Skip to comments.How to Slam Dunk Creationists on Evolution
Posted on 08/06/2017 9:38:48 AM PDT by EveningStar
The 2001 discovery of the seven million-year-old Sahelanthropus, the first known upright ape-like creatures, was yet more proof of humanitys place among the great apes. And yet Mike Pence, then a representative and now US vice president, argues for the opposite conclusion.
For him, our ideas about our ancestors have changed, proving once more that evolution was a theory, and therefore we should be free to teach other theories alongside evolution in our classrooms.
How to respond? The usual answer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word theory as used in science that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up to repeated testing. Pences argument will then be exposed to be what philosophers call an equivocation an argument that only seems to make sense because the same word is being used in two different senses.
Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...
Is that while when I was in school they were constantly pushing "Evolution in Schools, Evolution in Schools, Evolution in Schools"
Yet, with Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever. They reject the fundamental principle of what evolution is about. That those species who cannot adapt to change will die off.
I just tell evolutionists that God says to look at creation and that man is without excuse for not believing in the Creator. Then I say have fun telling God your theory at judgement.
Lol.. elitism in science. Yep, they did the same to Galileo to save us all. Lucky to have them telling us they are god. same group who said the Himalayas would melt by 2035!! You can trust them, they know what is best for you. I can’t believe people still buy this after reams of falsified data have been revealed.
Look for the Y-5 pattern in the dentition.
There’s nothing wrong with having open classroom discussions on creationism and evolution...as long as they are truly open.
Just remember in the end though: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” —Richard Feynman, physicist
Satan has always had scams to fool the feeble minded.
Heb 11:1: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Like Liberals, Democrats and Rinos. MAGA!
Then I say have fun telling God your theory at judgement.
you are privy to what their judgments are going to be, are you...?
you are privy to what their judgments are going to be, are you...?
If they remain opposed against the Lord?
How can you have evolution and reproduction? You would have to have male and female reproductive organs evolving simultaneously, which would take not millions but billions of years, because if there is any part missing on either, reproduction can’t occur. And after that, where would the instinct to nurture come from. Every life form that supposedly crawled from the primordial ooze would have been extinct when the original died. Sorry. Evolutionists have to suspend reason to a degree that makes it ridiculous.
if you believe in evolution
when you claim you believe in science
how can you reconcile that with claiming there’s 57 genders and growing
leftist give us fake nutrition (meat and fat cause diabetes, grain diets are healthy), fake news (”trump conspired with the russians to win the election”), and fake science (”humans are causing the polar ice caps to melt and we’ll all be drowned when the oceans soon rise by 100 feet worldwide”, and “life on Earth occurred by accident due to a temporary pocket of negative entropy”).
I’d like to hear their most powerful arguments for the first living cell arising randomly with the 6 feet of DNA structures necessary to codify not only the organization of the cell, but its replication system, the repair system, the communication system, the fabrication system and its integration system with soon to be surrounding cells.
While I’m waiting, I think I’ll preform a experiment. Actually, my experiment would take longer than that, so instead, let’s perform a thought experiment, but instead of shooting for the first fully functioning, self-replicting cell, let’s go for something MUCH simpler than a single cell organism, say a nano-sized CF-53 Panasonic i7 laptop with Windows 7 Professional x64 with integrated nano-solar cells for power.
First, we fill a billion (or so) beakers full of the necessary elemental powders, say a bunch of ground up laptops and bootable OS CDs (to make things go quicker), put some sea water in, and then bombard the laptop soup in the beakers with lightening for a few hundred million years (or so).
What are the chance of getting our nano-laptop and OS. Pretty good, right? After all, that’s a WAY simpler setup than a self-replicating cell.
Do you think that we would eventually obtain a few simple diodes, later followed by an integrated circuit chip forming in the beaker? And then the chip would eventually RANDOMLY evolve all by itself into the laptop (with operating system) after being bombarded by cosmic rays for an even longer time after that, even though bombarding an integrated circuit with cosmic rays would be like bombarding an Intel i7 fabrication plant with 20mm depleted uranimum shells from an A-10 Warthog, and expecting to get an i9 processor coming out afterwards? You know, pretty much like bombarding our single cell animal itself with cosmic rays and expecting that eventually a homo sapiens would arise.
If organic life formed by accident in a similar scenario, then certainly there should be no problem with obtaining the laptop and operating system in a like fashion, because after all, the laptop and OS are a few thousand trillion times simpler than, say, the Homo Sapiens species. In fact, we should obtain the laptop and OS much faster because they are so much simpler.
I wonder how long we’ll have to shake our beakers?
Faith should be strong enough to not require a scientific explanation for God.
Science should (and usually does) acknowledge that on evolutionary timescales that “fact” can change based on available data and analysis capability.
Faith and science need not ever agree, nor must they ever be in conflict.
One for every state?
My answer to atheists:
Get an 18” telescope and get back to me.
Ahhhhhh!!! But they don't! They teach the Theory of Evolution as proven fact...
“evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory”
Here is where Braterman exposes his great ignorance.