Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[youngterrier]

Francis Collins is the head of the NIH. That doesn't mean he's a great biologist. It means he can carry a sword for Obama.

He wrote a book about God, so you know his name. Big whoop.

He was head of the Human Genome Project for 10 years, 10 years before being appointed to the NIH. Your point is invalid.

[Chizzang]

I won't go after someone for their beliefs or their right to have their beliefs, but you're damned straight I'm going to come after the philosophical implications of their beliefs. It's like hating conservative political philosophy, but not hating conservatives or thinking those who are conservative are stupid. It's a direct parallel. So, as for a gentle approach, I would consider the defense of homosexuals, non-believers of any certain religion, and the use of scientific facts as "gentle" (and that's only a few examples) because reality and the whole "let's treat people as equal" thing sounds nothing but gentle. JJ's favorite writer Christopher Hitchens put people off with the title of his book, but anyone who heard him speak on occasion would understand that his disdain was well founded in resentment of dogma and superstition, with further outrage at the immoral and unjust actions committed in the name of said dogma and superstition. I echo that sentiments, and won't ever apologize for it.

Belief in God just doesn't warrant attention unless it has tenets or dogma.

It's a tricky dance if you're a recruiter

[JoltinJoe]

Hey, your knowledge of evolutionary science is impressive. You are among the most accomplished parties on this board on that subject. I enjoy reading your posts, especially because I learn from them.

And I said before, ID is not science, most notably because its essential thesis -- that evolution is the intentional product of an intelligent designer -- cannot be tested by scientific experiment or observation.

On the other hand, the contention that evolution is not the product of an intelligent designer is as equally incapable of being tested by the scientific method.

For these reasons, I don't think ID is appropriately included within a science curriculum. As I said earlier, ID is a philosophical and theological issue and actually ties into centuries of philosophical tradition discussing the nature and manifestations of a God.

It's unfortunate that scientists tend to be so narrowly educated in our society that they often overlook philosophy and theology. Even Stephen Hawking claims that, because the universe (or multi-verses), and its laws, can operate independently of a creator, that implies that they do operate independently of a creator. That's a false assumption.

Take Cleets; a brilliant free-thinking guy, and yet he feels the need for a God. That seems to hold true for most of mankind. Where does that need come from? I certainly think its absurd to say it comes from some delusion, because you are essentially then claiming there is a mass delusion of man -- a contention which is irrational, because man is the most rational of all beings here on earth. To ignore this question, as so many men of science do intentionally or unintentionally, is in itself irrational.

The contention of many is that the advances of science would eventually negate the question of God, but that has not proven true, because here we are in the 21st century, and God is still very much a part of the human experience. God remains, because science, for all its beauty, cannot tell us "why." And we need to know why. Knowing how is not enough for us. Without God, there is no why, and at some point you have to say there must be a why, so there must be a God; or,

The alternative is that our existence has no why, and that the existentialists were right, and our existence is absurd. That is why I admire the existentialists -- because at least they freely admitted the consequences of their lack of belief. In contrast, we have modern secular humanists who say there is no God, but then try to find meaning to our existence. That lacks reason, because if there is no over-arching objective source for our existence, then there is no over-arching meaning for our existence -- other than we are the most evolved of earth's creatures.

There is a great scene in The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan and Alyosha have this remarkable discussion. Alyosha declares that Ivan (a great intellectual) is an atheist, but Ivan responds that he accepts the existence of God, essentially because there is no alternative for a creature who can only perceive three dimensions (he then goes on to explain why he has issues with the nature of God). And I think that is important to recall. No matter how advanced you become in science, understand that it is not rational to draw ultimate conclusions about God based on what can be tangibly experienced through our senses. What is rational is to acknowledge that we can experience (and sense) a part of what is ultimately real. As much science and physics as we understand, there are innumerable scientific truths that we have not even begun to experience, and an innumerable scientific truths that we will never know. So it is ultimately not even rational to place complete trust in our pursuit of science.

