Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

Why Darwinism is Not a Testable Scientific Theory
​
This video addresses the constant and very popular claim, that the Biblical account of creation is merely a fictitious story, while the evolution explanation is firmly based on scientific fact.

 

Radrook said:
True, a creator might choose whatever method he pleases. However, for many who hold certain certain religious standpoints that method is unacceptable. But it seems that it doesn't bother many Catholic clergy at all to accept it as the method that the creator used to create mankind, including their Pope.
Click to expand...


I am not Catholic but I agree with most of what the Pope is saying here.

All religions have creation stories - I do not take any of them literally and I do not see any problem with being religious and also accepting scientific evidence - on evolution and other matters
 
I am with Richard Dawkins. This is the quote I like most of him:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion)

And a second one from the same book:

"There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it."
 

Last edited:
I don’t know how my original ancestors came into being, those that followed came from procreation and sex, perhaps lots of sex.
 
January said:
I am not Catholic but I agree with most of what the Pope is saying here.

All religions have creation stories - I do not take any of them literally and I do not see any problem with being religious and also accepting scientific evidence - on evolution and other matters
Click to expand...
Please note that the Pope does not believe that abiogenesis is the way life came into existence. He is still a theist who believes in a creator. Additionally, and very significantly, there is absolutely nothing scientific about an idea that has never been observed to occur in nature, cannot be forced to occur in a laboratory, and yet is nonchalantly proclaimed to be an undeniable fact, regardless of this glaringly obvious total lack of evidence.

So totally contrary to your accusation, what is being rejected is neither science, nor the scientific method. What is actually being rejected is quackery being passed off as of science via a veneer of gobbledygook.
 
Last edited:
The scientists (can't remember names, sorry) that I've listened to who accept evolution, I don't remember them saying that evolution is firmly based on scientific fact. Rather, they've said things like, there's a preponderance of evidence pointing toward evolution. And that's how a lot of court cases get settled after all: basing the decision on a preponderance of (or enough) evidence.
 
Radrook said:
Please note that the Pope does not believe that abiogenesis is the way life came into existence. He is still a theist who believes in a creator. Additionally, and very significantly, there is absolutely nothing scientific about an idea that has never been observed to occur in nature, cannot be forced to occur in a laboratory, and yet is nonchalantly proclaimed to be an undeniable fact, regardless of this glaringly obvious total lack of evidence.

So totally contrary to your accusation, what is being rejected is neither science, nor the scientific method. What is actually being rejected is quackery being passed off as of science via a veneer of gobbledygook.
Click to expand...


I didnt say I believe everything the Pope says - but I do agree with him that evolution is the way life on the world came into being.

Whether that happened with or without a creator behind it.

That may be rejected by a few people - but most people of religious faiths don't believe their religion's creations stories literally.

I wouldnt call religions creation stories gobbledegook - but I would call them myths or legends - not scientific or literal accounts.
 
January said:
I didnt say I believe everything the Pope says - but I do agree with him that evolution is the way life on the world came into being.

Whether that happened with or without a creator behind it.

That may be rejected by a few people - but most people of religious faiths don't believe their religion's creations stories literally.

I wouldnt call religions creation stories gobbledegook - but I would call them myths or legends - not scientific or literal accounts.
Click to expand...
Comment:

I didn't say I believe everything the Pope says -

Response:

I never accused you of believing everything that the Pope says.

Comment
but I do agree with him that evolution is the way life on the world came into being. Whether that happened with or without a creator behind it.

Response

Of course, you were very clear.

Comment:

That may be rejected by a few people - but most people of religious faiths don't believe their religion's creations stories literally.

Response

That is the Argumentum_ad_populum fallacy.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Comment
I wouldn't call religions creation stories gobbledegook - but I would call them myths or legends - not scientific or literal accounts.

Response

I never claimed that all religion creation stories should be considered true. Neither did I claim that you don't have right to your opinion

BTW

Most Americans take Bible stories literally
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/
 
officerripley said:
The scientists (can't remember names, sorry) that I've listened to who accept evolution, I don't remember them saying that evolution is firmly based on scientific fact. Rather, they've said things like, there's a preponderance of evidence pointing toward evolution. And that's how a lot of court cases get settled after all: basing the decision on a preponderance of (or enough) evidence.
Click to expand...
Things can be cunningly and arbitrarily classified as acceptable evidence by those who are predisposed towards a certain opinion.

