Creation vs. Evolution

[ledhed]

I've just watched the clip...

What does everyone think of, when they think of bananas?

No, not that website.

Monkeys (though they're actually thinking about apes, but I digress).


Monkeys eat bananas. Everyone knows that. They've also got the whole 3-groove, 2-groove thing going on, and the curved-toward-the-face, and the green/yellow/black indicator.

But they don't have the tab. Monkeys (apes. Whatever) always open bananas from (what we would consider) the bottom.


"Proof" that monkeys weren't made by God.

Q.E.D.


(also, wild bananas have a single, woody seed in them, two-thirds the length of the banana and about a quarter-inch thick. Bite into one of thos suckers and you'll kiss goodbye to your incisors)

How did you get your lips to turn inside out when you kissed your insisors good bye ?

Another plan foiled by GOD ?

 

[FoolKiller]

(also, wild bananas have a single, woody seed in them, two-thirds the length of the banana and about a quarter-inch thick. Bite into one of thos suckers and you'll kiss goodbye to your incisors)

In a completely off-topic thought - Isn't that why we eat them before they are technically ripe? At least, I've always heard that a yellow banana isn't ripe yet.

 

[Touring Mars]

The results from a remarkable find in Ethiopia have been published in the scientific journal, Nature this week. A near complete 3.3-million year old juvenile hominid skeleton, provides scientists with one of the best opportunities to study early human evolution. (BBC News articles 1, 2) The two Nature articles describe the remains and also describe in detail the ground from which they were recovered, as well as detailing what other specimens (non-hominid) have also been found in the same region. (Unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to access the full text but abstracts should be available for free... I am a subscriber though )

The specimen, which is the oldest and most complete juvenile of a human relative ever found, has features that stand as striking examples of part-way evolution between primitive apes and modern humans.

 

[kennythebomb]

I've just watched the clip...

What does everyone think of, when they think of bananas?

No, not that website.

Monkeys (though they're actually thinking about apes, but I digress).


Monkeys eat bananas. Everyone knows that. They've also got the whole 3-groove, 2-groove thing going on, and the curved-toward-the-face, and the green/yellow/black indicator.

But they don't have the tab. Monkeys (apes. Whatever) always open bananas from (what we would consider) the bottom.


"Proof" that monkeys weren't made by God.

Q.E.D.


(also, wild bananas have a single, woody seed in them, two-thirds the length of the banana and about a quarter-inch thick. Bite into one of thos suckers and you'll kiss goodbye to your incisors)

I was thinking along the same lines.

Why would someone prove the existence of God by saying bananas were created for us to eat... when monkeys are the ones who make a diet out of it?

 

[Aeromotive]

Creation vs. Evolution is interesting. Creation is taught as fact. Evolution is taught as theory. The theory of Evolution itself evolves as new evidence is incorporated. "Creation Theory" does not. "Creation Science" is an oxymoron.

Au contraire there. Why do they (autors) write in biology/molecular biology/medical books about evolution as something that has been proven? They never even mention the word "theory" when they refer to evolution. Not to talk about university teachers who keep repeating "evolution" as if everybody believes it's true.

Creation is taught as a fact to believers. Evolution is taught as a fact since a few years now. What school did you go to?

"Creation theory" isn't a right word, and "Creation Science" can't be an oxymoron because Creation is something you believe in without requiring proof : it's not part of science. THAT'S WHAT WE CALL RELIGION, and everybody's free to practice it or not.

Science is about disproof, not proof. We attempt to determine the probability of x NOT causing y to happen.

Did you ever study in science before saying that? Do you understand the non-sense you wrote? If you ever studied (even basic) biology, you would know that researchers start with a THEORY or a MODEL, and then they conduct studies, researches, experiments, tests to prove their model. Scientists didn't start their researches by saying "T Lymphocytes have an important role in the central nervous system. Let's disprove that".
For 10 years, scientists have searched for a protein called "recombinase" in B Lymphocytes. They were so sure that this protein existed that they wasted 10 years on it. In 2002, they realized that this protein didn't exist. The ONLY analogy I'm trying to make here is that scientists always want to prove what they think is true, not the other way around.

So science is about PROOF. Unless something is proven by experimental studies (by DOZENS of laboratories), the scientific community won't admit it. Creation can never be proven because you have to accept it as it is. Nobody can rationally explain God exists, so nobody can rationally explain creation. But this doesn't give anybody the right to talk about evolution as a proven theory, therefore making it the absolute truth and teaching it in schools and universities should be as foolish as forcing people into religions.

