Genetics and evolution

[BeccaBama]

While reading this thread with interest, it becomes apparent that, while I am a fan of healthy debate, the sides in this discussion are firmly entrenched. I don't think anyone has successfully convinced anyone else of anything. I have discussions like this with my wife often. Sorry for a tangent topic, but the thought occured to me that back in Jesus' day, those who considered themselves intellectually superior seemed to have the hardest time embracing his teachings. It appears that this is still true.

Among the people posting, you are certainly right about both sides being firmly entrenched and that no one involved is likely to change their position. However, it appears from the number of views that more people are reading than posting. Maybe someone out there has been following the discussion as has been shown points of view that they had not taken into account before. I never realized that there was so much evidence against evolution and the creationist point of view has been incredibly faith affirming for me. If one person reading decides to put their trust in the Lord instead of in humankind because of this post, I think it has been well served.

I, for one, don’t claim to be intellectually superior to anyone, I would just like people to know that there is an alternative to evolution.

 

[drsmithofga]

Sorry about any miscommunication. Its really a challenge to communicate effectively on a message board, most might agree. I assure you my comments were not directed at anyone in particular, more a general statement, but you probably understand full well that there are those in the world to whom it would directly apply. The quest for knowledge is a noble pursuit, myself a proponent. I believe that many people pursue knowledge as a means to grasp truth about life, a lofty goal. Some people are able to stride over to truth's location, some have to dig a hole to China and swim back to get there. The end result is the same, if the objective is truth. Only time was wasted. Personally, I repeat, personally, my quest for knowledge accelerates when I come to grips with what I DON'T know, with what WE don't know. I'll humbly bow out of the discussion, hat in hand.

 

[CrimsonNan]

Sorry about any miscommunication. Its really a challenge to communicate effectively on a message board, most might agree. I assure you my comments were not directed at anyone in particular, more a general statement, but you probably understand full well that there are those in the world to whom it would directly apply. The quest for knowledge is a noble pursuit, myself a proponent. I believe that many people pursue knowledge as a means to grasp truth about life, a lofty goal. Some people are able to stride over to truth's location, some have to dig a hole to China and swim back to get there. The end result is the same, if the objective is truth. Only time was wasted. Personally, I repeat, personally, my quest for knowledge accelerates when I come to grips with what I DON'T know, with what WE don't know. I'll humbly bow out of the discussion, hat in hand.

You have as much right to express your opinion in this, or any other thread, as anyone else. Why bow out?

 

[blackumbrella]

Have all of the evolution defenders lost their moxie? Where oh where are you BlackUmbrella? It is raining reason in here. Looks like CBF has losthis voice on the topic. Great follow up post Becca. Makes total sense.

the jimmy hart of tidefans, at it again with his little megaphone. occiputs beware!

 

[blackumbrella]

can't read all this so i'll just pose some meta-ish questions.
first though, if anyone finds the nas poll data less than compelling, newsweek polled 480,000 scientists. results were similar. note too the gallup poll near the bottom of that page, in particular the correlations found between level of education and certain beliefs. so the questions:

1. are we to believe the vast majority of scientists believe in some form of evolution bc they have a vague predisposition to do so? that's pretty reductive. isn't it possible they're doing what most people do when theyu dedicate their lives to learning...viz. learning? which leads into:

2. it was suggested scientists would be wise to reexamine the data. and that science support screationism. what? it's the job of the millions of scientists working today, and of the hundreds of millions who've gone before them, to do just that. it's ridculous to think any theory as well established in the scientific community as evolution hasn't been gone over ad nauseum, fine-toothed-comb-style. the fact that scientists are still testing, challenging, refining its tenets is proof of that (and that some scientists have a good idea about what type of book will sell (behe)). and if such a preponderance of scientific evidence points to creationism (extreme form), why don't more of the experts who've discovered that evidence believe in it themselves?

3. when are TnT and b-law coming back?

 

[CrimsonNan]

Oh my...Lulu's back in town - lol! :biggrin:

 

[bamabake]

Welcome back grumpy .

