What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

What's easiest to believe is not a good foundation for the determination of what's true. It's a good determination of who is intellectually lazy and doesn't really care about facts or accuracy. Finding the unfindable - like God? Projection, anyone? Evolutionary biology is responsible for many of the medical advances of the past few decades, as has already been stated.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Not even close.Take this as an example of Occam's Razor:2+2=4It is also true that 2+2+x=4Since x obviously equals 0 in this example, it's an extraneous entity. Since all other things being equal the simplest explanation is to be preferred, we don't bother to use the x when describing that equation.Similarly, if
(observed behavior) = (evolution) + (other natural causes)and(observed behavior) = (evolution) + (natural processes) + (God)God is an extraneous entity, and is irrelevant. It doesnt mean he doesn't exist, of course, just as the x in my previous example could certainly still exist - it's just that neither is relevant, and so can be left out of the equation.This is what is meant by "simplest" - you should only include that which is absolutely necessary in any description. When you talk about your car, there is no need to discuss the workings of the Sun - it's not relevant.You would claim that God is always relevant, especially to life, but his existence is not required by any evidence yet found, and so he is an extraneous entity - until evidence is found that makes his existence necessary.If one insists on believing in God, the logical position would be that evolution, with it's mountains of evidence and direct observation, is the how. Think of it as saying how someone fixed your car - the individual responsible is not relevant to the process of the repair, and science only concerns itself with determining the closet model possible that fits observed processes.Also, by the way - science never invokes "magic." You might not always understand what's being discussed, but "magic" is an undefined supernatural concept that doesn't actually explain anything, any more than "Goddidit." Science doesn't deal with such things.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Scientists say only that science should be taught in science class, and that which is not science has no place there. ID has not passed even the most generous definitions of what is science as opposed to what is not. It's an untestable bare assertion without evidence - it has nothing to do with science, and so does not belog in a science classroom.None of us are against the concept of a designer. Many of us don;t believe in one, but there are many who do - we all simply agree that it's not science, and so doesn't belong in a science classroom. No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution doesn;t even have the most basic of similarities with a religion. It's a scientific theory, liek the Theory of Gravity. Is gravity a religion, TheDarin? Evolution makes exactly zero moral suggestions, and has nothing to do with how we should lead our lives. Its the most accurate description of observed natural processes we have to date. That's literally all it is - just like the Theory of Gravity or any other scientific theory. Irrelevant. Evolution does not compeltely discount a designer, even. It just doesn't mention one, because it's really not relevant.Think of it like this: evolution is like running. The starting point is irrelevant to the actual biomechanical process of running. The ending point is irrelevant. The guy that shoots the gun that starts the race is irrelevant. None of it matters when studying the process of running. Similarly, the starting point of life, questions like why, and who (if anyone) kicked off the process is irrelevant to modeling the observed process by which life changes over multiple generations.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Thanks. You didn't understand the metaphor. The problem is that many (mostly Creationists, but also others because unfortunately our educational system isn't so hot when it comes to teaching evolution) don't understand that the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life itself, or cosmic origins, or the price of tea in China. The Theory of Evolution begins only once life exists, because it is a description of the natural processes of life itself. I know it can be confusing when you hear "the solar system evolved..." etc, but the word "evolution" has different contextual meanings, and the Theory of Evolution has a very specific definition and purpose that limits it to the description of the observed process of changes in life forms over generations.When I say that studying the process of running has nothing to do with the starting point, I'm referring to the fact the the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to exist - whether that be abiogenesis, panspermia, aliens, or a deity. Evolution is the model of the process of changes over time in already existing life, and that's literally all it is.Evolution doesn't exclude the existence of a deity (as you can see, we have quite a few theists who also accept Evolution right here on this site, including the actual site administrator), and neither does it say that one cannot exist. It just doesn't count the deity as relevant.Think of it this way:1+1=2, right?1+1+x=2 is also true.Why do we not use the x every time we discuss 1+1? Because it must be equal to 0, and is thus not relevant. The simplest expression is preferred - that being, the expression with the fewest terms.Similarly, if we can model an observed process without adding a deity into the model, the deity is clearly irrelevant to that model. We don't talk about god, for example, when talking about how an internal combustion engine works - it's just not relevant.If (the currently seen diversity in life) = (life) + (time) + (evolution),and(the currently seen diversity in life) = (life) + (time) + (evolution) + (god)then (god) is not really relevant in this case. If you want to believe that the (life) portion requires god, that's fine - but since a deity is not required for Evolution to work, there's no reason to talk about one in the Theory.Yes, the Theory of Evolution is inevitably going to bring up issues for some theists, particularly Christians who take the Bible literally - it directly contradicts a lot of Genesis. There's not much we can do about that - the Genesis account does not match up with anything we see in nature, and perhaps more importantly, not everyone in a public science classroom is a Christian, and so teaching Christian Creationism "alongside" Evolution would be wrong for a whole host of reasons (violating the establishment clause of the COnstitution for non-Christians, and let's face it, stories from ancient books with no