By the way, who are "WE" in "We attempt to determine..." ?

Cheers.

EDIT : I was just reading through the different posts and (as you can tell) I picked random pages and landed on page 51, where the second quote was taken from.

 

[wfooshee]

...

Creation is taught as a fact to believers.


...

It's not taught to believers, it's taught by believers, in an effort to make believers of the pupils before they've learned to think for themselves.

Have a look at my first post in this thread, #3849, for what I think about religion taking on science.

 

[Pako]

I believe God created the Universe. I know science lacks the proof to show me otherwise.

An interesting verse:

Romans 1:18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

My wife read this verse to me tonight and I thought of this thread so here I am....(again)

 

[Delirious]

How much longer will this thread be around? I mean come on, 4086 posts, Nov 25 2004, 4:13 PM this started...

Will there ever be an end to this? Creationists are dead set in their ways almost (if not more) as much as evolutionists are...

How much longer are we going to argue so many different points...will one ever be "proven" wrong? If one says this is why evolution or creation is wrong...the other side will refute that, and back and forth and back and forth...

So how much longer til this thread becomes dormint then some random poster decides to resurrect it for more circular arguments...

Pako, dead on...but try telling that to those who use man-made science to prove everything, and they scoff at the fact of a God-breathed book...

 

[Pako]

As this is post 244 for me alone, I imagine that this topic can go on and on and on...., but as long as their is a question, someone should be there to try and answer it.

 

[a6m5]

I'm like the John Kerry of this thread, so I don't carry much weight in this thread, but I hope this thread will never go away. It is one of the most interesting threads in the Opinions Forum, if not the most interesting. For me personally, it has been one of the most educational as well, thanks to few of the posters in here(Pako, you are one of them, of course).

 

[Touring Mars]

Whether God created the universe or not is largely irrelevant - the major point of disagreement between Creationists and Evolutionists is that we disagree about the origin of Mankind - not the origin of the universe. Any evolutionist worth their salt will not argue about the origin of the universe because, just like Creationists, they don't actually know...

But on the origin of Mankind, the story is very different - there is incontravertible proof that mankind came into being through the process of evolution, and not (as Creationists contend) from a single moment of creation - on this point (and it is a fundamental one), creationists are pure and simply wrong.

In my opinion, the argument gets drawn out further than it needs to, when it really ought not to - nobody is ever going to be able to dispute whether or not ultimately God is responsible for our presence (or otherwise) - so most scientists will take it as read that it is a distinct possibility. But what is absolutely clear, is that there is no better, more plausible or real explanation for our biological origins than the Theory of Common Descent - so long as Creationists insist that this is not so, they will have an argument on their hands, especially with those of us who are responsible for the proper education of hundreds of biology students every year.

edit: For those of you in the UK - check out today's Guardian newspaper - it has a free wallchart detailing 'The History of Life of Earth' from about 650 million years ago and onwards.

So how much longer til this thread becomes dormint then some random poster decides to resurrect it for more circular arguments...

Well, like I've just said, we need to stick to the point and avoid discussing stuff that is not completely relevant to the original point of contention. I also think that this thread is a good place to show/discuss recent developments in the relevant subjects that may influence people's opinions... (although notice how many 'recent developments' there have been in Creation science...) I posted an article last week about a very significant find/development (although it was largely ignored/unnoticed) - but it is still there if you care to look into it further... so for as long as there is new developments and news, I wouldn't say that this thread just gets reopened for the sake of an argument...

 

[Delirious]

So would you say evolution is and should be taught as a theory and NOT as fact, since it may not be perfect and incomplete?

 

[Touring Mars]

So would you say evolution is and should be taught as a theory and NOT as fact, since it may not be perfect and incomplete?

Absolutely not. The facts and the theory should be taught together, indeed you can't teach one without the other... the facts inform the theory...

People often make the mistake of using the term 'theory' as if it were somehow a lower form of explanation that a fact. It isn't... actually it is the reverse. A theory is an idea or a set of ideas that explains the relatedness of facts.... so actually, a theory is a higher level of explanation than a mere fact. A theory can also make predictions about what else you might later find - this is the real test of how good a theory is....

... at every juncture, with every new piece of physical evidence found, the Theory of Common Descent has been shown time and time again to be fantastically robust. Creation theory, on the other hand, has been totally and utterly annihilated by the weight of the evidence against it - not merely from the field of evolutionary biology, but from many other fields besides, such as astronomy, geology, anthropology, archeology, palaeontology, chemistry, physics.

