Following an answer about the burden of proof as it relates to theism and atheism:
I think you do not know anything about proving a theory.
I think someone needs a refresher course in what a theory is and how the scientific method works. Scratch that, I know someone needs a refresher course in what a theory is and how the scientific method works. Of course, that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that you once learned it but otherwise forgot or denied it due to reasons that will become apparent the more we proceed in identifying what informs your belief.
According to the National Academy of Sciences:
“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”
A theory exists as a result of proof. The reason the term theory is used has to do with the peer review process more than anything, the notion that new information may come along that requires the theory to be dropped in favor of a more accurate one. Thus far, no compelling evidence has been presented to validate the existence of any deity or pantheon thereof from any religion. Those kinds of changes usually involve wars.
Your theory of evolution is so full of flaws.
If evolution is flawed, then creationism is fabricated. This is our first real inkling, besides your inability to understand the burden of proof being on the positive claim, that you are in fact building up to an argument from ignorance. In short, because you don’t fully understand something, you would just as soon deny it in favor of something else. The irony of this is that in other answers you talk about human knowledge being limited, which is true of absolutely everything, including supernatural claims such as werewolves, Enlightenment, dragons, Valhalla, spirit animals, wendigos, chakras, ghosts, the gods of Olympus, reptoids, hidden prophetic messages in Helter Skelter, and God, among many other equally unsubstantiated claims believed by some as the absolute truth. When your platform for an argument is that human knowledge and observation is limited, you actually undermine your own points in the very same process as literally everything you know about God was told to you by other people, thus informing the very outlook by which you observe and correlate all the world’s contents. Had you been raised in a polytheistic culture, and took that information as the absolute truth, you would adjust your outlook to accommodate this point of view with equally legitimate results.
As we said, if we’re grading on a curve, evolution being “flawed” puts creationism on the level of wishful thinking.
Missing links: where are the transitional creatures? no bones of the walking fish ?
Every organism that isn’t the last in its line is transitional. Asking where the transitional creatures ARE (present tense) is like asking when the future arrives. The only reason homo sapiens aren’t considered transitional is that there hasn’t been a species to come after us in our line, though there are many transitional species between us and the common ancestor we share with our fellow apes like the gorillas and the chimpanzees.
An example of a transitional organism where homo sapiens are concerned is Australopithecus Africanus, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus. It’s also worth noting that the term “missing link,” coined in 1851 by Charles Lyell, was never used by Darwin in his Origin of Species.
As for walking fish, do you mean lungfish? There’s no shortage of bones for those. Speaking of bones, there are also snakes with both remains of legs as well as the genes for developing them, we have tailbones despite lacking tails, and while it’s not a fish, Ambulocetus has a very impressive presence in the fossil record (because bones fossilize over millions of years, in case you didn’t know).
Survival of the fittest: why did the crocodile did not get extinct and never evolve?
You technically answered your own terribly-worded question by prefacing it with “survival of the fittest.” The crocodile is aptly suited enough to its environment that any radical mutations or other new traits have not yielded any advantage that may improve its odds of survival. Necessity is the mother of invention, and it’s also the mother of evolution. Similarly, sharks are apex predators, and this position at the top of the food chain has resulted in very few evolutionary changes over the past several epochs.
Dinasour dates: How did you measure the age of the Dinasour?
How did you verify Jesus‘ feeding of the 5,000, Muhammad splitting the moon in half, Poseidon creating the horse, the Air-Spirit people crossing over from the second world to the third world…?
Our ability to determine the age of things is rooted in many different scientific disciplines, including radiology, geology, and biology. We know the age of the earth due to radiometric dating, specifically Lead-Lead dating; determining the ratio of different isotopes of Lead along with the measured decay creating these isotopes in the first place determines how old a sample of a given material is. Geologists use core samples, either of rock or ice, and use the layers of settled and compacted rock and ice as a timeline of events in the distant past. On a lesser scale, dendrochronology applies the same principles of layers as a measure of time to trees. There are trees that, according to more literal interpretations of the Bible, should have died in Noah’s Flood, yet live to this day.
Auto genesis of life is imposible mathematical probabilities can prove this yet you accept it as a fact.
