Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?

[Photonic]

But there is a difference between dishonesty and a lack of education on a topic.

(Of course, though, it's dishonest to continue with a train of thought when counter factual information is presented over and over and over...)

There is enough evidence backing the theory of evolution to put it on equal footing with gravity, electromagnetism, relativity, etc.

It is highly dishonest to continue to operate from a point of view that has been refuted with sufficient evidence. It also insults those who have taken the time to point out where you err and even provide you with direction in which to educate yourself.

Why does one continue to hold a false point of view when it has been verified time and again to BE a false point of view?

Does it make you feel better? How do you live with the intellectual dishonesty you perpetrate against yourself?

(Not you exactly but directed as a general question to creationists that are educated on the topic or have been presented with a means to. Just referencing your post. )

 

[johnhanks]

[Homo erectus] could be just another species of type of ape. Without the assumption of evolution there is no reason to say that is a human/ape combination.

With a brain more similar to that of humans than of apes, and a bipedal posture no ape has ever shown? You don't need the assumption of evolution - the thing shouts evolution at you.

Oh, and this time you've dodged the fraud issue. Do you really have evidence for your charge that palaeontologists' analyses of their finds are routinely fraudulent? (And please don't bother us with Piltdown man, a one-off hoax from nearly a century ago.)

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

One thing I never heard of in my Christian education in a Catholic school in the 1960's is the concept of a young earth. I was in fact taught the earth was a considerable number of millions of years old and a 25 million year old mountain is considered a young mountain for instance by geological standards for instance; certainly no mention of it being 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The model of the young earth went the way of the geo-centric universe over the centuries during the Enlightenment in the West. It has only undergone a revival since the early 1920's. Why creationists have reintroduced this long discredited nonsense into their dogma beats me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That could be just another species of type of ape. Without the assumption of evolution there is no reason to say that is a human/ape combination.

You've got a false dichotomy hidden in your statement. Humans are a "species of type of ape".

 

[Photonic]

One thing I never heard of in my Christian education in a Catholic school in the 1960's is the concept of a young earth. I was in fact taught the earth was a considerable number of millions of years old and a 25 million year old mountain is considered a young mountain for instance by geological standards for instance; certainly no mention of it being 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The model of the young earth went the way of the geo-centric universe over the centuries during the Enlightenment in the West. It has only undergone a revival since the early 1920's. Why creationists have reintroduced this long discredited nonsense into their dogma beats me.

Probably because they realized they needed to prepare their students for the REAL WORLD.

 

[cablescavenger]

There are even many scientists who once were evolutionists but now question the theory and many who have become creationists.

An evolutionist that rejects evolution. Name one evolutionist that does not believe in evolution? and I am fairly sure you will come up with an evolutionist that manipulated his faith to fit the evolution theory.

That seems to be the religious way... we need to side step this one guys....
:run:

it is futile to argue against it, we should adopt it and present it as part of the master plan.

 

[Matthew78]

I would be happy to explain evolution to an evolutionist.

No thanks. I don't need a creationist to educate me about evolution. I have all the resources I need to understand it.

What we see below is that there are no direct lineages between fossils.

Your quote comes from TalkOrigins, which is an educational website regarding evolution written by people who are well-educated on the subject. Why did you quote from that website rather than some creationist website? Second, you're misrepresenting what you quoted as we shall see.

So when an evolutionists puts fossils side by side and says that is evidence of evolution, that is a lie, because there is no way to determine any direct descendant of one to the other.

That's right. Evolution is one big fraud and lie, isn't it? It's nothing but a hoax so evolutionists won't have to accept Jesus as their personal lord and Savior, isn't it? I have news for you: I am an evolutionist because of the evidence from science. If evolution was refuted and it was shown that life was intelligently designed, I wouldn't become a creationist. I will never become a Christian, even if I was held at gunpoint. I would rather just die.

Now we come to the fun part!

CC200: Transitional fossils

"There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."

Look at what is underlined in this passage. The first sentence is that there "are many transitional forms". That blows your whole rebuttal to pieces. The last sentence defines what a transitional form is: it's any "fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

What this passage is saying is that the only way creationists can argue for gaps in the fossil record, "aside form ignoring the evidence completley", is to redefine what a transitional form is. But, they redefine it in ways that are not required by the theory of evolution. Direct lineages aren't required by evolution; what's required are fossils that show a mosaic of features and these are what are found.

In fact, you're doing exactly what you quoted from this website. You're ignoring the evidence completely and redefining transitional forms in a way that's not required by evolution and then saying that there are gaps. You won't even address the fossils that show mosaic features. You have ignored the evidence and misrepresented what TalkOrigins has said. I just can't figure out if you did this accidently or deliberately. I suspect it was deliberate on your part.

So, how does your foot feel now that you shot it?

 

[Matthew78]

That could be just another species of type of ape. Without the assumption of evolution there is no reason to say that is a human/ape combination.

You made a serious charge of intellectual misconduct against scientists by accusing them of fraud. Now back up your claim or apologize for your libel.

 

[Hawkins]

There is enough evidence backing the theory of evolution to put it on equal footing with gravity, electromagnetism, relativity, etc.

We are not persuaded just because of this single statement. ToE is totally different from gravity, electromanetism, relativity and etc. Your misunderstanding of science simply make us laugh.

Gravity, electromagnestism, relativity are all following the requirement of science, that is, they all bear the characteristics of repeatedly observable and thus the predictability and falsifyability of science.

