Posted on Feb 3, 2018
1. Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists.
1.4K
5
18
2
2
0
Science
Religion
Education
Responses: 10
1
1
0
0
0
0
The theory of evolution requires almost as much faith as creationism. The holes in the theory are wide and deep. The Scientists are all in on Evolution so they have accepted the theory as fact so how objective are they, really. Answer, they are not. They attend year after year at universities gathering PhD's to impress you but their argument remains about this same as it has for decades.
When you start with the conclusion that the theory is indeed a fact, all of the evidence you find is put into that camp it at all possible. A bone fragment, or tooth of piece of a jawbone found in some dusty place in Africa must be a relative of mankind. The hand is on the scale because all of those researching are 100% bought in on a theory being a fact.
I have not concern that they believe what they do and spend their time trying to prove a theory they believe in about human origins. That is their prerogative.
Arguing about a faith based creation vs. a qausi-science based theory is counter productive. Until such a time anyone produces real proof of evolution, it is a theory. Not better or worse that many other theories.
I was a believer of the theory for many years until I went looking for the proof behind the theory. The fossil evidence is scant and is being interpreted by people that have reached a conclusion on their theory. They have abandoned the scientific process and instead follow a system of belief about origins they cannot prove any more than one can prove creationism.
Post away Greg, all 24 videos.
When you start with the conclusion that the theory is indeed a fact, all of the evidence you find is put into that camp it at all possible. A bone fragment, or tooth of piece of a jawbone found in some dusty place in Africa must be a relative of mankind. The hand is on the scale because all of those researching are 100% bought in on a theory being a fact.
I have not concern that they believe what they do and spend their time trying to prove a theory they believe in about human origins. That is their prerogative.
Arguing about a faith based creation vs. a qausi-science based theory is counter productive. Until such a time anyone produces real proof of evolution, it is a theory. Not better or worse that many other theories.
I was a believer of the theory for many years until I went looking for the proof behind the theory. The fossil evidence is scant and is being interpreted by people that have reached a conclusion on their theory. They have abandoned the scientific process and instead follow a system of belief about origins they cannot prove any more than one can prove creationism.
Post away Greg, all 24 videos.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - that's a common, fallacious argument used by religionists, mainly because they view "faith" as a good thing, instead of the cop-out that it actually is. Jeff, you obviously did not pay close attention to the video, because the difference between fact and theory was clearly explained by Dr. Scott at about 3:20 in the video, and you clearly are taking that same position.
In science, theory is as good as it gets, and the theory of evolution is the overwhelming consensus of scientists. Why? Because the facts, the datapoints support it.
In science, theory is as good as it gets, and the theory of evolution is the overwhelming consensus of scientists. Why? Because the facts, the datapoints support it.
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Personally, I believe enough "proof" exist to support the theory of evolution. IMO, it is the only logical answer. A believe in what I can see, smell, hear, touch, and taste, not what some book written a short time (relatively speaking) ago.
The theory of evolution is much like the theory of gravity. Perhaps we will never find empirical data to prove gravity exist, but we all certainly acknowledge it does.
Now, perhaps some "evidence" may be off by a measure, but if bones found are claimed to be 2 million years old, but may only be 1 million years old, so what?
Logic dictates.
The theory of evolution is much like the theory of gravity. Perhaps we will never find empirical data to prove gravity exist, but we all certainly acknowledge it does.
Now, perhaps some "evidence" may be off by a measure, but if bones found are claimed to be 2 million years old, but may only be 1 million years old, so what?
Logic dictates.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Gregory Prickett - I listened to it and heard what I expected to hear. Your female PhD that explained fact vs. theory vs. law espouses the exact pabulum that too many in the soft sciences expel when they cannot prove something.
She said that theories are more important than facts and that facts are a dime a dozen and essentially boring and that laws are not as important as theory. These are the kinds of things that are spoken after decades of mushy headed academics give up on proof, facts and law. Their theory is now more important than fact and law. How convenient.
The scientific method that scientists used to adhere to was something like this (see chart above)
https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/pictures/images/000/210/023/thumb_v2/2fee7e94.png? [login to see]
Facts are facts, laws are laws, theories are theories. I have no issue with them believing what they like but when the substitute good science for what they want to believe then that is a problem. I know proving a theory such as evolution is very hard to do, perhaps impossible. The fossil record isn't there, the ability to piece it together is difficult but because it is human sciences best explanation does not make it true/accurate/factual etc. For these folks evolution is settled science which defies the scientific method of something constantly under scrutiny, testing, analysis etc. They may believe it to be the best explanation but that belief is not provable. They know that too.
She said that theories are more important than facts and that facts are a dime a dozen and essentially boring and that laws are not as important as theory. These are the kinds of things that are spoken after decades of mushy headed academics give up on proof, facts and law. Their theory is now more important than fact and law. How convenient.
The scientific method that scientists used to adhere to was something like this (see chart above)
https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/pictures/images/000/210/023/thumb_v2/2fee7e94.png? [login to see]
Facts are facts, laws are laws, theories are theories. I have no issue with them believing what they like but when the substitute good science for what they want to believe then that is a problem. I know proving a theory such as evolution is very hard to do, perhaps impossible. The fossil record isn't there, the ability to piece it together is difficult but because it is human sciences best explanation does not make it true/accurate/factual etc. For these folks evolution is settled science which defies the scientific method of something constantly under scrutiny, testing, analysis etc. They may believe it to be the best explanation but that belief is not provable. They know that too.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - She's right, theories are more important than facts, and as far as evolution, it is well proven. Your statement as to the fossil record is incorrect, the evolutionary process has been directly observed. Further, Dr. Scott is an expert in the field, and has been for 35 years.
Look, you don't have to believe in it, and I understand that if evolution is true, then fundamentalists get scared, because it means that the Bible isn't.
Look, you don't have to believe in it, and I understand that if evolution is true, then fundamentalists get scared, because it means that the Bible isn't.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Please understand, I've been very seriously researching this question for a very, very long time now...there's a good deal more I can send, however, tell me what you think of what I've sent thus far, if you want, I'll send more, OK?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google