A great example of how a theory can be used to predict things this lies in the field of modern genetics. When Darwin hypothesised his theory of natural selection (based on the observation of facts pertaining to the appearance of relatedness of species, primarily plants), the world did not yet even know what a gene was... indeed, the world was nowhere near even knowing what the structure of DNA was... however, the theory, based on the facts that were known at the time, suggested that something about our basic biological make up should show atleast some level of relatedness. The advent of new technologies allowed scientists to discover exactly how that relatedness comes about - by the discovery and development of the field of Genetics. The theory, even back in Darwin's day, made a prediction about what would later be shown to be established scientific fact - that all living creatures share (to a greater or lesser extent) the same genes... the process of evolution describes how that relatedness came to be, and the study of genetics proves it beyond all reasonable doubt...

 

[Famine]

Au contraire there. Why do they (autors) write in biology/molecular biology/medical books about evolution as something that has been proven? They never even mention the word "theory" when they refer to evolution. Not to talk about university teachers who keep repeating "evolution" as if everybody believes it's true.

Interestingly, they never refer to the Bernoulli Effect as theory either. Nor nuclear fission. Nor immunisation. Nor gravity. Nor any other scientific technique or explanation.

There's a terribly good reason for this.

ALL science is theory. Even the stuff that is taught as fact. Even the stuff you KNOW is true. Even the stuff you rely on every day.

There is absolutely no need to separate Evolution from the rest of science by saying "Oh, it's only a theory.", so there is absolutely no need to teach it any different or sticker up science textbooks in schools with "Evolution is a theory".

Science IS theory. When a theory is tested often enough and resists any noncompliance, it might become a Law - but even fundamental universal laws like e=mc^2 occasionally look like being broken (notably with gamma ray bursts in this case). And of course e=mc^2 is... the Theory of Special Relativity. I don't see any kangaroo courts to have "Special Relativity is a theory" stamped in school physics books...

Creation is taught as a fact to believers. Evolution is taught as a fact since a few years now. What school did you go to?

An independant (private) grammar school in the North of England. Why?

Did you ever study in science before saying that?

Who me? Never.

[/SARCASM]

Do you understand the non-sense you wrote? If you ever studied (even basic) biology, you would know that researchers start with a THEORY or a MODEL, and then they conduct studies, researches, experiments, tests to prove their model.

All science starts with the "null hypothesis". The researchers start with a theory or a model and then they set out to prove that the effect they see is independant of that theory or model - that it occurs by chance.

The end result of all of their research is numbers, fired off to a statistician who does all kinds of baffling nonsense on it - paired-t tests, Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Least Significant Difference tests - and come up with what's called a "p" (or "probability") value. For p to be significant, it has to be less than 0.05 - this is an accepted statistical standard and means that the probability of the outcome not being affected by the tested variables is less than 5%.

ALL science - not just "(even basic) biology" - is based on theory, null hypothesis, testing, results, analysis, p<0.05.

Scientists didn't start their researches by saying "T Lymphocytes have an important role in the central nervous system. Let's disprove that".
For 10 years, scientists have searched for a protein called "recombinase" in B Lymphocytes. They were so sure that this protein existed that they wasted 10 years on it. In 2002, they realized that this protein didn't exist. The ONLY analogy I'm trying to make here is that scientists always want to prove what they think is true, not the other way around.

Nope. Occasionally scientists get it wrong - they set out to look for things and usually end up finding them. A good case in point is Pluto - there was a massive hunt for a 9th planet and so that's what was found. Never mind the now-amended fact that Pluto just doesn't fit the parameters for a planet - this was only discovered after-the-fact, because Tombaugh found a lump of rock going round the Sun which was quite big and it wasn't until 1978 that it was found to be too small for the effect they observed.

But a good scientist doesn't start out like that - a good scientist starts out with first principles, preferably Occam's Razor. It's only through experimental testing and disproof of chance that first principles can be discarded and causation can be implied.

So science is about PROOF. Unless something is proven by experimental studies (by DOZENS of laboratories), the scientific community won't admit it.

This is just a basic misunderstanding of what happens in laboratories. Experimental studies don't set out to prove the original studies to be true, but to see if the data can be reproduced off-site - they're trying to see if it was just chance that the original study turned out the results it did. They also start off with the null hypothesis - "the data achieved at the first testing location was purely chance".

