Well, the Noah story may well be a little over-blown. But why is evolution, a simple man-made idea now viewed as science?
There is no science to the theory, just conclusions, educated guesses, facts that may mean something else completely.
The funny part of the theory is how the explanations are added and added on too with no evidence whatsoever.
To me the single biggest disclaimer about the theory is the dinosaurs. If evolution actually happened then why did the dinosaurs exist first? And if the dinosaurs evolved why did they become dinosaurs. And then the next life after them became all the animals of today? Makes very little sense.
37 comments
Argument from stupidity (er. Ignorance). Then of course there is the fact that it sounds like he's not really read up on evolution at all ("The funny part of the theory is how the explanations are added and added on too with no evidence whatsoever.").
His thing about the dinosaurs sounds like a way to get around the whole "We have the fossils. We Win" thing.
Finally, his statement "There is no science to the theory, just conclusions, educated guesses, facts that may mean something else completely." Should be nominated for "so close yet so far". Science is all about interpreting the facts that are there. MTE is the theory that has stood up better than others to explain, interpret, predict facts. That's what science is. Not sure what he thinks science is.
Hrrrmmm...the conclusions are supported by the facts, whether or not you could interpret otherwise. That is what theories are...if it is supported by enough facts, then it is science. Period.
Explanations are only added on to the theory, outside of speculations for potential experiments, after it DOES have sufficient evidence to warrant its inclusion in the theory.
And, as for why dinosaurs existed "first": bigger isn't always better. In fact, the dinosaurs died out because of that fact (which, ta da, is evolution in action!)
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it wrong. If that we our policy for excepting scientific theories, there would NO SCIENCE!
All science is man-made, you idiot.
Dinosaurs were very successful having existed on earth for at least 250 million years.
Your take on the ToE DOES make very little sense, but that's because your take on the ToE is almost completely in error.
There is no science to the theory, just conclusions, educated guesses, facts that may mean something else completely.
The funny part of the theory is how the explanations are added and added on too with no evidence whatsoever.
Sounds like creationism, except that strictly speaking, creationism doesn't qualify as a theory.
To me the single biggest disclaimer about the theory is the dinosaurs. If evolution actually happened then why did the dinosaurs exist first? And if the dinosaurs evolved why did they become dinosaurs. And then the next life after them became all the animals of today? Makes very little sense.
That is one of the reasons scientists show their work: so that other people can learn and understand and make sense of it.
There is no science to the theory, just conclusions, educated guesses, facts that may mean something else completely.
You can't overthrow a scientific theory merely by inventing "what ifs" out of thin air. If there are "facts that may mean something else completely", the person making that claim has to provide some proof. You also can't overthrow a scientific theory by saying "yeah, but how come you can't answer this question"? That's called the "god of the gaps" fallacy.
Didn't I just read this? Oh, no, it is common ignorance apparently all fundies are trained to babble about.
The same arguments, with the same faulty logic. It must be a prerequisite for being a fundie; twist things to be as you want and never actually learn anything.
"There is no science to the theory..."
Apart from archaeology, biology, physics, etc.
"If evolution actually happened then why did the dinosaurs exist first?"
Turn it around and apply the same question to creationism. Why did your god make dinosaurs first?
"There is no science to the theory, just conclusions, educated guesses, facts that may mean something else completely."
Isn't that more or less what science is? Science isn't absolute truth, we never claimed it was.
Science is not fact, it's observing, testing, understanding the world around us with our own heads... as opposed to getting all your answers for a work of fiction...
Steve's criticism would be sensible if there was only one 'better choice' possible at every stage of development. Then you'd get dinosaurs every time things evolved. (Or alternatively, get human beings only every time something evolved."
Taking away that misapprehension leaves the fact that the preictions of TOE are exactly what we find in reality. (Not surprising, since every part of Darwin's original TOE that didn't match reality was thrown out.)
"To me the single biggest disclaimer about the theory is the dinosaurs. If evolution actually happened then why did the dinosaurs exist first?"
Really? Damn, even the "if we came from apes why are there still apes" argument has more validity.
While the Dinosaurs were wiped out 35 million years ago, small animals that could live in the ground, did'nt need a lot to eat and could scrounge around until they found it,they survived. A fast climate change that destroys most vegetation kills off the large vegetarians and carnivores.
Mammals got the edge (long as they avoided the crocs and serpents and such that cuold also lay low after such an event)
In fact, if theres a God, and he wanted a new world, then he sent that perishing huge rock at us. Today thats what we would call terraforming.
Yeah,the whole facts and educated guess thing really screws me up too,especially when I try to tell people about the leprechauns that live under my bed and tie my pant legs together in the middle of the night.
Evolution was happening for a long, long time before people figured it out. It is a simple idea once you understand it , but it took a lot of scientific fieldwork to understand it the first time. Unfortunately, some people have never gone to the trouble of learning how elegant it is, nor have they any idea of what constitutes "science" or "evidence".
Dinosaurs didn't come "first", so there goes that part of your post too, and I have no idea what you mean in the next couple of sentences. Steve, you're not really equipped to comment on this topic.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.