corroborating evidence taken on faith have nothing to do with science).ID has proven to be nothing more than Creationism in disguise. Replace (god) in my equasions above with (undefined intelligent designer) and we have the same problem. ID has a lot more problems than that (many of the "designs" even in humans are, frankly, stupid given other creatures with superior structures, "irreducible complexity" has been debunked repeatedly...), but the most significant in this case is that it's simply not science. No scientific papers have ever been published for ID. No experimentation is ongoing regarding ID. The only people claiming ID to be science are running a PR campaign, trying to convince non-scientists that IT is science, but not actually participating in the scientific method. Given these facts, it clearly doesn;t belong in a science classroom. The "monkey to man" charts are science. The evolution of man, including our common ancestry with modern apes (note - we didn't evolve from modern apes, we simply all had a common ancestor. Think of us like extremely distant cousins), has been very well studied.I think a big part of your misunderstanding here is the definition of the word "theory." ID is not a scientific theory, while the Theory of Evolution is.Why do I say this?A scientific theory is a model of observed natural processes that makes certain testable predictions. To become an actual theory, those predictions must be rigorously tested, and the predictions mist be borne out. For instance, the Theory of Evolution predicts that we should see significant genetic similarities between humans and other primates. This prediction has been verified, and so it counts as evidence for the Theory of Evolution.Note that we don't say that Theories are facts. The observations used in creating a theory are facts, certainly, but a theory is simply the most accurate model we have that describes a natural process. When predictions are shown to be false, the theory is revised or even thrown out in favor of a new model with greater accuracy.I know the word "theory" can have other meanings - in a show like CSI, you may hear a character say "I have a theory.." and it really just means he's got an idea. But in science, it's quite different.Now let's examine ID as it pertains to a scientific theory. ID makes no actual predictions that can be tested. It simply tacks on the "designer" to Evolution, and claims validity. The only thing that remotely looks like a testable prediction is the "irreducible complexity" bit - it's been debunked repeatedly, and for some reason ID supporters refuse to use the scientific method to experiment regarding it. As I said earlier, no scientific papers have been submitted regarding ID, and no research is currently being done regarding it.So we can see that ID is not an actual scientific theory. This (and the Dover trial, which showed that ID as it was being presented was just Christian Creationism in disguise - amusingly, in the "textbook" to be used, a previous version had actually used the word Creationist. The new edition had replaced the word with "design proponent" bus the editor made a typo - it said "Cdesign proponentIST", caps added, making what was called amusingly in the trial a "transitional form" between Creationist and design proponent) means that ID has no place in a science classroom setting. Philosophy? Maybe. Comparative religion classes? Sure. But not a science classroom.Creationists and ID proponents can't just claim validity and expect the scientific community to accept it. Saying "it's just a theory" is inaccurate to the point of almost being a lie. The whole thing is an attempt by people of faith to add some scientific legitimacy (since otherwise science is seen to be a legitimate pursuit - Creationists have no problem with medical science or NASA, for instance) to their beliefs, and react to a perceived insult because science classrooms teach something that can be taken as contradictory to their beliefs. For them, it's not about legitimate science - it's fear that their beliefs may be wrong, and offense at the suggestion that the Bible may not be literally true. One can hardly blame them for being upset over something that would change a big part of their worldview - but many Christians and other theists have managed to accept evolution as an accurate description of nature without losing their faith.This is why we have the "cognitive dissonance" that spawned this thread - Creationists are trying, desperately, to prove the Bible literally true, and to disprove evolution because it contradicts their current worldview. This means they'll accept the existence of Jerusalem as proof the rest of the Bible's veracity, and not understand why we point out that Harry Potter isn't a true story just because London exists. One fits their worldview, and anything that backs it up is given credence far beyond what the "evidence" actually deserves, right down to making verification of one claim somehow apply to a whole host of claims related only because they are included in the same series of books.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This is why many of us had high hopes for you, TheDarin. You claimed when you first appeared here that you wanted to learn more about the position of Evolutionists, that you regularly argued with them and "call them stupid," but that you want to know what the position actually is so that you could argue more effectively.And here, you've shown that you don't have the faintest idea of what Evolution is. You haven't even learned anything in your brief time here. I truly hope that you decide to stick around and follow up on that initial post of yours. Your incredulity regarding evolution has already been made abundantly clear. Adding mockery like this doesn't do anything but waste space. Apes didn't evolve into humans, TheDarin, we both evolved from a common ancestor. That's a pretty significant difference.When you say "ape EVOLVING INTO a man," are you proposing that evolution predicts that we can watch a modern ape and it will eventually turn into a human being? Or that the descendents of modern apes will eventually evolve into humans? Becasue evolution predicts neither of those things, either...the first being ridiculously silly.If you'd like to discuss primates and human evolution, I suggest starting a new thread. It's a very complex (and interesting) topic, and a real discussion would really require and deserve a full thread.More to the point of this thread, notice that you claim that any evidence produced whatsoever is irrelevant, and you'll be able to prove "design and creation." Do you not understand what evidence is? Do you understand what falsifiability is? Are you seriously just going to nod and say "yeah, but Goddidit," until we bring up human beings, and then say "nope, God said that's not the way it happened, so there?"