Creation can never be proven because you have to accept it as it is. Nobody can rationally explain God exists, so nobody can rationally explain creation. But this doesn't give anybody the right to talk about evolution as a proven theory, therefore making it the absolute truth and teaching it in schools and universities should be as foolish as forcing people into religions.

Evolution is taught in science classes on exactly the same level as all other science, because it IS the same level as all other science - rigourously tested theory which has, on the whole, survived extensive testing with, at the most, minor changes to account for new levels of detection - just like gravity, the Bernoulli Effect, Special Relativity and any other science you care to name.

By the way, who are "WE" in "We attempt to determine..." ?

That would be scientists.

Out of idle curiousity, what was wrong with your GT4mania account?

 

[ledhed]

Occasionally I learn something new in this thread ..fasinating .

 

[Small_Fryz]

I owe this thread a lot. It has helped me a lot i must say. Im always giving rep out for the quality posts from both sides.

 

[Danoff]

[Directed at Famine] Did you ever study in science before saying that?

Oh dear lord.



Somebody sig that. That was like watching someone unwittingly back into a pit full of snakes.

 

[Swift]

As much as I don't like the concept of man coming from apes, Aeromotive's argument has been rehashed a few hundred times(literally) in the last 100 or so pages.

Aeromotive, before you question someone's credentials. You may want to find out about them first. Famine is the highest level sceintest on GTP. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. So when he talks about science, I generally listen. But with this particular topic, both sides can disprove the other through their "doctrine".

 

[Aeromotive]

Interestingly, they never refer to the Bernoulli Effect as theory either. Nor nuclear fission. Nor immunisation. Nor gravity. Nor any other scientific technique or explanation.

There's a terribly good reason for this.

ALL science is theory. Even the stuff that is taught as fact. Even the stuff you KNOW is true. Even the stuff you rely on every day.

There is absolutely no need to separate Evolution from the rest of science by saying "Oh, it's only a theory.", so there is absolutely no need to teach it any different or sticker up science textbooks in schools with "Evolution is a theory".

Science IS theory. When a theory is tested often enough and resists any noncompliance, it might become a Law - but even fundamental universal laws like e=mc^2 occasionally look like being broken (notably with gamma ray bursts in this case). And of course e=mc^2 is... the Theory of Special Relativity. I don't see any kangaroo courts to have "Special Relativity is a theory" stamped in school physics books...

Nuclear fission, immunisation and gravity are all proven, seen and studied thoroughly. I don't know where your definition that from, but the word "theory" refers to any SPECULATION on an idea. Find me a scientist who says that double-stranded DNA is still a theory, and I'll find you a dog with 165 legs. If you believe that immunisation is a theory, then I presume you never got vaccined. Wow, it must be hard and paranoïng living life like you do.

More and more, our survival depends on medecine. If everybody thought your way, people would be dying because of colds... Things are proven by lab work, clinical research and more. Saying that something is a theory implies that builiding other principles on that is just plain crazy.

You seem to care more about physics law, and I seem to concentrate on biology and molecular effects on life. Something you see on a microscope or on an electrophoresis gel is much easier to accept than abstract laws (like gravity).



An independant (private) grammar school in the North of England. Why?

I'll send my future children there to make sure they don't get hammered with evolution as an absolute fact.


Who me? Never.

[/SARCASM]

A big LOL to that.

All science starts with the "null hypothesis". The researchers start with a theory or a model and then they set out to prove that the effect they see is independant of that theory or model - that it occurs by chance.

The end result of all of their research is numbers, fired off to a statistician who does all kinds of baffling nonsense on it - paired-t tests, Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Least Significant Difference tests - and come up with what's called a "p" (or "probability") value. For p to be significant, it has to be less than 0.05 - this is an accepted statistical standard and means that the probability of the outcome not being affected by the tested variables is less than 5%.

ALL science - not just "(even basic) biology" - is based on theory, null hypothesis, testing, results, analysis, p<0.05.

"All science is based on theory" contradicts that "all science IS theory". All science starts as a theory (at least for biology) and ends up as a fact or not. Like you said, it starts with a null hypothesis. If science ends up as a theory too, then our world is all built on shaky pillars.
If you studied statistics (it seems like you did), you should know that you can use statistics to make them say whatever you want. This is why I said that dozens of laboratories (independant from each other) test what's called a new discovery to approve what has been said.



