Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
mams1559, If creationists claim to have solid scientific proof to back up their theory why don't they publish all of this data in a legitimate scientific manner? I say to creationists, put up or shut up (in a nice way of course). I mentioned on another post a few things that prove conclusively that the earth is very ancient such as ice core sampes from the polar regions which show at least 160,000 years of accumulation, the fact that sea floor spreading and the movement of the tektonic plates is clearly documented and reveals millions of years of activity, the accumulation of vast deposits of coal which required millions of years to form, and on and on. These creationists websites are peddling alot of nonsense. They sprinkle a little technical jargon to make people think they're saying something important but they're not. I'm not claiming that science has discovered everything about life's origins but a great deal is known and they're going about it in an accepted manner. Creationists are concocting preposterous scenarios to try to explain their Sunday school stories but they're failing miserably. Again I ask, if there is scientific proof that backs up creationism why don't they publish it?
mams1559, If creationists claim to have solid scientific proof to back up their theory why don't they publish all of this data in a legitimate scientific manner? I say to creationists, put up or shut up (in a nice way of course). I mentioned on another post a few things that prove conclusively that the earth is very ancient such as ice core sampes from the polar regions which show at least 160,000 years of accumulation, the fact that sea floor spreading and the movement of the tektonic plates is clearly documented and reveals millions of years of activity, the accumulation of vast deposits of coal which required millions of years to form, and on and on. These creationists websites are peddling alot of nonsense. They sprinkle a little technical jargon to make people think they're saying something important but they're not. I'm not claiming that science has discovered everything about life's origins but a great deal is known and they're going about it in an accepted manner. Creationists are concocting preposterous scenarios to try to explain their Sunday school stories but they're failing miserably. Again I ask, if there is scientific proof that backs up creationism why don't they publish it?
In my post where I stated "different starting point" I meant to convey a different worldview, a different presupposition. Example: Evolutionists begin with the presupposition that all life came from random chance happenings and Creationists begin with the presupposition that all life came from God.
The bolded section is false.
As I stated, science begins with observation.
This is the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Forming a hypothesis.
3. Using the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or the results of other observations.
4. Experimental testing by independent researchers.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
The theory of evolution satisfies each step. Creationism does not. Indeed, creationism cannot be science because it involves supernatural explanations. Science uses only natural forces in explaining the universe. A hypothesis based on the supernatural cannot be used to predict nor test anything. One requirement of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. Anything involving God cannot be falsified, and therefore is not science.
Back to the bolded section. First of all, the theory of evolution does not state that the diversity of life is entirely random. Mutations are random, yes, but natural selection is not. Secondly, the theory of evolution is a conclusion, not a presupposition. The theory began with step one above; observation. On the other hand, AiG does indeed begin with a presupposition, so it not only doesn't follow the scientific method, but seeks to find support for its biased position.
mams1559, If creationists claim to have solid scientific proof to back up their theory why don't they publish all of this data in a legitimate scientific manner? I say to creationists, put up or shut up (in a nice way of course). I mentioned on another post a few things that prove conclusively that the earth is very ancient such as ice core sampes from the polar regions which show at least 160,000 years of accumulation, the fact that sea floor spreading and the movement of the tektonic plates is clearly documented and reveals millions of years of activity, the accumulation of vast deposits of coal which required millions of years to form, and on and on. These creationists websites are peddling alot of nonsense. They sprinkle a little technical jargon to make people think they're saying something important but they're not. I'm not claiming that science has discovered everything about life's origins but a great deal is known and they're going about it in an accepted manner. Creationists are concocting preposterous scenarios to try to explain their Sunday school stories but they're failing miserably. Again I ask, if there is scientific proof that backs up creationism why don't they publish it?
When a creationist trys to publish their findings in a peer-review journal, the "peers" never let it get published. Oh, believe me, creationsists submit their work, but their "peers" won't publish it. And not because it's lacking scientifically or is "bad science", but because it contradicts what the peers "believe" has already been established.
I encourage you to look at the answersingenesis website. They have articles on each of the topics you list above. So when you claim ice core readings and the like, I've already read both sides of the argument and find the evidence that supports the Bible more convincing. Also, a creation scientist, Dr John Baumgardner, (one of the few to actually get published) is a world leader in plate tectonics and has a super-computer model that has been widely accepted and it supports a Biblical viewpoint. And the scientist who produced the work "Starlight & Time" has had it published and to date there haven't been any scientifically valid points raised to dispute his findings .. and it also supports a Biblical perspective. Imagine that Their work is listed on the above website. You may think some of the articles are "non-scientific", but it gives the references to where the meat of the matter can be found.
You know, MontanaGuy, I appreciate your skepticism and where you're coming from/what you believe. I really do. You really make me work to show support for my opinions For those who share my opinions, I hope I'm doing right by them.
3. Using the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or the results of other observations.
4. Experimental testing by independent researchers.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
The theory of evolution satisfies each step. Creationism does not. Indeed, creationism cannot be science because it involves supernatural explanations. Science uses only natural forces in explaining the universe. A hypothesis based on the supernatural cannot be used to predict nor test anything. One requirement of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. Anything involving God cannot be falsified, and therefore is not science.
Back to the bolded section. First of all, the theory of evolution does not state that the diversity of life is entirely random. Mutations are random, yes, but natural selection is not. Secondly, the theory of evolution is a conclusion, not a presupposition. The theory began with step one above; observation. On the other hand, AiG does indeed begin with a presupposition, so it not only doesn't follow the scientific method, but seeks to find support for its biased position.
Who has observed evolution..changing from one thing into another completely new thing? Don't provide examples of adaptation, either. Tell me who has observed the addition of information into DNA to allow it to become something it wasn't already programmed to be? Variation within a kind is not evolution - it is speciation/natural selection/adaptation and works with the information already provided in the DNA. To truly evolve you would need to have an increase in information in the DNA to allow something to become a totally new something else.
Also, I didn't say creationism was science -- I said it is a belief that uses science, the same as evolution. Evolution cannot be observed or repeated either. It is a belief that attempts to use science to substantiate itself. I encourage you to look here for a better explanation of what I'm trying to get across: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...aq/science.asp
Who has observed evolution..changing from one thing into another completely new thing?
You misunderstand the application of observation. (Before I explain, I might ask who has observed special creation?)
We need not directly observe something to explain, study and test it. No one has seen plates move, but plate tectonics is a valid theory. No one has seen electrons move through conductors, yet here we are communicating over the internet. No one has seen a germ cause illness, but germ theory is alive and well. We can predict the temperature of the surface of the sun even though no one has ever visited the sun.
What has been observed is the diversity of life. The ToE describes how this diversity comes about. As an example, the ToE predicts that human fossils will not be found among trilobite fossils, and this prediction holds true. Creationism, on the other hand, would predict that all fossils be found among all others. This has not been shown to be true.
Who has observed evolution..changing from one thing into another completely new thing? Don't provide examples of adaptation, either. Tell me who has observed the addition of information into DNA to allow it to become something it wasn't already programmed to be? Variation within a kind is not evolution - it is speciation/natural selection/adaptation and works with the information already provided in the DNA. To truly evolve you would need to have an increase in information in the DNA to allow something to become a totally new something else.
Also, I didn't say creationism was science -- I said it is a belief that uses science, the same as evolution. Evolution cannot be observed or repeated either. It is a belief that attempts to use science to substantiate itself. I encourage you to look here for a better explanation of what I'm trying to get across: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...aq/science.asp
That's a good post right there.
I asked the same question some time ago and the only sound I heard was crickets<chirp, chirp, chirp>
My question, more specifically, was who/what/when/where was natural selection renamed to microevolution. (Interesting, my spell check just highlighted that word....as if it doesn't exist.)
Anyway, seems like a word play so that at the end of the day (and this has happened to me in these forums) someone can say, 'Oh, you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, how convenient!'(strange, my spell check did the same thing to that word, too)
Anyway, good posts mams. Wonder why no one 'debunked' your links from this post??.......
Astronomy - actually disproves evolution in many respects, including the planet Mercury itself. Mercury just shouldn't be if you follow the evolution pardigm. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/mercury.asp & http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp (broken link)
Last edited by Alpha8207; 05-22-2007 at 01:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). I mentioned on another post a few things that prove conclusively that the earth is very ancient such as ice core sampes from the polar regions which show at least 160,000 years of accumulation, the fact that sea floor spreading and the movement of the tektonic plates is clearly documented and reveals millions of years of activity, the accumulation of vast deposits of coal which required millions of years to form, and on and on. These creationists websites are peddling alot of nonsense. They sprinkle a little technical jargon to make people think they're saying something important but they're not. I'm not claiming that science has discovered everything about life's origins but a great deal is known and they're going about it in an accepted manner. Creationists are concocting preposterous scenarios to try to explain their Sunday school stories but they're failing miserably. Again I ask, if there is scientific proof that backs up creationism why don't they publish it?
Evolutionists won't allow it
Their work is listed on the above website. You may think some of the articles are "non-scientific", but it gives the references to where the meat of the matter can be found.
