The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Fanny Cradock

losthorizon wrote: »

Can you christians stop fighting with each other. Its frightening me.:(

You poor thing.

BTW, quite a few people on this thread are not Christians.

Jonny7

Every once in awhile I come back to read this never-ending thread, there's something unholy and morbid about it, like a kind of proof that you can internet argue forever..

Has any of the anti-evolution types (the ones who believe the Earth is literally 6000 years old) ever wonder why they only attack those theories that refute their belief, but never any other ones?

Plate tectonics? does it help or hinder our own belief? if no, then ignore, if yes, then find ways to refute it.

I mean for flipsake.. its getting beyond ridiculous..

Sam Vimes

Jonny7 wrote: »

I mean for flipsake.. its getting beyond ridiculous..

I contest your use of the wording "getting"

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Completely wrong PDN, completely wrong

As Morbet points out Newtons laws are inaccurate when you try to apply them at a particular level of granularity or in certain circumstances.

But that is not what Creationists claim. They claim that the various theories that work in a long Earth model, from evolution to various threoies on heat and light, are completely wrong.

Rubbish!

The operational scientific theories are as accepted by Creationists scientists as they are by Evolutionist ones. We can see them in operation daily.

But, like PDN's analogy, what works on the small scale does not necessarily do so on the larger. What happened in the unobserved past is a matter for forensic science, and that involves the interpretation of evidence.

Creationism says your interpretation is mistaken, points out the problems for your theory and offers alternative interpretations.
_________________________________________________________________
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rubbish!

The operational scientific theories are as accepted by Creationists scientists as they are by Evolutionist ones. We can see them in operation daily.

Firstly what are "operational" scientific theories? Do you mean theories that have practical uses?

And secondly which scientific theories do Creationists use in operation everyday that require that other modern used every day scientific theories (such as evolution) are completely wrong?

If the Earth is 6,000 years old then vast areas of physics chemistry geology, biology etc are completely wrong. The theories are utterly wrong. Their ability to predict observed phenomena is a utter fluke. Which is odd considering they are used every day thousands of times a day in millions of science labs across the globe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But, like PDN's analogy, what works on the small scale does not necessarily do so on the larger. What happened in the unobserved past is a matter for forensic science, and that involves the interpretation of evidence.

Everything is the "unobserved past" Wolfsbane, that was my point earlier which you apparently didn't get. Doesn't matter if it was 5 seconds ago or 5 million years ago. The scientific methodology is the same.

ALL science works on matching predictions of theories against the observed effects of phenomena. You never "see" a phenomena, you see the effects of it. That doesn't matter if you are looking at electricity in a microchip or the light from a distant star or the fossils of long dead animals.

The methodology remains the same. And the methodology is not looking at something and guessing as to what you think might have happened. Not unless you are a Creationist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationism says your interpretation is mistaken, points out the problems for your theory and offers alternative interpretations.

Interpretations are irrelevant, as has been explained to you many many times already.

If the models of evolution, or the Earth, or radio-active decay rate are completely wrong how can they consistently and accurately predict observations, just like in every other scientific area?

If Creationist have models that work as well how come they can't consistently and accurately predict observation?

Anyone can look at something and say "I interpret this thing in this way". That is NOT science. You have to back it up by showing that your model accurately and consistently models the phenomena.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Firstly what are "operational" scientific theories? Do you mean theories that have practical uses?

I mean operational (observational) science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments) as distinct from historical or “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past.

Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans. Thus both creation and evolution fall under the category of historical science.

Operations science: Based on:the senses (assuming they are reliable); Uses: experiments; Deals with: the present; Results in: repeatable conclusions, technology.

Origins science: Based on: assumptions about the past; Uses: extrapolation; Deals with: the past; Results in:unrepeatable stories about the past.

This is distinctly different from operational (observational) science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments). Take a look at the differences between operational science and its counterpart, historical or “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past.
From, with modifications:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science

And secondly which scientific theories do Creationists use in operation everyday that require that other modern used every day scientific theories (such as evolution) are completely wrong?

Evolution can be completely wrong without any operational science being touched. Creationists use all operational science.

If the Earth is 6,000 years old then vast areas of physics chemistry geology, biology etc are completely wrong.

What areas of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc. are opposed to a 6000 year old earth. I mean specifically, and why.

The theories are utterly wrong. Their ability to predict observed phenomena is a utter fluke. Which is odd considering they are used every day thousands of times a day in millions of science labs across the globe.

That's because operational science can be seen to work. Historical science may or may not be true; one is working on assumptions, not observations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But, like PDN's analogy, what works on the small scale does not necessarily do so on the larger. What happened in the unobserved past is a matter for forensic science, and that involves the interpretation of evidence.
Everything is the "unobserved past" Wolfsbane, that was my point earlier which you apparently didn't get. Doesn't matter if it was 5 seconds ago or 5 million years ago. The scientific methodology is the same.

You must have a neurological problem then, for the rest of us, scientist or not, have no problem observing a scientific process. It might have been 50 years ago in science class, but it was observed. But evolution from self-replicating molecules to man has not been observed by any of us.

ALL science works on matching predictions of theories against the observed effects of phenomena. You never "see" a phenomena, you see the effects of it. That doesn't matter if you are looking at electricity in a microchip or the light from a distant star or the fossils of long dead animals.

In the real world, applying enough heat to water turns it to a vapour. We observe that. If we just saw the vapour, we might theorise on its origins, and an experiment that applied heat to water and resulted in water vapour would support the idea that our vapour originated in the same way.

But no experiment has shown that self-replicating molecules evolve into men. All that is shown are organisms adapting into similar type organisms.

The methodology remains the same. And the methodology is not looking at something and guessing as to what you think might have happened. Not unless you are a Creationist.

The methodology offers possible explanations for past events; and often not even that: great holes in the models exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Creationism says your interpretation is mistaken, points out the problems for your theory and offers alternative interpretations.
Interpretations are irrelevant, as has been explained to you many many times already.

If the models of evolution, or the Earth, or radio-active decay rate are completely wrong how can they consistently and accurately predict observations, just like in every other scientific area?

Do they so consistently and accurately predict? Or are the bits that suit the theory highlighted and the bits that don't rejected?

If Creationist have models that work as well how come they can't consistently and accurately predict observation?

Examples of their failure?

Anyone can look at something and say "I interpret this thing in this way". That is NOT science. You have to back it up by showing that your model accurately and consistently models the phenomena.

I agree.
_________________________________________________________________
I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. . . . From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.
P. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist 16:10.

gaynorvader

wolfsbane wrote: »

I mean operational (observational) science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments) as distinct from historical or “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past.

Origins science is taking evidence and assembling it in the way which fits with what we know to show insight into what we don't know. Much like the way forensics works, unless you think there is a vast difference between these two sciences.

wolfsbane wrote:

Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans. Thus both creation and evolution fall under the category of historical science.

An "unrepeatable past"? What's that supposed to mean?

wolfsbane wrote:

Operations science: Based on:the senses (assuming they are reliable); Uses: experiments; Deals with: the present; Results in: repeatable conclusions, technology.

Origins science: Based on: assumptions about the past; Uses: extrapolation; Deals with: the past; Results in:unrepeatable stories about the past.

Origins science: Based on: assumptions about the past forensic evidence of the past modeled on the present along with historical(written) accounts; Uses: extrapolation; Deals with: the past; Results in:unrepeatable(?) stories about the past Theories about the past, a demonstrable model of how life probably changed based on geological and biological evidence left behind.

wolfsbane wrote:

This is distinctly different from operational (observational) science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments). Take a look at the differences between operational science and its counterpart, historical or “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past.
From, with modifications:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/04/do-creationists-reject-science

Not so much, I don't suppose you know why fruit flies were used in early space missions? It was because the generations of these flies are short so subtle genetic changes (evolution at work) could be mapped.

wolfsbane wrote:

Evolution can be completely wrong without any operational science being touched.

Really? do tell.

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationists use all operational science.

Rubbish, even non-creationists don't all use operational science.

wolfsbane wrote:

What areas of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc. are opposed to a 6000 year old earth. I mean specifically, and why.

That's because operational science can be seen to work. Historical science may or may not be true; one is working on assumptions, not observations.

They are not simply assumptions, they are theories based on the evidence found; fossils, carbon dating, depth under the crust, types of layers formed above the crust, etc.

wolfsbane wrote:

You must have a neurological problem then, for the rest of us, scientist or not, have no problem observing a scientific process. It might have been 50 years ago in science class, but it was observed. But evolution from self-replicating molecules to man has not been observed by any of us.

No, but it has been observed in smaller parts and extrapolated to that degree. Unfortunately, we haven't had the few million years to spare observing evolution from something so simple to something so complex.

wolfsbane wrote:

In the real world, applying enough heat to water turns it to a vapour. We observe that. If we just saw the vapour, we might theorise on its origins, and an experiment that applied heat to water and resulted in water vapour would support the idea that our vapour originated in the same way.

But no experiment has shown that self-replicating molecules evolve into men. All that is shown are organisms adapting into similar type organisms.

The methodology offers possible explanations for past events; and often not even that: great holes in the models exist.

Do they so consistently and accurately predict? Or are the bits that suit the theory highlighted and the bits that don't rejected?

Examples of their failure?

I agree.

...

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I mean operational (observational) science, which is a methodological system governing directly observed, repeatable results (such as laboratory experiments) as distinct from historical or “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past.

Firstly that is not what observational science is. Observational science is the exact opposite of what you just said (or what AiG just said), in that observational science is science that works on observations of natural phenomena that cannot be replicated in a lab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424010/observation

So needless to say our old friends at Answers in Genesis are off to a bad start if they don't even know that much.

What AiG call observational science is actually known as experimental science because, obviously, you can study the phenomena using experiences in a science lab.

Notice that the distinction AiG invents between things that happen close to the observation and things that happened in a long time ago doesn't exist in real science. The only distinction is things that are observed naturally occurring and things that are observed in simulated circumstances and are controlled.

So from the get go AiG isn't bowling me over with their grasp of the scientific. Not surprising coming from an utterly unscientific group such as Answers in Genesis and a Creationist with a degree in politics. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolution can be completely wrong without any operational science being touched. Creationists use all operational science.

Given that you don't seem to understand what operational science means you hardly seem in a position to make that judgement.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What areas of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc. are opposed to a 6000 year old earth. I mean specifically, and why.

How about you start with the one I already mentioned, the radioactive decay of supernovas.

Or, a personal favourite of mine, the geology of Niagara Falls, that required 7,000 years to erode what was left down by the last ice age which Young Creationist claim never happened (so what was it eroding?)

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's because operational science can be seen to work. Historical science may or may not be true; one is working on assumptions, not observations.

Operational science is not "seen to work". There is so many things wrong that that sentence I don't know where to start (actually I do, what "works"? Explain that to me)

Both operational and historical science are based on matching prediction of the theory to observed phenomena.

The difference is where the observed phenomena come from. In observational/experimental science you trigger the phenomena in controlled circumstances.

In historical/observational science the phenomena is natural occurring and you match prediction against as many observations you can find.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You must have a neurological problem then, for the rest of us, scientist or not, have no problem observing a scientific process.

Really? Explain to me how you observe a scientific process given that the only way you observe anything is by having light or other electromagnetic radiation travel from the phenomena to what ever sensor you are using, hitting the sensor after the phenomena has occurred :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the real world, applying enough heat to water turns it to a vapour. We observe that.

That is not science. You know heat turns water to vapour because you were told that by your science teacher because others did actually do the science to work that out.

Science is not looking at stuff and guess as to what is happening.

If a Creationist looked at water boiling he would probably figure angels are blowing on it :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

But no experiment has shown that self-replicating molecules evolve into men.

No single experiment has shown that self-replicating molecules evolve into men. Which is why evolutionary biology is not the result of a single experiment but in fact the result of millions of individual experiments and the sum total of the knowledge they gained.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do they so consistently and accurately predict? Or are the bits that suit the theory highlighted and the bits that don't rejected?

You clearly don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. You don't have bits that "suit" a theory, a theory explains bits. Or it doesn't. You can't fake that.

Which is why creationists avoid scientific theories like the plague, because they can't get them to explain anything.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Examples of their failure?

Where to start? Explain light from distant stars? Explain the formation of the planets and the Earth. Explain the background radiation from the big bang? Explain the Earth's fossil record.

And by explain I mean with theories that consistently make accurate predictions, not an article on AiG where some idiot with a degree in veterinarian studies guesses as to what God might have been thinking when he made the stars.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly that is not what observational science is. Observational science is the exact opposite of what you just said (or what AiG just said), in that observational science is science that works on observations of natural phenomena that cannot be replicated in a lab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424010/observation

So needless to say our old friends at Answers in Genesis are off to a bad start if they don't even know that much.

What AiG call observational science is actually known as experimental science because, obviously, you can study the phenomena using experiences in a science lab.

Notice that the distinction AiG invents between things that happen close to the observation and things that happened in a long time ago doesn't exist in real science. The only distinction is things that are observed naturally occurring and things that are observed in simulated circumstances and are controlled.

