@Davis

But science eventually corrects its mistakes or frauds. Unfortunately creationists have not yet learned that lesson. They stick to the same old fairytale, regardless how many times it's been proven wrong. Votes: +12

I'd say Darwinists have a very short history of creating frauds (examples of deliberate fraud that gained any purchase can be counted on the fingers) whereas they have a much longer and more honourable history of making their best guesses on the available evidence, and changing their minds when new evidence shows their guess to be wrong. In this way their guesses change and improve. You might even say, they evolve. Because, y'know, that's quite a good way of making things get better... Votes: +1

@Davis

Of course creationism can't be proven wrong. If, 6000 years ago, your god decided to create a universe that looks as if it's 13.7 billion years old, with all the evidence that evolution happened, and tell us to learn what we can about the world, then of course he could. I'd just call him a liar and a cheat. Votes: +6

Darwinists have a long history of creating frauds and making square pegs fit into round holes just to fit their agenda.

Really? The term "pious fraud" was originally coined to refer to religious frauds. There are so many it has its own term. If the existence of fraud is enough to impeach something, then all of religion is sunk many times over.

Furthermore, creationism is made up almost entirely of trying to force square pegs into round holes. Carbon dating, tree ring dating, ice core dating, dating of sediment layers, etc... all of these things point to a planet that is a few billion years old, and young Earth creationists try to force that data to somehow fit a planet that is around 6,000 years old. This article by creationists, "Moving Forward - Arguments we think creationists shouldn't use", both admits to that assumption and makes a list of fraudulent attempts impugn or falsify evolution that are used so often that it even embarrasses other creationists.

Seriously, you have the pot calling the kettle black here, and we're a pretty shiny kettle by comparison.

Evolution is the most viable alternative to creationism by far, since it was and is based on drawing a conclusion from the evidence, as opposed to trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion. Heck, the basics of evolution were derived at independently by different scientists due to that evidence. Evidence that has only gotten stronger and more supportive of evolution over time.

We are not discussing evolution.

Uh... You do realize you titled your first reply here "Evolution is a hoax", right?

But the point was this: There is no other viable alternative to creationism that does not violate known laws of science. Any, and I mean all other options are even more absurd than creationism.

Evolution doesn't violate any known laws of science. If it did, that would be a pretty big flaw that scientists would have caught on to, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, creationism itself isn't even a scientific concept. It can neither be proven nor disproved. Specific claims about creationism may be disproved, but it cannot be disproved overall. As posited by most creationists, the "intelligent creator" is supernatural, which again, makes it an inherently non-scientific claim.

The objective scientific evidence is strongly in favor of evolution, so if you want to overturn that evidence, start getting some peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting your position in some reputable journals. It's called "science". You won't prove anything by simply repeating "I'm right and you're wrong" in a public forum.
Votes: +8

My FIRST post was titled "evolution is a hoax". hdhondt replied with an attack on creationism (which is the knee-jerk reaction to any question on the validity of evolution.) Even if creationism is completely false, that has absolutely nothing to do with the problems of the rube goldberg machine of evolution. Votes: +1

Skeptics think "evolution is a hoax" means "creationism is right". They don't understand, or choose not to understand that you just might be talking about mechanism, not origin.

That's why you should never ring a bell around skeptics, especially in a group. They will both salivate and attack imaginary creationists. Votes: -2

Uh, no Caller X, skeptics and other reasonable people think that the claim "We are not discussing evolution" is a contradiction when preceded by the phrase "Evolution is a hoax" and followed by talking about "the problems of the rube goldberg machine of evolution" in an article about archaeological fakes in paleontology. We all were discussing evolution. We may have talked about other things as well, but evolution was certainly something we were discussing.

Also, being that this site frequently discusses the battle of creationism vs. evolution, it isn't particularly incriminating, or even surprising, that an article discussing one of those two makes someone think of the other. hdhondt addressed Davis' point in his first sentence, and then went on to discuss other, related topics. (FYI- Discussions wander in forums and blog comments, if you haven't noticed already. )

Talking about "imaginary creationists" when discussing replies to Davis is quite amusing, when he makes the bold claim that "Any, and I mean all other options are even more absurd than creationism." He puts creationism as the most likely explanation, therefore really is a creationist. That's not "imaginary".

Honestly, looking at that last post of yours and many others here, you should be the last person to criticize people for attacking others.

@Davis, evolution is hardly a "Rube Goldberg machine". Natural selection influencing the predominance of certain genes over others in a varied gene pool over time is actually a pretty basic concept to understand, even if its implications and implementation are quite complex. Furthermore, evolutionary principals have been demonstrated time and again in the lab, in history, and in simulation. The evidence in favor of it is staggering. If you have a better explanation for the development of species over time, I'm sure science would love to hear about it.

In my experience, most people who deny evolution simply have an incorrect understanding of what evolution is, how it works, and what it does. Calling it a "Rube Goldberg machine" suggests to me that this may also be the case with you. So, if you have any specific questions or concerns regarding it, perhaps you should check your understanding of those points and either look them up and/or ask those questions to someone who understands the science behind it. I'm sure lots of people (myself included) would love to discuss those points with you until they become clear to you.

Hope that helps! Votes: +0