Nope. Occasionally scientists get it wrong - they set out to look for things and usually end up finding them. A good case in point is Pluto - there was a massive hunt for a 9th planet and so that's what was found. Never mind the now-amended fact that Pluto just doesn't fit the parameters for a planet - this was only discovered after-the-fact, because Tombaugh found a lump of rock going round the Sun which was quite big and it wasn't until 1978 that it was found to be too small for the effect they observed.

But a good scientist doesn't start out like that - a good scientist starts out with first principles, preferably Occam's Razor. It's only through experimental testing and disproof of chance that first principles can be discarded and causation can be implied.



This is just a basic misunderstanding of what happens in laboratories.
What's your field of study?

Experimental studies don't set out to prove the original studies to be true, but to see if the data can be reproduced off-site - they're trying to see if it was just chance that the original study turned out the results it did. They also start off with the null hypothesis - "the data achieved at the first testing location was purely chance".

I agree with that. That's what I said in my first post. One lab can't come up with something and make it the absolute truth. That's what I meant by DOZENS of laboratories.
In the field of biology however, they're not trying to discard chance. They're just trying to see if the proposed process (for let's say, RNA translation) works or not to give the biological result/mecanism you see.



Evolution is taught in science classes on exactly the same level as all other science, because it IS the same level as all other science - rigourously tested theory which has, on the whole, survived extensive testing with, at the most, minor changes to account for new levels of detection - just like gravity, the Bernoulli Effect, Special Relativity and any other science you care to name.

What do gravity and relativity have to do with evolution vs. creation?
I think you got something wrong there. Evolution has not been (and can not be) rigourously tested. Even Darwin said that if intermediate fossiles weren't found, his theory would be bullcrap. If Darwin came back to life just now, I'd like to know what he would say about modern evolutionists trying to build on pure assumptions. Carbon datation has its flaws, but no evolutionist wants to admit it. When you're convinced of something, you want all your proofs to go its way.

That would be scientists.

You mean scientists from earth or from a foreign planet?

Out of idle curiousity, what was wrong with your GT4mania account?[/QUOTE]

I stopped playing GT4 because I think it's redundant. So I thought that GT4Mania wasn't appropriate anymore. "Oh I'm so stressed that somebody found out my other nickname!"
In the few threads where I'm active, everybody who needs to know about the change, knows.

 

[Famine]

As much as I don't like the concept of man coming from apes, Aeromotive's argument has been rehashed a few hundred times(literally) in the last 100 or so pages.

Aeromotive, before you question someone's credentials. You may want to find out about them first. Famine is the highest level sceintest on GTP. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. So when he talks about science, I generally listen. But with this particular topic, both sides can disprove the other through their "doctrine".

danoff and TM are in the club too. There's someone else but, sadly, I can't remember who...

*adjusts brain for severe quoting mess*

Nuclear fission, immunisation and gravity are all proven, seen and studied thoroughly. I don't know where your definition that from, but the word "theory" refers to any SPECULATION on an idea. Find me a scientist who says that double-stranded DNA is still a theory, and I'll find you a dog with 165 legs. If you believe that immunisation is a theory, then I presume you never got vaccined. Wow, it must be hard and parano&#239;ng living life like you do.

First off - ad hominem. You have no idea how I live my life and it is completely irrelevant to any discussion.

Yes, nuclear fission, immunisation and gravity are all "proven" - but so is evolution. I'll elaborate using gravity as a reference...

We have no clue how gravity works. There's probably a particle somewhere, but it has never been detected. It's also several orders of magnitude weaker than it ought to be and we've got no clue why - it's the weakest of the four forces by some way. There's a nice idea about it but it's very hard to gather evidence for it. But if you drop an apple from 10 metres off the ground you can say, to within 2 significant figures, precisely how long it'll take to hit the ground. If you know its aerodynamic profile, you can get even more accurate than that.

There's actually much stronger evidence for the mechanics of evolution than there is for the mechanics of gravity. Yet you say gravity is "proven" and evolution is not. Interesting.


Immunisation is most certainly a theory. It has survived rigourous testing over the years - and has survived pretty much intact. But it isn't precisely the same as the original. It has received refinements, and still does. It is not a Law, nor is it a fact - it is a theory.

If everybody thought your way, people would be dying because of colds...

Again - ad hominem. You are basing a response on a position attacking how I think without actually knowing how I think.

And people frequently do die from colds.

Things are proven by lab work, clinical research and more.

No - lab work and clinical research disproves that the outcome is independant of the variable.

