RE: Creationist nonsense

You really need to check your definition of the word theory. From dictionary.com, a theory is an explanation of why things occur. It is only in the sixth and seventh definition that it is even suggested that a theory may be pure speculation, but even if it is speculation, it is still a statement about why things occur the way they do. That said, creationism is a theory. Unfortunately, creationism lacks something that evolution possess: testable consequences. If you can come up with some, I will gladly put them to the test. Until then, however …

As to the 40 writers over 2000 years, I’ll see your 40 and raise you several thousand (possibly tens of thousands) over the past 200 years. (Check out the biological journals sometime.) And, yes some of the archeological evidence does dovetail nicely with the account in the bible, but that just proves that the writers chose to incorporate the events of their time in to their writings.

Um, no. The main purpose of evolution has been to establish the cause of the vast diversity of life. Specifically, it attempts to determine the cause of speciation. To be clear, two different species are those whom in the normal course of events would not be able to mate with each other and produce a viable offspring even if they are genetically compatible. Two groups may be considered different species if the differences in their mating rituals are enough to prevent them from interbreeding. This was observed on the Galápagos Islands where there are birds that can mate with the neighboring cousins, but cannot mate with the birds from across the island even though the chain of cousins goes around the island. In a similar sense, the dog really should be considered as having several different species as there is no way, except via artificial insemination, that a chihuahua is going to be able to mate with a great dane.

At its simplest, evolution postulates that life is adaptable. This means that we should see life forms changing as the pressures of their environments change. We’ve done this with dogs, and there are literally tens of thousands of pages of literature citing other observations of this.

You have clearly not read the Old Testament, where it is illustrated that God is vengeful and more than capable of punishing those who do not obey.

see above

Must evolution explain the origin of the universe, also? You’re arguing that evolution must explain everything, which is clearly outside of its intended scope. It merely explains that once you have life, it will adapt to its surroundings and it may, eventually, develop into complex forms. The explanation of how life came to be is an ongoing area of research, but it doesn’t directly affect the observation that life is adaptable. As to the rest, why is an external power necessary for the universe to form? How do you get around the prime mover problem (i.e. what created God)?

Yes, those would be tough to prove directly. Part of the problem is that fur, feathers, and skin do not make good fossils. So, any proof of common origin that will satisfy you would require exceptionally old fossils of bacteria that may not exist. That said, the internals of plant and animal cells share a number of characteristics that are very similar, as far as I know the biggest differences are the cell wall and the power plant (chloroplasts v. mitochondria).

Oh where to start with this one. How about here:

Why would he do that? What purpose would it serve? You have no basis for such a nonsensical assertion.

No the main purpose of the Theory Of Evolution is to explain the sheer mountain of exidence collected by scientists over centurys of time, concerning how species change and adapt within a dynamic enviroment. It is not used to disprove the existance of your god (you can’t prove a negative).

The theory does not address your so-called “first cause”. It never has. That is not what it is for (see above). To claim it is somehow at fault for not being able to do so is dishonest.

Yes it has. Pick up a text book sometime and read it before you start making specious claims.

So is gravity, motion and a host of others. Take the time to learn what a scientific theory is. In addition creation is NOT more credible. It is not supported by any scientific discovery, including by archeology. The bible is likewise not supported. The discovery of a city or two or ten does not prove that everything written in it is now verifed. Is any work of fiction now true merely because it mentions New York City? Secondly no one knows how many years these handed-down-by-word-of-mouth stories traveled before being written down. You don’t know that it was 2000 years, you just want to believe it because it reinforces your faith.

Adding to what wyldeling said…

Nice excuse. It’s called the oomphalos hypothesis, and I doubt anybody with half a brain buys it.

I understand the claim — I note that the evidence fails to support it.

Yes — it would take a tremendous amount of power to do that, so, on the surface, it’s hard to believe. We should expect some proof. Instead, we have stupid excuse-making like the oomphalos nonsense.

That there’s such extensive evidence that it was not done in six days displays “his” absence.

Project much?

Evolution came about to explain the diversity of life. It’s the foundation of biology and medicine — virtually nothing in those sciences make sense without evolution.

The thought that it’s sole purpose might be to disprove or disregard your superstitions is an example of how much you fear that it succeeds in doing so. And it does — prior to Darwin’s time, there weren’t any good explanations for the diversity of life. Those creation myths were as good as any.

Darwin’s theory became the central fact of biology because it works — it explains diversity, it offers testable predictions that have been borne out time and again. But it had the side effect of showing that supernatural causes — including the Christian god — were unnecessary in explaining the world around us.

The idea that evolution makes your god unnecessary terrifies you, so you don’t bother learning anything about it, except for the strawman nonsense your preachers lie about.

Ah, that’s why it took so many pains to hide any trace of evidence that it might exist? It buried all those fossils to make us love it? It lets babies die of horrible wasting diseases because he loves them?

Yeah, right.

Hard to believe these are still in circulation. Are you really so ignorant about evolution and science in general? Have you never looked for yourself to see whether these questions have ever been addressed?

Clearly not — damn near every evolution vs creation site out there includes them, since they’re such standard strawmen.

The theory of evolution is as provable — and as proven — as the theory of electricity.

No, it wouldn’t. Just like the theory of electricity needs no such thing. The theory of evolution is about how life changed after it came about.

The theory of how life came from non-life isn’t evolution, it’s called abiogenesis. There are a number of hypotheses out there that propose explanations for it, but none of them have sufficient evidence to be called “proven”.

Of course, the standards for proof in that sort of scientific theory are far more stringent than any offered for superstitious explanations (like “a god did it”).

In fact, most scientists who’ve studied the question of abiogenesis have a fairly good idea of what must have happened. The particular areas in which they currently experiment are mostly about finding the particular circumstances that can result in the sort of self-sustaining chemical reactions that resulted in life.

The question of how matter came to exist in the first place isn’t relevant to either evolution or abiogenesis. It’s considered as a part of physical cosmology, and is in a similar state to the theory of abiogenesis. There’s no single dominant theory, but they’ve a pretty good idea of what the theory would have to look like.

Well, given the fact that you’re actually using the “evolution is merely a theory” canard, you clearly know nothing of the actual evidence for any connections, so your claim that there’s no such “evolutionary bridge” is at best, hot air.

I’m not sure why you’d expect there to be a link between plant skin and human skin, since neither evolved from the other. Similarly, feathers evolved from scales in the late Jurassic period, and exoskeletons evolved prior to the Cambrian — again, no reason we should expect a link there. Mammalian fur, like feathers, evolved from scales — though through a rather different route, so again, you’re claiming a gap exists where nobody’s claiming a connection.

The stupidest thing you’ve said, yet. Gravity, electricity, thermodynamics, and relativity are all theories in exactly the same sense. I guess you don’t believe those, either.

Except that it’s not. Archaeologists have virtually no evidence that anything the bible suggests is true. Here’s Hector Avalos, a professor of Religious Studies at the University of Iowa giving some detail.

Modern archaologists know that the bible is a completely unreliable source of history.

Well, he’s still going to have to wear a condom.