they embarrass Americans in an international level.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Because evolution is an observable fact, fairy tales have no place in the classroom.

Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea - YouTube

A little late, aren't you? The debate is over.

So thats your argument? "La la la, I cant hear you"? pathetic

 

[S.J.]

Because evolution is an observable fact, fairy tales have no place in the classroom.

Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea - YouTube

A little late, aren't you? The debate is over.

So thats your argument? "La la la, I cant hear you"? pathetic

Ok, if you go back and look at the posts, you'll see that I said NEITHER should be taught in the classroom. Read before you post. Second, it's not an observable fact, that's just YOUR opinion. Now, unless you have something intelligent to say that hasn't already been said, don't waste my time.