Is there proof of Evolution out there? help needed (page 4)

hooberus

Oh, yeah, there's still the big problem that the description of ID refutes ID... pity...

could you please briefly describe your point on this?

Is your silence regarding your inability to refute simple evidence (tree, saw, sandpaper, microscope) that utterly refutes any lieteralistic interpretation of the Genesis account due to the fact that this is something most of the web sites that you use to support your theory of creation ALSO fail to satisfactorily refute it?

This statement makes it appear that creationists are attempting to replace the teaching of evolution with some form of creation,

Kansas 1993. Need more proof?

when in fact most creationists have proposed teaching evidence for both evolution and creation in the classroom (or at least allowing the freedom to do so).

Apart from, for example, Kansas 1993?

Oh, and to argue a theory supported my multiple strands of evidence (that's evolution) should be taught alongside the ythical creation accounts of a bronze age culture are akin to asking that Hammurabi be taught alongside law at Harvard. And yes, maybe Hammurabi might be mentioned as an early law-maker, but 'taught alongside' means an equal level of knowledge imparted and in parrallel.

If you want the Genesis account of creation to be taught alongside and with an equal level of complexity, you have several problems.

One is, will you teach Bible-based misogyny alongside and with an equal level of complexity to modern equal-rights legislation?

Two is, will you teach Holocaust Revisionism alongside and with an equal level of complexity as the Holocaust.

You seem to assume that OPINIONS - even discredited ones - should be given equal value as extremely well founded theories with massive levels of corrabatory evidence.

Three is, by the way, that it is impoosible to teach Creation alongside and with an equal level of complexity as Evolution as Creation is a theory with less evidence supporting it than Evolution, and you would finish off teaching the Creationist bit a long time before you had covered all the evidence of evoltuion.

But anyway, the sentence is phrased badly. What I don't doubt is that ID has become a Trojan Horse for Creationism to enter the classroom. I notice you don't dispute that.

Even if "evolution only" is to be taught shouldn't both pro and con evidences for the theory be given to students? Many in the evolutionary establishment oppose even the teaching of problems with evolution (let alone any alternatives).

Yeah, it's such a big secret there are different views and speculations about evoluton (in some areas of the subject) that people publish articles about them in periodicals that can be purchased. They even make documentraies about it just to make sure that it's kept a secret. ANd then they show them on the Discovery channel.

First, please provide evidence of such.

Second, please explain how teaching simplified versions of evoltuon at some levels (instead of the actual 'state of the art understanding' or areas of dispute) is a bad thing? At school you will be taught simplified versions of many scientific theories early on. It's only as your study progresses that you get new, deeper views.

Look at the way that electron orbits are taught ay High School. The way it talks about electrons dropping or rasing orbits actually defies the laws of physics as it makes it sound instantaneous.

It is as good as instantaneous, so that's what you get taught early on.

Likewise, is teaching a 14 year-old that the speed of light cannot be passed avoiding teaching problems in physics? Or is it simplifying the subject with every intention that such areas of dispute are learnt about as it becomes relevent and comprehensible to the student?

Just as the problems with physics do not mean a brick you drop will go into orbit, so to do the problems with evolution not mean that is "doesn't work". It just means there's disagreement about some details. Despite this, as thousands of strands of evidence support the same general theory and that same general heory can be used to both predict and explain other things in nature. It is this massive level of support literally everywhere you look that make teaching mythical accounts alongside it rather silly.

zen nudist

Some claim Occam's razor can be used to support creationism over evolution. After all, having God create everything is much simpler than evolution, which is a very complex mechanism...

often overlooked... how can a God who is able to create be simpler than his creation? the idea of a mystical force which can simply think, act and have all the attribute we have and more is just magic...with no resemblance to anything approaching our understanding of how real things might work.... if God is a single substance called spirit, its hard to imagine how God could do anything at all called intellegent... I can see how a simple substance might give rise to all forms of substance as we know them now... as the theory of the big bang shows, but in doing so its gain in complexity is the only place we find anything called intellegence... the simple stuff is seen by no one as such.

zen nudist

The FALSE information is present!!!
first it makes no sense to me that something can ever arise from nothing...so I assume and believe in some original something...