I’d ask for a citation, but you’d probably ask me why I’m bringing up whales again.
Anyway, equations themselves aren’t proof, but a means of interpreting and collating data, much like theories. If this were that simple, i > u would be all I’d have to say to undermine your position.
As for the mathematics of probability of life from nothing, I’m going to let this do the talking:
Facts: Long before science insisted the world was flat the bible mention the world was a spherem
I don’t know what a spherem is. You probably mean “hemisphere” which is a half-sphere, in case you need a refresher course in geometry. In Biblical terms, the half-sphere would have been the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below (Gen 1:6-8). Also, the Bible mentioned the moon producing its own light and being below the clouds along with the sun (Gen 1:16-18). The Bible also describes at one point a tree that can be seen from anywhere on earth (Daniel 4:10-11), which is impossible on a sphere. Granted, this is described as being in a dream, but why would an all-powerful cosmic super-being show a flat earth in a vision?
Furthermore, the Bible isn’t even consistent in whether this flat earth is circular or square. The very expression, “The four corners of the earth” originated in the Bible (Isaiah 11:12), and spheres don’t have corners. Running counter to this paradigm and in the very same book (Isaiah 40:22), the earth is described as “circular,” never once using the word kadur, the closest word in the Hebrew language for sphere. Is it worth asking how the Jews couldn’t have had a more specific word for the shape of the earth?
As for science insisting the world was flat, you may have noticed this isn’t the case anymore, yet no one has bothered revising the Bible to update its inaccurate portrayal of the earth’s form. Rather, we get apologists who don’t know the difference between a sphere and a circle trying to apply medieval revisions of Bronze Age folklore to the modern, connected, and diverse world we live in today.
Fact: Divine intervention/Creator is the easiest explanation
Easiest? That’s not exactly a mark of merit when it comes to making a compelling argument. Rather, it’s the basis for a cop-out, an acceptance of blissful ignorance over facts and truth. It’s literally an argument from ignorance: you find evolution complicated, but “God did it (magically)” easy, so you go with that one. You do know that Gregor Mendel and Isaac Newton both believed in God yet made vast contributions to genetics and physics, respectively, right? They had all ideas that the universe was designed, but rather than simply leave it at the “easy” solution, they sought to find out how it was designed. You speak of how it’s illogical to say something came from nothing, but isn’t that exactly what happens in Genesis 1:1, or did God have some raw materials to work with? Did he create those out of nothing? Are stacked turtles going to enter this model of yours anytime soon?
It’s also important to distinguish nothing/something AT ALL from nothing/something LIVING. No self-respecting physicist will tell you there was nothing before the Big Bang. Per the laws of conservation of energy and mass, all the matter and energy that exists in the universe currently was present at the start, only it was compressed into a singularity. The subsequent expansion is not only going on right now, but also accelerating towards an inevitable state known as heat death. As for life from non-life, I certainly hope you’re not saying evolution is built on abiogenesis, because that’s a completely different field that evolutionary biologists overall have very little to say about. Abiogenesis is in the field of organic chemistry. It’s a very fascinating field. You should look into it. At the very least, you should look up the difference between something that’s alive and something that’s merely organic.
but you refuse to accept it for no valid reason.
You think, “It’s easy.” is a valid reason to accept a certain point of view? Refusal to accept simple explanations that dismiss facts to the contrary is perfectly valid reasoning.
you cant explain a superior being with your inferior brain. wby cant you accept that.
Now that I’ve finished laughing my ass off at watching someone who can barely spell and string sentences together call someone else stupid for being skeptical of mystic woo, let’s consider the portrait you’ve painted of God as a superior being. You say he’s the creator of the universe, but that evolution could not possibly have been the means by which he sculpted life on earth? How do you know what God was thinking when he set all this in motion? Do you really think he sculpted man from clay as you would a piece of pottery? Don’t you think he’s capable of something more elaborate and befitting his power? Think of the “days” of creation and how many creationists take that as symbolic for some other measurement of time that’s so beyond our comprehension we need simple metaphors for us to understand. All that, yet you’d prefer an “easy” explanation?
Why do you think so little of God?