Evolution: World science academies fight back against creationists

PhysOrg.com ^ | 21 June 2006 | Staff

[Oztrich Boy]

Yes, you are some non-bodied entity in space that is imagining this whole planet and all it inhabits,

I suspected as much, bit I'm gald to have a second opinion confirming it.

[RadioAstronomer]

Here ya go:

http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000spring/PHY232/lectures/emwaves/maxwell.html

[DungeonMaster]

What? I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory any more than I believe in the Poof Theory. Both theories are unproven and essentially unprovable, given the scale of the issue.

So do you believe evolution is provable?

[js1138]

On what basis would a creationist argue that Piltdown was a fake? What kind of evidence would he use?

[RadioAstronomer]

No theory is "provable". That is not how a theory works in science.

[BaBaStooey]

The same basis anyone would use to argue Piltdown was a fake. The facts.

Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud back in 1953. Where were you?

[BrandtMichaels]

OK - read your link re: About 29 lines of evidence agree. Sorry, but I still dis-agree.

That basically proved to me that talking with an EVO is not much different that reading more of their 'conclusions.' Simply and continually jumping to conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence.

Basically I'm left with "how can (macro) evolution be considered a fact (?) when no one can explain how it works!!!" Where's the empirical evidence?

Also are you in any way linked with the Wesayso corp.? /sarc/

[spunkets]

"Heck, aeronautical engineers are still arguing about how airplane wings generate lift to keep the plane in the air. The subject is so technically difficult to work with that nobody yet has a rock solid answer that everyone agrees with."

This is completely false and ridiculous.

"the Big Bang Theory... unproven and essentially unprovable, given the scale of the issue.

The theory is backed up by facts.

[longshadow]

festival of the B-Team anti-Evos placemarker

[js1138]

Piltdown is considered a fake because it is incompatible with evolution. My question was, on what basis would a creationist argue it is a fake?

[RightWhale]

No links, perhaps some regurgitation of doctrine will be considered.

[GrandEagle]

Well, thanks for recognizing that the typical creation story is unbelievable.
:)
This my FRiend is how the nastiness gets started. What I did not say was that it is unbelievable. What I said was that, based on ones starting assumptions, it is believable to some, not to others.

To me it is far more believable than "well it could have happened" being accepted as provable, testable, scientific fact. Then continuing to build "could have happened" "Facts" one upon the other until one arrives at a conclusion that supports your original belief, then calling it science and forcing others to teach it at the exclusion of anything that my contradict it.

We have discussed other issues sometimes on the same side, others not. You seem to present your view in an intelligent and thoughtful fashion on other issues.
As of late I avoid these threads because those that I otherwise respect seem to start getting ugly.

Obviously we could continue this on and on, but I won't. Please don't put words in my posts and I'll try and not do that to you.

Cordially,
GE

[Oztrich Boy]

The same basis anyone would use to argue Piltdown was a fake. The facts.

But "the facts" in question are what evolutionists say they are. You accepting evolutionists as auhorities now?

[RadioAstronomer]

http://background.uchicago.edu/

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

:-)

[GrandEagle]

Not everybody sitting on cracker barrels around the pot-bellied stove at the ol' general store knows the jokes from the real news.
Not bad... :)

GE

[RightWhale]

the scientific side gets less incomprehensible, the more you study it

Not so. It is possible to accept convention to the point that the original questions are forgotten.

[GrandEagle]

I like good sarcasm myself. What I was commenting on were the truly inane comments,

:)
I understand - Have a great day
GE

[BaBaStooey]

Piltdown is considered a fake because by studying it, it was deduced to have been a fabrication. It has nothing to do with it being inconsistent with any theories.

Prior to the discovery that it was a hoax, why was it trumpeted by Charles Dawson, champion of evolution who discovered it, if it was incompatible with evolution?

[Condorman]

If you are asking me to demonstrate my intellect so that everyone may see that I am lacking, then it is as you say, I am not as smart as many here at FR or even on this thread.

I ask no such thing. I DO ask that you demonstrate some level of scientific literacy before I take seriously your grandiose (and utterly false) proclamation that "evolution and creationism are both faiths."

I have no doubt that you are unable to accurately post a statement of the theory of evolution. I'm equally confident that this will have no effect on your continued mischaracterizations of the theory of evolution.

[spunkets]

Thanks :)

Might be kind of hard to grasp if standard fluid dynamics poses a problem though.