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.
You missed the point. There is no such thing as Evolutionary science, like there is no thing as Creation science. Evolution depends upon the evidence found in Operational Science. Evolution is not a science in and of itself, it is a guess at the past based on evidence in the presence. The same evidence in the present can also be used to prove Creation. I just think that more of the evidence supports Creation.
No such thing as Evolutionary science?
Really... that's interesting, interesting indeed.
Then I would suppose that evolutionary physics, biology, and computation do not exist as well?
Evolution is contained with in a branch of science, namely biology. Being its own theory, it can be called a science because we can use it to test observations.
I can prove evolution in a petri dish, that is present evidence based off of a present theory and observation. No dino's needed.
If the evidence we have to prove evolution can also prove creation, then why hasn't the believers jumped on it? I find it strange that this has only been attempted in the failure of I.D.
Quote:
The computer proves that God exists. Since God creates, so must we since we are made in his image. As humans we created the computer.
Not all of us create, some destroy, and others do nothing at all. Are these all because of God? No, it's because we have, you got it, brains.
Quote:
The computer is an intricate machine and requires all of its parts to work together for the whole to operate correctly. So, the computer is deliberately made and no amount of year applied to the raw matterials would cause a computer to arise out of pure chance.
You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis, don't. They are two completely different things. Evolution is so debated because it is viewed as a threat to creation, however, evolution never state how it all started, that would be abiogenesis, which is of course in a completely different subject matter.
The ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution is what makes the debate rage.
Quote:
So the computer proves that intelligence is required for the computer to be created. This can be applied to humans. In order for us to appear on this earth we must have had a creator because we are complex with parts that cannot work independant to the whole or without the hole. Therefore man was created by someone who was intelligent. This someone we call God.
Ever hear of the "Blind Watchmaker"?
It's quite interesting.
To explain it simply:
If you had an infinite amount of junk yards and an infinite amount of tornados, eventually the tornados would make a watch. Thus, the "Blind Watchmaker".
There was an infinite possibility in the creation of earth and its evolution. Anything could have happened and just because we are so complex, it doesn't mean that we're neccessarily made by something intelligent.
Quote:
The thing that concerns ME is all the people out there who don't even know that it is a THEORY of Evolution and beleive it becaue they are told it is true.
To be fair to them there are a lot of people who try to pass it off as PROVEN FACT when it quite simply isn't measurable, demonstrable or repeatable.
True, it is a theory, but I do not know anybody that TEACHES it as truth. Everybody knows that theories can be changed, but does that take anything away from evolution?
Certainly not because that simply means that our knowledge is expanding.
"isn't measurable, demonstrable, or repeatable."
Actually, it is.
There are simple experiments you can run and I will outline it, keep in mind all you need is a petri-dish.
First, grab your select ameoba and a petri-dish.
Feed them the correct food until a colony forms.
Now that the colony has formed feed them a slightly different food.
Those that can digest the food will live, those that cannot will die.
Thus, the new generation and future generations from this batch will be able to survive off of both food types.
Repeat until you get the drift.
Now, for repeatable...
Grab the same original ameoba type and do the experiment over again.
For measurable...
Simply count the amount of ameoba that live from the original and then compare it to something larger. Math equations follow this...
So, that's repeatability, measurability, and a demonstration.
Or, you know. You can ask any farmer as to why the same pesticide is never as effective the second time it's used.
There are simple experiments you can run and I will outline it, keep in mind all you need is a petri-dish.
First, grab your select ameoba and a petri-dish.
Feed them the correct food until a colony forms.
Now that the colony has formed feed them a slightly different food.
Those that can digest the food will live, those that cannot will die.
Thus, the new generation and future generations from this batch will be able to survive off of both food types.
Repeat until you get the drift.
Now, for repeatable...
Grab the same original ameoba type and do the experiment over again.
For measurable...
Simply count the amount of ameoba that live from the original and then compare it to something larger. Math equations follow this...
So, that's repeatability, measurability, and a demonstration.
Or, you know. You can ask any farmer as to why the same pesticide is never as effective the second time it's used.
OK so you have given me your method and postulated your results but I do not see your remarks, discusion or conclusion.
Have you analysed your amoeba's DNA - is there new information created or do they have additional chromosones? Are there any beings in your dish that are not amoeba (that were bred from amoeba).
