1 2 3
False dillema. I can think of at least a dozen other options off of the top of my head.
8/3/2009 12:35:20 PM
Sure there is; you're just not creative enough to think of one (of many possibilities, might I add).
But you're not going to disprove whatever you think evolution is. You have to be able to think harder to do that.
8/3/2009 12:46:38 PM
But Pastafarianism proves both of them wrong. You lose.
8/3/2009 12:48:11 PM
Depends how you define "creation", I suppose. Although, chances of disproving evolution are pretty slim to none.
"Your universe is your eyes and ears." Ruler of the Universe, THHGTTG.
8/3/2009 12:48:17 PM
There would still be numerous different models....
Almost every religion has its own model about the origin of life
aside from this there are still lots of extrareligious models one can think of, about how life as we know it came to earth....
one possible model for example would involve life having originated on other planets and then being transferred to earth in one way or the other.... ;)
It definitely wouldn´t be more ridiculous than imagining that life was created by a divine entity in the way described within the bible ;)
8/3/2009 12:49:13 PM
Yeah, whatever. You have to disprove evolution first, remember. More intelligent people than you have tried to do that through the centuries. Some idea of evolution existed even before Darwin started with his book, you know.
So, as evolution has been proven again and again, creation has ben disproven again and again? You can't have it just one way, dumbass.
8/3/2009 12:49:56 PM
Er, no. I'm afraid that's not the way it works.
8/3/2009 12:53:09 PM
But you haven't proved creation.
8/3/2009 12:59:56 PM
3. The earth's magnetic field is responsible for speciation.
4. Man bred ALL species from a single water lily.
5. Everything's just being dreamt by Johnson Toribiong, President of Palau.
There you go... 3 more options.
8/3/2009 1:00:03 PM
But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.
There is much more than a third option. There are several other creation myths out there.
8/3/2009 1:03:27 PM
JohnIf I disproved the evolution, I proved creation
8/3/2009 1:12:57 PM
"But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation."
That's not how science works. If you disprove a theory you'd damned well better have something to replace it (and creationism sure as hell wont do so) or you've wasted a lot of time, effort and trees writing your critique as we'll just keep on using the theory since there'd be nothing to replace it.
"Because there is no third option."
Sure there is. You're all figments of my imagination, hence neither evolution nor creationism is true.
See? That wasn't so hard. I could probably come up with a dozen more options if I thought about it.
8/3/2009 1:17:17 PM
No, if you disproved evolution then there would be no evidenced based explanation of biodiversity. In this case, "I don't know" would be preferable to an explanation that has no evidence. I could make up explanations that have no evidence all day, and there would be no way to tell which, if any, were correct.
8/3/2009 1:18:26 PM
"If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation"
No. If you disproved evolution, then you would have disproved evolution. To prove creation, you must come up with a compelling explanation that is able to fit with all the evidence and things we have discovered to date. That's two Herculean tasks just there.
Also, you would have to decide which creation theory you wanted to prove and even before that, assuming you want to prove your fundie version, you need to agree amongst yourselves exactly how to 'interpret' the wholly babble and come up with a single creation story, since there are so many interpretations of the babble stories.
So, good luck with that...
8/3/2009 1:18:32 PM
There's INFINITE possible options. It must be religion destroying your brain I suppose.
8/3/2009 1:35:13 PM
You're forgetting the option that man traveled back in time and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
8/3/2009 1:37:03 PM
Which creation story is that? Because there are more stories from other religions too.
8/3/2009 1:38:00 PM
And here I thought ID was you guys' plan B.
8/3/2009 1:39:41 PM
First, disprove evolution. Second, explain why there are no other options. Don't worry; I'll wait.
Also, once you prove Genesis chapter 1, you'll have disproved Genesis chapter 2, and vice versa.
8/3/2009 1:42:12 PM
8/3/2009 1:47:21 PM
8/3/2009 1:48:21 PM
Wikipedia has around sixty major creation myths, that's without all the minor variations within the chief religions or taking into account all the views of smaller societies around the world.
But as evolution is a fact it's all irrelevant anyway.
8/3/2009 1:53:17 PM
That idea doesn't NEED to be changed. It needs to be thrown out.
A. it's a false dichotomy and B. you haven't even begun to come close to starting to get a foothold toward proving the ToE incorrect.
8/3/2009 2:02:20 PM
No, if you disprove evolution (and you won't, because even if it is disprovable, you're not smart enough to even know how it works, much less figure out how to show that it doesn't), you then have to take extra steps to prove creation. See, putting a new theory into science requires not only disproving the current standard, but showing how your new theory explains what the old theory both did and did not explain.
And there are other possibilities. I can think of several. All of them are far less likely than evolution and about as likely as creation.
8/3/2009 2:16:09 PM
No. Evolution doesn't tell us how life came into being, it only tells us how it developed. You don't even know the definition of these words you are using.
8/3/2009 2:21:59 PM
1 2 3