Saying that something is a theory implies that builiding other principles on that is just plain crazy.

Not at all - almost all of cosmology is based on the theories of General and Special Relativity.

You seem to care more about physics law, and I seem to concentrate on biology and molecular effects on life. Something you see on a microscope or on an electrophoresis gel is much easier to accept than abstract laws (like gravity).

Yet you accept gravity is proven but evolution, seen down a microscope, an electrophoreisis gel and northern, western and Southern Blots, is not.

I'll send my future children there to make sure they don't get hammered with evolution as an absolute fact.

Evolution is taught there in science lessons as science.

All science starts with the "null hypothesis". The researchers start with a theory or a model and then they set out to prove that the effect they see is independant of that theory or model - that it occurs by chance.

The end result of all of their research is numbers, fired off to a statistician who does all kinds of baffling nonsense on it - paired-t tests, Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Least Significant Difference tests - and come up with what's called a "p" (or "probability") value. For p to be significant, it has to be less than 0.05 - this is an accepted statistical standard and means that the probability of the outcome not being affected by the tested variables is less than 5%.

ALL science - not just "(even basic) biology" - is based on theory, null hypothesis, testing, results, analysis, p<0.05.

"All science is based on theory" contradicts that "all science IS theory".

No, you see what you've done there is take an ordered list and removed the rest of the list. I was listing the steps in the process.

All science starts as a theory (at least for biology) and ends up as a fact or not.

So is the Theory of Special Relativity a fact or not?

Like you said, it starts with a null hypothesis. If science ends up as a theory too, then our world is all built on shaky pillars.

The null hypothesis is the second step. The first step is to identify an event and contemplate the probability of any given variable changing the outcome of the event. The null hypothesis is, thus, "This variable has no effect on the outcome of this event". The whole point of the research is to then determine the probability of the variable's input being unrelated to the effect's output.

If you studied statistics (it seems like you did), you should know that you can use statistics to make them say whatever you want. This is why I said that dozens of laboratories (independant from each other) test what's called a new discovery to approve what has been said.

The remote testing is to determine whether the new discovery was a chance occurrence. They have their own null hypothesis - "The determination of this variable being related to this effect was a chance occurrence and the two are unrelated" - and have to find the probability of the original test being just a chance occurrence.

This is just a basic misunderstanding of what happens in laboratories.

What's your field of study?

I'm a molecular geneticist.

Experimental studies don't set out to prove the original studies to be true, but to see if the data can be reproduced off-site - they're trying to see if it was just chance that the original study turned out the results it did. They also start off with the null hypothesis - "the data achieved at the first testing location was purely chance".

I agree with that. That's what I said in my first post. One lab can't come up with something and make it the absolute truth. That's what I meant by DOZENS of laboratories.
In the field of biology however, they're not trying to discard chance. They're just trying to see if the proposed process (for let's say, RNA translation) works or not to give the biological result/mecanism you see.

And why are they trying to see this? It's because it worked at one site. They then repeat the methods with the same - or similar - equipment and materials to see if the original results were just chance. If they can repeat the results then the original results were not just chance and chance can be discarded.

All science is an endeavour to show that "x happens then y happens" (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is not just chance.

Evolution is taught in science classes on exactly the same level as all other science, because it IS the same level as all other science - rigourously tested theory which has, on the whole, survived extensive testing with, at the most, minor changes to account for new levels of detection - just like gravity, the Bernoulli Effect, Special Relativity and any other science you care to name.

What do gravity and relativity have to do with evolution vs. creation?

One is a poorly understood mechanism you take as fact, one is a theory that the whole of the cosmological community takes as fact and the last is "just a theory". All show that theory, Law and fact are used interchangeably, even within science, and the ridiculousness of a scientist railing against something for being "just a theory" when the whole discipline is "just theory".

I know of no-one who would say that the Theory of Special Relativity is "just a theory" and should be removed from science text books in the same way that they do with the Theory of Evolution.

I think you got something wrong there. Evolution has not been (and can not be) rigourously tested.

It can and has. It is tested every day by evolutionary biologists and biochemists, examining fossil data, DNA and ribosomal subunits. Every day it survives, with the occasional new mechanism for the odd protein here or there, and no (scientifically ratifiable) data has ever been presented which contradicts it.

Even Darwin said that if intermediate fossiles weren't found, his theory would be bullcrap. If Darwin came back to life just now, I'd like to know what he would say about modern evolutionists trying to build on pure assumptions.

