# Evolution and creationism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223 "2005-07-20T00:32:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/81 "2005-07-21T21:25:46Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Very funny, as usual the point is missed. You did miss the point again, but I don’t see why it’s very funny. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/82 "2005-07-21T21:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > In all the examples you give, someone did experience the example, while in evolution no one experienced it. All the examples given are examples of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/83 "2005-07-21T22:13:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally by Mangetout > OK, I’ll accept that this was a mistake on my part and I offer you my humble apology. Your apology is unnecessary. All I ask is that you view the point I’m trying to make apart from whatever assumptions you may or may not make about me. If you don’t like me personally, fine. I’m not sure what I’ve said to bring that about, but I’d rather try to stay on track with the point I’ve been trying to make. I’d appreciate your help in doing that. To **Yumblie** - Try to forget evolution vs. creation for a moment. Each of us interacts with the world around us and interprets things based on our biases. This is completely unavoidable. But, that bias will forever mean we tend to try to fit the world into whatever view we have of it. When we come across something that just doesn’t match our expectations or contradicts what we believe to be true, we have many options: we find out _why_ it didn’t fit, shrug it off, or change our original expectations. For many of us, we hear an argument against evolution and we can easily explain why the argument is specious. But occasionally there comes an argument that isn’t so easy to dismiss. Sometimes we spend the time and energy to figure out why this argument eventually fails, but, at least for me, sometimes we just don’t have the time, energy nor brain power to fully understand the failings. It is the latter case I’m addressing. We don’t sway our belief in evolution even though we know there is an argument we can’t refute. Instead, we rest easy knowing that an explanation is out there, even if we don’t know what it is or don’t fully understand it. Evolutionists and creationists are very much alike in this regard. > [@](#): > > Originally by hildea > To take another example: Compare these two sentences: > I believe that if I turn around now, I will see a pink unicorn reading over my shoulder. > I believe that if I turn around now, I will not see a pink unicorn reading over my shoulder. > The word “believe” has the same meaning in those sentences. But do you agree that the kind of belief described is not the same? I think I understand your point, and I don’t disagree with it. But remember, creationism vs. evolution isn’t an either/or situation. So we both agree creationism is silly. Great. That doesn’t mean evolution is valid. Let me put it this way. Evolution is true if and only if the Earth is truly billions of years old. Creationism is most certainly true if the Earth is only 6000 years old. I personally do not have the knowledge of the intricacies of dating rocks, but I’m confident the methodologies and science involved are sound. Creationists, on the other hand, have heard counter arguments to an old Earth which match their ideas and have accepted them. The Creationist doesn’t want to spend the time and energy learning about isochron dating and it’s failings, instead believing it can be shown to be false for some reason or another. I don’t really want to spend the time and energy learning about isochron dating and its validity, instead believing it can be shown to be valid. > [@](#): > > Originally by SentientMeat > Again, I put the question to you: Are you asking us to imagine a convincing creationist argument we haven’t heard yet, and suggesting that its hypothetical existence necessitates “faith” on our part? I’m not sure what I’m asking, to be honest. I really don’t want to abandon this thread, but to be honest I don’t know how to try to get my point across any differently. It really isn’t about supporting creationism as much as it is supporting evolution. Why do we feel so strong evolution is correct even though we have not personally verified that facts upon which it is based? I don’t think everything involves blind trust. But I do think that given the complexity of the argument in favor of evolution, there _is_ a certain amount of trust that is employed by all of its supporters. Also, given the complexity, there are lots of opportunities for arguments against evolution and some of the supporting science. Even knowing these arguments against evolution and the science exist, we don’t change our position, instead believing the arguments will inevitably be shown to be false. This is not unlike what a creationist will do when faced with arguments against creationism. In each case, the person (creationist, evolutionist), feels very comfortable saying, “well, I can’t explain that, but I’m certain it can be explained”. ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/84 "2005-07-21T22:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally by Diogenes > Your entire argument rests on the premise that your own personal ability to refute a specific creationist argument has led you to believe that evolution must be taken on faith. The point is that just because you can’t refute something doesn’t mean that other people take it on faith. > > The main point that you don’t seem to be getting is that, unlike creationism, everything in evolutionary theory is verifiable. The EVIDENCE is available to you, not just the word of scientists, but the actual physical evidence, the journals, the research, etc. It’s all right there for you to check any time you want. No, actually, my entire point (please try to pay attention, this isn’t an argument. I put this in MPSIMS and some mod with a knee jerk reaction to the words “evolution” and “creation” put it in Great Debates. But I digress.) is that it is impossible for a single individual to understand the complete substantiation of the evolutionary theory. As a sum total, a complete collection of work, evolution stands firm. I KNOW THAT. I have every reason to not doubt evolution. I’m going to take a different tack with you. You claim everything in evolutionary theory is verifiable. How do you know that? Have you checked? Have you looked at every single last argument about every single last fault found in all sciences used to substantiate evolutionary theory and concluded that there are no conflicts anywhere? If you haven’t, then you must be relying on a trust in other scientists and your own experiences to conclude this must be so. This does not reduce the strength of evolution in any way. Not one iota. On preview, see what **Nature’s Call** says. S/He said it far better than apparently I have been able to do. > [@](#): > > Originally by Nature’s Call > It appears, though, a further point you’re trying to make is: Having reached their respective conclusions each are predisposed against the arguments of the other side, i.e. an evolutionist, convinced he’s right, will presume a creationist’s argument is false and refutable. You call this predisposition “faith” when it’s perhaps better labeled “skepticism” (or, too often, just being tired of some of the kookiness). Presume. Excellent word. Gee, if only I had tried to get people to use their own word instead of me forcing everyone to convolve the word “faith” into what I want it to be. Maybe I could have ended this sooner. > [@](#): > > Originally by Nature’s Call > I think I can see why g\_under\_p got upset (although not to the degree displayed) after trying to argue this one thing and perceiving a hijack. I never perceived a hijack. Well, lekatt and others have turned this into a debate about evolution, which this was never intended to be. Despite the completely unfounded claims of others, I’ve never doubted evolution. > [@](#): > > Originally by Nature’s Call > If I may be so bold g\_under\_p, you shot yourself in the foot twice. Once was with the title “Evolution and creationism” (unless the mod renamed it for you) and twice was using the word “faith” Loaded words all, and an invitation to the debate you didn’t want, as well as the framework for that debate. When the argument against the word faith came up, I asked others to use their own word, giving examples of synonyms they may or may not have found to be helpful. > [@](#): > > Originally by cricetus > Simply put, once you claim there are irrefutable arguments for creation and against evolution, you have very much opened the door to an evolution-creation debate. Please show me where I said there are irrefutable arguments against evolution. You won’t find it, I promise. If you think you did, read again. Go ahead, I’ll wait. _waiting_ _waiting_ _waiting_ _waiting_ Okay, enough waiting. What you will find is that I said there are arguments against evolution that _I_ can’t refute. Similarly, there are arguments against evolution _you_ can’t refute. But, as I’ve said again and again, it is quite obvious we both believe that any arguments against evolution _can_ be refuted. This belief is very similar to the belief creationists put in their understandings. Misguided (for the creationist) tho it may be, it is similar. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/85 "2005-07-21T23:15:53Z")
You said you read some kind of creationist bunk about the Grand Canyon and since you were personally unable to comprehend the geology involved that evolution must be taken on faith. > [@](#): > > You claim everything in evolutionary theory is verifiable. How do you know that? Have you checked? Have you looked at every single last argument about every single last fault found in all sciences used to substantiate evolutionary theory and concluded that there are no conflicts anywhere? If you haven’t, then you must be relying on a trust in other scientists and your own experiences to conclude this must be so. This does not reduce the strength of evolution in any way. Not one iota. I have satisfied myself that no one has ever come with a legitimate hole in evolutionary theory. I also know that I am completely free to check the raw data for myself any time that i want. You seem to have the impression that scientific consensus is nothing but a huge appeal to authority. It isn’t. You have no point. Give it up. Or better yet, give me an example of something in evolutionary theory that I have to take on faith. Go ahead. name one thing I can’t verify for myself. I’m waiting… ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/86 "2005-07-21T23:30:21Z")
