Author Topic: A simple graphic that explains the difference between creationists and science.  (Read 3269 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zen_livin

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Stupid Member
i get it
but in real life "the puzzle" still far away from finish ..... and the picture near puzzle is not just a "duck" .. a lot of picture near the puzzle
Fail In Science ?
Try religion

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Welcome to the forum, zen.

i get it
but in real life "the puzzle" still far away from finish ..... and the picture near puzzle is not just a "duck" .. a lot of picture near the puzzle

There are a lot of details still to be filled in about evolution, agreed. But in the complete absence of evidence of any competing theory, and the abundant evidence for evolution, it's still the best explanation.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline zen_livin

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Stupid Member
i'm agree with you until now evolution theory is the best explanation than religion told ( creation )
but is not possible in one day appear another theory is make more sense than evolution
Fail In Science ?
Try religion

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10951
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
It's entirely possible. But until one does, evolution is what we must rely on, the same way we relied on Newtonian physics before discovering relativity.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Bad Pear

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 238
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Observations from one bad fruit to the bunch.
*** Devil's advocate mode on ***

Could be a two-sided puzzle. Maybe the duck is on the other side of the puzzle (in another dimension, so to speak). Did they look on the other side?

*** Devil's advocate mode off ***

Preposterous! The box indicates that there are 25 pieces and there are clearly only 24. THE BOX LIES!!!
Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions implode, atheism is what is left behind

Offline Grogs

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Darwins +9/-0
i'm agree with you until now evolution theory is the best explanation than religion told ( creation )
but is not possible in one day appear another theory is make more sense than evolution

Sure, but don't forget. Evolutionary theory has millions of pieces of supporting data. A new theory would have to explain those just as well as evolution, plus, it would have to be able to explain some new data that evolution fails to explain. In terms of the analogy presented at the beginning of this post, if evolution claimed that we had a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Tigger, but that very last piece had a picture of a duck on it when we found it, the new theory would say that we had a picture of Winnie, Tigger, and a duck. Notice that, even then, our answer wouldn't be "it's a duck" (i.e., creationism) because we can already see enough of the puzzle to definitively state that the puzzle we're working on doesn't match the box.

So, what would it look like if evolution were proved to be incorrect tomorrow? We have a good example of that in Newtonian mechanics. Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics because it could not adequately describe the motion of objects with a very high energy, or in a very large gravitational field. Despite that, Newtonian mechanics is still adequate to solve almost all problems we deal with in day-to-day life, and it is still taught in all basic physics courses. In that same vein, if tomorrow evolution were found to be incorrect, it would still have the same predictive power as before, but we would recognize that under certain conditions it did not make the correct predictions, and the new theory would have to be used.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
i'm agree with you until now evolution theory is the best explanation than religion told ( creation )
but is not possible in one day appear another theory is make more sense than evolution

Sure, but don't forget. Evolutionary theory has millions of pieces of supporting data. A new theory would have to explain those just as well as evolution, plus, it would have to be able to explain some new data that evolution fails to explain. In terms of the analogy presented at the beginning of this post, if evolution claimed that we had a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Tigger, but that very last piece had a picture of a duck on it when we found it, the new theory would say that we had a picture of Winnie, Tigger, and a duck. Notice that, even then, our answer wouldn't be "it's a duck" (i.e., creationism) because we can already see enough of the puzzle to definitively state that the puzzle we're working on doesn't match the box.

So, what would it look like if evolution were proved to be incorrect tomorrow? We have a good example of that in Newtonian mechanics. Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics because it could not adequately describe the motion of objects with a very high energy, or in a very large gravitational field. Despite that, Newtonian mechanics is still adequate to solve almost all problems we deal with in day-to-day life, and it is still taught in all basic physics courses. In that same vein, if tomorrow evolution were found to be incorrect, it would still have the same predictive power as before, but we would recognize that under certain conditions it did not make the correct predictions, and the new theory would have to be used.
Good.  Everyone should be aware of this point...  although my assumption is since evolution has basically been proven science fact, we would only expand on it, alluding to what you describe from Newtonian physics and general relativity..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."