We have absolutely millions of intermediate fossils. What are you talking about?

Carbon datation has its flaws, but no evolutionist wants to admit it. When you're convinced of something, you want all your proofs to go its way.

Every scientist I know knows about the flaws in the carbon-14 dating method. Do you think all of evolutionary theory is based on C14 dating?

I stopped playing GT4 because I think it's redundant. So I thought that GT4Mania wasn't appropriate anymore. "Oh I'm so stressed that somebody found out my other nickname!"

Just curious - there's many reasons for changing a screen-name.

 

[Aeromotive]

Oh dear lord.



Somebody sig that. That was like watching someone unwittingly back into a pit full of snakes.

Evolution doesn't only have to do with physics and astronomy. It also has to do with biology.

Nobody will be able to convince evolutionists of creation for many reasons (the same goes the other way), but there's only one I'd like to point.

If ever creation is admitted as a truth, this means there's actually a God. If there's a God, then this means everybody has to submit to him because he would be known as the Creator. No evolutionist wants that because no evolutionist (or very few of them do) believes in God.

Creation vs. evolution is a question that will never be answer with human knowledge, just like if God exists or not.
Debating over this is useless, but I thought I'd say what I think about the subject. Most disagree, but that's life. We could go on until 500pages on this thread with no answer. Having said that, I don't like to debate very much about people's beliefs and such fundamental questions.

You'll catch me on another thread probably some day.

 

[Swift]

danoff and TM are in the club too. There's someone else but, sadly, I can't remember who...

Oh ok, thanks for letting me know. I knew you were directly involved with microbiology I believe. But I didn't know about DAnoff and TM. Thanks again.

Evolution doesn't only have to do with physics and astronomy. It also has to do with biology.

Statements like this make if very hard for people that believe in Creation to make a sound argument. BTW, I am a person that believes in Creation.

 

[Danoff]

Oh ok, thanks for letting me know. I knew you were directly involved with microbiology I believe. But I didn't know about DAnoff and TM. Thanks again.

Just for the record, my degrees are in engineering. Mostly based in physics and a little astronomy. The last biology class I took was in high school. But I am familiar with science and research and what goes into/comes out of both. Honsetly, though, the global warming argument is probably closer to my area than evolution.

Evolution doesn't only have to do with physics and astronomy. It also has to do with biology.

Evolution doesn't have ANYTHING to do with astronomy. Biology, specifically genetics, is the foundation of evolution. The mere fact that your kids look like you do proves evolution.

Nobody will be able to convince evolutionists of creation for many reasons (the same goes the other way)

Really? Nobody has ever converted from either side? I happen to know that's not true.

If ever creation is admitted as a truth, this means there's actually a God. If there's a God, then this means everybody has to submit to him because he would be known as the Creator. No evolutionist wants that because no evolutionist (or very few of them do) believes in God.

This misunderstands science. Science is not about what you want or don't want to be true. Science is about what is observed and can be shown and tested. Whether or not evolutionists want God to exist plays no part.

That being said, many evolutionists believe in God, they just don't believe God created man directly.

Creation vs. evolution is a question that will never be answer with human knowledge, just like if God exists or not.

I'd like to see you prove that this statement is true. There is no way you can back that up.

Having said that, I don't like to debate very much about people's beliefs and such fundamental questions.

First of all, you don't belong in the opinions forum then. Second of all, why not? This is the good stuff! This what's important, interesting, challenging, and motivating about life.

You don't like talking about some of the most important questions about the nature of your reality, but you'd rather talk about... what... whether the new mercedes looks better than the old one?

 

[Sage]

Evolution doesn't only have to do with physics and astronomy. It also has to do with biology.

Well, you happen to be arguing with a biologist in a biology topic. (Fun!)

danoff and TM are in the club too. There's someone else but, sadly, I can't remember who...

Duke&#8217;s an engineer, and I believe Smallhorses works in chemistry (I know he deals with mass spectrometers).

 

[Swift]

Duke’s an engineer, and I believe Smallhorses works in chemistry (I know he deals with mass spectrometers).

We need to get a list of all the people directly involved with science. I may start a thread on that

 

[Aeromotive]

Evolution doesn't have ANYTHING to do with astronomy. Biology, specifically genetics, is the foundation of evolution. The mere fact that your kids look like you do proves evolution.

The fact that your kids look like you doesn't prove evolution. If that proved evolution, scientists wouldn't be out there trying to find any arguments.