Prove that the math used to plot the line used in isochron dating is valid. Your proof must include all proofs of all maths used up to that point, including the axioms that prove 1+1 = 2. ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/87 "2005-07-21T23:33:43Z")
Okay, that was over the top. Taking it back to proving 1+1 = 2 is obviously a bit far, but I do want to see you derive the math necessary to validate the use of line fitting to the points in isochron dating. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/88 "2005-07-21T23:43:33Z")
I don’t think you understood my question. I wasn’t asking you to name something I couldn’t prove personally, I was asking you to name something that I couldn’t check the validity of if I were so inclined. You would not deny that I could research the answer to your question if I wanted to,do you? You would agree that I don’t _have_ to take the math on “faith” if I don’t feel like it? That’s the difference. There is no single point of evolutionary theory which _must_ be taken on faith. EVERYTHING is verifiable. NOTHING in creationism is verifiable. There is nothing in creationism that is NOT taken _purely_ on faith. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/89 "2005-07-21T23:52:13Z")
I think I understand where you’re coming from, **g\_under\_p**. Your point is that most of us are not evolutionary biologists, and when we accept evolution, not having done the work ourselves we’re basically taking someone else’s word for it. Well, that’s true, but that’s true of pretty much _everything_. I’ve never been to Australia, and everything I know about it comes from other people–people who claim to be “Australians” as well as map makers, historians, etc. They _could_ be making it all up. But I’m absolutely sure they’re not. To take a less absurd example, I am convinced of the atomic structure of matter, even though I would probably find most of the math over my head. I am also convinced that the Civil War happened pretty much as written in history books. And I cheerfully regard holocaust deniers as being utter nutjobs, though again I not only have no direct experience of the holocaust, but I haven’t even done any historical research into it myself (Other than reading a few books, which, again, is taking someone else’s word.) There are several ways one can be convinced of the truth of things even though one is taking someone else’s word. One can look at the process by which statements of facts are derived. One can use one’s common sense and logic. One can at least get a cursory, layman’s knowledge of the issue. Using these basic common sense methods, it’s easy to see that evolution is a fact and that creationism is bunk. I think the reason some people think you’re a creationist in diguise–and I take your word that you’re not–is that you are using a common creationist tactic of setting impossibly high goalposts, goalposts which no one would dream of using in any debate about anything else, and claiming that evolution is “faith-based” when these absurdly high standards aren’t met. ---
**Author:** ![Nature\_s\_Call](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nature_s_call/32/19006_2.png) [@Nature\_s\_Call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nature_s_Call)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/90 "2005-07-21T23:54:05Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > That’s the difference. There is no single point of evolutionary theory which _must_ be taken on faith. EVERYTHING is verifiable. So you’re both right! There are some things you do take on “faith” because you read it in a peer reviewed journal known for its integrity. But you don’t HAVE to take it on “faith” because you could do the very study yourself, or the math. **g\_under\_p** arrived at his “point” by looking up a refutation to a creationist claim - found the refutation either beyond his understanding or at least not worth the effort to slog through it. He “knew” the creationist claim was crap, or at least assumed that if he tried hard enough he’d become aware of why it was crap - and that was good enough. He used the word “faith” to describe this incident. (btw: I’m of the male pursuasion - and I used the masc. pronoun for p/g out of convenience - hope that’s okay) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/91 "2005-07-21T23:55:06Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s the difference. There is no single point of evolutionary theory which must be taken on faith. EVERYTHING is verifiable. > > NOTHING in creationism is verifiable. There is nothing in creationism that is NOT taken purely on faith. That, however, does not seem to be relevant to the point that **g\_under\_p** was striving to make in his **MPSIMS** thread. **g\_under\_p** , if you’d like, I’ll close this exercise in frustration and you can make a different attempt, either in this Forum or another. (I would urge you to find an example that does not include evolution or creation–perhaps not even science.) ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/92 "2005-07-21T23:56:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally by Diogenes > I don’t think you understood my question. I wasn’t asking you to name something I couldn’t prove personally, I was asking you to name something that I couldn’t check the validity of if I were so inclined. You would not deny that I could research the answer to your question if I wanted to,do you? You would agree that I don’t have to take the math on “faith” if I don’t feel like it? > > That’s the difference. There is no single point of evolutionary theory which must be taken on faith. EVERYTHING is verifiable. > > NOTHING in creationism is verifiable. There is nothing in creationism that is NOT taken purely on faith. I do not think you can show a rigorous prove of the math involved in isochron dating. You are free to prove me wrong. You asked me to give you something you can’t verify. I did. The ball is in your court. However, whether or not _you_ can verify it doesn’t make the math any less valid, does it? Of course not. Now, while neither you nor I can verify the math, there are people that can. And you and I both rest soundly, safe in the knowledge that is has been verified and can be again should the question ever arise. But to you and I, it is a matter of trust. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/93 "2005-07-22T00:03:10Z")
What makes you think I can’t verify the math? ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/94 "2005-07-22T00:22:55Z")
To **Larry Borgia** - Yes. You got it. That is my point. Well stated and thank you for trying to help me out on this. I never tried to hold evolution up to any standards in this thread. I was merely making an observation I had about my own experiences in reading about evolution and creationism. Namely, _I_ can’t refute all arguments, but I’m pretty damn sure they can be refuted. That isn’t really all that different than the approach taken by a creationist. The difference, obviously, comes down to the underlying truth and how far you want to dig. If you dig far enough, evolution is clearly correct. To **Nature’s Call** - Once again, you said it better than I have. And once again, I thank you. You’re second paragraph is wonderfully phrased. I am male as well, and no offense was taken. To **tomndebb** - It would appear this is coming to a quick close on its own. I started this mess and I’d like to see it through. To **Diogenes** - You laid down the gauntlett and I picked it up. Prove you can do it or admit I was right. Just to be clear, I’m not asking you to quote other people who say the math is right. See, that would be you accepting other work as being valid, at which point you would just be proving my initial point completely. I’m asking _you_ to show it is right. You need to derive it yourself. That is precisely what you asked for. You said, “Go ahead. name one thing I can’t verify for myself.” The name of this game isn’t that you accept other people’s proof of something, it is that _you_ can prove it. I’m waiting… ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/95 "2005-07-22T00:29:23Z")
> [@g\_under\_p](#): > > Let me put it this way. Evolution is true if and only if the Earth is truly billions of years old. Not necessarily. _Common Descent_ can only be true given sufficient “deep time”, and it is likely the case that life _as we know it_ could only have arisen given the time frame that is currently accepted (~3.5 billion years). However, even if the Earth were only 6,000 years old, it does not discount the current operation of evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection. A young Earth would, however, contradict the supposition that natural selection operates as the primary creative force that resulted in the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record, unless a mechanism could be found which could explain rates of change as being much (much!) higher in the past than they are today. In other words, a young Earth (or an old Earth, for that matter…) does not discount the possibility of an original creation followed by subsequent evolution. An old Earth does, however, strengthen the case for evolution operating _in the past_, and thereby provides an explanation for the current form and distribution of living things by placing the present in a historical context. And yes, I know this has nothing to do with your original point. I am simply correcting an apparent misconception. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/96 "2005-07-22T00:31:55Z")
You haven’t explained why I can’t verify the math for myself. I don’t think you understood my challenge. I was asking you name something that it wasn’t _possible_ for me to verify if I were so inclined. Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I am NOT so inclined. The question is purely hypothetical. Name something that I cannot _hypothetically_ research and verify for myself if I feel like it (which I don’t). If you can’t name anything then your point is refuted. There is a huge difference between taking some things on faith as a matter of _necessity_ (creationism) or putting trust in some things as a matter of lazy convenience (science). Trusting science is a choice, not a necessity. There is no symmetry with creationism. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/97 "2005-07-22T00:39:39Z")
