We decended from apes and monkeys...FACT?

[MiataMan 0]

The theory may not be taken seriously. Solar system models and origin were not taken seriously for many decades. However, back to my original statement that you can’t disprove a theory solely based on the theory's lack of evidence. Do you understand that this is not how you disprove a theory?

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[beowulf 1]

I understand what you are trying to say, but with out any evidence it is unreasonable to believe in creationism. There is a lot of evidence to support evolution. So evolutions is a much more believable theory.

Quote

Solar system models and origin were not taken seriously for many decades.

Just because they weren't taken seriously doesn't mean there wasn't evidence to support them.

[MiataMan 0]

I think that you should say, "With the theory of evolution it is unreasonable to believe in creationism." I think it is unreasonable to discount a theory based on lack of evidence.

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Evolution VS creation?

I'm so sick of you atheist, marxist, islamofascist & christofascists arguing about this!

[beowulf 1]

Even with out evolution it is unreasonable to believe in creationism. Creationism does not stand up to reason. Try taking a critical thinking class.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Who said all mean were created equal????

No one. There are different magnitudes of mean. Sometimes my older brother could be mean, but that's a different kind of mean than school yard bully mean.

Or am I misinterpreting your use of mean? For example, my grade point mean (more commonly called grade point average in the US) in high school was different than my grade point mean in university.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Perhaps you " descendents" of monkeys should take up another sport....like swinging from tree to tree.

Your evolution is a load of absolute CRAP.

Its hard to imagine so little intelligence in your minds. Who said all mean were created equal????

Quote

Your unknowledgeable opinion means NOTHING.

I can assure you, my IQ is extremely higher than yours....and I have never met you....Thanks be to God.

For someone who claims to have a high I.Q. you have very poor grammar, punctuation, and spelling ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[MiataMan 0]

Right, now you are on a better track. Disproving a theory through reason. Logical explanations of fact that lead to contrary outcome to the theory. I have taken many classes and so have you. One class I took in middle school taught me that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Do you agree now?

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[billvon 2,400]

> Are you comparing a theory that was disproved, not by a lack of evidence
> but, by evidence that is contrary to the theory to that of my statement?

I am comparing the flat-earth theory (which for a long time had a lot of supporters) to the creationist theory (which still has a lot of supporters.)

There is hard evidence for having a common ancestor with chimpanzees in our cell's molecular clocks, our genome, our developmental biology and our physiology. But most people cannot see that; they just rely on what scientists tell them.

There is hard evidence for the planet being fairly round. But again, most people have never been away from the planet; they must rely on other people who tell them that it's round and show them pictures.

For a long time, a lot of people believed the planet was flat. Why? Because they didn't have the evidence we have now. They didn't have pictures of the earth rising over the moon's horizon. They didn't have live video from the outside of the Gemini spacecraft showing a man drifting against a backdrop of what was clearly a sphere. They didn't have maps of the earth, made by explorers with good means of reckoning their positions on a globe.

The thing that really made the difference was evidence they could understand. Sure, there are still people who deny it, but with the enormous weight of evidence we have today, it's difficult to construct a massive enough conspiracy theory to explain that all away (although many have tried.)

We now face a similar issue with evolutionary biology. There is simply no question that we share a common ancestor with other animals - but for most people, the evidence is over their head. It's hard to simplify the science any further, although several people (Gould, Dawkins) have made good attempts at it.

So will there be "evidence they can understand?" I'm not sure what it could be. A fossil showing an intermediate stage? We have hundreds; people explain them away as fakes or errors. Biology that shows us how similar we are to other animals? Got that, but some people don't buy it. Geology that lets us date when those fossils lived? Got that too, but some people delight in making up reasons why all dating methods are wrong, and thus can't show life existing that long ago.

In other words, we don't have a glossy picture to show them of the earth rising over the moon. And that's what some people need.

>I was commenting on beowulf's comment that we can drop one
>theory because of lack of evidence.

And I was asking if you really believed that we should hang onto clearly incorrect theories.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

A testable theory is generally not disproved by lack of evidence. We learn new stuff all the time.