You may conclude that certain part of history is just as evident as gravity, electromagnetism, relativity and etc. Yet no matter how evident that part of history seems to be, it won't make it a science. To simply put, science is about how things repeating themselves by following rules. We can thus follow the rules to predict their behavior. If things don't go well with the prediction, the rules we assumed are thus falsified. All science follow these characteristics of predictability and falsifyability but not ToE!

 

[outhouse]

We are not persuaded just because of this single statement.

you would not be, no matter what is presented to you so dont act like that one statement is a deal breaker lol you flat refuse all modern science in your attempt to protect your theology.

Your misunderstanding of science simply make us laugh.

I only with the ignorance of creationist was a laughing matter but its not.

Gravity, electromagnestism, relativity are all following the requirement of science, that is, they all bear the characteristics of repeatedly observable and thus the predictability and falsifyability of science.

as does evolution. have you ever picked up a science book or read any new material other then religious dogma in the past few days?

 

[outhouse]

You may conclude that certain part of history is just as evident as gravity, electromagnetism, relativity and etc. Yet no matter how evident that part of history seems to be, it won't make it a science. To simply put, science is about how things repeating themselves by following rules. We can thus follow the rules to predict their behavior. If things don't go well with the prediction, the rules we assumed are thus falsified. All science follow these characteristics of predictability and falsifyability but not ToE!

nothing personal but if you refuse the known valid peer reviewed science behind evolution, you dont understand science so please, dont pretend to.

 

[Hawkins]

you would not be, no matter what is presented to you so dont act like that one statement is a deal breaker lol you flat refuse all modern science in your attempt to protect your theology.

You mean modern agenda from atheistic false science?

I only with the ignorance of creationist was a laughing matter but its not.

Creation itself is religon related, we all aware that it is somehow faith based. The point here is, evolutionts don't have the same awareness about their own faith. They mistakenly treat faith as fact.

as does evolution. have you ever picked up a science book or read any new material other then religious dogma in the past few days?

It is by your faith that I don't read science books. Other than this faith statement which coming out of your mouth but without your own awareness, your this statement contains no argument.

 

[Hawkins]

nothing personal but if you refuse the known valid peer reviewed science behind evolution, you dont understand science so please, dont pretend to.

Whatever you read, no one in this world can ever bring up a repeatedly testable model to support ToE. Hope that you don't mean to talk about recent BS from evolutionists with "scientist" in disguise.

 

[Awoon]

When it comes down to serious scientific debate and some detractors from a certain theory still persist in their steadfast views in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would be it be best to just ignore them, brush them off and move on to more serious scientific debate such as competing models of evolution theories and hypothesises rather than arguing adnauseum about all this discredited nonsense about young earth creationism. Should these young earth creationists and all creationists be just simply lumped in the same category as flat earth believers and be just simply booed off the scientific stage and just say, next! If they a contributing nothing scientifically IMO I think the best course of action is to just ignore them, period. Evolutionary biology is in itself an evolving discipline and those pesky creationists are contributing nothing.

Does either sides' opinion affect everyday living and dying?

 

[Photonic]

Does either sides' opinion affect everyday living and dying?

Creationism would be degenerative to modern medicine. We use evolutionary biology in modern medicine.

 

[Photonic]

Whatever you read, no one in this world can ever bring up a repeatedly testable model to support ToE. Hope that you don't mean to talk about recent BS from evolutionists with "scientist" in disguise.

Your body is a living observable model sir. The fact that you are here is a tantamount to the repeatability of evolution.

 

[Majikthise]

Does either sides' opinion affect everyday living and dying?

Animal and plant breeding which effects food supplies.

 

[outhouse]

You mean modern agenda from atheistic false science?

WRONG again

many scientist are theist and find ToE valid

evolutionts don't have the same awareness about their own faith. They mistakenly treat faith as fact.

WRONG again

there is a difference between knowledge and faith.

You do know there is a direct link to ones education and belief in creation. Most educated people find creation laughable while the ignorant and uneducated wallow in creation. DESPITE theism or a lack of it.

It is by your faith that I don't read science books. Other than this faith statement which coming out of your mouth but without your own awareness, your this statement contains no argument.

choosing to remain ignorant doesnt help your position


It screams i dont want to know or learn about something fully before I make a decision BLINDLY


Ya I understand why you would want to make blind decisions and create a dogma about something you know nothing about. GOLDEN FACEPALM AWARD

 

[Matthew78]

You mean modern agenda from atheistic false science?

Are you serious?!? Do you seriously believe that there is an atheist agenda pretending to be science?

Why is it that I'm the last person to know about these things?! If I had known this, I would never have purchased that darned book by Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth! I'm such a boob!

Creation itself is religon related, we all aware that it is somehow faith based. The point here is, evolutionts don't have the same awareness about their own faith. They mistakenly treat faith as fact.

How do you define both "faith" and "fact"?

It is by your faith that I don't read science books. Other than this faith statement which coming out of your mouth but without your own awareness, your this statement contains no argument.

I see. So us evolutionists have nothing but blind faith in evolution while creationists are the truly scientifically enlightened people who have nothing but rational faith in creation. The problem is that we heathens are just as bunch of god-haters who want nothing to do with Jesus, huh?

 

[outhouse]

Whatever you read, no one in this world can ever bring up a repeatedly testable model to support ToE. Hope that you don't mean to talk about recent BS from evolutionists with "scientist" in disguise.

wrong again speciation has been observed in a lab.

Please you embarrass yourself over and over with your lack of education on the subject