Evolution V Creationism?

Question

Is here any rational basis for the creationist theory beside the bible? wake up to yourselves!!!!!

Answer 1

I wouldn't go there. Let them have their little myth. It comforts them. Otherwise, they'd have to learn and grow and, dare I say it, evolve. Right now, all the have to do is wait for the Second Coming.

Answer 2

The majority of the weight behind the creationist theory is derived from the bible. Other factors include some small (and I do mean small) holes in evolutionary theory, and the one rather big hole in the big bang theory (that we cannot demonstrate the source of the energy which created the universe).

The source of the majority of scientific weight behind creationism arises from disputing some small aspects of evolution and then claiming (incorrectly) that these inconstancies are conclusive proof of the creationist theory.

In short there is no scientific evidence worth talking about that suggests that the creationist viewpoint is correct; rather all that backs their argument up are minor inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. This in no way supports creationism, instead it suggests that our understanding of the evolutionary process is incomplete and requires further research.

Answer 3

"Intelligent design" theory is supposed to be an attempt to use rational reasoning and evidence to infer the existence of a designer/creator. They use ideas such as "irreducible complexity" to show that certain features cannot have evolved by natural selection.

I know from the tone of your question that you don't need convincing that intelligent design is based on flawed reasoning. But if you care to look at the claims creationists make, and the appropriate responses, check out this website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Answer 4

No .

really if you read about the modern biology they are a lot of arguments again that theory.

Answer 5

Read stuff on philosophy of science and epistemology. You'll see why these debates are so lame.

Answer 6

All creationist arguments are fallacies. If one examines the arguments of Intelligent Design, you will find the same exact fallacies, but more shrewdly disquised as a scientific argument. In either case, the argument is not scientific at all, but the average person doesn't have the basic understanding of real science to see through the smoke that many of their arguments produce.

These fallacies usually amount to Appeal to Authority-
ie: Darwin recanting on his death bed. Darwin didn't recant, but even if he did, evolution is accepted based on the evidence, not Darwin's authority. Many other quotes from famous and non-famous evolutionists are used in this manner. These attempts to make it seem that evolution theory is largely questioned by academia are referred to as "quote mining."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Another frequently encountered fallacy is the Appeal to Incredulity.
"This is too amazing for you to explain, so it must have been God."

The "Strawman" Fallacy: this is where you build up a distorted "strawman" version of your opponent's argument in order to knock it down more easily. Virtually all creationist representations of evolutionary mechanisms distort the principle somehow, thus falling into this category.

The "Ad-Hominem" Fallacy: this is also known as "attacking the messenger, not the message". One of the most common forms of the ad-hominem fallacy in online debates is to poke fun at someone's spelling errors and then conclude that the person's points are wrong. In religious debates, the most common form of ad-hominem fallacy by far is to attack the morality of an irreligious opponent.

The "Appeal to Motive" Fallacy: this is where you attack the authors of an idea on a personal level by questioning the "hidden motives" behind their arguments, rather than addressing their arguments directly. For example, "you're just saying that vegetables are good for you because you're a vegetarian". Naturally, the most common religious implementation of this fallacy is to say that scientists have some evil hidden motive for supporting evolution theory.

The "Red-Herring" Fallacy: this is where you introduce an irrelevant tangent to the debate. Most people aren't clumsy enough to completely change the subject, so they will pick something which is somewhat related to the general subject but not to the actual arguments being made. For example, "the capitalist theory of supply and demand is misleading because capitalism has been responsible for the systematic degradation of the working class, which produces all of the demand" (notice how it looks like it's related in some way, but despite its appearance it does not actually address or refute the theory of supply and demand at all). The most popular religious implementation of this fallacy is to say that evolution is false if abiogenesis cannot be proven.

The "False Dilemma" Fallacy: this is where you try to force your opponent to choose between two options when in fact three or more options are possible. For example, "you should invest that inheritance money in stocks, because the bond market is not healthy right now" (notice how it assumes that there are only two possible choices). The most well-known religious implementation of this fallacy is Pascal's Wager.

The "False Cause" Fallacy: this is where you assume that A caused B even though this is not necessarily the case. There are many specific forms of the false cause fallacy such as the "post hoc" fallacy where people assume that if A comes before B then A must have caused B, or the "complex cause" fallacy where people assume that something has just one cause when it may have several. For example, "it's too bad Lucy caught Bob watching pornography, because that led to their divorce" (marital failures are often much too complex to pin on a single cause like that) or ""the Nazis reintroduced school prayer when they gained power in pre-war Germany, and the Holocaust followed shortly afterwards, so school prayer caused the Holocaust" (as absurd as that sounds, remember that the removal of school prayer is routinely blamed for everything wrong with society, which is no less absurd).

The "Circular Logic" Fallacy: this is also known as "begging the question", and while few debaters will be clumsy enough to blatantly say something as obvious as "Marxism works because Marxism works", they will generally do so by rewording the same idea in two different ways. For example, "property rights are just as important as human rights because when you examine the human condition and the history of ethical philosophy, you will see that the right to property is one of the fundamentals, which means that it is a self-evident and inalienable right, just as much as the right to life" (notice how it's somewhat pompous but is nevertheless basically circular because its premise is just a reworded version of its conclusion). Of course, in religious debates the most common form of circular logic is to use Bible quotes in order to prove that the Bible is the true word of God.

The Appeal to Consequence fallacy is when you say something like, "Evolution is going to ruin people's faith in God." Regardless of whether or not it will, things don't become untrue just because there are negative consequences.

Slothful Induction: You commit this fallacy if you demand an unfairly high amount of evidence before accepting an idea. This is the fallacy that creationists make when they request proof of a cow giving birth to a whale, or when they say that until something like that is seen in the laboratory, evolution isn't proven. Evolution to this degree takes millions of years, and no scientist could logically be expected to create such a thing in the laboratory.

The Wishful Thinking fallacy is committed when creationists say they don't want to be related to monkeys. Nevermind that scientists don't believe that we evolved from monkeys, or apes, but they sure are hard-headed, those fundies.

And there are SOOOOOOOOO many others.

Oftentimes, creationist and IDists arguments commit more than one fallacy at a time. For example, the argument that most genetic mutations are harmful commits both the Suppressed Evidence fallacy (Most mutations are actually neutral) and the Improper Notion of Improbability-most is not the same as all.

Most common of all fallacies among creationist arguments, and especially ID, is the False Dilemma. Creationists spend 99.999% of their time attacking the evidence for evolution. But even if the criticism is warranted and accurate (closer study reveals that it is not), that does not constitute proof for creationism. This kind of argument assumes that there are only two options.

So, in conclusion, you are asking for something which doesn't exist, which, of course, is something you have already put together for yourself without my help.

Answer 7

I was created you have not finished evolving.

Answer 8

Consider the complexity of just your own body. It was an accident???? Please!!!!