The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[carlosMM]

@ Perfection:

@ FL2: still no answers? still no proper try at giving a definition of 'synthetic theory of evolution'?

 

[Perfection]

Just a comment on defining evolution. There is a number of possible of definitions based on what aspects you look at. The most general idea is a gradual process of change. A more focused would be the biological ideas of evolution, but that could include ideas that involve a relatively static biosphere such as the evolutionary thoery Lammark proposed.

I find the best and most precise idea of what scientists think of evolution is evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin and subsequently modified by other scientists yet still maintaining the natural selection core, the central tenants of evolution which I posted in post 175 as:

...the main ideas of Darwinian Evolutionary Theories (Including hierarchal and punctuated equilibirum variations) are best argued by Stephen Jay Gould as these three ideas about natural selection:
Agency (that natural selection works)
Efficacy (that natural selection can create new fetures, as well as eleminate fetures and change them)
Scope (that it by and large accounts for all biodiversity)

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I am still waiting for the part where you "knock out" creationism.

 

[Perfection]

I am still waiting for the part where you "knock out" creationism.

Read my past posts (along with the posts of my tag-team members Carlos and TLC) very slowly and carefully.

 

[The Last Conformist]

He can't. It's scientifically dead.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

I can't believe that people seriously believe in creationism when on the one hand the evidence stands in many museums and on the other hand they accept scientific theories like electricity and atomic theory. I guess that is so because there is no point in denying electricity when you use a computer and to deny the atomic theory when the power for your computer is generated by a nuclear power plant...

It is easy to deny something you can't see.



I must've have missed the part in the Bible where Petrus is hunted by a T-Rex...but I will look for it...

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Read my past posts (along with the posts of my tag-team members Carlos and TLC) very slowly and carefully.

I have. I'm also surprised you would associate yourself with Carlos. His typing skills leave something to be desired.

 

[carlosMM]

I have. I'm also surprised you would associate yourself with Carlos. His typing skills leave something to be desired.

are you whining about my typing?

well, I couldn't care less. I'd rather be proficient in thinking than in typing - thank you! I am quite happy with my capabilities


as for reading the past posts - we have a huge claim here: creation!
we see no evidence.

we have a theory that is logical and tested repeatedly.
anything thrown at it to show it wrong has been debunked.


hmmmmm, how smart does one have to be to see that creation is a fairy tale and evolution the cold hard truth?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I have. I'm also surprised you would associate yourself with Carlos. His typing skills leave something to be desired.

While the spelling and tone of Carlos's posts may indeed leave something to be desired, he's, near as I can tell, the most qualified person in this debate.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

are you whining about my typing?

well, I couldn't care less. I'd rather be proficient in thinking than in typing - thank you! I am quite happy with my capabilities


as for reading the past posts - we have a huge claim here: creation!
we see no evidence.

we have a theory that is logical and tested repeatedly.
anything thrown at it to show it wrong has been debunked.


hmmmmm, how smart does one have to be to see that creation is a fairy tale and evolution the cold hard truth?

Number one: anyone who claims evolution is cold hard fact has no business being in society.

Number two: there is plenty of evidence that creationism is indeed fact: stuff exists. You can post all the "evidence" and "fact" you want, but creationists such as myself always have one indisputable fact to fall back on: stuff exists. You can't disprove that, and since you can't disprove God exists, all your arguments are by default moot.

I hope you realize I have just rendered all your arguments pointless.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Number one: anyone who claims evolution is cold hard fact has no business being in society.

Neither have you.

Number two: there is plenty of evidence that creationism is indeed fact: stuff exists. You can post all the "evidence" and "fact" you want, but creationists such as myself always have one indisputable fact to fall back on: stuff exists. You can't disprove that, and since you can't disprove God exists, all your arguments are by default moot.

Check the definition of "creationism" used here.

I hope you realize I have just rendered all your arguments pointless.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Neither have you.

Check the definition of "creationism" used here.

Definition: God created the Earth, and the species therein. You cannot disprove God, so you cannot disprove Creationism.

Go ahead, try and disprove God's existance. There have been three threads, and thousands of posts, and still no such thing has occured on these forums.

Since you can do no such thing, you cannot disprove Creationism.

Your arguments are pointless because you cannot do such a thing.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Get real. Saying that Creationism is non-disprovable is saying it's not science.

 

[Perfection]

I have. I'm also surprised you would associate yourself with Carlos. His typing skills leave something to be desired.

I also associate myself with Darwin despite his horrific penmanship! Carlos is quite good at getting his point across, sure he blips every once and a while but that doesn't negate his arguements.

Number one: anyone who claims evolution is cold hard fact has no business being in society.

You want to justify that?

Number two: there is plenty of evidence that creationism is indeed fact: stuff exists. You can post all the "evidence" and "fact" you want, but creationists such as myself always have one indisputable fact to fall back on: stuff exists. You can't disprove that, and since you can't disprove God exists, all your arguments are by default moot.

I hope you realize I have just rendered all your arguments pointless.

PFFFFFT

Here's the flaws in your arguement
1. Stuff existing is predicted by other theories/philosophies too
2. The fact that god cannot be proven not to exist doesn't mean he must exist
3. If you feel that god created everything (which is a philosphical not scientific viewpoint) you don't have to disbelieve in evolution, could not god create via evolution?
4. We're arguing scientificly here

Definition: God created the Earth, and the species therein. You cannot disprove God, so you cannot disprove Creationism.

Go ahead, try and disprove God's existance. There have been three threads, and thousands of posts, and still no such thing has occured on these forums.

Since you can do no such thing, you cannot disprove Creationism.

Your arguments are pointless because you cannot do such a thing.

I'm demonstrating that it is not a valid scientific idea, you have no evidence from that definition to back up your claim. There are no testible predictions therefore it is not scientific. The fact that God creating the universe cannot be disproved doesn't mean it is scientificly valid.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

It's not provable either; it's a matter of faith, which by definition precludes proof. But that being said, until you're able to prove God doesn't exist, you cannot disprove Creationism. This whole thread is pointless.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

And Perfection, it's not testable by our limited definition of the term. The One who created it all is indeed capable of destroying the entire world and recreating, thus making it testable, thus making it scientific, in our incredibly limited sense of the term.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's not about disproving creationism in some mathematical or philosophical sense - it's about showing it's not tenable as a scientific theory.

But if you find this thread pointless, I suggest you never post in it again.

 

[Perfection]

And Perfection, it's not testable by our limited definition of the term. The One who created it all is indeed capable of destroying the entire world and recreating, thus making it testable, thus making it scientific, in our incredibly limited sense of the term.

Incorrect, because there is only a positive test and no negative test. Evolution does have negative tests. For example, if the cladistic approach to taxonomy was shown to not work then evolution would be invalid.

 

[Perfection]

It's not provable either; it's a matter of faith, which by definition precludes proof. But that being said, until you're able to prove God doesn't exist, you cannot disprove Creationism. This whole thread is pointless.

Faith is not scientific.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Incorrect, because there is only a positive test and no negative test. Evolution does have negative tests. For example, if the cladistic approach to taxonomy was shown to not work then evolution would be invalid.

Wrong again. God is capable of anything. If he saw fit to test creationism in a way which would be deemed negative, He could easily do so. But it is not in His best interests, so He does not.

Faith is not scientific.

On the contrary, Faith is the most scientific thing you will ever encounter, yet it is also something that you will never understand. Faith is an enigma, yet it is also one of the most basic things ever.

I return to my argument that things exist, and therefore God created them, which you cannot disprove. All your silly arguments about fossils, and different types of evolution which have been revised (by revisionists) over time cannot override the argument that stuff exists.