 

[BeccaBama]

Personally, I repeat, personally, my quest for knowledge accelerates when I come to grips with what I DON'T know, with what WE don't know. I'll humbly bow out of the discussion, hat in hand.

I would agree with that. It goes back to my assertion that data is interpreted based upon a bias. Assumptions generally have to be made before interpreting data (as pointed out in the paper on chemical evolution), particularly data dealing with unobservable events from the past. I also agree with CrimsonNan, "You have as much right to express your opinion in this, or any other thread, as anyone else. Why bow out?"

 

[blackumbrella]

Let me go ahead and tackle this question on what this information we keep talking about is, KillVols.

here is the source of the information quote you provided from a website called
answers in genesis

and here's a pretty thoughtful
critique. some of its more salient points:

One of the things I hate about these cutesy hyper-popularizations of
scientific and technological discoveries and inventions is that most of the
absolutely critical details are left out, so there is no way the reader can
possibly tell which of perhaps several possibilities are really intended
~~
Where is the design argument? None is given
or even really implied. I suppose that one is hinted at, but no actual
argumentation is given, and the one that seems to be suggested by the
passages you quoted is pretty thin.

of course we all see the world through the various lenses we've accumulated throughout our lives; we can thank science for that bit of knowledge. most religious thinking i know of makes the claim that there are absolute truths, things like the existence of god. nothing's ever absolutely true in science, just as yet unfalsified. the scientific community is well aware we all bring along our baggage of biases to any inquiry and, accordingly, goes to great lengths to make the process as objective as possible--statistical analysis, blind and double blind experiements, independent replication of findings. most imjportantly though, is the simple observation that scientists TEST their ideas--does it really make sense that they do so to preserve their biases? it seems like some people think evolution is a house of cards scientists conspire to protect at all costs. why would they do such a thing? bc they're predisposed atheists and like evolution exactly bc it contradicts strict creationist accounts? that's, as i said earlier, preposterous. any scientist-- atheist, agnostic, or full blown snake hanlin--would graciously accept the nobel prize and place in history that would come along with disproving evolution.

 

[bamabake]

here is the source of the information quote you provided from a website called
answers in genesis

and here's a pretty thoughtful
critique. some of its more salient points:



of course we all see the world through the various lenses we've accumulated throughout our lives; we can thank science for that bit of knowledge. most religious thinking i know of makes the claim that there are absolute truths, things like the existence of god. nothing's ever absolutely true in science, just as yet unfalsified. the scientific community is well aware we all bring along our baggage of biases to any inquiry and, accordingly, goes to great lengths to make the process as objective as possible--statistical analysis, blind and double blind experiements, independent replication of findings. most imjportantly though, is the simple observation that scientists TEST their ideas--does it really make sense that they do so to preserve their biases? it seems like some people think evolution is a house of cards scientists conspire to protect at all costs. why would they do such a thing? bc they're predisposed atheists and like evolution exactly bc it contradicts strict creationist accounts? that's, as i said earlier, preposterous. any scientist-- atheist, agnostic, or full blown snake hanlin--would graciously accept the nobel prize and place in history that would come along with disproving evolution.

nothing's ever absolutely true in science

So is science then in the pursuit of the general? Of theories? General understanding? There are no absolutes is science?

 

[COBamaFan]

NYBamaFan:

I never said you couldn’t believe in God and evolution.

I believe a person must strive to ignore his or her belief system when examining new facts. I’m not ignorant to the possibility that your current beliefs many very well slant your view of the facts; however to embrace it to the extent BeccaBama has is what is silly. When someone admits that their belief system has affected how he or she interprets data to the degree BeccaBama has, instead of attempting to examine the fact has objectively as possible … well, then, that person must be ignored.

BeccaBama:

I cringe a little at continuing to talk about the quotation marks, which are clearly an insignificant point, but: you’re just reading too much into it. They used ‘life’ instead of life because there are many possible definitions of when life started. Once you have ‘life’ (whatever your definition of that may be), then evolution is the best explanation from how we got from the first ‘life-form’ to where we are today (See how I did that?). Simply put, the quotation marks didn’t mean anything, as much as you want them too.

