in science you can't ignore evidence. You can dismiss it... but not ignore it. creationism/ID are ignoring more than a few things. ID TOTALLY ignores ALL the evidence for evolution and so it's not scientific. creationism doesn't ignore all of it, but it ignores a LOT of it.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Science:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.(dictionary.com)
considering most all (most not ALL) those theories were wrong and that they were NOT scientific, well... what's your point? lol[b said:Quote[/b] ]We definately can't say that evo is the only science considering that before evo, most all(most not ALL) science was based on the Word of God and the such.
what's wrong with that? gravity is taught as fact. atoms are taught as fact. continental drift is taught as fact. the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system is taught as fact. maybe we should teach their alternatives too. in a world where public schools teach the earth is flat, creationism, that the sun goes around the earth, that continents don't drift, etc. ... think about it.[b said:Quote[/b] ] Public schools teach the evolutionary theory, and test questions always assume the theory to be fact.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]in science you can't ignore evidence. You can dismiss it... but not ignore it. creationism/ID are ignoring more than a few things. ID TOTALLY ignores ALL the evidence for evolution and so it's not scientific. creationism doesn't ignore all of it, but it ignores a LOT of it.
young earth creationists totally ignore all the ways of dating the earth and the only reason they don't believe in those is because of the bible- religion, not science. separation of church and state says you shouldn't teach religion, therefore you don't teach young creationism.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]fossils- creationism totally ignores the fact that they are arranged in such a way, the fact that there are trasitional fossils, the fact that it has been calculated that 99. something % of all species that ever lived the earth are extinct (and even assuming that they are incredibly wrong and that it's only 80%)... there is no way all of them could survive in this earth at the same time. megalodons and sun fish just don't coexist together very well (just a random example. I don't know if they lived on the same places, etc) AND ignoring the fact that there are fossils in antarctica and many climates are seen in the same places.
they also ignore the fact that they are arranged exactly how they should be and where they should be, etc. not scientific.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]geographical distribution- what's your explanation?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]vestigial structures- never mind that there is fossil and other evidence pointing to them once being useful/bigger/etc. that's just pure chance I bet. and never mind that some of those vestigial structures like wisdom teeth are actually bad for you. and never mind that beetle wings can't be useful if they're locked inside (of that beetle with wings that are fused together), and never mind that dandelion flowers are totally useless because they're sterile, etc.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]homologous structures- they completely ignore them
[b said:Quote[/b] ]analogous structures- ignored too
[b said:Quote[/b] ]the calculations and experiments showing that life could evolve (EP's link) and computer programs that evolve from simple things to complex things- ignored- well... actually they have wrong calculations... like the population growth and stuff.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]also... creationism uses VERY unscientific explanations. for example the great flood. first of all, a flood like that is physically impossible, the ark is too, everything about it is... and never mind that, there is zero evidence for it.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]considering most all (most not ALL) those theories were wrong and that they were NOT scientific, well... what's your point? lol
[b said:Quote[/b] ]what's wrong with that? gravity is taught as fact. atoms are taught as fact. continental drift is taught as fact. the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system is taught as fact. maybe we should teach their alternatives too. in a world where public schools teach the earth is flat, creationism, that the sun goes around the earth, that continents don't drift, etc. ... think about it.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]why did god create suffering? and hate? rage? pain? sadness? etc?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]why?
wait wait wait... what does that have to do with anything? nobody said that wasn't possible, like nobody said floods don't exist. I don't see the relevance of that...[b said:Quote[/b] ]Wohhhhh buddyro! Ignore the natural process of laying layers of earth down slowly millions of year at a time. You are ignoring the fact that when Mt St Helens popped her top THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of layers of silt, ash and molten rock were laid down in a matter of HOURS. So yes, we must both be ignoring data laid plainly before us. But we also believe that some layers of of the geological column were laid down by natural processes, so techniacally you are ignoring more than we are.
If experts disagree if to class certain fossils as humans or other apes, how much more transitional do you want?[b said:Quote[/b] ]I have NEVER in all my short fifteen yrs seen a transitional fossil. You show me one that is definately an intermediate...
like I said, that was just a hypothetical (holy crap that's spelled right!) scenario. first of all it isn't just megalodon and sunfish. there would be hundreds of other predatory species, and many pray don't reproduce that fast and have no defense against megalodons, saber tooth cats, marsupial lions, etc. also most species couldn't compete with past species. for example I think marsupial lion, t-rexes, etc. have been found in north america. there's no way predators of today could survive alonside those kinds of predators. nor could giant herbivores like guineapigs the size of buffalo could compete with today's hervivores there. there just isn't enough room for so many species to exist. Remember there has to be a certain number of individuals in order for a species to survive, and those numbers could not possibly exist if all the extinct species of organism existed together.[b said:Quote[/b] ]So what if mealodons and sunfish didn't coexist? Never heard of a great white and a bluefish coexisting. That would be the typical prey and predator scenario.
Plants and animals frozen together in Antartica, why is that evidence against creationism?
oy... didn't you read the evolution thread?[b said:Quote[/b] ]I'm sorry but like I said I need stuff explained to me... what is all that stuff for?
of course I have. homologous chromosomes and homologous structures are two totally different things.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Why would we ignore that? Ever heard of homologous chromosomes? That's pretty hard to ignore. (Found that in my science book)
sigh... I'm becoming more and more convinced that they should teach more evolution in schools.[b said:Quote[/b] ]I'm assuming that's talking about a single thing before it becomes homologous?
I was referring to the thing where they allow random "mutations" and "natural selection" in programs. they start out with a stupid and simple program and it evolves into a complex program, showing how fast evolution can take place and that it works.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Computers? They don't show you anything other than possiblities, unless you feed them facts, and even then, they don't always give you facts
ok, here- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[b said:Quote[/b] ]Experiments? You show me where they test one species and when the experiment is done you have a new species with completely different genes.
the flood explains nothing. it doesn't explain fossils, it doesn't explain geographical distribution, it doesn't explain ... well... anything.[b said:Quote[/b] ]The flood does explain a lot though. There is evidence but it is evidence you have seen but rejected. So there is no point going into that.
that was the whole point! there WAS NO scientific method used back then.[b said:Quote[/b] ]I guess the scientific method is out the window then?
according to you, there was nothing before god created anything. god being perfect he didn't have rage, etc. (nor need for something... why do perfect beings need something? why did he create us? he doesn't need our friendship and he knew, him being omniscient, that billions of people would disobay him so why make us and get sadness if he was perfect therefore he was happy?)[b said:Quote[/b] ]Some of those are physical and others are emotional. The physical is something He didn't create.
LOL. apparently I know where to hit people because everyone always says they won't post anymore and they come back and post[b said:Quote[/b] ]Agh... I said I wasn't gonna post about Evo/Crea anymore!!!!!!!! AW!!!!!!!!! You always hit me in the soft spot!!!!
lol exactly![b said:Quote[/b] ]If only there were some previous thread where we could go to learn about evolution...
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Wohhhhh buddyro! Ignore the natural process of laying layers of earth down slowly millions of year at a time. You are ignoring the fact that when Mt St Helens popped her top THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of layers of silt, ash and molten rock were laid down in a matter of HOURS. So yes, we must both be ignoring data laid plainly before us. But we also believe that some layers of of the geological column were laid down by natural processes, so techniacally you are ignoring more than we are.