However, a theory can absolutely be discarded if it is impossible to be proven wrong. If it is untestable, it is unacceptable for even being considered on its scientific merit (or lack thereof). Nothing in the natural world can disprove the existence of "gods" or the validity of creationism, and it is therefore discarded as an impossibility by those who use science as the qualifier for believability.

Again: we can never logically disprove religion. The religious person can always say "But its God, we are incapable of understanding his ways". The very statement that it is untestable disqualifies it from being considered.

However, if you choose to believe in whatever makes you feel good, say that you have "faith" and do not feel the need to qualify your beliefs with even the possibility of evidence then religion remains a valid option.

That is all.

[beowulf 1]

The absence of evidence does not make the theory any more credible. In fact it makes it that much harder to believe, especially since there is a much more believable theory that does have evidence to support it. Creationism is just not believable and is totally unreasonable.


Why do you want to put creationism on the same level as evolution?

[MiataMan 0]

Quote

>We should not abandon a theory due to a lack of evidence.

So you think the world might be flat? (After all, the lack of evidence is not evidence it's not flat!)

Quote

And I was asking if you really believed that we should hang onto clearly incorrect theories.

No, we should not "hang onto clearly incorrect theories."

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

In scientific terms, evolution is the only game in town; there is no other side to the story.

Blasphemy!

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[MiataMan 0]

I agree it is hard to put forth a theory without evidence. Many past scholars and scientist who have were not looked well upon in their time.

I am not debating you on if creationism is on the same level as evolution. I am trying to convince you that using the argument "if there is no evidence for a theory then that theory is invalid" is not an acceptable way to disprove the theory.

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[beowulf 1]

I don't remember actually saying that. I did say it is unreasonable to believe in a theory that has no evidence. That doesn't mean you can't search for evidence to support it. But after thousands of years with out any evidence it is really hard to say that creationism is worth anything at all.

[billvon 2,400]

>I am trying to convince you that using the argument "if there is no
>evidence for a theory then that theory is invalid" is not an acceptable way
>to disprove the theory.

That is correct. A better way to say it is that Christian creationism, Norse creationism, Hindu creationism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism etc. all have similar levels of validity. Of course, that also applies to the theory that there is an invisible troll living under your bed.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

It's not a fact, it's a theory.

From your link:
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[MiataMan 0]

I took you saying

Quote

Due to the absence of evidence creationism should be relegated to the church

and

Quote

It would be stupid to dedicate your whole life to a theory that has no evidence.

as moving the theory outside scientific scrutiny based on lack of evidence. If this is not true, do you believe "the church" could find evidence that you would consider?

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[beowulf 1]

From what you quoted I would add that with creationism you need to also consider the amount of time it has been around with out any evidence to support it. It's not just the absence of evidence that makes it useless. If no one has in thousands of years found any evidence to support it then it can be considered bullshit.

While I did not say that in those qoutes it is well known and could be considered to be implied.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

TOTAL CRAP.

Your keen intellect on these matters is downright humbling, Bill Cole.

. . =(_8^(1)

[MiataMan 0]

I am going to need evidence of implication in the quoted statements.

With respect to

Quote

If no one has in thousands of years found any evidence to support it then it can be considered bullshit.

The heliocentric model of the solar system was debated without evidence for over two thousand years before our mathematical modeling caught up to prove it. I agree time and lack of evidence can hinder acceptance of a theory. But, I will never agree that lack of evidence invalidates any theory.

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[quade 3]

Quote

But, I will never agree that lack of evidence invalidates any theory.

So, if someone "believes" that 2+2=5, has no evidence to support his theory, it still stands?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not a fact, it's a theory.

From your link:
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

What is your point? Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory (which is based on a body of facts). I didn't think I had to explain this to you ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[MiataMan 0]

Quote

Quote

But, I will never agree that lack of evidence invalidates any theory.

So, if someone "believes" that 2+2=5, has no evidence to support his theory, it still stands?

No their theory is disproved by the mathematical process for which they are describing. It is not disproved by lack of evidence.

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

But, I will never agree that lack of evidence invalidates any theory.

So, if someone "believes" that 2+2=5, has no evidence to support his theory, it still stands?

For sufficiently large values of 2, yes.