I have no problem trusting the concept of evolution, though, especially since it has been a contention of philosophers and theologians for hundreds of years that the entirety of the human experience is an evolutionary one. As we learn, discuss, grasp, and think, we are evolving toward greater truth and understanding. Many theologians have claimed that the Bible is recounting of man's evolving relationship with God, recording a process of manifestation and discernment by which we draw closer to an understanding of God (and also explaining why there is, in the Judeo-Christian understanding, a more merciful God depicted as the Bible itself evolves). So to accept biological evolution means that you accept that we are evolving in both substance and in form. That's actually a very exciting idea.

This conversation, unfortunately, is due to be hijacked but thanks for listening and its regrettable we cannot continue this discussion here.

If given the choice between retaining your religion and its particular god/dogma OR living without it, but having a beautiful family and the respect of your fellow man - what would you choose?

A false dichotomy. But practically speaking, I have both and you have neither. And its your inability to understand why which permits you to propose a false dilemma like this in the first place.

[JoltinJoe]

You're both recruiters - or seemingly so - and heavily emotionally invested in the outcome.
You both pretty desperately want people to just (gosh darn it) pull their heads out of their asses and see things the way you do

Not true. I'm not recruiter. I just defend myself here. You'd be hard pressed to find a topic on these subjects I ever started.

The only point you can argue for which I am a "recruiter" is the point that it is irrational to believe that we perceive all that is real, and therefore irrational to deny the existence of a Creator because we do not tangibly perceive him.

From there, you have to define the nature of the Creator, and that's a purely theological question. I will happily debate where that takes you, but I don't insist that you see things as I do.

[D1B]

If given the choice between retaining your religion and its particular god/dogma OR living without it, but having a beautiful family and the respect of your fellow man - what would you choose?

A false dichotomy. But practically speaking, I have both and you have neither. And its your inability to understand why which permits you to propose a false dilemma like this in the first place.

Pathetic dodge as usual. You never answer the tough questions.

False dichotomy my ass, your god asked this question many times you cowardly piece of shit.

[D1B]

You're both recruiters - or seemingly so - and heavily emotionally invested in the outcome.
You both pretty desperately want people to just (gosh darn it) pull their heads out of their asses and see things the way you do

Not true. I'm not recruiter. I just defend myself here. You'd be hard pressed to find a topic on these subjects I ever started.

The only point you can argue for which I am a "recruiter" is the point that it is irrational to believe that we perceive all that is real, and therefore irrational to deny the existence of a Creator because we do not tangibly perceive him.

From there, you have to define the nature of the Creator, and that's a purely theological question. I will happily debate where that takes you, but I don't insist that you see things as I do.

The fuckpills who run your church insist everyone sees things the way you do, you fucking dumbass. They been doing it with unmatched brutality for 1900 years.

Joe you are a pathetic automaton. SMFH

[youngterrier]

I won't go after someone for their beliefs or their right to have their beliefs, but you're damned straight I'm going to come after the philosophical implications of their beliefs. It's like hating conservative political philosophy, but not hating conservatives or thinking those who are conservative are stupid. It's a direct parallel. So, as for a gentle approach, I would consider the defense of homosexuals, non-believers of any certain religion, and the use of scientific facts as "gentle" (and that's only a few examples) because reality and the whole "let's treat people as equal" thing sounds nothing but gentle. JJ's favorite writer Christopher Hitchens put people off with the title of his book, but anyone who heard him speak on occasion would understand that his disdain was well founded in resentment of dogma and superstition, with further outrage at the immoral and unjust actions committed in the name of said dogma and superstition. I echo that sentiments, and won't ever apologize for it.

Belief in God just doesn't warrant attention unless it has tenets or dogma.

It's a tricky dance if you're a recruiter

meh, I'm cool with that......as long as people don't bug me with this sort of nonsense:

[D1B]

If given the choice between retaining your religion and its particular god/dogma OR living without it, but having a beautiful family and the respect of your fellow man - what would you choose?

A false dichotomy. But practically speaking, I have both and you have neither. And its your inability to understand why which permits you to propose a false dilemma like this in the first place.

I'll answer it for you: you'd take your family and friend in a heartbeat over crucified Jesus. You know your family is primary and love for your family is the "why".