Google. Look up 'Hawking Radiation'.

First of all Hawking radiation is postulated to come from a quantum energy field which is technically not nothing. and second for hawking radiation to exist a black hole must already exist which is not nothing either....

hawking relies alot upon the idea that time travel for some elements of reality is possible, this is a magical postion without any justification in reality.

Xander

First of all Hawking radiation is postulated to come from a quantum energy field which is technically not nothing. and second for hawking radiation to exist a black hole must already exist which is not nothing either

No, you miss the point.

Hawking radiation does not come FROM the black hole. It exists DUE to the black hole, but nothing (repeat: NOTHING) is *drawn* from the singularity - not energy, not mass (indeed, it would be impossible to do so) in order to create this form of radiation.

Hawking radiation is a form of particle that is spontaneously created simultaneously with a negative particle of the same 'size', hence not violating the laws of physics. However, the 'opposite' particle is immediately lost into the singularity, and the resulting Hawking radiation escapes into our universe.

The net effect is that matter is added to *our universe* without any energy or mass lost - it is not converted from something else, it just appears.

It is, in fact, 'something' coming from 'nothing'. All without any form of divine intervention!

ThiChi

""Oh for god's sake Thi Chi; some might say what you say above, but then they don't understand Occam's Razor. Ngh! Have the honesty to admit your belief in Creation is presuppositionalistic.""

Wow, again, you only make a lot of claims here, with no substance at all. At least I provided reasons for my claims. It should be noted that while some here might apply the razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the principle of parsimony to the articles of faith. Had he done so, he might have become a Socinian like John Toland (Christianity not Mysterious, 1696) and pared down the Trinity to a Unity and the dual nature of Christ to a single nature...

Your and AlanF's argumentum ad hominems once more prove that this tactic is truly the Refuge of

"Intellectual scoundrels."

jwbot

JH, you met God? How do you know he or she is indeed a male? Perhaps I am not talking about the biblical God? A lot of possibilities....

Kenneson

Thi Chi,

I figure if there was a Big Bang, than there must have been a Big Banger.

hillary_step

ThiChi,

Your and AlanF's argumentum ad hominems once more prove that this tactic is truly the Refuge of "Intellectual scoundrels."

An ad hominem fit for a king.

HS

Abaddon

""Oh for god's sake Thi Chi; some might say what you say above, but then they don't understand Occam's Razor. Ngh! Have the honesty to admit your belief in Creation is presuppositionalistic.""
Wow, again, you only make a lot of claims here, with no substance at all.

Er, a creator (creator neccesarily more complex than creation, with no theory of origin or proof of existence) is a more complicated explanation than a non-creator universe which came about without outside intervention as a naturalistic process (no need for inexplicable unprovable entity).

That seems to show evolution is indicated in favour of creation when examined using Occam's Razor.

Of course, as Occam's Razor applies to situations where there is equal evidenence for two therories, and as the theory of creation is unfalsifiable and unproven with no physical evidence, one can't even apply Occams Razor to the creation/evolution debate. The evidence indicates evolution.

It should be noted that while some here might apply the razor to eliminate the entire spiritual world, Ockham did not apply the principle of parsimony to the articles of faith

And this shows your continual presupposition, although there is no substansive proof. You suggest in the above that Occam's Razor shouldn't be applied to 'the entire spiritusal world'. This suggests you have proof of the spiritual world being something other than imagination and wishful thinking. Without such proof your wish not to apply Occam's Razor to the spiritual world is based upon a presupposition that it need not be proven as it exists

I attacked your ideas, you attack me. Once again you prove what you are without any need of me saying it.

Is there proof of Evolution out there? help needed

Share this