> [@g\_under\_p](#): > > I’m going to take a different tack with you. You claim everything in evolutionary theory is verifiable. How do you know that? Have you checked? Have you looked at every single last argument about every single last fault found in all sciences used to substantiate evolutionary theory and concluded that there are no conflicts anywhere? If you haven’t, then you must be relying on a trust in other scientists and your own experiences to conclude this must be so. This does not reduce the strength of evolution in any way. Not one iota. Scientific theories (and indeed, any observation about or explaination for phenomena in the natural world) are not subject to analytical proof; rather, they are put forward as a hypothesis with conditions or predictitons that can be tested and (if incorrect) falsified. A persistant inability to find falsity with a hypothesis leads to it being accepted as a validated theory. Despite **lekatt** ’s obtuse assertion that only phenomena that can be personally observed are “true” (in which case, we must then accept the “truth” of flying saucers, levitation, angels, and so forth that have been observed and related by presumably honest individuals), acceptance comes not from the (unlikely) claim to have tested every conceivable case, but from using a coherent theory to formulate predictions about behavior not yet seen. Evolution is, after gravitation and Newton’s Laws of Mechanics, the most widely tested and contested theory in science; it has held up, robustly, to many valid challenges (notwithstanding hyperbolic claims that the universe may behave in ways totally inconsistant with our observations when we’re not peeking) and has provided for many predictions; gaps in the fossil record, for instance, have been filled in by inference and later validated by the discovery of the fossil of an intermediate animal. For all intents and purposes, evolution is a fact that we can both observe directly (in simple animals) and conclude from substantial physical data (fossils, genomes). Natural selection, the leading theory behind evolutionary processes, is nearly as solid; Darwin, for instance, used it to postulate an insect that was a direct correlate (and fertilization partner) to a particular orchid species, and to predict, in complete absence of any biological evidence, the existance of a genetic code upon which selection acts. If there were any significant challenges to evolution in the entirity of our knowledge of the natural world someone would have dug it out and trumpted it as the overthrow of the basic paradigm of biology; instead, we get tinny, spurious, and generally nonsensical arguments about rapid geological changes, irreducible complexity of organs, and downright solipsistic sillyness such as **lekatt** presents. If I have to have faith in something (as you are so desperately seeking) then it is in the fortitude and pertinaciousness of challengers to evolution and natural selection in uncovering and exploiting any flaw. In absence of any substantial and legitimate challenge, even from highly educated scientists like Michael Behe, I’d argue that there are no conflicts or undiscovered flaws in evolution. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/98 "2005-07-22T00:47:10Z")
To **Diogenes** - No, you don’t understand _my_ point. I don’t think you _can_ verify the math, even if you were so inclinded. The reason is simple. It would take YEARS to understand that complexity. Not everything is learnable by everyone. Sometimes it is because of a lack of time. Sometimes it is because of a lack of background education. But whatever the reason, there are things that are beyond our grasp to understand. In this case, I think this math is beyond your grasp. I named something. If you are claiming I’m wrong, prove me wrong. _Cite_. You made the claim there is nothing you can’t verify. I gave you something and you’ve not shown me to be wrong. You’ve made the claim I’m wrong, but other than your word, you’ve not shown anything. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/99 "2005-07-22T01:02:52Z")
You have utterly missed the point. “I” personally don’t even matter. The point is that there is not a single thing in evolutionary theory which must be taken on faith. If “I” am so inclined, yes, I damn well can learn the math. Just because something seems incomprehensible to you (who are flummoxed by creationist Grand Canyon canards) does not mean it’s inaccessible to me, or really to anyone who wants to make the effort. You can’t name a single thing in evolution for which we have only a scientist’s _word_. As soon as you understand that, you’ll understand that your OP is incredibly specious. ---
**Author:** ![g\_under\_p](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@g\_under\_p](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g_under_p)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223/100 "2005-07-22T01:05:22Z")
**Stranger** - In reading through many threads on this board, I’ve always found your posts to be some of my most favored. I hold your opinion in high regard. I just wanted you to know I think very highly of your contributions to this board. Many is the time I’ve had to look up a half dozen words trying to understand your posts, but your insights are always welcome. Thanks for dropping by this thread. For someone like me, much of the evidence in favor of evolution quite simply goes way over my head. But I still accept evolution as true. Why is that? Why wouldn’t the first argument against evolution that I can’t refute cause me to denounce evolution? Even if I do find the refutation, there might be another argument right behind that one that I’d need to refute. And then another and another. At some point, though, I think we can begin to dismiss out of hand an arguments against evolution simply on the basis you mentioned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-creationism/313223.md?page=6)