I don’t see how your excerpt contradicts anything I’ve said. I will readily admit that many researchers in a wide variety of fields have used evolutionary principles to model both artificial and natural processes. For example, genetic algorithms, which are based on evolutionary principles, are used frequently in optimization problems. Should it be concluded then that the theory of evolution also includes optimization theory?

Your chemical evolution example is compelling for sure, but not a contradiction of my assertion that the theory of evolution only explains SPECIATION. Perhaps chemical evolution does offer some insight into the origin of life, but it is also a much boarder theory, encompassing much more then Darwin’s ideas.

Furthermore, why exactly are you so hung up on this? Let’s assume you’re right for a moment and say that the origin of life can be extrapolated from the theory of evolution. Have you somehow proven that evolution is gibberish because of this? No, you haven’t.

In reality, you have only admitted then you are incapable of objectively assessing the data and this is a fundamental flaw that cannot be ignored. Creationists have asked for evidence and I have provided it (and only a small portion of it at that!). Where is the evidence supporting creationism? All you have is meaningless anecdotes like, “I see evidence of an intelligent designer in the skeletal structure of humans.” Of course you do! You’ve already admitted you can’t objectively assess the situation. I defy any creationist to provide one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence of creationism. This is an impossible task. Creationism must be accepted on faith and faith alone. Creationists rely on trying to poke holes in evolution (almost always incorrectly) while ignoring the gaping holes in creationism. I stronger theory would not have to resort to such measures. It would stand on it own against evolution and would hold up to scientific scrutiny. Creationism posses neither quality.

 

[BeccaBama]

Yes, that is the website I used to quote from. What of it? It is an excellent website and I would recommend it to anyone who was interested in seeking an alternative to evolution.

Let’s not forget that there about the different types of science we are talking about here.

Previous post:
In regards to the origins of life and “evolutionary science”, it is important to note the difference between operational science and origins (historical) “science”. Operational science deals with the way the present world works, and generally concerns things that we can observe and repeatedly test. For example, we can consistently get the same undisputed temperature for the boiling point of water since we can observe and repeat the test conditions. Historical science, however, deals with how we apply observations made in the present to non-observable events in the past. This is the area where “evolutionary science” falls. Scientific observations must be interpreted when applied to past events. The supposed events of evolution occurred in the unobservable past and are therefore not capable of being proven scientifically with certainty. Creation events are also in the past. The argument between creation and evolution is not one of science vs. religion rather of the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.

What is the "Scientific Method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Science is observable, testable and repeatable. If we are to believe that the various species of life arose from a common ancestor, who observed the amoeba turning into a creature with legs and crawling out of the primordial goo, who observed the various branches of the animal kingdom forming, who observed primates changing into man? Not only are these events not observable, neither are they testable or repeatable. People have made deductions about what has happened in the past by observing things in the present and applying their interpretations based on assumptions to past events. This however is not operational science.

I believe a Divine Creator is the answer to how life arose and how we can account for similarities between various animals and the reason that there are human beings on this earth and even for the fact that there is an earth at all. Because none of this can be proven scientifically (it occurred in the past and can’t be observed or tested) I base my assumption on the Bible, the inerrant Word of God.

Evolutionists believe that non-life gave rise to life, became a more complex form of life and that all subsequent life forms are descended from a common ancestor through chance mutation, natural selection, and modification of the inherited basics for different circumstances. This can’t be proven scientifes between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Science is observable, testable and repeatable. If we are to believe that the various species of life arose from a common ancestor, who observed the amoeba turning into a creature with legs and crawling out of the primordial goo, who observed the various branches of the animal kingdom forming, who observed primates changing into man? Not only are these events not observable, neither are they testable or repeatable. People have made deductions about what has happened in the past by observing things in the present and applying their interpretations based on assumptions to past events. This however is not operational science.

I believe a Divine Creator is the answer to how life arose and how we can account for similarities between various animals and the reason that there are human beings on this earth and even for the fact that there is an earth at all. Because none of this can be proven scientifically (it occurred in the past and can’t be observed or tested) I base my assumption on the Bible, the inerrant Word of God.

Evolutionists believe that non-life gave rise to life, became a more complex form of life and that all subsequent life forms are descended from a common ancestor through chance mutation, natural selection, and modification of the inherited basics for different circumstances. This can’t be proven scientifically either (it occurred in the past and can't be observed or tested). Evolutionist base their assumptions on a commitment to materialism and naturalism.

Main Entry: nat•u•ral•ism - a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

In other words, naturalism tries to account for all phenomena without accepting the possibility of the involvement of the supernatural – God.

most religious thinking i know of makes the claim that there are absolute truths, things like the existence of god

Sounds like naturalism.

The problem is that evolution is touted as an absolute. It is shown in museums as the way life on earth as we know it developed over time. We are shown drawings of assumptions made by evolutionists of supposed transitional stages and how apes supposedly turned into humans. It is indoctrinated into our schools and stated as irrefutable fact. This may be the case if you are viewing life through the eyes of naturalism, but there is obviously another alternative to be considered - Creation by God, the Intelligent Designer.

I’m talking about evolution as an overall concept, by the way.

 

[KillVols]

Wow, Becca great post... Full of thought provoking substantive information.

You could of used COB's method of just putting down the other position with a bunch of ridiculous statements that add nothing to the discussion.

I also noticed all the... (COB's quote)... "meaningless anecdotes like, “I see evidence of an intelligent designer in the skeletal structure of humans.” in your post.

Of course COB's post was full of real meaning...

COB
"In reality, you have only admitted then you are incapable of objectively assessing the data and this is a fundamental flaw that cannot be ignored. Creationists have asked for evidence and I have provided it (and only a small portion of it at that!). Where is the evidence supporting creationism? All you have is meaningless anecdotes like, “I see evidence of an intelligent designer in the skeletal structure of humans.” Of course you do! You’ve already admitted you can’t objectively assess the situation. I defy any creationist to provide one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence of creationism. This is an impossible task. Creationism must be accepted on faith and faith alone. Creationists rely on trying to poke holes in evolution (almost always incorrectly) while ignoring the gaping holes in creationism. I stronger theory would not have to resort to such measures. It would stand on it own against evolution and would hold up to scientific scrutiny. Creationism posses neither quality."

Talk about your primordial goo....

Becca, I am really impressed with your knowledge of the subject(s) and your passion. Keep up the good work.

 

[blackumbrella]

'science of one religion v. science of another religion'-- i'm interested how you define 'religion'? and to which of these two competing religions does someone like eo wilson (firmly christian, firmly in support of evolution) belong? your historical/operational distinction seems to be, in effect, making the same case as the comments on observation. the scientific method has evolved since the 17th century, with 'hypothetico-deductive' methodology and the supplanting of verification by falsification coming only in the 20th cent, from einstein and popper. but even when it was known as the baconian method, 'observation' didn't have the eye-witness ring you attribute to it. no one's observed the earth's core, but we feel pretty comfortable with the ev suggesting it's made of magma. i heard a guy say the sun was just a planet completely covered by a very radioactive ocean of yellow paint, but i'm inclined to trust the scientific interpretation that it's a giant ex/implosion. as i said earlier, science doesn't leap to conclusions (bc it's a process and continues rather than concludes) and ideas that are difficult to observe, test, replicate etc. for whatever reason--distance in time, in space, in scale--are accepted only tentatively, as was the case with einstein, and even then, they are always subject to revision/replacement when new evidence or better explanations come around (evolution hasn't run into this kind of scientific competition, but religious competition a la copernicus), which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever

proven scientifically with certainty

, and why evolution is NOT

touted as an absolute

, but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. there are many museums in the world, and so far as i know, they're all characterized by a certain theme, which is ususally evident in the museum's name: metropolitan museum of art=art museum; children's hands on museum=children's hands on museum. if a museum has a paleontology or anthropology exhibit, it stands to reason that scientific theories will predominate. just as in a religiously themed exhibit, you'd expect to learn about religious themes.

Because none of this can be proven scientifically (it occurred in the past and can’t be observed or tested) I base my assumption on the Bible, the inerrant Word of God.

naturally, neither god nor the inerrantness or even existence of its word can be proven scientifically, which seems to indicate that a view such as yours is really just religious and not at all scientific, which seems to undermine your characterization of the creationism/evolution distinction as 'thwhen new evidence or better explanations come around (evolution hasn't run into this kind of scientific competition, but religious competition a la copernicus), which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever

proven scientifically with certainty

, and why evolution is NOT

touted as an absolute

, but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. there are many museums in the world, and so far as i know, they're all characterized by a certain theme, which is ususally evident in the museum's name: metropolitan museum of art=art museum; children's hands on museum=children's hands on museum. if a museum has a paleontology or anthropology exhibit, it stands to reason that scientific theories will predominate. just as in a religiously themed exhibit, you'd expect to learn about religious themes.

Because none of this can be proven scientifically (it occurred in the past and can’t be observed or tested) I base my assumption on the Bible, the inerrant Word of God.

naturally, neither god nor the inerrantness or even existence of its word can be proven scientifically, which seems to indicate that a view such as yours is really just religious and not at all scientific, which seems to undermine your characterization of the creationism/evolution distinction as 'the science of one religion v. the science of another.'

 

[bamabake]

WoW.. All of those words and not one point. Deal with the substance. Think SUBSTANCE. Go back and start at the beginning of the thread, or are you so enlightened that you can just pop in a thread and be "up to speed". So far you and CBF havent even been able to stay on topic very much. If you had you would still be struggling to keep up. Think BEGINNING OF THREAD....Go back. Most of the clap trap you have posted has been dealt with before you posted.

 

[TexasBama]

The Bible says that He did it in days. The question is in the interpretation. Did God actually say that He did this all in 6 days, or was this the interpretation of the writer, unable to understand the concepts of the vast time required?...

The Hebrew word is yowm, which can have more than one meaning. Also, see Gen 2:4 & II Peter 3:8

nothing's ever absolutely true in science, just as yet unfalsified.

nope. Heat moves from a region of higher temperature to lower temperature, watts=volts x amps, water boils at 100c at atmospheric pressure, etc. Falsification is specific to scientific theory.

 

[blackumbrella]

The Hebrew word is yowm, which can have more than one meaning. Also, see Gen 2:4 & II Peter 3:8



nope. Heat moves from a region of higher temperature to lower temperature, watts=volts x amps, water boils at 100c at atmospheric pressure, etc. Falsification is specific to scientific theory.

good examples of well-rooted dicta. perhaps i didn't clearly make my point, which is that the capacity for revision is a central feature of science; on some levels revision is almost a given, such as with models of how the brain represents types of information (bc this is a burgeoning field and models get replaced on a monthly basis), and on others, revision is almost unimaginable, as was the case when newtonian physics had to be emended on the quantum level. sometimes, revision will just mean moving to higher levels of specificity--as tech and instrumentation improves we might zoom in on numerical values, say boiling points, learning more and more numbers to the right of the decimal point. and in the broadest sense, revision can mean abandoning a set of terms completely--maybe someone comes up with a better way of describing electrical energy, one that makes the terms 'watt', 'volt' etc. obsolete. as was the case with the various 'humours'.

 

[blackumbrella]

WoW.. All of those words and not one point. Deal with the substance. Think SUBSTANCE. Go back and start at the beginning of the thread, or are you so enlightened that you can just pop in a thread and be "up to speed". So far you and CBF havent even been able to stay on topic very much. If you had you would still be struggling to keep up. Think BEGINNING OF THREAD....Go back. Most of the clap trap you have posted has been dealt with before you posted.

jimmy, thanks for the advice. i went back and read the whole thing. the points i made in the post preceding yours are most appropriate, as are the questions posed in my first post in this thread, questions as yet unaddressed by you or any of the wrestlers you manage.

 

[bamabake]

'science of one religion v. science of another religion'-- i'm interested how you define 'religion'? and to which of these two competing religions does someone like eo wilson (firmly christian, firmly in support of evolution) belong? your historical/operational distinction seems to be, in effect, making the same case as the comments on observation. the scientific method has evolved since the 17th century, with 'hypothetico-deductive' methodology and the supplanting of verification by falsification coming only in the 20th cent, from einstein and popper. but even when it was known as the baconian method, 'observation' didn't have the eye-witness ring you attribute to it. no one's observed the earth's core, but we feel pretty comfortable with the ev suggesting it's made of magma. i heard a guy say the sun was just a planet completely covered by a very radioactive ocean of yellow paint, but i'm inclined to trust the scientific interpretation that it's a giant ex/implosion. as i said earlier, science doesn't leap to conclusions (bc it's a process and continues rather than concludes) and ideas that are difficult to observe, test, replicate etc. for whatever reason--distance in time, in space, in scale--are accepted only tentatively, as was the case with einstein, and even then, they are always subject to revision/replacement when new evidence or better explanations come around (evolution hasn't run into this kind of scientific competition, but religious competition a la copernicus), which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever , and why evolution is NOT , but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. there are many museums in the world, and so far as i know, they're all characterized by a certain theme, which is ususally evident in the museum's name: metropolitan museum of art=art museum; children's hands on museum=children's hands on museum. if a museum has a paleontology or anthropology exhibit, it stands to reason that scientific theories will predominate. just as in a religiously themed exhibit, you'd expect to learn about religious themes.



naturally, neither god nor the inerrantness or even existence of its word can be proven scientifically, which seems to indicate that a view such as yours is really just religious and not at all scientific, which seems to undermine your characterization of the creationism/evolution distinction as 'thwhen new evidence or better explanations come around (evolution hasn't run into this kind of scientific competition, but religious compe as was the case with einstein, and even then, they are always subject to revision/replacement when new evidence or better explanations come around (evolution hasn't run into this kind of scientific competition, but religious competition a la copernicus), which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever , and why evolution is NOT , but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. there are many museums in the world, and so far as i know, they're all characterized by a certain theme, which is ususally evident in the museum's name: metropolitan museum of art=art museum; children's hands on museum=children's hands on museum. if a museum has a paleontology or anthropology exhibit, it stands to reason that scientific theories will predominate. just as in a religiously themed exhibit, you'd expect to learn about religious themes.



naturally, neither god nor the inerrantness or even existence of its word can be proven scientifically, which seems to indicate that a view such as yours is really just religious and not at all scientific, which seems to undermine your characterization of the creationism/evolution distinction as 'thwhen new evidence or better explanations come around (evolution hasn't run into this kind of scientific competition, but religious competition a la copernicus), which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever , and why evolution is NOT , but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. there are many museums in the world, and so far as i know, they're all characterized by a certain theme, which is ususally evident in the museum's name: metropolitan museum of art=art museum; children's hands on museum=children's hands on museum. if a museum has a paleontology or anthropology exhibit, it stands to reason that scientific theories will predominate. just as in a religiously themed exhibit, you'd expect to learn about religious themes.



naturally, neither god nor the inerrantness or even existence of its word can be proven scientifically, which seems to indicate that a view such as yours is really just religious and not at all scientific, which seems to undermine your characterization of the creationism/evolution distinction as 'the science of one religion v. the science of another.'

which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever , and why evolution is NOT , but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. ]


What evidence? Oh and please dont send a link showing a series of extint apelike creatuyres and say there is my proof. Thtition a la copernicus), which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever , and why evolution is NOT , but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. there are many museums in the world, and so far as i know, they're all characterized by a certain theme, which is ususally evident in the museum's name: metropolitan museum of art=art museum; children's hands on museum=children's hands on museum. if a museum has a paleontology or anthropology exhibit, it stands to reason that scientific theories will predominate. just as in a religiously themed exhibit, you'd expect to learn about religious themes.



naturally, neither god nor the inerrantness or even existence of its word can be proven scientifically, which seems to indicate that a view such as yours is really just religious and not at all scientific, which seems to undermine your characterization of the creationism/evolution distinction as 'the science of one religion v. the science of another.'[/QUOTE]



which is why, as i said, nothing in science is ever , and why evolution is NOT , but rather the explanation best supported by the evidence. ]


What evidence? Oh and please dont send a link showing a series of extint apelike creatuyres and say there is my proof. The burden of validation here is with the new theory. Therefore all of the information supporting creationism that has ALREADY been posted in this thread notwithstanding, you and your fellow wrestlers prove the new theory is valid enough to be stated as a fact in our society over and over. I personally dont want Americas children indoctrinated with any theory that is as weak as this.

 

[COBamaFan]

I see that neither BeccaBama or KillVols is going to address the questions in my post.

BeccaBama:

Your argument is a common one among creationists. Whatever level of evidence evolution provides, you’ll always rise the bar just a tick above that and declare victory. You’ll say: because we don’t have direct evidence of man evolving from monkeys, then it must not be true. You’re attempting to draw an imaginary line between ‘operational’ science and ‘historical’ science. You move that line at your leisure. We have a word for these kinds of tactics in the science community, but I imagine you might be familiar with it already.

Ok, were where we? Ahh, yes your assertion that evolution is necessarily fantasy unless someone observed the, as you put it, “amoeba turning into a creature with legs and crawling out of the primordial goo.” I’m curious, BeccaBama, do you believe that the earth goes around the sun? Yes or No? If the answer is yes, then why? If you need someone to make a direct observation of an event to believe it, then how is it that you’ve accepted that the earth goes around the sun? We cannot make a direct observation of this (no one in the recorded history of man has ever witnessed the earth go around the sun), but yet you still believe it?

Ok, ok, do you believe that electricity is powering your computer this very minute? Yes or No? If the answer is yes, then why? No one in the recorded history of man has ever observed an electron. They’re just a mathematical construct. Why then do you believe that electricity is powering your computer?

I can play this game again and again all day long. The point is that as long as you feel that the scientific theory is not in violation of biblical teachings then you have no problem accepting indirect evidence as proof. However, when the opposite is true, you’ll continue to raise the necessary level of ‘proof’ until you’ve reached a point that science can never obtain. You’re right, we’ll never observe the “amoeba turning into a creature with legs and crawling out of the primordial goo,” but we don’t have to prove evolution. That’s the point you’re missing.

Next, about your assertion that you cannot make “deductions about what has happened in the past by observing things in the present.” I completely agree in some cases, but, unfortunately, evolution is not one of them. We have lots of evidence about what happened in the past (see: transitional fossils). We have NO evidence that the process by which different species arise on this planet has changed in major way whatsoever from the current mechanism. Do you?

The truth is, evolution has passed in reasonable test of proof. You cannot unfairly single out evolution because it happens to rub you the wrong way. Sorry, but that’s not how we work in the scientific community.

Also, you’re description of the scientific method is incorrect; that maybe what they taught you in sixth grade, but in actual research settings those are never the steps followed. You always develop a hypothesis first and then collect data. A hypothesis is a set of mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive scientific assumptions that are to be tested. This may seem little a meaningless correction to you, but it is actually critical.

Where is the evidence for creationism? I challenge creationists to find one single observation of the natural world that is not just as easily explained by evolution. In essence, I want you find a scientifically verifiable piece of evidence that contradictions evolution and supports creationism. The truth is, no such evidence exists.

Finally, what do you have to say about the bias in your conclusions? I’ll say it again: this is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and cannot be ignored. I am completely willing to refine my beliefs if evidence is discovered that contradictions evolution (or, if the discovered evidence warrants it, completely change them). You have admitted that you are not willing to do this. My question is: how then can put weight in anything you say?

I have no problem with you accepting creationism on faith and faith alone. What I do have a problem with is you attempting to say evolution is a matter of faith. Evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence scientific event that is observable, testable, and repeatable. Creationism is not.