So from the get go AiG isn't bowling me over with their grasp of the scientific. Not surprising coming from an utterly unscientific group such as Answers in Genesis and a Creationist with a degree in politics. :rolleyes:



Given that you don't seem to understand what operational science means you hardly seem in a position to make that judgement.



How about you start with the one I already mentioned, the radioactive decay of supernovas.

Or, a personal favourite of mine, the geology of Niagara Falls, that required 7,000 years to erode what was left down by the last ice age which Young Creationist claim never happened (so what was it eroding?)




Operational science is not "seen to work". There is so many things wrong that that sentence I don't know where to start (actually I do, what "works"? Explain that to me)

Both operational and historical science are based on matching prediction of the theory to observed phenomena.

The difference is where the observed phenomena come from. In observational/experimental science you trigger the phenomena in controlled circumstances.

In historical/observational science the phenomena is natural occurring and you match prediction against as many observations you can find.



Really? Explain to me how you observe a scientific process given that the only way you observe anything is by having light or other electromagnetic radiation travel from the phenomena to what ever sensor you are using, hitting the sensor after the phenomena has occurred :rolleyes:



That is not science. You know heat turns water to vapour because you were told that by your science teacher because others did actually do the science to work that out.

Science is not looking at stuff and guess as to what is happening.

If a Creationist looked at water boiling he would probably figure angels are blowing on it :rolleyes:


No single experiment has shown that self-replicating molecules evolve into men. Which is why evolutionary biology is not the result of a single experiment but in fact the result of millions of individual experiments and the sum total of the knowledge they gained.



You clearly don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense. You don't have bits that "suit" a theory, a theory explains bits. Or it doesn't. You can't fake that.

Which is why creationists avoid scientific theories like the plague, because they can't get them to explain anything.


Where to start? Explain light from distant stars? Explain the formation of the planets and the Earth. Explain the background radiation from the big bang? Explain the Earth's fossil record.

And by explain I mean with theories that consistently make accurate predictions, not an article on AiG where some idiot with a degree in veterinarian studies guesses as to what God might have been thinking when he made the stars.

Just a quickie for now:
Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

Checking the qualifications for the scientists involved in these physics examples, I didn't find one associated with veterinarian studies. For example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp


_________________________________________________________________
‘There have been many attempts to model the evolution of a swarm of colliding planetesimals … Safronov calculated the characteristic time-scales for planetary growth. In the terrestrial region he found timescales of [10 to the 7th] years but the time estimates increased rapidly in the outer regions of the solar system and was [10 to the 10th] years for Neptune—which is twice the age of the solar system.
It is clear that, in view of the large timescales found for the formation of the outer planets, a satisfactory theoretical model for the accretion of planets from diffuse material is not available at present.’
Dormand, J.R. and Woolfson, M.M., The Origin of the solar system: the capture theory, Ellis Horwood Ltd, W. Sussex, p. 39, 1989.

gaynorvader

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just a quickie for now:
Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

...

I can't believe this nonsense is being trotted out again!

1) The Earth could be more than 20,000 years old if the magnetic field fluctuates (gets stronger then weaker then stronger etc.).

2) Ignores the fact that new uranium deposits, helium crystals, etc. are created.

3) An unchanged course of a river over a long period of time would have the same effect.

4) I don't know about this one, I'm sure that there's an explanation that doesn't contradict all the evidence that the world is older than 5000 years though.

5)Those rocks showed several magnetic flips, perhaps thousands of years apart.

Basically all these theories are made to fit into what creationists believe so that they can try to disregard other evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

strobe

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just a quickie for now:
Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

Checking the qualifications for the scientists involved in these physics examples, I didn't find one associated with veterinarian studies. For example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp


_________________________________________________________________
‘There have been many attempts to model the evolution of a swarm of colliding planetesimals … Safronov calculated the characteristic time-scales for planetary growth. In the terrestrial region he found timescales of [10 to the 7th] years but the time estimates increased rapidly in the outer regions of the solar system and was [10 to the 10th] years for Neptune—which is twice the age of the solar system.
It is clear that, in view of the large timescales found for the formation of the outer planets, a satisfactory theoretical model for the accretion of planets from diffuse material is not available at present.’
Dormand, J.R. and Woolfson, M.M., The Origin of the solar system: the capture theory, Ellis Horwood Ltd, W. Sussex, p. 39, 1989.

Oh for the love of..............





Bring back JC. At least we get a lot of colourful smilies that way.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just a quickie for now:
Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

Once again Answers in Genesis is lying to you and me.

Humphreys "prediction" wasn't a prediction at all. It was a range. He said that the magnetic fields of Neptune would be greater than Earths and smaller than Saturns, and then tied that to his model by entering in the variables by hand. Brilliant. :rolleyes:

For a detailed explanation of why this was not scientific prediction read this

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

The second one they don't even pretend it is a scientific prediction

"This suggests not only that those crystals are only thousands of years old, but also that lots of radioisotope decay (which would require more than a billions of years at today’s rates) had to occur in only thousands of years."

"Suggests" is not science. The reason AiG is being less than clear is because when Humphreys published his findings every geologist going pointed out that Humphreys team hadn't bothered to actually record what type of rock they were measuring.

Their measurements were based on the wrong type of rock. When this was pointed out to them Humphreys down played the significance that this would have on his results, despite contradicting the earlier report that actually said if the rock was of a different type this would alter results. This event has become quite an embarrassment to Creationists, but heaven forbid it stops Answers in Genesis from claiming a victory while still covering their asses by using the term "suggests"

Read here is you are interested

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Because it is Answers in Genesis, and because they are once again lying to me, I didn't read any further.

Please stop posting articles from Answers in Genesis, I'm very close to simply ignoring them off hand. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In the real world, applying enough heat to water turns it to a vapour. We observe that.
That is not science. You know heat turns water to vapour because you were told that by your science teacher because others did actually do the science to work that out.

Science is not looking at stuff and guess as to what is happening.

If a Creationist looked at water boiling he would probably figure angels are blowing on it

Even the most uneducated peasant knows the relationship between boiling water and fire. They did not need a scientific qualification to know letting the fire go out meant no tea. Your faith in science 'outside of which is no salvation' is pitiful. :pac:

When evolutionists look at the fossil record and see molecules to man evolution, THAT is guessing. They may develop models that fit their theory, but they have not shown their models work.

When they persist in holding to their theory without proof, and vilify all who question it, that's no longer just guesswork. That's religion. False religion.
_________________________________________________________________
It's certainly been the case that evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us who teach philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of which all religions have, and none of which any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion. Dr Michael Ruse, Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

When evolutionists look at the fossil record and see molecules to man evolution, THAT is guessing.

Well it's a good thing, then, that THAT is not what happens.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

They may develop models that fit their theory, but they have not shown their models work.

Of course they have! Journals are full of papers with supporting evidence. Remember the information theory paper I posted a while ago? That was one drop in an ocean of support.

SleepDoc

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Even the most uneducated peasant knows the relationship between boiling water and fire. They did not need a scientific qualification to know letting the fire go out meant no tea. Your faith in science 'outside of which is no salvation' is pitiful. :pac:

When evolutionists look at the fossil record and see molecules to man evolution, THAT is guessing. They may develop models that fit their theory, but they have not shown their models work.

When they persist in holding to their theory without proof, and vilify all who question it, that's no longer just guesswork. That's religion. False religion

You must be joking. Evolution is a fact. Every single serious scientist accepts it. Even the Catholic Church accepts it. There is no evidence to support any other explanation.

You know nothing about evolution if you think that "evolutionists" just "look at the fossil record and see molecules to man evolution". They look at a vast quantity of other evidence, fossil records being only a part (fossils are rare).

They have actually shown that their models work. Here's just one. An experiment by Lenski et al. Fifty thousand generations of evolution in the lab. Richard Dawkins writes about it in his new book, but here's the wiki explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It's not guesswork, it's the scientific method. The evidence for evolution is irrefutable.

Overheal

strobe wrote: »

Oh for the love of..............





Bring back JC. At least we get a lot of colourful smilies that way.

Overheal

....screw it:

Overheal

I'm grabbing this milestone: this thread will have more posts than me pretty soon. Thats scaaaaary.

Question: Is there Anybody that has entered this thread and been converted from Creationism to Evolution, or vice versa? Anyone? Bueller?

Turtwig

Overheal wrote: »

I'm grabbing this milestone: this thread will have more posts than me pretty soon. Thats scaaaaary.

Question: Is there Anybody that has entered this thread and been converted from Creationism to Evolution, or vice versa? Anyone? Bueller?

It isn't really Creationism per se, but I joined this thread in order to better understand ID theory because, well, at first glance, it looked interesting. Since reading up on this thread and other sources I've concluded that it has a long way to go before it can be classed as science. The thing I hate about it most though is that it is a unfriendly (and, frankly, dishonest) ploy to make lay people think that it is science diminishing God.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:
Even the most uneducated peasant knows the relationship between boiling water and fire.

And for thousands of years we thought boiling water was releasing the fire in the water :rolleyes:

Then science came along.

Knowing something is happening is not science. Having a model of why it is happening is science. That is the difference between an observed phenomena and the scientific model explaining the observed phenomena.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When evolutionists look at the fossil record and see molecules to man evolution, THAT is guessing.

No it isn't. First scientists don't "look at the fossil record". They develop theories of biological evolution and then compare the predictions of said theories to the fossil record. And secondly even if they are wrong evolution is still not a guess. It is a scientific theory and matches all the standards of a scientific theory, again even if they are wrong.

But considering you don't seem to have the foggiest idea about science, nor do you seem in anyway interested in learning, I'm losing patience trying to explain it to you.

Turtwig

SleepDoc wrote: »

It's not guesswork, it's the scientific method. The evidence for evolution is irrefutable.

Even though I am inclined to agree that evolution is a very detailed scientific theory that explains a plethora of observations with aplomb. I don't think you can ever say anything in science is irrefutable. Saying so, misunderstands the very principle upon which science is based : Science can only show something to be wrong.

SleepDoc

Malty_T wrote: »

Even though I am inclined to agree that evolution is a very detailed scientific theory that explains a plethora of observations with aplomb. I don't think you can ever say anything in science is irrefutable. Saying so, misunderstands the very principle upon which science is based : Science can only show something to be wrong.

I think you misunderstand the principle on which science is based. Science does not "only show something to be wrong". Science provides the only rational basis for our existence, but it's concern is not with showing that anything is "wrong".

I agree that evolution could be refuted if creationists could for example show the fossil of a fully formed human in the same rock layer as the fossil of a T-Rex. Or a Kangaroo fossil in Iceland. Etc etc.

Sam Vimes

SleepDoc wrote: »

I agree that evolution could be refuted if creationists could for example show the fossil of a fully formed human in the same rock layer as the fossil of a T-Rex. Or a Kangaroo fossil in Iceland. Etc etc.

Well then it's not irrefutable is it

As Malty_T says, science doesn't prove what's true, it just does its best to try to prove theories wrong and when a theory survives this process it becomes accepted. And this acceptance is always tentative because of the acknowledged possibility that, for example, creationists could find the fossil of a fully formed human in the same rock layer as the fossil of a T-Rex

SleepDoc

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well then it's not irrefutable is it

As Malty_T says, science doesn't prove what's true, it just does its best to try to prove theories wrong and when a theory survives this process it becomes accepted. And this acceptance is always tentative because of the acknowledged possibility that, for example, creationists could find the fossil of a fully formed human in the same rock layer as the fossil of a T-Rex

Until that happy time, reason dictates that we must go with the vast weight of evidence in favour of evolution.

gaynorvader

SleepDoc wrote: »

Until that happy time, reason dictates that we must go with the vast weight of evidence in favour of evolution.

Of course, the argument was simply against your use of the word irrefutable.

SleepDoc

gaynorvader wrote: »

Of course, the argument was simply against your use of the word irrefutable.

I understand that. If evolution is refutable, well, so is everything else.

However, I will bow to far superior minds who have described evolution as,

"an inescapable fact" - Dawkins

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles" - James D Watson

Zombrex

SleepDoc wrote: »

I understand that. If evolution is refutable, well, so is everything else.

Evolution has vast amounts of evidence and science behind it, it is one of the most established and well supported scientific theories out there.

The problem with stating that it is irrefutable is that technically nothing in science is irrefutable and when dealing with Creationists you have to be very careful about how you put things because everything will be used against science. For example the idea that scientists hold to evolution like some indisputable fact is often pushed by Creationists to try and suggest that evolution is a religion rather than science and that science is not interested in exploring any possible problems with the theory, which isn't true.

gaynorvader

SleepDoc wrote: »

I understand that. If evolution is refutable, well, so is everything else.

However, I will bow to far superior minds who have described evolution as,

"an inescapable fact" - Dawkins

"Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles" - James D Watson

I think it would be more honest to say that "evolution as a theory is irrefutable with the facts and evidence available to us at this time".

mehfesto

Genuine question here:
How is evolution refuted with 'recent examples', such as MRSA or VRSA (something that evolved to be resistant to methicillin/vancomycin)? Is this regarded as something other than evolution?