Why do atheists assume evolution is fact?

[artsylady]

I'd watch the video that is proof for evolution except it's coming from you tube.

And, my husband's watching tv so I'll save that for later.

other than your own faith do you have ANY proof that the men who wrote the bible were indeed inspired by your god? perhaps they were just crazy and had voices in their head that told them crazy stories...or maybe they were just rewriting the myths of another culture(which is what really happened..the bible is a plagerism of sumarian myths)

I'll bump up a thread called 'massive conspiracy theory' in the other section of apologetics and you can read and respond there if you have time.

creation scientists are an oxymoron..creation scientists are not true scientists they have a hypothesis and then design experiments to get the data they want to see..thats why the EAL scientific community(many of whom are christians) ignore the creation scientists..because their data and their experiments are useless scientifically

i don't know where you've been debating or what you think you know or why this fallacy continues, but you are greatly misinformed.

Here's a partial list of modern day creationists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

just because they carry the same education(which Btw is false for all but a small handful) that doesnt mean they use good science. I have yet to see a single peice of creation "science" that follows the scientific method and doesnt go into the experiment with the desire to find the truth..

Hmmmm. I asked for exactly the same of the atheists here months ago on another thread, so maybe you'd like to step up to the plate. A peice of evidence for evolution that follows the scientific method.

Please provide.

regardlss of whether it goes against their beleifs or not..show me one creation scientists who has published a paper that goes against the traditional deas he held..real scientists do it all the time theyre just as excited to be proven wrong as to be proven right

Check the Talk origins pages on ID scientists and peer reviewed material. Now read it very very carefully.

[artsylady]

Charles:

My husband turned down the tv so that I could watch the video- not that the audio was important, although the background music was quite inspiring.

The video does admit the oldest living tree is less than around 4600 years old (about the same time as the flood coincidentally.)

Anyway, the tree in question is the bristlecone pine.

http://www.icr.org/article/381/

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

Charles:

My husband turned down the tv so that I could watch the video- not that the audio was important, although the background music was quite inspiring.

The video does admit the oldest living tree is less than around 4600 years old (about the same time as the flood coincidentally.)

Anyway, the tree in question is the bristlecone pine.

http://www.icr.org/article/381/

*slaps forhead* you really need to think harder about that video my friend..the oldest LIVING tree is only 4.5 thousand years old..but thats not the oldest tree

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

I'd watch the video that is proof for evolution except it's coming from you tube.

And, my husband's watching tv so I'll save that for later.

other than your own faith do you have ANY proof that the men who wrote the bible were indeed inspired by your god? perhaps they were just crazy and had voices in their head that told them crazy stories...or maybe they were just rewriting the myths of another culture(which is what really happened..the bible is a plagerism of sumarian myths)

I'll bump up a thread called 'massive conspiracy theory' in the other section of apologetics and you can read and respond there if you have time.

creation scientists are an oxymoron..creation scientists are not true scientists they have a hypothesis and then design experiments to get the data they want to see..thats why the EAL scientific community(many of whom are christians) ignore the creation scientists..because their data and their experiments are useless scientifically

i don't know where you've been debating or what you think you know or why this fallacy continues, but you are greatly misinformed.

Here's a partial list of modern day creationists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

just because they carry the same education(which Btw is false for all but a small handful) that doesnt mean they use good science. I have yet to see a single peice of creation "science" that follows the scientific method and doesnt go into the experiment with the desire to find the truth..

Hmmmm. I asked for exactly the same of the atheists here months ago on another thread, so maybe you'd like to step up to the plate. A peice of evidence for evolution that follows the scientific method.

Please provide.

regardlss of whether it goes against their beleifs or not..show me one creation scientists who has published a paper that goes against the traditional deas he held..real scientists do it all the time theyre just as excited to be proven wrong as to be proven right

Check the Talk origins pages on ID scientists and peer reviewed material. Now read it very very carefully.

couldnt find the TO page(i rarely go there except for a few things i know they have for references)

one peice of evidence for evolution that follows the scientific method?? uhm...read the origin of species...thats one

as far as AIG's list..LOL...i was impressed until i read what it took to get included on that list..theres no verification that any of these people have degrees in anything

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

couldnt find the TO page(i rarely go there except for a few things i know they have for references)

one peice of evidence for evolution that follows the scientific method?? uhm...read the origin of species...thats one

as far as AIG's list..LOL...i was impressed until i read what it took to get included on that list..theres no verification that any of these people have degrees in anything

I was impressed until I realised that their list of arguments you SHOULD NOT use was longer than their list of arguments that you should use.

Then I became even less impressed when I looked at some of their arguments that you should use and realised that they were all either "ZOMG! What's the use of half an eye?" (Answer - ask anyone with glasses) or "ZOMG! Look! Extinct things!" (Answer - The theory of Evolution predicts this, so big deal)

yeah..AIG is pretty much worthless i cant help but chuckle when someone uses it as proof..their science is crappy their speaches are only good at confusing people with no knowledge of science or critical thinking skills, and their site is poorly put together too boot

[wheels5894]

Hi Artslady.

One point to start with. If you are arguing the case for Creationism, then you really should stick to doing that. Even if you have the piece of evidence that could destroy Evolution in your hand, that act of destroying the theory would not make creationism the right solution. You would still need to argue for it yourself.

I am not very au fait with creation Theory as I thought it was just based on biblical texts. If there is more to it could you point me to a site or a book where I can read up more please?

Of course, it is easy to try and pick holes in someone else's theory though, remember, we are talking about evidence of 150 years of research. Nonetheless maybe you have come across something that argues against evolution. have you, or others, submitted a paper about it to a peer-reviewed journal. Nature has had a few anti-evolution papers published but on a couple of hundred compared with the 13 thousand or more for evolution. Perhaps you could point me to any articles like that to read.

Now, to turn to the originator of the idea of evolution - Hi Mr Darwin.

That was a very interesting video and ought to give everyone cause to think. The real problem here is that in the USA about half the population belief in the Bible and Creationism or the New Creationsim, ID. many have not learned much science and so stick to their views.

The other problem is that there are various ways of accepting the Bible. Many, perhaps more liberal, accept the Bible as written by men who were inspired by God but the text is still from those men. On the other side, there are those who claim that every word of the text is waht God 'dictated' to the writers and they believe in is infallible - but only in the original version which of course we don't have. The degree that a person beleives in Creationism will depend on their view of the Bible.

The worst anomaly I see, though, is that while those who believe the Bible as the literal Word of God don't really quite believe it when they act. For example, why would a person which such beliefs need health insurance? God has promised to heal them is they pray and ask. Then again, they are happy with all sort of scientific and medical breakthroughs abd take advantage of them even when the Bible has a different idea. Even weather forecasting ignores the doors in the heavens which are opened to ler the rain out!

I think this might be a hard job to argue away Creationism.

Edited January 27, 2008 by wheels5894

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

Indeed wheels...

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy

[artsylady]

Lusankya:

Don't be ridiculous. They blatantly spit all over rock dating methods, and completely ignore all evidence which shows how certain organs have developed so that they can cling onto the concept of "irreducable complexity".

Yes, they do. Did you read what I wrote about K-AR and how, if the earth is indeed young, the method is completely useless as everyone knows that K-AR will date everything young in the millions of years?

Do you realize we can't measure important factors like the magnetic field over history and therefore assumptions that it's been constant and the same as what it is today is really a scientific approach?

Do you realize that they have very valid reasons for questioning the dating methods? Or do you think that they merely reject them all on 'religious' grounds? Please tell me what you believe.

QUOTE

Evolution doesn't really follow the scientific method, anymore than creationism or id do, because the predictions don't happen like they should.

Yes they do. Evolution predicts that organisms (such as bacteria) in an environment (let's say it contains antibiotics) will evolve so that those organisms which are best suited to the environment reproduce more successfully than those that are less suited. And lo and behold! Antibiotic resistant bacteria have come to exist within the last 60 years.

Furthermore, evolution predicts where and in what kinds of rocks particular fossil types will be found. So far these predictions have proven to be accurate.

And creationism predicts things like fossil graveyards where massive amounts of fossils from various animals are buried at once together.

Many, many of the predictions of evolution have been proven false over the years. I just want you to be aware of the errors too, in all fairness.

Part of the reason why it doesn't follow the scientific method is the 'observation' component. Observing of fossils by evolutionist, for example, is the same as observing of fossils by creationists.

QUOTE

There are literally thousands of evidences that are anamolies - they don't fit. They cannot be explained through evolutionary terms.

Please name one. I'm certain that if there are thousands, naming one would should be easy.

There's a site called Science Frontiers that publishes articles regarding known anomalies from major science magainzes. You can check it out at http://www.science-frontiers.com/

Keep in mind, coming from a creationist world view, these anomalies wouldn't be anomalies - they'd fit.

QUOTE

When we start talking in the millions and billions of years, we have to assume then that the dating methods used by modern sciences are completely trustworthy. In order to believe they are completely trustworthy, we need to believe that the conditions of today were the same kinds of conditions throughout history .... and we don't know that to be fact.

However, it is reasonable to assume that these conditions have been constant.

Why?

If evidence were found that suggested that exceptions existed (for example, abnormalities in the background radiation of the universe which suggested that the things like the speed of light had changed over time), then that would be cause for reevaluating many scientific theories.

So unless there's proof that any factors that would influence dating have changed, we assume they've always remained constant?

QUOTE

answersingenesis.org has a lot of great information. If you don't want to go into their regular articles, there are technical articles. This stuff is studied by a growing list of 'real' scientists.

I'll have to get to the rest later. Got to get ready for church.

[Guest Charles-Darwin]

Do you realize we can't measure important factors like the magnetic field over history and therefore assumptions that it's been constant and the same as what it is today is really a scientific approach?

blatantly false..of course we can measure the earth magnatism over time..thats how we know that the earth's magnetic poles have shifted many times

[wheels5894]

thanks for the info Artslady, but the thing I hoped you could refer me to is to published articles in proper journals to read. The problem with websites is that one can never know just who is running it and what standard they work to, whilst a perr reviewed journal article gives on confidence.

Incidentally, don't forget you need to be arguing in favour of creationism if it is your belief not against evolution. they are not alternatives and disproving one doesn't validate the other.