Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
So how come whenever Pahu presents something you just brush it off as "quote mining," but yet when you present something, it's somehow valid, needs our attention, and we're not allowed to brush it off as quote mining?
So how come whenever Pahu presents something you just brush it off as "quote mining," but yet when you present something, it's somehow valid, needs our attention, and we're not allowed to brush it off as quote mining?
All of the info in this thread is from "intelligent design" websites.
“Intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
These "intelligent design" promotors operate under the assumption "if science contradicts the Bible
the Bible is still true."
Imagine if Nature and other top scientific journals boasted on their masthead that they possessed a “firm commitment to the truth of evolution and the inerrancy and authority of Charles Darwin”, and refused to accept any papers submitted by anyone who held creationist beliefs. Imagine if science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould or Ken Miller wrote that, “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including biology, geology and physics, can be valid if it contradicts evolution.” Imagine if publishers of science textbooks or associations of science teachers declared, “We believe that the Origin of Species is completely without error, and all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.” Imagine, in this scenario, what an outcry the creationists would raise against unscientific bias and prejudice – and justifiably so. Now return to the real world, where exactly the opposite situation pertains. What does this say about the scientific status of both sides in the evolution/creationism debate?
The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer
doing science.
Why Creationism Isn’t Science
“Intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
These "intelligent design" promotors operate under the assumption "if science contradicts the Bible
the Bible is still true."
Imagine if Nature and other top scientific journals boasted on their masthead that they possessed a “firm commitment to the truth of evolution and the inerrancy and authority of Charles Darwin”, and refused to accept any papers submitted by anyone who held creationist beliefs. Imagine if science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould or Ken Miller wrote that, “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including biology, geology and physics, can be valid if it contradicts evolution.” Imagine if publishers of science textbooks or associations of science teachers declared, “We believe that the Origin of Species is completely without error, and all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.” Imagine, in this scenario, what an outcry the creationists would raise against unscientific bias and prejudice – and justifiably so. Now return to the real world, where exactly the opposite situation pertains. What does this say about the scientific status of both sides in the evolution/creationism debate?
The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer
doing science.
Why Creationism Isn’t Science
M
All of the info in this thread is from "intelligent design" websites.
“Intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
These "intelligent design" promotors operate under the assumption "if science contradicts the Bible
the Bible is still true."
Imagine if Nature and other top scientific journals boasted on their masthead that they possessed a “firm commitment to the truth of evolution and the inerrancy and authority of Charles Darwin”, and refused to accept any papers submitted by anyone who held creationist beliefs. Imagine if science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould or Ken Miller wrote that, “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including biology, geology and physics, can be valid if it contradicts evolution.” Imagine if publishers of science textbooks or associations of science teachers declared, “We believe that the Origin of Species is completely without error, and all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.” Imagine, in this scenario, what an outcry the creationists would raise against unscientific bias and prejudice – and justifiably so. Now return to the real world, where exactly the opposite situation pertains. What does this say about the scientific status of both sides in the evolution/creationism debate?
The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer
doing science.
Why Creationism Isn’t Science
“Intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.
These "intelligent design" promotors operate under the assumption "if science contradicts the Bible
the Bible is still true."
Imagine if Nature and other top scientific journals boasted on their masthead that they possessed a “firm commitment to the truth of evolution and the inerrancy and authority of Charles Darwin”, and refused to accept any papers submitted by anyone who held creationist beliefs. Imagine if science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould or Ken Miller wrote that, “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including biology, geology and physics, can be valid if it contradicts evolution.” Imagine if publishers of science textbooks or associations of science teachers declared, “We believe that the Origin of Species is completely without error, and all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.” Imagine, in this scenario, what an outcry the creationists would raise against unscientific bias and prejudice – and justifiably so. Now return to the real world, where exactly the opposite situation pertains. What does this say about the scientific status of both sides in the evolution/creationism debate?
The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer
doing science.