Pussy

[Chizzang]

meh, I'm cool with that......as long as people don't bug me with this sort of nonsense:

hey, That's me spot on..!!!

[CID1990]

I am Methodist, which means I slept through just about every sermon I attended.

Sure hope I didnt miss something important.



Also Sodomy

[D1B]

I am Methodist, which means I slept through just about every sermon I attended.

Sure hope I didnt miss something important.



Also Sodomy

You did, fuckstain. You missed out on a couple hours of dad time with your children. Multiply that by 40-52 weeks a year and you're missing a good chunk of their childhood, you dumbass.

[SeattleGriz]

I am Methodist, which means I slept through just about every sermon I attended.

Sure hope I didnt miss something important.



Also Sodomy

You did, fuckstain. You missed out on a couple hours of dad time with your children. Multiply that by 40-52 weeks a year and you're missing a good chunk of their childhood, you dumbass.

As opposed to starting hundreds of threads on the internet?

[kalm]

Only 530 posts to go before Vidav locks this thread.

[D1B]

You did, fuckstain. You missed out on a couple hours of dad time with your children. Multiply that by 40-52 weeks a year and you're missing a good chunk of their childhood, you dumbass.

As opposed to starting hundreds of threads on the internet?

God asks you to sacrifice your son as a test of loyalty. Do you do it?

[houndawg]

I am Methodist, which means I slept through just about every sermon I attended.

Sure hope I didnt miss something important.



Also Sodomy

Methodist: A Baptist that can read.

[CID1990]

I am Methodist, which means I slept through just about every sermon I attended.

Sure hope I didnt miss something important.



Also Sodomy

Methodist: A Baptist that can read.

Really? Because last time I checked, the UMC is accepting of minorities and is supportive of gay unions. The UMC is probably the most progressive of the big denominations.

From the bylaws of the UMC:

¶ 162 J) Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation—Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008. Copyright 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.

Furthermore:

The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status,4 or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection.5 In The United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.6
4. Amended 1992.
5. Amended 2000.
6. See Judicial Council Decisions 242, 246, 340, 351, 362, 377, 398, 594, 601, and Decisions 4 and 5, Interim Judicial Council.
¶ 214. Eligibility
The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection (¶ 4). In the case of persons whose disabilities prevent them from reciting the vows, their legal guardian[s], themselves members in full covenant relationship with God and the Church, the community of faith, may recite the appropriate vows on their behalf.

(The UMC still wont ordain gay ministers or perform gay marriages, but it is coming.)

Hardly Baptists.


Houndawg: A liberal in a bubble. (They all are, actually)

Looks like you've been sleeping like me!


Also Sodomy

[BigSkyBears]

More Donk Hate

They don't stand for anything, so they attack the people that stand for something.

Damn right, especially when you stand up for stupid ****, like religion.

So be a good lefty and be tolerant of others.

[houndawg]

Methodist: A Baptist that can read.

Really? Because last time I checked, the UMC is accepting of minorities and is supportive of gay unions. The UMC is probably the most progressive of the big denominations.

From the bylaws of the UMC:

¶ 162 J) Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation—Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008. Copyright 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.

Furthermore:

The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status,4 or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection.5 In The United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.6
4. Amended 1992.
5. Amended 2000.
6. See Judicial Council Decisions 242, 246, 340, 351, 362, 377, 398, 594, 601, and Decisions 4 and 5, Interim Judicial Council.
¶ 214. Eligibility
The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection (¶ 4). In the case of persons whose disabilities prevent them from reciting the vows, their legal guardian[s], themselves members in full covenant relationship with God and the Church, the community of faith, may recite the appropriate vows on their behalf.

(The UMC still wont ordain gay ministers or perform gay marriages, but it is coming.)

Hardly Baptists.


Houndawg: A liberal in a bubble. (They all are, actually)

Looks like you've been sleeping like me!


Also Sodomy

As would be Baptists if they could read....

Actually I played baseball on Sunday .... Mom had bad experience with religion and never forced us to go, said we could if we wanted to but what kid growing up in CA weather would go to church voluntarily?

