An important aspect of science is being open to and even seeking out that which might disprove your theory. [Spirituality & Religion]
While i am no scientist, to this end i would like to hear from you folks regarding what evidence you feel shows that evolution didn't happen or couldn't happen.
I'm legitimately interested to engage with you on this.
Creationism was invented by those who misinterpreted the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis. No creationist post-Darwin becomes creationist because of "evidence".
@GodSpeed63 [quote]I never had an imaginary friend[/quote] Don't lie, your posts show you do. You're forever banging on about your imaginary friend called "yahweh" or "god".
@Pikachu They are religiously motivated and closed minded. Since there's a ton of evolution evidence on even YouTube, they are morally responsible for knowing the basics. Without that, they are just willfully ignorant.
Worse, few will change for the effort. Some might but its a huge investment to educate them on things they should already know.
To disprove evolution, one needs to propose a theory that better fits all the observed facts. Thus far none of the creationists/evolution deniers have been able to do that. The claim that "goddidit" is a non-starter unless they can present some supporting evidence. Just proving that this "god" thing exists would be a start.
@Sharon Also I have never seen them propose a mechanism for goddidit. Only a what did it. That is like having ingredients and a finished cake but leaving the making out.
@canusernamebemyusername [quote]Also I have never seen them propose a mechanism for goddidit. [/quote] They can't, it's a completely unsupported claim. They seem to think "goddidit" answers all questions when, in fact, it just avoids them. Saying "goddidit" without explaining where this god thing came from just adds another layer and leaves another question unanswered.
Some philosophers of Science, like Popper, state that a Scientific Theory must provide the means to potentially be refuted. Not a bad point. In Logic, we say: Necessary but Not Enough. It makes a demarcation between Science and whatever source of "evidence" that may be (intrinsically and by self dedinition) not detectable, not meassurable.
The weak point of some branches of Ihilosophy of Science is that the put all the "money" in the proving aspect (lot of them comes from Math). That takes the focus to much in the knower and too far of the definition of Science by it´s Object.