You are presupposing that if one believes in creation that one does not believe in adaptiing to the environment. Take a bunch of people, some fit some sickly nad some in between and stick them in a harsh environment for a hundred years and there will be few sickly ones left - and hereidtary traits will have been passed on more vigorously by the fit, but there won't be any with four arms who live very long...
I fail to see that you have measured or demonstrated anything that tests the Origin of the Species - I accept that Survival of the Fittest is demonstrable and repeable and given enough resoures quite likely measurable. If I have given the impresiion that I take issue with the basic principles of survival then I apologise.
It is the extrapolation from this observation to a completely different one REQUIRING an ancient earth that I regard as a religion.
The ironic thing is that he could have avoided that little embarrassment simply by reading the link I provided when I first referenced the strawman fallacy.
RAOFLMAO - you actually think you have embarrassed ... who?
Really? That's quite interesting. My wife, who is a devout atheist, probably couldn't even tell you who Darwin was.
Fair enough - I cannot speak for everyone and should not try - I apologise for my hubris. If I may adjust my "truism" with no proof I would postulate that the majority of cultutres have developed some explanation of origin - in general involvong some supernatural force.
Quote:
Of course, she grew up in an entirely different culture where bashing people over the head with religious beliefs and trying to force people to believe in God was seen as pretty childish and downright ridiculous.
As it is in ours - who has tried to force you recently or even bashed you over the head?
Quote:
Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. I threw God in the garbage dumpster long before I ever attempted to understand evolution.
Hmmm... however you live in a society that until the ToE was essentially Christian by default and there is little doubt that the power of the church at that time was targeted and damaged by the ToE regardless of whether that is seen as a good or bad thing. Without knowing your own cultural background it is hard for me to comment but it is also hard to divorce one's own experience from that of the society you are a part of. I grew up a "devout athiest" and was well known for persecuting the foolish - I learned about the Big Bang and Evolution before I knew anything much about God, so I understand what you say about your own thoughts as an individual - I ma talking here of social pressures that come about rather than individual though processes.
Quote:
Yes, evolution does explain a lot of things, but it's not a precursor or an excuse for not believing in God. The mere notion of some man in the sky making things is enough for me to discard the idea in the first place. I didn't need any help from evolution in helping me make my choice nor did my wife. It does explain a lot, but it's in no way the mode in which I decided to "kill God".
You are right again of course: To some He is the "fragrance of life" to others the "smell of death".
Life a few billion years ago decided to have a crack at turning into us.
Consciousness may be a bigger deal that you immediately realise.
For we can consider, if not encompass, the infinite.
Mankind guesses
The God
the infinite
The one reality
Infinite power infinite grace
Hmmm... however you live in a society that until the ToE was essentially Christian by default and there is little doubt that the power of the church at that time was targeted and damaged by the ToE regardless of whether that is seen as a good or bad thing.
The enlightment had been going strong for two centuries by the time Darwin published Origin. I think you need to be railing against things like heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, and Newtonian mechanics if you want to find scientific advancements correlating with the decline of Christian theocracy. Of course, claiming that the idea that germs cause disease is a direct attack on Christianity isn't going to find you much support. Substituting evolution doesn't make your ideas any more believable - actually less so, considering the damage to the church was long done by the mid 1800s.
This was your ref so I didn't quote it - the link was there to follow.
Quote:
Note also that the result of this mutation was not that something new like an extra bone that happened but rather that less died - more bred.
Point being? Most mutations are very small. That is why it takes such a long time frame for significant change.
Of course, you've tried to switch goalposts here. I posted that link as an example of information being added. Something you said does not exist and I quote:
Quote:
was given to show ADDitive mutation - I suggest YOU read it again. It talks about a beneficial DELETION. I don't need to give an example since you gave one for me.
I might add that you were referring to the very article we are talking about. The one which I just proved contains the claims which you said were not present.
You can't get a much clearer rebuttal.
Quote:
So if science can be wrong...
doesn't that mean...
that the theory of evolution...
could be wrong?
Yes it could. The thing is, in order for the ToE to be considered Scientifically unsound, the massive amount of evidence which supports it would have to be discredited.
Just because science recognizes that it is not infallible does not mean it is wrong.
Quote:
BLASPHEMY - burn him!
I tend to leave that kind of thinking to the religious fanatics.
Quote:
Admit it. If tomorrow the Earth is Proved to be less than 10,000,000 years old it would all be out on its bumpy bits.
Yep, it would. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable.
Quote:
What happens to the theory when it turns out to be about 6000 years.
