First of all, science isn't about "proof." It's about building models that explain and predict the behavior of the natural world. The word "proof" does not belong here; it's relevant in mathematics, but not here.

I understand this, but the tone I was getting from the person I replied to seemed to be taking things in absolutes and acting as though there was proof one way or another to illustrate the young earth theory.

Second of all, I do not understand where you are getting the idea that the concept of science makes me unhappy. It certainly doesn't, and anyone who knows me would laugh at such a statement being made about me.

The only thing I was stating is that both sides can make compelling arguements, but neither of them have completely shown their theories to be completely workable. I am more inclined to believe in evolutionary theory than I am in any sort of Creationist theory, if you are needing to know.

I'm sorry that making unwarranted assumptions makes you into a complete jackass. No, really, I am.

About how many of them are biologists?

I couldn't tell you, as I am not all that scientifically inclined, but there are individuals out there who rise above the nonsense such as what was posted in ferrett's original post. There are people out there who are devout Christians who are attempting to use scientific methods to explain the creationist theory.

This sounds very trite, but I had taken a couple of courses while in college dealing with this issue and found myself surprised at how the Creationist side of things were presented.

I'll leave you to go and find someone who actually is a Christian/Creationist to go and attack now, as I believe our business is concluded. ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"The only thing I was stating is that both sides can make compelling arguements, but neither of them have completely shown their theories to be completely workable"

This is insistencce upon absolute or completeness is utter nonsense.

You are equating a greater than 99% chance of falsity (Creationism) with a less than 1% chance of error (Science).

This is why Creationism is NOT science.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Alright,

If we're speaking strictly of evolution, can you say that it is a completely airtight theory, and that there are zero problems with said theory? Or are there some issues that scientists are still trying to work out, and, possibly, may never be able to answer?

Conversely, Young Earth Creationism is, going from my own limited education, is a pretty retarded theory, if you'll pardon the language. However, there is more to creationist science than simply insisting that god made everything, therefore it is correct.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here when I ask how much Creationist material have you actually read over, and how much of it was not akin to what was in the original post here?

Again, I will state that I put far more stock into evolutionary theory and I am by no means a Christian in any sense of the word, I just happen to find it interesting that not all Creationist material is 'DA BIG GUY WITH DA BEARD ZAPPED US FROM DA CLAY AND NOW WEZ ALIVE!'

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"If we're speaking strictly of evolution, can you say that it is a completely airtight theory,"

Again, you're insisting on holding Science to an absolute.

And as I just said, Science is *NOT* absolute, and it just doesn't work that way. Science is the best answer based on current data and prediction.

Similarly, I do *NOT* need to read *ALL* Creationist crap to determine that it is crap. If so, you give me an address, and I'll mail you a huge bag of manure, with the understanding that you'll eat EVERY morsel of it to prove that it's manure.

Creationism is a nice idea, wrapped in the trappings of Science. When you finally boil it all down, you end up getting back to the beard stepping in somewhere to make things workable again.

To claim that Creationism is "correct" is clearly false. Or put another way, if I put on the costume of Darth Vader, I actually *become* him? Because that's what Creationism argues. Creationism says that if it looks like Science, uses the language, tacks on the word as a suffix, then it *is* Science.

It is amusing to me that "Creation Science" is as much made by divine fiat as Creation itself.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

When have I ever stated that Creationist Science is correct?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"However, there is more to creationist science than simply insisting that god made everything, therefore it is correct."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Pardon me, but,

Where the fuck have I said that?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh. I get that.

You're misunderstanding me.

I stated that 'there is more to creationist science than simply insisting that god made everything, therefore it is correct'.

As in, I was stating that there are people out there who simply don't go 'Creationism is truth BECAUSE GOD DID IT.'

Poor sentence structure on my behalf, and I apologise for the confusion.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Ahh... Sorry, re-reading, I didn't quite follow you correctly.

Anyhow, I am well aware that there are Creationists who have a better way of phrasing their argument.

But their best arguments, while persuasive, still fail the tests of what would make them true science. Yes, they draw from actual fact, but the way that they tend to interpret them tends to depart from the Scientific Method.

In any case, the chance that they may be right is miniscule compared to the likelihood that established Science and evolution are correct.

The fact that there is the possibility that Science may be wrong is not an indictment of Science, nor an endorsement of Creation. It is inherent in the nature of Science. However, the sheer volume of work that confirms the hypothesis and predictions counts very strongly in favor of Science being correct.

For reference, you might look up the terms "Phlogiston" (fire), "AEther" (electricity), and "Haemonculus" (reproduction) with respect to early science. These were theories that held great sway at the time, but were subsequently discarded as new data became available. It is the nature of Science to look for better theories, and to try and confirm one vs the other.

Evolution follows the Scientific Method. It is a sound theory that makes predictions that can be tested and independently verified. Yes, it would only take *one* test to invalidate the theory. But that test has yet to be found and independently verified.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"However, there is more to creationist science than simply insisting that god made everything, therefore it is correct."

dude, what? can you elaborate on that? what's correct?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Badly written sentence on my behalf, I apologise.

I was simply trying to state that there are other individuals out there who aren't simply of the 'Well, GOD said it happened, therefore it is TRUE' mindset.

I was not stating that Creationism was 'correct'.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

to fix the sentence then, you could have said "However, there is more to creationist science than simply insisting that god made everything, therefore it is correctly called science"?

if that's right, i think some of the people earlier in the comments would disagree with you. to be science, you need to.. what did they say? be disprovable, be able to make predictions, there were a few of them. (i'm in a fine arts degree, so i'm not exactly well-versed in scientific theory.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

haha, thanks.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yay fine arts degrees! *hides behind her theatre design major* Of course, I was a math nerd in high school...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

me too! oddly enough, i had a hard time deciding between what some people would call extreme opposites: engineering and visual arts.

granted, i'm in a digital art program, and it kind of combines the best of both worlds.

maybe i'll go to grad school and be an architect :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Seriously, look into Pasadena or Detroit. Both schools are excellent.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The only thing I was stating is that both sides can make compelling arguements, but neither of them have completely shown their theories to be completely workable.

Please summarize for me how the theory of evolution is "unworkable" when geneticists and other scientists use it every day. (I'm sorry, you have to spell it out for me, since I am a stupid jackass.)

This sounds very trite, but I had taken a couple of courses while in college dealing with this issue and found myself surprised at how the Creationist side of things were presented.

All Creationist arguments against evolution have been refuted ad nauseum. Check out the Talk.Origins FAQ for details.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Please show me where completely workable == completely unworkable. All I see is someone who got burned attempting to insult me because I apparently do not like science (lol?) and has got her knickers in a twist over it.

Again, from what I understand, evolutionary theory still has some parts to it that have yet to be explained...please correct me if I am not accurate in regards to this.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Evolutionary theory is much more "workable" than creationism, which doesn't work at all. Scientists can use evolutionary theory to make advances and predictions.

evolutionary theory still has some parts to it that have yet to be explained

That's true of just about every scientific theory. Are you implying that Creationism is superior because it does explain everything?

BTW, insults are not arguments.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I am getting really tired of going around the mulberry bush with you, so I'll lay it out as simply as possible.

1) I am not a Creationist, nor am I a Christian or any other sort of being who would hold a belief in said theories, religions, etc.

2) You started off this little bitchfest by jumping to conclusions and stating that science makes me unhappy. That to me indicates that you are as ignorant as the people you are supposedly railing against.

3) I have never stated that Creationism is a 'superior' theory or that it 'beats' Evolutionary theory or anything else. I am simply stating that both arguments have their problems, and both can be presented properly and both can be misrepresented a la Noah vs. Godzilla.

4) Just to make sure it sinks into your thick skull: I do not support Creationism or believe in it, and in actuality put more stock into Evolutionary Theory, you stupid, vapid cunt.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If you cannot hold an argument without insults, please don't do so here. Either debate pleasantly or not at all.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

After reading the first bit of this reply, I decided not to read the rest. I just don't have time for your adolescent sparring.

So let me just leave you, again, with the link to the Talk.Origins FAQ. This is a reputable site which answers all the most common Creationist claims. If you're sitting on the fence in this debate, and you want to learn more, then check it out. If you don't care, then don't.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

OK. Can I just say that through all of this bull, you said the very thing that I have been looking for?

It's not about agreeing with me. Just don't attack me because I believe differently than you. At least acknowledge that there is evidence out there.

Thank you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)