Why Creationism Isn’t Science
30. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
47. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
49. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
52. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
28. You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
30. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
47. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
49. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
52. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
30. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
47. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
49. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
52. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
M
No, religions belong in world religion class.
So how come you guys aren't fighting to get the names of the planets taken out of science class? That's very inconsistent of you.
Oh, and IronChariot's post was about how intelligent design/creationism are not science. My response had everything to do with that topic.
of the post I actually made. Point out what is wrong with it and please stay on topic. I will address
your response later.
G
97. You not only spell "God" with a lower case "g," but you also add an "E" to "B.C.," and replace the word "Christ" with an "x." Yet, when asked to name the planets you have no problem with spouting out the appropriate list of Roman Gods. Heck, you'll even spell them with capital letters! Not only that, you can even spell and pronounce the name of the 800-mile-diameter Trans-Neptunian Object 'Quaoar', and are delighted that it comes from the creation mythology of the Tongva people (aka the San Gabrielino Native Americans).
So how come you guys aren't fighting to get the names of the planets taken out of science class? That's very inconsistent of you.
So how come you guys aren't fighting to get the names of the planets taken out of science class? That's very inconsistent of you.
I don't use a capital g in god, because that isn't his name, his name is Yahweh. The word god is a classification system, "God", is not the name of the Judeo-Christian god, but many think it is because Europeans removed the word Yahweh very early on in Christianity and replaced it with "The Lord", or God, to remove the Jewish influence on Christianity.
M
Do I have a problem saying St. Petersburg? Jesus wasn't born on Christmas, but that doesn't change the fact that I've never said X mas to anyone, those are names. Lets stay on topic shall we, and not strawman.
I don't use a capital g in god, because that isn't his name, his name is Yahweh. The word god is a classification system, "God", is not the name of the Judeo-Christian god, but many think it is because Europeans removed the word Yahweh very early on in Christianity and replaced it with "The Lord", or God, to remove the Jewish influence on Christianity.
I don't use a capital g in god, because that isn't his name, his name is Yahweh. The word god is a classification system, "God", is not the name of the Judeo-Christian god, but many think it is because Europeans removed the word Yahweh very early on in Christianity and replaced it with "The Lord", or God, to remove the Jewish influence on Christianity.
28. You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
30. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
47. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
49. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
52. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
30. As a member of the Skeptic's Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.
47. When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps". YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke "Evolution of the gaps" (i.e., we don't know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)
49. You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities -- except creationism and/or intelligent design.
52. When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
I already did that. Anything further is simply not worth the time.
Here are some highlights:
Syllogism
p1. We appear to observe features in nature too complex to have happened by chance
p2. These features exhibit the hallmark appearance of design
p3. Design implies that there must be a designer
c1. Therefore nature must be the result of an intelligent designer
c2. This designer is God
(note: The Intelligent Design movement ends their version of the syllogism at c1. in a feeble attempt to shoe horn creationism into science classrooms. They believe that by not naming this intelligent designer God, the argument by fiat, is not religious. This is analogous to a child's game of peek-a-boo. When small children cover their eyes and can't see you, they assume you also can't see them)
Argument from poor design:
The Dysteleological argument, or argument from poor design, is an argument against the existence of God - specifically a creator God. (Dysteleogology meaning unintelligent.)
The argument typically goes as follows:
- An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God would create organisms with an optimal design.
- Organisms, especially humans, have features that are suboptimal.
- Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Some of the suboptimal features often touted includes:
- The eye (including the human eye, as the retina is backwards -- among other imperfections).
- The Laryngeal nerve (seen most spectacularly in the giraffe with a multiple metre detour to reach a displacement of mere centimetres).
- Appendix and prostate prone to swelling.
Argument from design - Iron Chariots Wiki
747 Junkyard argument - Iron Chariots Wiki
That should be enough to get you started.
Last edited:
G
Good job ignoring the important part of my post, ya know, the part about how you aren't fighting to get the names of the Roman gods taken out of the science classroom.
Last edited by a moderator: