Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Evolution and its effects.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Even some Christians found it hard to accept.
    Find.

    Because of the evidence.

    Which you refuse to discuss sensibly.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Comment


      • Stripe finally remembers something Barbarian taught him:

        The problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science:
        Yes. A theory is an idea or group of ideas, repeatedly verified by evidence.

        But then he gets it wrong:
        A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is justifiably asserted because of experiments.
        No. Evidence. Newton did no experiments on gravity. He observed the motion of the moon, and used that evidence to formulate his theory. Experiments are just one way to get evidence.

        What Stripe forgets is that it's a hypothesis that must be testable; theories are always, in principle falsifiable precisely because they depend on falsible hypotheses.

        As Stripe learned, scientists point out that a scientific theory is never considered to be proven; it's always provisional on new information. Macroevolution (evolution of new taxa) is a fact, because it's directly observed. Evolutionary theory will never be a fact, since it explains the phenomenon, and is only provisionally true.

        This is where Stripe gets into trouble. He cannot get his head around the distinction between evolution (the observed phenomenon), natural selection and mutation (agencies of evolution), and things like universal common descent(consequences of evolution). Hence his continuing difficulties.

        Creationists want none of that when it comes to their religion, so they conflate evolution with natural selection with common descent.

        When challenged, they assert that scientists don't know what a theory is as if it were not them who committed the most egregious of scientific failings; obfuscation of the difference between these three things.

        The other error — actually the same (perhaps unintentional) error — is they confuse phenomenon with theory. Gravity and evolution are observed facts. There are theories that explain each. In each case, the discoverer's theory remains in place, but over time, we've found some of their conclusions are not correct.

        Newton assumed that time and mass are constant with regard to velocity. Which is a reasonable approximation at velocities and masses we normally encounter. But it's not strictly true, and while NASA uses Newton's theory of Gravitation to navigate probes about the solar system, they do have to sometimes consider relativistic effects.

        Likewise, while Darwin's four points remain as solid as ever, he assumed the scientific thought of his time with regard to inheritance. So today, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time, rather than "descent with modification." Ironically, this discovery cleared up a really difficult objection to Darwin's theory. If inheritance is like mixing paint (as everyone assumed in his time), then it's hard to see how a new variation could persist; it would be gone like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. On the other hand,if it's like sorting beads (and that is what Mendel discovered) then Darwinian theory makes complete sense.

        However, the phenomena of gravity and evolution remain facts.

        Stripe's other problem is his belief in "just a theory." Theory is a strong as it goes in science. People unfamiliar with science generally think a law is stronger. But it isn't. Lacking explanitory power, it's weaker.

        Until he get this right, he will never be part of a sensible discussion.

        Those who assume the truth of their ideas aren't practicing science, they're asserting their religion.

        One should keep those things in mind and thereby won't embarrass one's self when talking to someone who knows science.
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Evolution is a fact.
          Nope. It's just a theory.

          As you just learned.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Nope. It's just a theory.

            As you just learned.
            He tends to become furious when you explain things to him

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
              He tends to become furious when you explain things to him
              He should learn to control his rage.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Nope. It's just a theory.

                As you just learned.
                I'd say that it's more of a hypothesis... calling it a theory it giving it way too much credit.
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                  I'd say that it's more of a hypothesis... calling it a theory it giving it way too much credit.
                  Yeah, but I like to leave the Darwinists with enough hope that they can keep believing by their silly religion.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                    I'd say that it's more of a hypothesis... calling it a theory it giving it way too much credit.
                    The key is whether or not a hypothesis has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Such hypotheses are theories. The more successful predictions, the more solid the theory is.

                    From a YE creationist, who also happens to be a biologist:

                    Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

                    I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

                    Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

                    I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.

                    http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/0...evolution.html

                    It's possible to be an honest and informed YE creationist, as Ken Wood is. But there aren't that many of them who are both honest and informed.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      It's possible to be an honest and informed YE creationist, as Ken Wood is. But there aren't that many of them who are both honest and informed.
                      It doesn't seem that any Darwinists are honest.

                      When you find one, let us know.

                      Also notice, your source says:


                      Evolution ... a scientific theory.

                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Some predictions of evolutionary theory:

                        "There must have been transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds."
                        Thomas Huxley ca. 1872

                        "Humans must have first appeared in Africa."
                        Darwin 1879

                        "The DNA of organisms should match evolutionary phylogenies."
                        Fitch and Margoliash, 1966

                        More if anyone would like to see some more.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Evolutionary theory.
                          Now if only he can stick with this without equivocating.

                          Darwinists have a deep-seated need to believe that everyone is an evolutionist.

                          It's probably those feelings of insecurity.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • Expressed in fury and rage

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              Some predictions of evolutionary theory:

                              "There must have been transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds."
                              Thomas Huxley ca. 1872

                              "Humans must have first appeared in Africa."
                              Darwin 1879

                              "The DNA of organisms should match evolutionary phylogenies."
                              Fitch and Margoliash, 1966
                              Some predictions of Biblical creation:

                              1. Dinosaurs died out. They didn't become birds.

                              2. Civilization began from Ararat.

                              3. DNA is a code that was designed magnificently according to the needs of each created kind.

                              There are plenty more if anyone would like to see them.

                              Encouragingly, this sets up a rational debate between two mutually exclusive ideas. It would be nice if each side could stick to falsifying their assumptions and not assert that their idea is "observed fact."

                              You know: Science.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X