Within science, the evidence determines the conclusions. So in the extremely unlikely event that the earth proved to be that young, it would definitely change our thinking about a great many scientific fields; evolutionary biology included.
Of course, given the massive amount of evidence behind our scientific knowledge relating to the age of the earth in numerous fields such as astronomy, geology, and biology, the chances of that sort of thing happening are effectively nil.
Quote:
Hey those of you who have actually studied science at University - isn't it great how the most improtant part of lab reports is explaining why your results DONT agree with the theory (LOL)
I honestly don't know what you are trying for with this one. Scientific theories are typically very well founded pieces of knowledge which have been verified by repeated experimentation and independent review.
If testing doesn't agree with a scientific theory, then the theory has to be altered to fit the facts(after the new data is verified of course).
You are probably thinking of a scientific hypothesis. They get disproved by testing quite often.
Quote:
That is because those things are demonstrable as opposed to imaginable.
You apply a voltage to the gate of a transistor and the current flows - it can be measured, demonstrated, is repeatable. The Faith of Evolution can be none of these. It must be accepted as a religion and is defended with the same fervour. You accept it as proven because according to your world view it COULD have happened thus it must have.
None of that statement is accurate. I am sure you believe it, but that doesn't matter. Post your rhetoric if you must, but don't expect me, or anyone else who actually knows anything about the ToE or even science in general to take it seriously.
Quote:
Oh come on can't you see the humour - not even a bit - it was a joke!Oh NOW your smiling that's better.
I did apologise.
So, in other words, you chose to respond to my pointing out a logical fallacy in your thinking by making an unrelated joke which in turn served to evidence my prior claims that you don't actually read the material you are criticizing?
Indeed, that is rather humorous.
Quote:
In the end you see my faith as ridiculous.
Yep.
Quote:
I see your faith as ill founded.
Except it isn't a faith as you use the term, regardless of whether or not you say it is. Faith is a word in the English language that has specific meanings. The definition which I am guessing you are referring to "A religious faith" or similar simply have no bearing on my thoughts regarding science.
I am sure you would like to believe they do, and I am sure you are going to continue to say that they do, but they don't.
Quote:
We are unlikely to change one another's views.
True enough. Of course, I debate for fun. Also, others obviously read these little debates on occasion, so there is something of a point to it.
Quote:
I can see that at least you have put some though and study into what you believe - that doesn't make you right but does show a rresponsible approach to your faith.
Refer back to my previous statement about the misapplication of the word faith.
Quote:
The thing that concerns ME is all the people out there who don't even know that it is a THEORY of Evolution and beleive it becaue they are told it is true.
To be fair to them there are a lot of people who try to pass it off as PROVEN FACT when it quite simply isn't measurable, demonstrable or repeatable.
What disturbs me are the people who don't realize that it is in fact measurable, demonstrable, and repeatable and that it is one of the most well supported pieces of scientific knowledge that we have.
What really disturbs me is that religious fundamentalists will cheerfully deny or dismiss all of this evidence without even considering it. All the while they do so without even attempting to be objective in their evaluation of the data.
Quote:
RAOFLMAO - you actually think you have embarrassed ... who?
Nah. You embarrassed yourself without my help on that one. Whether or not you admit it is irrelevant.
Bugs me how people often try to apply there own mindset to things like this. nothing in science is considered "infalible". But evolution sits very, very low, on the list of questianable theory. Mainly because we have so much evidence of it all around us.
P.S. I personaly hate the term "evolution" it sugest rising up becoming smarter, more like us, when that just isn't what its saying. and anyway, we just arn't so freaken great, if you where to make a scale say putting jellyfish (a good example of evolution at work) at one, and the smartest caporeal being you could imagine at ten we would barly make a two
The deal with evolution is that things change over time. That notion seems to terrify some folks, for whatever reason. But it's inevitable. And the change is often for the better. It's not something to be feared and resisted.
In the past 2000 years, the Christian faith itself has evolved considerably. There were no Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc back then. Now, they're all considered mainstream.
This has absolutely nothing to do with your original claim. I missed the point indeed.
(Your locic is faulty; i.e, who created God? If you claim that God - an incredibly complex entity - can exist without need for creation, then your logic fails again.)
God does not need a creator because he IS. This is the crux of it. There is no need for the creator to have a creator.
God does not need to prove himself or that he exists because that would put the proof or logic greater than himself. When he says he is that is all that we need. This is logical.
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.
Time finite yet great
What's the deal with evolution?
