Two and a half hour explaination of everthing Creationism.

As far as the part in bold ("for evolution thinking underpins racism, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, promiscuity, divorce, suicide, Social Darwinism, etc"), this reveals a disdain for truth by the claimant.

What this statement ignores is whether evolution is true or not. Thus, EVEN IF IT'S TRUE that evolution engenders all of these things, one should still accept evolution IF EVOLUTION ITSELF IS TRUE. Anything else is disdain for truth, for the essence of the argument is that evolution should be rejected EVEN IF IT'S TRUE because it implies bad things.

You're right. This is where the discussion ends. A real argument assumes both sides are seeking the truth, when the person who made this claim clearly has no regard for truth.

 

Because it shows no specifics. What species evolved. Looks more like they took a guess at using a prehistoric animal group and hoped no one would question it

 

It made no sense because to say science has no proof makes no sense. If they have no proof then it must be all assumptions,opinions, and guesses

 

So to be vague proves it. what a joke it is more like a fairy tale. If it is evolution show what species evolved and show the progression. Using generic groups and no specifics show they are guessing and have no proof

 

Wrong they do not show what species that is like saying dog or cat there are hundreds of species

 

Mising links is a creationist strawman argument of the fossil record.

 

If the evidence was specific instead of vague or general it might be believable but instead you have to be a believer in evolution to buy some of the stuff I am seeing here.

 

No, more because we are expected to believe evolution when they can not show specific species. I can say a dog and is that a Mastiff or a Wolf or a Chihuahua. Only a believer would accept these general terms with no specifics

 

No it is fact they have to imagine the progression because they do not have fossils showing the progression. It is a straw man to you because you blindly believe anything evolution says

 

Great evidence for evolution:

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
Ring Species
Vestigal organs, limbs, etc
Genetics
No rabbit fossils in the precambrian

 

These debates would go easier if you creationists bothered to find out the definition of words and terms before using them. You just used strawman incorrectly. Please come back after actually learning what I said means.

 

Okay, so first you admit LYING. Next:

GREY WOLF TO DOG, AUROCH TO DOMESTICATED COW.

Are you freaking blind?

 

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve


Biologist - It shows that evolution has to work with what it had

Creationist/IDist - It shows that the IDer/God has a sense of humour lol!

 

No, it makes perfect sense to anybody with half of a half of a brain. Are you saying that it is an assumption, opinion, or guess that atoms exist? That gravity exists? That cells exist? These are all scientific theories.

 

Why? If I show you a very old crystal, and tell you how crystals are formed are you going to say "Nuh uh, God did it!" simply because you weren't an eyewitness to the crystal forming? What about a baby? Are you going to deny that babies are formed in a nine month process because you aren't personally in the womb?

 

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.


That's what science has.

What does religion have? We'll make this easier, what does Christianity have?

A book written by people who thought that pi=3 and that the world was flat.





Science has given us the computer that you are currently using to deny science.

What wonderful technological advances has religion given us?

I'll answer that one for you, none. Not a single thing.

 

If you expect that everything is spoon-fed to you on a political internet forum, then yes, the evidence will always remain rather vague. If you're really interested in the subject, however, you can have a look at the literature on the subject. That's where you can find the details.

 

Duh, he has. He no doubts reads Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, probably being to the Creation Museum to see the evidence for himself..........

 

Where did I mention a cow?

 

No there is proof. That is why saying science is not proof is wrong

 

So you have nothing so you take me out of context. Show specifics Science should be specific

 

nice Opinion I am proud of you

 

Wrong. If people are going to show something as proof it needs to be specific not generic and vague

 

Good grief. If you want more direct info, don't make up false claims about my sources, just ask.

Here is some more info:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01