[D1B]

Really? Because last time I checked, the UMC is accepting of minorities and is supportive of gay unions. The UMC is probably the most progressive of the big denominations.

From the bylaws of the UMC:

¶ 162 J) Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation—Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008. Copyright 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.

Furthermore:

The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. The United Methodist Church acknowledges that all persons are of sacred worth. All persons without regard to race, color, national origin, status,4 or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments, upon baptism be admitted as baptized members, and upon taking vows declaring the Christian faith, become professing members in any local church in the connection.5 In The United Methodist Church no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, status or economic condition.6
4. Amended 1992.
5. Amended 2000.
6. See Judicial Council Decisions 242, 246, 340, 351, 362, 377, 398, 594, 601, and Decisions 4 and 5, Interim Judicial Council.
¶ 214. Eligibility
The United Methodist Church is a part of the holy catholic (universal) church, as we confess in the Apostles' Creed. In the church, Jesus Christ is proclaimed and professed as Lord and Savior. All people may attend its worship services, participate in its programs, receive the sacraments and become members in any local church in the connection (¶ 4). In the case of persons whose disabilities prevent them from reciting the vows, their legal guardian[s], themselves members in full covenant relationship with God and the Church, the community of faith, may recite the appropriate vows on their behalf.

(The UMC still wont ordain gay ministers or perform gay marriages, but it is coming.)

Hardly Baptists.


Houndawg: A liberal in a bubble. (They all are, actually)

Looks like you've been sleeping like me!


Also Sodomy

As would be Baptists if they could read....

Actually I played baseball on Sunday .... Mom had bad experience with religion and never forced us to go, said we could if we wanted to but what kid growing up in CA weather would go to church voluntarily?

Good for your mom. She saved a significant portion of your childhood. If you were raised catholic, there would be a greater chance you'd still be defending pedophiles and forcing your kids to participate in cannibalistic rituals every Sunday.

Rousting up kids every Sunday and forcing them to participate in cult activities is child abuse. Kids don't understand religion, don't have the capacity to understand it and should not be exposed to religion until they're 21. It's no different than cigarettes or alcohol, except that it's boring.

THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION

However, despite all the effort and rhetoric about protecting children and their rights, there is a severe shortcoming in the global campaign to protect children: the influence of religion and its continuing contribution to many forms of child abuse all around the world.

Such abuse begins with the involuntary involvement of children in religious practices from the time they are born. All religions, through ritual, preaching, and religious texts, seek to bring children into day-to-day religious practice. This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them. In many cases, most notably in the Catholic Church, this forced and prolonged exposure of children to religious institutions has also been a key factor in the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of children by religious leaders.

This early grip is so strong that very few people, once grown, ever get an opportunity to change their minds, despite being exposed to science and rational thinking, or even other religious systems. Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable minds and gaining their blind adherence to certain dogmatic practices. In some ways, this lays the groundwork for sustained psychological abuse of young children by allowing adults the use of religion as a pretext for various other forms of abuse such as forcing them to fight in wars in the name of religion and ethnicity. During 2004, about 300,000 children served as soldiers in national armies, worldwide.

When it comes to the forced inculcation of religion and the resulting abuses of children in the name of religion, the UN, all of its affiliated organizations, and almost all national governments remain steadfastly silent.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... setti_27_4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

YT, this is not a hostile post. I'm trying to get you to see the differences in certainty level in some of the things you mention. I'm taking this opportunity because you mentioned the germ theory of disease. That theory can and has been directly validated through controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, it has even been validated using human subjects. You can actually design a controlled experiment in which you expose treatment subjects to a pathogen while isolating control subjects from them and demonstrate that only the treatment subjects show symptoms of a particular disease. And you can also do things like directly observe the presence of the pathogen in the disease victims system as well as the antibody responses to them.

The overall theory of evolution isn't like that. It's support is almost exclusively observational. That represents a different certainty level. It is NOT established as "as much a fact" as any scientific thought we have. It is NOT established with the same level of certainty that the germ theory of disease is.

As I've said before I do believe the theory of evolution. But this thing about every "theory" being the same in terms of level of certainty...though it is often asserted...just isn't true.