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Once again, you don't understand what a scientific theory is.Science doesn't prove anything at all, TheDarin. It produces the most accurate model possible based on available information by continually testing the model's predictions and modifying and discarding existing models in favor of greater accuracy. ALL science is tenuous - but a scientific theory like the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity carry the weight of mountains of evidence and verified predictions. It's a lot different from simply saying "I've got a theory."Please, read my earlier post. Nobody "leaps" out of ID. A designer simply isn't required for the Theory of Evolution, and so it isn't discussed. Just like your car, which (as far as I know) may or may not exist, is not discussed in the Theory of Evolution because it isn't necessary for the model to work.The evolution of primates including humans and modern apes is very well documented. The evidence in support of common ancestry is simply staggaring. Every attempt to falsify the model with evidence has failed - and so, while the theory is still tenuous as all theories are, it is held to be incredibly accurate given all of the information we currently posess. Discounting it as "just a theory" is nonsense, and the mark of an individual who understands neither science in general nor evolution in particular. Even a high school education does slightly better than that in most school systems. Then why have you not produced any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? If you do, we'd all love to hear it - we don't care about evolution beyond its accuracy. If you can disprove it and show its predictions to be inaccurate, we'll adopt the more accurate model you propose. What? You don't know what a mutation is. You don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts. I'm positive you haven't studied primate evolution in the slightest. How would you know the "track record" at all? And what is the track record of design and creation? Neither have ever submitted a scientific paper. Neither have ever been backed up by real evidence or experimentation. Neither even really explains anything at all!You're arguing from ignorance, TheDarin. Please, go back to what you said when you first came here. help us teach you about what the Theory of Evolution actually says. After you actually understand it enough to stop with the strawman arguments and ignorant points, you're welcome to debate with or against us - but to do so without even knowing what you're arguing against is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

quote:

---

Apes didn't evolve into humans, TheDarin, we both evolved from a common ancestor. That's a pretty significant difference.

