Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:
Flaws of evolution -
Creation's flaw(s) -
The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.
OP's opinion Creationist. Period.
21 comments
The fact you even think theory and hypothesis are interchangeable enough to justify a slash, show severe lack of scientific understanding.
"Flaws of evolution -
"Evolution" is NOT "anything scientists claim that contradict Scripture literalism"! It's about how lifeforms have developed and diversified and continues to do so since the origin of life. How matter originated doesn't matter.
"Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from"
Most mutations are NEUTRAL (IIRC). Whether any non-neutral mutation is harmful or beneficial depends more often than not on context.
A mutation that makes you lose body heat slower than most others is harmful if you live close to the equator, but beneficial if you live in an area where for large parts of the year it's so cold that if you can't park your car in a heated garage, you need to keep the engine running 24/7 or it'll freeze up.
Creationism: Has no evidence and denies any responsibility to provide any evidence.
Creationists demand for Evolution: Absolute proof for everything that has ever occurred since the beginning of time.
Evolution Theory: was discovered through evidence and provides evidence and continues to provide evidence and realized predictions.
Scientific demands from Creationists: Some evidence.
A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted.
Neither laws nor theories nor hypothesis work like that!
Flaws of evolution
It also cannot explain why my computer’s mainboard somehow insists that its CPU fan doesn’t work, while the fan itself is turning happily on and on. What’s your point?
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
Even if that’d be true (it isn’t, see Malingspann’s post above), it would still mean that there are some beneficial mutations. And that’s all evolution needs to work.
Creation's flaw(s) -
I know an even bigger flaw: It cannot explain why all the evidence found points to evolution.
The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.
Sure, but as long as we don’t have a time machine we are forced to use the evidence we have and that points heavily towards evolution.
Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises
No, evolution is now a theory. Creation is still a myth.
Flaws of evolution -
It doesn't need to, that's way outside the scope of evolutionary theory.
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from
Please prove that "most mutations are harmful." Simple mutations like an animal having a different coloring of fur than its parents is a simple mutation which isn't necessarily harmful, and could be beneficial if it camouflages the animal from predators.
Creation's flaw(s) -
That, and a total lack of evidence.
Evolution may not explain the origin of matter, but creation doesn't explain why I had pasta for dinner.
"Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence"
...meanwhile, the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis. As opposed to, say... Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Specifically the decision by the Conservative Christian Judge John E. Jones III. [/hyper-paradox]
NEXT!
Remember, Evolution is a scientific theory, Creation isn't even an hypothesis.
A scientific law is a short statement for a specific item.
Yes, scientific theories are evaluated and updated with new discoveries; that's part of the scientific method.
Evolution doesn't concern itself with origin of matter, but with adaptation of already existing life, through random mutation and natural selection. (Shouldn’t you know what Evolution IS, before you begin criticizing it?)
Creation's flaws:
The way to be sure which is correct is to follow the evidence. I.e. the ToE.
Good grief there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.
How about we start with the fact that "scientific laws" are descriptive rather than prescriptive. A "law" is simply a description, often mathematical, of an observation. Laws are a part of theories.
Then let's move on to the fact that evolution isn't concerned with the origin of matter and the fact that most mutations are actually neutral due to redundancy in the genetic code. Those that aren't neutral are either harmful or beneficial in a given environment. Harmful ones tend to die out and beneficial ones tend to spread through the population.
Now let's try the fact that we have lots of evidence that points to evolution and none that points to a God.
A theory is more than a fact. It is a fact that apples fall from trees. The Theory of Gravity explains why while at the same time explaining tides and why the earth and sun are in orbit around each other.
The fact that evolution cannot explain the origin of matter is not a flaw. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of matter, that is a different science.
Well, except that creationism doesn't actually HAVE any evidence. Any. At all. Ever. And evolution doesn't explain the "origin of matter" because that's a whole 'nother science altogether. That's like getting upset because your dentist won't fix your leaky faucet. In other words, you got nothing. But I notice that doesn't stop you from going with the no-evidence choice....
And the plural is "hypotheses", but you don't need to know that, because only creationism is a hypothesis.
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of matter or even the origin of life. Creationists continue to imagine that evolution is an argument against the existence of God. So they figure it requires the non-existence of God in order to be true. So they think all they need to do is drag out the old Cosmological Argument for the existence of God and presto! - evolution is false.
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful
Evidence shows that most people lose at Powerball, too. Does that prove that nobody ever wins? There are more e. coli bacteria in a turd than every Powerball ticket ever sold, and they produce a new generation every 20 minutes. When B. F. Hall deleted the gene they use to digest lactose, they soon evolved several new genes to do the same job by a different chemical process. It wasn't as efficient, but they had 100 million years to evolve the original gene.
Creation isn't a scientific hypothesis, however: it invokes supernatural agencies and is not falsifiable. Evolution also is not a scientific hypothesis: it's a scientific theory.
And if you don't understand the difference between scientific laws, hypotheses and theories you're not sufficiently prepared to address biological evolution in a credible manner.
That evolution cannot explain the origin of matter isn't a flaw: it isn't within the theories scope. evolution only addresses changes in the frequency of alleles over generation in populations of already existing living organisms.
And the evidence doesn't show that most mutations are harmful--instead that most mutations are neutral, neither harmful or beneficial.
And creation's flaw isn't that it can't explain where god came from but that it doesn't explain ANYTHING--it simply avoids the necessity to derive a meaningful explanation by writing all observations off as having happened by magic.
Even if it were correct, creationism is useless.
Evolution, as a cornerstone of biology, has practical applications in medicine, agriculture, environmentalism, pedigree dog breeding... this isn't hypothetical, we actually use the predictions from the ToE in these fields on a daily basis and find them accurate. we can't USE creationism, since "god did it" doesn't help us treat diseases, or create new breeds of crops, or help endangered species adapt to a changing world, or get just the right colour coat on our dog. ToC is useless in a very practical sense.
@Kuno
That happened to me a few months ago, after I reapplied thermal paste. What turned out to be the problem was that I used one of the additional headers, instead of the one for the CPU fan. On my board there are two other headers near the CPU fan header, and it's hard to read what's printed on the board because of how tiny it is.
It could be is that one of the pins isn't working or making contact for whatever reason, or alternately, it could be a faulty adapter on the fan. You can actually plug a three pin adapter into a four pin header, or vice versa, and it'll still work. Only two of the pins powers the fan. The third pin detects the rpm, and the fourth allows the motherboard to pulse it, and control the speed if it's a variable speed fan. The third pin would be the issue here, as detection of the rpm is what tells the motherboard you have a fan.
Another thing it could be is that there is something wrong with your motherboard's fan control circuit.
@Creedence Leonore Gielgud
Which is why, unless the customer specifically wants such for the bespoke setup we build for them - particularly if they also want fan RPM controls installed in one of the drive bays in the case (usually the floppy drive bay) - we use the basic fans without the third RPM detector wire, in the computer shop I work at.
...but then, so many - mainly the gamers - want water cooling for their CPUs/chipsets, RAM & GPUs, so there y'go. Oh, and it pays to check out the manual for that particular mobo model; they usually have revision numbers on the board, as the manufacturers are always bringing out revised versions, sometimes with the headers repositioned, so it's best to go to that mobo's manufacturer's site and download the .PDF for that model.
I've had Athlon-based boards in the past that were exactly the same, but certain connectors/headers etc were in different places - and on a few occasions, the boards were different sizes - such is Taiwan's wont for constantly updating their specs, designs & so on.
...such is their Evolution . [/Irony]
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.