[JohnStOnge]

PS: If you think because you can find a handful of guys with PhDs in a subject that that lends credence to your argument, even when there is widespread consensus in opposition, just keep in mind that there is a PhD in microbiology that teaches at UC Berkley that firmly denies germ theory ( you know, the basis of modern medicine and vaccination?)

Could you please post a link to somewhere where we can find more information about that. I would really like to read what his rational is because, as I said in my previous post, the impact of pathogens is something that can and has been demonstrated experimentally.

[D1B]

JJ-We're having about 3 dozen different discussions at once,

We aren't talking about the existence of God, as I believe that's almost a nonsensical question in some respects. We're talking about facts and falsehoods; reality and fiction. To some, philosophy is a great subject to make insights within reality, but without a proper basis of reality, philosophy is useless. We get this basis of reality through science. That's not to say certain postulations are useless and not to be made under any circumstances, I just feel that the worth-while and "knowable" truths about existence are better understood through the scientific process than the means of metaphysical modal logic postulations. I honestly feel that metaphysics is somewhat useless without a grounding of actual physic, and if there is one thing that modern physics has taught us, it's that the universe(especially on the quantum level) is counter to our intuitions. This kind of neutralizes philosophy for such postulations on such things, because our logic is useless because what is observed is counter to the logic.

With this uncertainty, nothing is a given, and in many ways Descartes's "I think therefore I am" seems to be the only truth of which any of us can know. We're like maggots, born in decaying meat, and the only way out and discovering truth is to take one fact at a time, and to change our positions once evidence arises that disproves it.

The question of God is a multi-layered question and once your definition of God is established, we can evaluate credence to such claims. If there is one thing to be believed in, it's the process of elimination. The existence of God, when broadly defined is impossible to disprove, but I think it is quite easy to disprove God the more defined he becomes through Religion and theism.

But again, this is a different philosophical question with no bearing on the thread. The process of elimination thoroughly debunks biblical creationism and [b intelligent design[/b], and the idea of "creation" itself is a different question all together.

I want to respond to the bold.

(1) Do you really think that the question about the existence of God is nearly non-sensical? I think it is probably the most important question we ever face, individually and collectively.

(2) I'm not sure if you can really say metaphysics is useless without an understanding of physics. You say the modern physics, especially on the quantum physics level, is proving that reality (ok, you said the universe) is counter-intuitive. But metaphysicists have been saying that for centuries. I find it ironic that Hawking and others claim that modern physics has rendered metaphysics unimportant, when it is clear (at least I think it is clear) that physics is just now catching up to metaphysics, and proving many of its older contentions.

(3) I think it is easier to dispute a more specific concept of God, but I'm not sure it is so easy to disprove a more specific concept. Nonetheless (I know you will consider this off point), I concluded years ago that Christianity is the most logical belief system. Why? You have to decide first, assuming a God, he is personal or impersonal? To make matters short, if you conclude that God is a personal God (and I think that is the more logical God, one who actually cares and relates to us), then I find it most plausible to believe in the most personal God, one who came to live among us.

Moreover, as I studied the history of Christianity -- the fact that it survived the brutal execution of its leader and then, from a handful of adherents (almost all of whom were themselves executed for spreading their faith), spread throughout a hostile empire in which being a Christian was a capital offense for which death was administered in the most painful, barbaric and public way -- I began to marvel that it survived at all.

There really is no rational explanation why the bloody crucifixion of Jesus did not cause his handful of followers to disperse in fear, to be lost in history forever. And yet Jesus of Nazareth -- an obscure son of a carpenter who lived in the first century in a remote outpost of the Roman Empire -- has become the most significant figure in all of history. Besides, I like Jesus -- like Jefferson, I think he is the most sublime moral philosopher who ever lived.

(4) I'm not sure why you say that "the process of elimination" debunks "intelligent design," at least if you have a conception of intelligent design which simply postulates that evolution is not only "not random" but ultimately a mystery directed by a greater mystery.

You shouldn't brainwash your kids into believing in your god. You should wait until they're old enough to think for themselves, tell them your views, and then watch them laugh at you.

