You mean creative scientific asshole… 
… Or would it be scientifically creative asshole? Damn, I always get those mixed up.
Talking about a big lie, I wish I had a dollar for every scientist I’ve encountered online who claims to “know how evolution works”. Their claim implies that they “know” what process was responsible for producing the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record.
But in order to “know” that, one must be able to prove that the process one has in mind was responsible for producing the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record … which is clearly impossible.
No one will ever be able to prove they know what process produced the changes evident in the fossil record.
In other words, the claim to “know how evolution works” is, in effect, a lie.
This post was deleted
Welcome to Atheist Republic Buzzard.
Their claims are well justified. And the evolutionary process does not stand alone, it is incredibly well-supported by genetics, other sciences such as the geology and previous weather of this planet, and proven observations.
One of the biggest questions facing evolutionary researchers was “why did early hominids become erect bipeds?” But by studying the history of weather and plants in that area, it was grassy plains that were once forested. It makes sense that a successful animal would learn to look over the tall grass, in order to enhance survival and find food.
Those in the sciences ask very hard questions, and are not satisfied until there are no conflicts and the answers make sense. They just do not say “god did it”, leave all questions unanswered, and call it a day.
Since you assume to know, how did man show up?
2 Likes
You can’t prove that those things are lies, so you can’t rightly claim that they are lies.
But the god claims carry a LOT less weight than the claims for evolution. In fact, there are reams of hard evidence supporting evolutionary evidence while on the god claim, there is absolutely nothing.
The bible is the claim, not the proof.
3 Likes
A lack of awareness about the null hypothesis regarding strong, unsubstantiated claims…
I’d have to check but its possible this may have already been attempted elsewhere on the site. 
1 Like
Thank you.
I accept that the Theory of Evolution (the Modern Synthesis) is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but no one can prove that ToE describes the process responsible for that history … without that proof, no one can claim to know how evolution works.
Easy to say but impossible to prove. An untestable story like that doesn’t even qualify as science.
‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’
(Dr. Colin Patterson)
I assume to know how man showed up? News to me!
No one can ever know how man showed up.
Accepting a scientific theory or a religious doctrine is not the same as knowing.
The Catholic church is fairly and infallibility specific about how man and everything else showed up, in my observation.
I admit, of course, that true Catholics probably know better.
" Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things , canon 5)."
But the theory of evolution DOES prove this process.
Here is an example, from observation to careful analysis in the changing environment, to gene study.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/peppered-moths-game/natural-selection.html
1 Like
Dr. Colin Patterson
You are really reaching here. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
“Why was Dr. Patterson willing to express his anti-evolutionary or non-evolutionary views to the scientific community? Because, as he put it, he woke up one morning after twenty years of research on evolution and realized that there was not yet one thing he knew about evolution for sure. Shocked to learn that he had been misled so long, he asked other leaders in evolutionary thinking:”
This shows Patterson’s mindset. Science NEVER says anything for sure. Science looks at the evidence and produces the best possible model. When new evidence is discovered we either add to the current model or add a new model to the mix. Patterson has no model. He simply cherry-picks at evolutionary theory. So what?
Next: Let’s imagine evolution is 100% wrong. That does not say a damn thing about the God hypothesis. It does not move the God hypothesis one inch closer to being real. For the God hypothesis to be accepted, it must be evidenced. If all of science were completely wrong. Every scientific theory we know of. The God hypothesis would gain no ground at all. You need to support your hypothesis not knock down all other theories. You are working completely backward and getting nowhere.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha … Patterson is out of his mind.
" “Then I woke up,” said Patterson, “and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” This is his problem. There is NO revealed truth. Patterson is talking like an idiot.
Patterson States: " “Evolutionists all agree that evolution is a fact; the only disagreement is on how evolution occurred.” How absurd. If evolution is to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, then it must be an explanatory statement regarding how changes occur over time. The means or mechanism of change is what a scientific theory must be all about." And that is exactly what science does explain with the theories of genetic drift and natural selection. Both of which have a plethora of evidence supporting them. (SUPPORTING - not proving.) Evolution is the BEST supported, evidence-based theory we have. What do you think you have that can replace it? And what evidence supports your “HYPOTHESIS?”
2 Likes
As a Catholic, my personal belief is that God “poofed” the first man (Adam) into existence in an instant from inanimate matter, as per Genesis 2:7.
But I don’t claim to know that’s what happened because I wasn’t there to see it … and I certainly can’t prove that’s what happened.
…(perplexed look… blink-blink… blink-blink-blink… tilting head to one side… blink… blink-blink… blink)…
2 Likes
No, I don’t think so. A theory doesn’t prove anything.
How would you prove, for example, that natural selection acting on mutations produced the double-circulation heart of an amphibian from the single-circulation heart of a fish?
I do not know the exact mechanism. Yes, that is probably lost in time. But the reason why (just like erect bipeds and dark moths) the environment brought about this change. Amphibians are recognized as the first to migrate onto land from the sea. And having this triple circuit where blood is also pumped into the skin gave an advantage for those that attempted to move from sea to land.
2 Likes
Please try to apply the same standards of evidence to your god as you do evolution.
1 Like
I’m not proposing any theory to replace it. No one can know what process produced the history of life on earth, so I’m not going to waste my time musing about the unknowable. I’ll leave that futile, pointless exercise to evolutionary scientists.
Greetings…I am curious as to the process by which you arrived at your “belief”.
At least they have a much more coherent explanation than “poof”.
@Buzzard I attempt to simplify things to a level that is easy to understand. And even though I can be wrong on a few details, I use a court of law as a reference. We all know about how they work, the rules of evidence and testimony, other details. And when one applies this reference for evolution or the existence of a god, one side wins.
I find your god not guilty of existing.
Of course you don’t know - how could you? That (alleged) evolution happened millions of years ago.
You don’t even know that the double-circulation heart of an amphibian did in fact evolve from the single-circulation heart of a fish, let alone know how it happened. So much for knowing how evolution works.
Really? Prove to me that the “environment brought about this change.”
Yes, of course … according to ToE, every evolutionary transition occurred because it offered a survival advantage. But your theory doesn’t prove you know how it happened.
Here’s another question for you:
Scientists claim (without proof, as usual) eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. If you know how evolution works, please explain how that (alleged) evolution happened … then prove that your explanation is factual, and not just a figment of your imagination.