Question Evolution!

Good answers.One might also point out, in the spirit of answering as slyly as one is asked, that without evolution there would have been neither intelligence nor science. In that sense, every scientific breakthrough is due to evolution.

You've caught the spirit. I did go for strict literalism on number 15.

Is there a way we can post questions on that site?

Fifteen Questions That Anyone Can Answer But Creationists Don't Want To(1) Is there any scientific evidence that fish were created four days after light?
(2) Is there any scientific evidence that birds were created one day after that?
(3) Is there any scientific evidence that the first woman was created out of the rib of the first man?
(4) Is there any scientific evidence that the first man was created "from the dust of the ground".
(5) Is there any scientific evidence that snakes were once able to talk?
(6) Is there any scientific evidence that humans acquired their sense of morality by eating fruit?
(7) Is there any scientific evidence that God brought the animals before the first man to name them?
(8) Is there any scientific evidence that the sons of God descended from heaven to marry human women?
(9) Is there any scientific evidence for the city supposedly built by Cain?
(10) Is there any scientific evidence that both bronze and iron were in use after only ten generations of the human race?
(11) Is there any scientific evidence that a man named Noah built a big ship out of gopher wood?
(12) Is there any scientific evidence that all the Earth's terrestrial fauna dispersed from a single location somewhere in the mountains of Ararat?
(13) Is there any scientific evidence that Noah only took two of each kind of unclean animal on the Ark?
(14) Is there any scientific evidence that everyone in the world spoke the same language until about 2200 B.C?
(15) Is there any scientific evidence that the Book of Genesis isn't just a bunch of fairy-tales made up by people who knew jack shit?Supplementary question: can you remind me why they call it "creation science"?

Very busy today, so will respond a bit at a time. This is a distinction that only creos recognize. In real science, there's no such thing as operational science and historical science.Furthermore, whether you can experiment with something or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether the inquiry is scientific. We can't experiment with the universe, but astronomy is still a science. We can't experiment with the Earth and reproduce ice ages, but geology is still a science.Experimenting is nothing more than one particular way to gather evidence. It is perhaps the most controllable method, but that is irrelevant. Science is a process of gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses against more evidence and forming conclusions based on the testing. It makes no difference how that evidence is gathered.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

Evidence that evolution is just so story telling? They take pseudogenes in various animals and claim that because the mutations in these genes follow a pattern, those animals evolved from each other according to that pattern. That is the essence of just so story telling.

Please give concrete examples.

One difference you'll notice at EvC, Jimmy, is that anybody can sign up and answer anybody's questions, at length, in their own words: answers are not screened and "paraphrased" by someone who disagrees.Why do you suppose that is?

So it's "just so story telling" like taking footprints to be evidence of feet?Well, if that's what you creationists mean by "just so story telling" then the answer to CMI's question is obvious: this is acceptable to scientists 'cos of being an essential and indispensable part of the scientific method, and because rejecting knowledge acquired in this way is stark raving lunacy.

If, by all of that, you meant to say that conclusions of science are not provable because we can never know what all of the evidence shows, you are 100% correct about that. Everyone on the ToE side here would agree with that. Every scientist would agree with that. Science is tentative. One should imagine that every single conclusion that any scientist ever came to, and that any scientist ever will come to, ends with an asterisk linking to a disclaimer that reads, "This is the best explanation we have to date based on the evidence available to date. This conclusion is subject to change if someone comes up with a better explanation or if more evidence comes to light."Or did I just horribly misunderstand the point you were making?Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

First thing I noticed when I went to the site was that on the link bar at the top, the first link was "home" and the next was "store" where you can buy t-shirts, hats and "question evolution!" bumper stickers and coffee cups to help get the message out that evolution is bogus. Great, that should be a big help.They also have some helpful tips for creationists and their anti-evolution efforts by suggesting some arguments you should not be using. here are some good ones (pay attention! this may be helpful)1. NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s long day and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.
2. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
3. Women have one more rib than men.
4. There are no beneficial mutations.
5. Evolution is just a theory.
6. Laminin: an amazing look at how Jesus is holding each of us together.
7. There are no transitional forms.
8. Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.And finally for the evolutionist to help you better argue your position thy also have some helpful tips.

quote:

---

I could almost write a ‘how-to’ manual for the anticreationist lobby, including:

​

Make sure you get the words ‘flat earth’ in there somewhere. Who cares that the whole idea that early Christians believed in a flat earth is a mythmost people don’t know that, and you’ll have made an impact with that little sound bite alone.

​

Then there’s that old standby; just get in a phrase like, The fact of evolution. It’ll hit home, and the creationist will need many sentences to refute those four words.

​

Oh, and don’t forget to sprinkle in punchy ‘links’ between the science and technology people enjoy today, and evolution. So their lifestyle will seem under threat. You know, make sure you get words like the benefits of modern science into the same sentence as evolution.

​

And if you don’t get a chance to say anything else, ensure you say something like: Do we really want these people dragging us back to the dark ages? That one works a treat

---

Thanks for the discussion Jimmy, it was very helpful!HBDABE: I wanted to add one more argument not to use

quote:

---

Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour.

---

(italics added)Edited by herebedragons, : It just made me laugh

Oh my word.They're not even trying to be right, are they?

quote:

---

I would add, what is evidence? Logically speaking?
It is the consequent in a modus ponen. The antecedant is represented as the theory or postulation. The falsification evidence is the modus tollens rejection of the consequent.

---

In fact the evidence would be the antecedent (The consequent is the conclusion, as the word suggests)

quote:

---

An induction of confirmation evidence is inductive reasoning because unless you own 100% of the evidence, epistemologically and logically speaking, you can not know or deduce respectively, you can only proceed via abductive inference. According to your JTB, justified-true belief, you can justifiably believe evolution happened, depending upon how compelling your evidence is.

---

Sure you can retreat to the fact that science doesn't provide absolute certainty. But so what ? It's hardly a rational position.

quote:

---

But to discuss the actual evidence is something as a creationist, I can no longer do.

​

I tried, several times, to explain what evidence is, and how complicated the logical variables are, I can't be a punch-bag for evolutionists forever.

---

Mikey, a lot of the problem is in your own confusion. Mixing up the antecedent and the consequent is just one example.Edited by Admin, : Fix dBCodes by replacing backslashes with slashes.

These are your answers? Where is the moderation for this?!He should be suspended.As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat how to refute any of those question.Creationism 1Panda 0Quality?...not even closeEmbarrassed?...You should beEdited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Um chuck77 his answers are technically correct.Creationism burned
Science works bitches