[youngterrier]

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

YT, this is not a hostile post. I'm trying to get you to see the differences in certainty level in some of the things you mention. I'm taking this opportunity because you mentioned the germ theory of disease. That theory can and has been directly validated through controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, it has even been validated using human subjects. You can actually design a controlled experiment in which you expose treatment subjects to a pathogen while isolating control subjects from them and demonstrate that only the treatment subjects show symptoms of a particular disease. And you can also do things like directly observe the presence of the pathogen in the disease victims system as well as the antibody responses to them.

The overall theory of evolution isn't like that. It's support is almost exclusively observational. That represents a different certainty level. It is NOT established as "as much a fact" as any scientific thought we have. It is NOT established with the same level of certainty that the germ theory of disease is.

As I've said before I do believe the theory of evolution. But this thing about every "theory" being the same in terms of level of certainty...though it is often asserted...just isn't true.

How else are you going to verify something other than through observation? There have been multiple experiments, both in the lab, and outside in the wild at which they have made predictions and those predictions came through.

What part of evolution is not an established fact and doesn't pass the test of scientific fact? You're being extremely vague and without examples to support your position I can't really acknowledge your argument. I believe you've brought up how it hasn't been proven how cells turn into multi-cellular organism, but that doesn't invalidate the established facts of evolution theory.

A scientific concept can't graduate higher than a theory. A scientific law involves the interaction of only two or less things, while a theory involves incorporating multiple laws and verified observation.

On one hand, you say something has to be observed and verified to be considered a fact, and then you turn around and say that that is all we have and therefore it isn't enough? Which one is it? You can't pick and choose.

evolution is more established of a theory than the big bang, I'll have you know, and we can't really observe the big bang happening at it's singularity. Make up your mind.

[youngterrier]

PS: If you think because you can find a handful of guys with PhDs in a subject that that lends credence to your argument, even when there is widespread consensus in opposition, just keep in mind that there is a PhD in microbiology that teaches at UC Berkley that firmly denies germ theory ( you know, the basis of modern medicine and vaccination?)

Could you please post a link to somewhere where we can find more information about that. I would really like to read what his rational is because, as I said in my previous post, the impact of pathogens is something that can and has been demonstrated experimentally.

The idea is that germs come from disease, not disease from germs (which was dis-proven a while back)
here's the guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and here's a short video
[youtube][/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

How else are you going to verify something other than through observation? There have been multiple experiments, both in the lab, and outside in the wild at which they have made predictions and those predictions came through.

What part of evolution is not an established fact and doesn't pass the test of scientific fact? You're being extremely vague and without examples to support your position I can't really acknowledge your argument. I believe you've brought up how it hasn't been proven how cells turn into multi-cellular organism, but that doesn't invalidate the established facts of evolution theory.

Could you provide some examples of some of the experiments in which predictions based on evolutionary theory have been made and the predictions came through. I have looked for experiments like that before and have seen stuff like the document at http://www.icts.res.in/media/uploads/Ta ... Rainey.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It talks about the evolution of populations of bacteria into groups that cooperate with each other. But, as the authors state, "Undifferentiated groups of WS are a far cry from multicellularity."

What they describe is a phenomenon that is consistent with a process that could lead to the transition into multicellularity. But the transition has not been experimentally achieved.

With the germ theory, experimental documentation of the basic point (pathogens cause disease) is copious. The proposition of the idea that pathogens cause disease is much more thoroughly supported by experimental evidence than the proposition that populations of single celled organisms can transition into populationis of multicellular organisms is. And the propositioni that such transitions can occur is critical to the overal theory of evolution. It's a cornerstone.

On the question of how one can verify something other than by observation: There are two types of studies; observational and experimental. Both involve making observations. But what's known as "observational" study usually cannot be used to infer cause and effect. And I use the term "usually" only because if you see something like a diesel truck hitting a dog and the dog dies from being splattered you don't need an experiment to tell you that getting hit by the truck killed the dog. The actual rule is that observational studies can't be used to infer cause and effect.

Experiments generate observations but the observations are associated with experimental control and design. They can be used in all instances to infer cause and effect.