Wow

New Jaclyn Glenn video!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIDioX4H5jU

I don't really get how evolution vs creationism is a debate. Do they look around ? Evolution is everywhere, do they not notice how kids are getting taller, and that themselves they're probably taller than their parents like..

That's actually another example that shows creationism is BS. I mean isn't God supposed to have given me my height ?

Same.

two new Jaclyn Glenn videos:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwDDXJp-TCA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT4LX2wbtxQ

Jaclyn's video on SJWs is me!

They are NOT disproven. That's actually the very reason why (Young Earth) creationism and Intelligent Design are not considered scientific because they cannot be disproved or falsified. In science, a theory must have the power to make predictions and be capable of being falsified. Any theory that attempts to explain the universe through an Intelligent Designer isn’t a scientific theory because it isn't observable or testable. It’s impossible to design an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of such an entity. Thus, YEC and ID are unfalsifiable ideas. They are NOT necessarily proven to be false. They just don't belong in science. They belong in philosophy or religion.

Those are the evidence that substantiate the Theory of Evolution and contradict the specific claims of YEC and ID. They do not disprove YEC and ID. What they do is demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution is the better (read: scientific) explanation, and that YEC and ID are not needed to explain the world in scientific terms. This isn't saying they are wrong or disproved. They are simply just not scientific. Like I said, they aptly belong in a philosophical/religious discussion or debate, not in science. The veritable mountain of evidence of a theory does not disprove any other competing idea or theory. The actual disproof or falsification for YEC and ID should come internally and not from other competing theories/ideas because no theory, scientific or otherwise, is and can ever be proven, Look up "Falsifiability" and "Problem of Induction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

and what are you exactly trying to prove here? that creationism is real?

Don't waste any more of your time

To disprove something implies that the evidence used against it is an indisputable proof when proof doesn't exist in science in the first place. As I've said in this thread, science doesn't deal in absolute nor with proof. It deals in probability and with evidence. It is not set in stone. All scientific knowledge is provisional. They are never final. They change all the time. They are able to be modified or overthrown by a competing, better model or theory, or just a further refinement of the current model or theory. Likewise, no scientific evidence can be irrefutable proof of anything. All scientific evidence is falsifiable. No amount of evidence will prove a theory. Theories remain conjectural. But a single evidence found to contradict a scientific theory would destroy it completely. See David Hume's quote. That's the very hallmark of science. It can always be shown to be false in future experiments. Philosophical/religious ideas cannot be proved or disproved. Scientific theories cannot be proved, but they can be disproved. The scientific method is not meant to prove a scientific theory true, but rather, false. In fact scientists are ALWAYS trying to find ways to disprove or falsify (the proper term here) their theories. That's their job. If they cannot be falsified, they are not scientific. That's basically what sets science apart from other disciplines.

To put it shortly, scientific theories are falsifiable ideas (not proven facts) that haven't been falsified yet. And when they have been falsified, they are relegated to this category.

Some philosophical/religious ideas may contradict existing scientific theories but they are not and can not be disproved by those theories because even those theories are not immutable. For a thing to be disproved, it has to pass the criterion of falsifiability first. Philosophical/religious ideas all fail to stand up to that basic criterion. YEC and ID are pseudosciences. They are refuted (not disproved) by generally accepted current scientific theories which themselves are not 100% proven.

I'm not saying they are real. But they aren't necessarily wrong either. What makes them wrong is the category mistake of presenting them as scientific when, like I already said, they properly belong in a philosophical or religious discussion. What is and isn't real, itself, is also a matter of philosophical discussion. The academic fields devoted to the study of reality and existence are metaphysics and ontology. Science only deals with perceptual reality, or reality filtered through human senses.

well seeing how religion is based on myth, faith and no evidence, people tend to believe evolution which gave us more answers about our history and human body than religion does. (yet alone the fact that religion claims things that haven already been disproved.)