 
Last edited:
officerripley said:
Good grief! And they're still eating bacon?!
Click to expand...
I did not offer that as evidence to prove anything against abiogenesis . I offered it as counter evidence that his statistical claim was false. Nothing more. But even if it hadn't it would still be meaningless. Instead I should have posted this instead.

Please note that your constant appeal to the majority is considered flawed thinking because it is totally irrelevant to the validity of any claim that is being made.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Why? Simple, because it is possible for billions to be wrong while a few hundred are right. So any controversial concept must stand or fall on its own merit and definitely not on the number of those who adhere to it.

For example, the statistics below show that most Americans do consider the Genesis account as literal history.

Most Americans take Bible stories literally
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

However, even if they didn't, that still would be irrelevant. In fact, the very Bible tells us that false teachings would emerge in order to mislead people away from the truth. That prophecy began to be fulfilled via the secularization of Christendom as it became the sword of the Roman Empire under the pagan emperor Constantine.

This gradual falling away from truth has continued unabated until now, and it is still in full swing with people discrediting the creation account. Which, of course, very neatly falls into the cunning Satanic scheme. So, your quoting statistics merely demonstrates the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and absolutely nothing more.



BTW
You still haven't explained why you dogmatically consider abiogenesis an indisputable fact despite it never having been directly observed to occur in nature, nor forced to occur under laboratory conditions. Why instead, do you prefer to evade the issue and resort to the Argumentum_ad_populum fallacy. Care to explain?
 
Last edited:
"Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?"

Yes! I'm Irish and when I did a DNA test it told me I was related to a Mr. Fineus FishLips Flannagan!...a sea dweller from the 18th century!

Ahem...but sheriously, what is thread about anyways? I haven't taken the time to read it yet.)
 
When discussing this topic, it's crucial to focus on the evidence and scientific methods used to reach these conclusions, rather than relying on popular opinion or personal beliefs. Or have a lot of fun with the topic! :)

dvafsdg.JPG
 
Re wrong thinking: In a civil suit here in the U.S., I understand that all that's required to win is a judgment, an estimation of 'more likely than not' or a 51% likelihood. I don't call that justice at all.
 
Radrook said:
Things can be cunningly and arbitrarily classified as acceptable evidence by those who are predisposed towards a certain opinion.
Click to expand...

I would say that applies to more so to creationists.

Science has criteria and not so much people with pre disposed opinions.
 
January said:
Of course not
Nobody does

You just think your own version is, despite it being as implausible as any other.
Click to expand...
So my belief that it took a mind to code DNA is just as implausible as your Babaluba Bleef that Water did it? Really? :D
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
So my belief that it took a mind to code DNA is just as implausible as your Babaluba Bleef that Water did it? Really? :D
Click to expand...

My babaluba bleef???

I didn't say it didn't take a mind to do it - in fact I said before one can accept evolution with or without a creator behind it.
 
January said:
My babaluba bleef???

I didn't say it didn't take a mind to do it - in fact I said before one can accept evolution with or without a creator behind it.
Click to expand...
Then my apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you said that believing that water coded DNA was as feasible as a mind coding DNA. My mistake.
 
Radrook said:
So my belief that it took a mind to code DNA is just as implausible as your Babaluba Bleef that Water did it? Really? :D
Click to expand...
As to it taking a mind to code DNA, one thing I agree with Neil DeGrasse Tyson about when he was asked about the creationist theory of intelligent design, is when he said how intelligent a designer could it be who, when designing the human animal, would put the pleasure center right next to the waste disposal center. :ROFLMAO:
 
AnnieA said:
Omgosh. Couldn't you have just said yes without baiting? Some good people on the board hold to those beliefs.

You bring to mind the Southernism play on the old prevention truism... An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure.
Click to expand...

Baiting? As you are here, you mean? What did I write that wasn't factual?
 
Murrmurr said:
No, I don't think so. But do you have a study or something you can reference?
Click to expand...

That's a bit like asking, do you have a reference to show this sentence is written in English? Are you questioning is we evolved from fish, evolution itself, or something else?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top