The fact that your kids look like you proves what Mendell studied. Mendell never studied evolution. It only proves that half your genes were transmitted to your child during the process of meiosis (typo?).

Linking this to evolution is a desperate argument.

Really? Nobody has ever converted from either side? I happen to know that's not true.

I was speaking in general. This group of people will never be able to convince that group of people. Of course there are people who convert from one site to another.

This misunderstands science. Science is not about what you want or don't want to be true. Science is about what is observed and can be shown and tested.

There's no misunderstanding here because science has never been that either.

Whether or not evolutionists want God to exist plays no part.

That being said, many evolutionists believe in God, they just don't believe God created man directly.

Of course it has to do. If you believe in a God, you are more likely to believe in Creation. And if you believe that God created you, then you must submit to Him. That's what's keeping people from believing in creationism.

I'd like to see you prove that this statement is true. There is no way you can back that up.

Haha prove that what is true? I can't prove to you that I can prove that God exist, because I can't prove that God exist *what a weird sentence*. You can't feel God with your 5 senses, and you can't observe Him or calculate Him like physics laws. This is why I say that.

First of all, you don't belong in the opinions forum then. Second of all, why not? This is the good stuff! This what's important, interesting, challenging, and motivating about life.

You don't like talking about some of the most important questions about the nature of your reality, but you'd rather talk about... what... whether the new mercedes looks better than the old one?

I know I don't belong in the opinions forums because I don't like debating on fundamental questions. This is why this it my last post. Why not you say? It's because I don't like debates that lead nowhere. I just thought I'd drop a few lines and that's it. I got 100's of other sources of motivation in my life and my life is pretty interesting with them, just like everybody else.

 

[FoolKiller]

I know I don't belong in the opinions forums because I don't like debating on fundamental questions. This is why this it my last post. Why not you say? It's because I don't like debates that lead nowhere. I just thought I'd drop a few lines and that's it. I got 100's of other sources of motivation in my life and my life is pretty interesting with them, just like everybody else.

Wow, if it weren't for my fundamental beliefs I would probably have no motivation whatsoever and would have already done something stupid and gotten myself killed.

Well, I guess if I had something less important to motivate me it would take 100s to get it done. Maybe that's how you do it.

 

[Famine]

You can't feel God with your 5 senses

Only 5? Some biologist.

But I digress. This inevitably leads to a question - if you can't feel God with your senses, how can people who DO feel God feel God?

 

[Swift]

Haha prove that what is true? I can't prove to you that I can prove that God exist, because I can't prove that God exist *what a weird sentence*. You can't feel God with your 5 senses, and you can't observe Him or calculate Him like physics laws. This is why I say that.

Ok, you need to do one of two things. THINK before you post or just totally shutup.

I'm a Christian and I DO feel God on a regular basis. Also, God speaks to my soul regularly as well.

Pako is much better at the compassionate side of Christianity. But you really, really need to go through all your thoughts AND read the thread. At least the last 50 pages. We have gone through the senses thing, physical laws, calculations and the rest. If you have something new to add, feel free. But if you don't have anything of remote substance then please refrain until you do. Thanks.

 

[Danoff]

The fact that your kids look like you doesn't prove evolution. If that proved evolution, scientists wouldn't be out there trying to find any arguments.

It does. Logically evolution and natural selection MUST occur due to the passage of genetic information during procreation. There is no other alternative. Scientists are out there finding evidence that this is true, but based on logic, it's a foregone conclusion.

I was speaking in general. This group of people will never be able to convince that group of people. Of course there are people who convert from one site to another.

Ah, well then I accept your apology.

There's no misunderstanding here because science has never been that either.

Really? Maybe you need to look up the word "science".

Of course it has to do. If you believe in a God, you are more likely to believe in Creation. And if you believe that God created you, then you must submit to Him. That's what's keeping people from believing in creationism.

That has nothing to do with what I posted. What I posted is that many Evolutionists believe in God even though they don't think he created man directly. What you posted does not address that.

Haha prove that what is true?

Prove exactly what you said, that man will never know if evolution is real or if god exists. Prove that it is impossible to know these things.

I know I don't belong in the opinions forums because I don't like debating on fundamental questions. This is why this it my last post. Why not you say? It's because I don't like debates that lead nowhere. I just thought I'd drop a few lines and that's it. I got 100's of other sources of motivation in my life and my life is pretty interesting with them, just like everybody else.

The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates