Creationism Challenge

[FlyingWatermelon]

Where did conscience come from? Sure it varies from culture to culture but even if you don't believe in God you still a have moral code establishing certain things as right and certain things as wrong. So, where did the "moral code" come from?

That's my question lol

[sanddbox]

Where did conscience come from? Sure it varies from culture to culture but even if you don't believe in God you still a have moral code establishing certain things as right and certain things as wrong. So, where did the "moral code" come from?

That's my question lol

The moral code came from our instincts. It's ridiculous to say that without God we have no morals...

[clrkbar]

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed to take place, for example, in fruit flies under laboratory conditions. Creationists will say "Ah, but that's micro-evolution. Macro-evolution has never been observed". They fail to understand that science does not differentiate between the two, and that macro-evolution is just accumulated micro-evolution.

Abiogenesis (creation of life from non-life) has also been observed under specific laboratory conditions. In the Miller-Urey experiment, amino acids (the building blocks of life) were formed from inorganic chemicals using purely natural means.

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. It has NOT been observed to take place. Adaptations, yes, like Darwin's finches, but it's in no way proved at all that evolution is true.

The Miller-Urey experiment just produced amino acids (yes, the building blocks of life). Building blocks of life do NOT equal life. "Abiogenesis" has never been observed. One of the three fundamental laws in biology specifically says life comes from life and life cannot come from non-life.

-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:27 pm --

I am a long time researcher of the both Evolution and Creation theories. None are proven as of yet.

Stopped reading there. Evolution is as proven as gravity and particle theory. Notice it is called particle THEORY. Why? In science, a theory has evidence going for it. Simple postulations are a HYPOTHESIS.

Evolution IS SCINETIFIC FACT.

Evolution is definitely NOT as proven as gravity. I don't know too much about particle theory, but the effects of gravity can be observed. The effects of evolution cannot be observed. Scientists have just looked at how things are and said, well, this idea of evolution could produce what we see if it was right. They created a theory and then searched for evidence for it. This is poor science.

[Goatboy]

clrkbar, I'd rather believe something that has some small amount of evidence than to put all my faith in the talking bush and magical multiplying fish.

[msbachman]

Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. It has NOT been observed to take place. Adaptations, yes, like Darwin's finches, but it's in no way proved at all that evolution is true.

First, you don't even appear to be aware of what a scientific theory is, so you fail right away.

Of course evolution isn't going to be observable....I can't believe you're actually claiming that as evidence against it. The theory claims gradual change over millions of years. Obviously that's not going to be observable to humans. What's your point? If I'm correct, it's that we can't claim to know anything we can't witness. In that case, we don't know atoms either.

The evidence for evolution comes from other sources, all of which fit the framework of the theory. You'll need to start cracking science books to figure this out, though. Based on your past four or so posts, I have a good inkling that you're getting 'science' from a church, which is probably worse than being totally ignorant of science altogether.

[Vulpine]

You're both wrong. Evolution has been observed. The reason that scientists don't call it a fact, is that "fact" has an entirely different meaning in scientific terms. So does "theory".

[sanddbox]

I'm agreeing with Vulpine here. Evolution has far more than 'small amounts' of evidence, and it is completely provable. It's been proven countless times. Simply because you are too lazy to research the proof or test it yourself doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

[clrkbar]

clrkbar, I'd rather believe something that has some small amount of evidence than to put all my faith in the talking bush and magical multiplying fish.

But why, Goatboy? What does your faith in that small amount of evidence have to offer you? Even if evolution and the big bang had all the evidence in the world, what would be gained by believing it?

-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:04 pm --

First, you don't even appear to be aware of what a scientific theory is, so you fail right away.

Of course evolution isn't going to be observable....I can't believe you're actually claiming that as evidence against it. The theory claims gradual change over millions of years. Obviously that's not going to be observable to humans. What's your point? If I'm correct, it's that we can't claim to know anything we can't witness. In that case, we don't know atoms either.

The evidence for evolution comes from other sources, all of which fit the framework of the theory. You'll need to start cracking science books to figure this out, though. Based on your past four or so posts, I have a good inkling that you're getting 'science' from a church, which is probably worse than being totally ignorant of science altogether.

Theories deal with data. Gravity is a theory. We have measured gravity and tested gravity and observed the effects of the gravitational force. We have no observable, quantifiable data for the "theory" of evolution. That was my point. Evolution is improperly named as a theory. It should be a hypothesis. It's a guess that still needs evidence.

That's exactly the framework of the scientific method: we don't know anything for certain that we can't test and observe. I just don't understand why that has been the basis for science for so long and how evolution sneaked its way in as a theory without meeting those requirements.

-- Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:07 pm --

I'm agreeing with Vulpine here. Evolution has far more than 'small amounts' of evidence, and it is completely provable. It's been proven countless times. Simply because you are too lazy to research the proof or test it yourself doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

Ok, then point me towards some evidence. When has it been proven and how?

Wow, really? Test evolution yourself? Have you done that? How would I go about doing that?

[sanddbox]

clrkbar, I'd rather believe something that has some small amount of evidence than to put all my faith in the talking bush and magical multiplying fish.

But why, Goatboy? What does your faith in that small amount of evidence have to offer you? Even if evolution and the big bang had all the evidence in the world, what would be gained by believing it?

If you have to gain something for it to be true, you're a moron.

I'm agreeing with Vulpine here. Evolution has far more than 'small amounts' of evidence, and it is completely provable. It's been proven countless times. Simply because you are too lazy to research the proof or test it yourself doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

Ok, then point me towards some evidence. When has it been proven and how?

Wow, really? Test evolution yourself? Have you done that? How would I go about doing that?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

There's some evidence. If you want more, google for it - or better yet, read a science textbook.

Anyways, regarding testing evolution itself - one idea is to design an evolution simulator. It doesn't have to get every scientific detail right, but it should be a fairly accurate model. This is optimal since this IS a site about computers, so i'm assuming you know how to program.

If you're a scientist and have access to a microscope and some bacteria (and a way to look at their DNA), bacteria are a much easier way to study evolution because of how quickly they reproduce.

[msbachman]

clrkbar, I'd rather believe something that has some small amount of evidence than to put all my faith in the talking bush and magical multiplying fish.

But why, Goatboy? What does your faith in that small amount of evidence have to offer you? Even if evolution and the big bang had all the evidence in the world, what would be gained by believing it?

If you have to gain something for it to be true, you're a moron.

That sums it up right there. Clrkbar, you claim not to be religious then you give Pascal's wager on the Jesus lotto.

Pertinent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

It's obvious that you have no compunctions about lying, which, were you to have read your precious Bible, you'd know to be an abomination to God, as is homosexuality, per Proverbs 6. This false flag apologetics tactic you have going where you claim to be an honest skeptic only works on people with an IQ <70, e.g. a church-goers.