---

Because those visual aids in textbooks are greatly simplified to help show the process and morphological similarities for a few of the steps. Most of the diagrams you're talking about are in high school textbooks. That level of education is literally the most basic - it's like telling a child that they get their blue eyes from mommy. It's a vastly simplified explanation that requires further education to really comprehend. Not at all - I don't particularly care what you believe, TheDarin, I just want you to understand what the Theory of Evolution actually says before you start arguing against it. It sounded, at first, like that was what you wanted to do, and that was why I replied to you in the first place. Frankly, I'm tired of the Creationists who argue against a false version of the Theory of Evolution, and calling them on their misunderstandings and occasional blatant lies. I was hoping you would at least take the time to learn so that you could have an honest debate. So, without investigating the evidence behind evolution, you simply throw up your hands and say "I could never understand how we got here, and neither can you, let's just give up and say Goddidit!" The point of science is to determine how, not who or why. Your reasoning would have left us in the middle ages, where the Church would simply say "Goddidit" and leave it at that. Again, you don't understand what a mutation is, or how a feature forms through evolution. If you can show evidence of creation and design, do so. I'm asking you, right now, TheDarin, to put up or shut up. Youve made that claim multiple times, but you refuse to back it up.A single mutation cannot result in a brain of any type, let alone the human brain. It's the cumulative result of millions of mutations. I can show you examples of how brains have evolved from the most basic nervous systems to real brains, and from reptiles to mammals to primates to humans. No single mutation was responsible for even one of those steps, though - again, it was the cumulative result of millions of mutations.Do you know what evolutionary programming is? You should look it up - it's fascinating to see what amazingly efficient (and sometimes wildly complex and nearly incomrehensible) solutions can be found by using random generation and selection. It's a great model of real evolution in action. And I'm troubled by people who insist design exists without understanding the very nature of the thing they claim is designed. You don't know what DNA is. You don't know the models that suggest how DNA formed. You simply insist, from total ignorance, that it is too complex to have been designed.Shame on you for such intellectual dishonesty.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Irrelevant to the modern Theory of Evolution. Many people who accept evolution believe that it is the work of god - but regardless of whether that is or is not the case, it is not relevant to the process the Theory of Evolution describes. I'll leave out the personal insults, myself Ray. It's not contradictory, and any rational person can see that. If I am describing the workings of my car and how it operates, I don't need to discuss whether it was restored by hand or assembled as-is in a factory - manufacturing processes are irrelevant to the workings of the engine. Rather, we know you are full of BS due to the existence of millions of Christians who accept evolution. We have several right here on this site. While many have seen evolution as evidence that there is no god, many have also not. Again, there are millions of Christians around the world who accept evolution, yet keep their faith. I may disagree with them, as may Dawkins and others, but that doesn't mean evolution completely excludes the possibility of a deity.Yes, it contradicts a literal Genesis. That's what happens when you decide a stone-age myth passed down for a few thousand years must be literaly true. Not all Christians believe Genesis is a literal account, Ray. You know that. Evolution is neutral towards the existence of a deity. I didn't say it was neutral towards a literal account of Genesis. There's that cognitive dissonance again. Funny how, even though this thread has gone way off-topic, its topic still pops up unintentionally from posts like this. Not Atheist - scientific and legal. You insist they are facts, Ray, but neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to produce those facts. In fact, aren't you going to publish that paper you've been working on for so long? The one you claim dismantles evolution completely, but you never seem to be able to finish, and whose evidence you consistently refuse to bring up to back your arguments? Genesis is certainly not the only other option, and evolution is a conclusion. Don't we have a thread about that, too? No, you don't understand. You never have. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism,excepting that nearly all atheists accept evolution. Most Christians do, too. and so your point is refuted yet again. How long will you keep lying? It means that using the same logic to assume the veracity of the Bible is just as flawed, Ray. Even if the Bible were compeltely true, saying the Flood happened because Jericho existed is still false. Again, the topic of this thread shows itself in an amusing (yet frustrating) way.Also, it's nice to see you had to resort to personal insults, as always, Ray.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, or ID, and you know it. You don't have to. How would you like some examples of new species evolving from pre-existing species, which have actually been observed? As in, within the human lifespan, documented and recorded. Your mockery, again, does nothing but waste space.Many of us have been replying to you with civility, despite this nonsense. Can you not even return that level of respect?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I was calling you out for your dishonesty by attacking a principle you know nothing about. That is shameful, TheDarin. I wouldn't make claims about the Bible unless I had read a passage that supported my claim, yet you are here insisting that DNA is designed when you don't even know the opposition's position.Apparently this is a schoolyard, and "nuh uh!" is good enough for you. You're attacking evolution in general. Until you can show the mechanism by which evolution still exists, yet humans did not evolve from an apelike ancestor (despite the fact that the same evidence that shows us other species evolved is present in humans), you're attacking the entire theory, despite what you're saying. As Percy asked - how do you define design? You know the napkin and watch were designed because we can to to the napkin factory or to a watchmaker and see the designer. How does one determine design in the natural world? What definition are you using that allows a cat to have evolved, but makes human beings designed?Your examples have nothing to do with determining design in a living thing. ...what? Now you aren't even making sense.Respond without the mockery, and perhaps we can have a conversation. When you post things like this, however, nobody can understand what you're trying to say.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

All squirrels are mammals.Not all mammals are squirrels.You're the deluded one, Ray. Congratulations on slandering the majority of your faith. Oh, I don't know. Maybe becuase it's highly accurate?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Evolution has little to do with linguistics, TheDarin, except that certain words have definitions in science that are different from common usage. Of course we see the same thing. The problem is that you haven't actually looked through all of the items on the table, and don't know what 90% of them are. You've been told since childhood that all of the things on the table were designed, but you never actually looked at them yourself or asked how one determines design in the first place.Any conclusions you may draw from such ignorance are invalid.If you'd actually like to discuss evolution and learn what the theory actually states, please stick around and participate in the debates. If all you want to do is say "nuh uh" and threaten to run away when people don't agree with you, then by all means, leave.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I haven't mentioned my atheism to you once. Cold Foreign Object was the one who brought that up, not me, and my reply on the matter was to him. And I don't expect anyone to study evolution very far at all - except when they say that evolution is false. I will criticize anyone who claims to be able to disprove something they don't even understand. That's intellectual dishonesty and argument from ignorance. It's like a kindergartener telling a physicist the Theory of Gravity is wrong. No, you haven't. You still don't even have the barest conception of what the Theory of Evolution states. You don't even have a grasp of the scientific method. Of course it's a fair representation. It's just also simplified - it's a visual aid to help people grasp a concept. A child will not understand real genetics, or real morphology. Diagrams like the one you speak of are what we use to introduce people to the concept. You "See Spot Run" book from when you learned to read wasn't the height of literature - it was just your introduction to the written word.As for your insinuations about some anti-Christian agenda, it's simply not true. Those posters are put up becasue they are a simplified but accurate visual aid representing the model of the natural process of evolution. The key word there is "accurate." It's really easy. Just stop posting, and you'll have left.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.