Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Saw a scientific program on it some time ago, it was quite interesting to say the least. I do not recall the name of the substance. I would imagine a little research would reveal that info.
And we will be waiting here untill you have done your research. Somehow I am really intrested in this claim, and I am equally intrested if it's got any truth in it. Then again, I am not going to do your reasearch for you. You make the claim, well you back it up.
But we aren't the top being because of evolution. We're the top being because of technology. Our ancestors, H. Habilis started us down the technology highway that's led to where we are today. But guess what? Take away our technology and we're pretty wimpy. No fangs or venom, no thick hide or horns, no claws, heck, we can't even stay in 70% of the earths surface because we don't have gills, and another 15-25% because we don't have fur. You're mistakenly conflating our technological superiority with evolutionary superiority.
This is exactly the point I was making. Man is vastly different from the other animals and thus, how can your belief system answer these differences. Without technology, man did not have the necessary design to survive to the present age. No fur to keep warm, not claws to kill food, etc. There is a gap in the theory that no one has yet answered and when asked about it, most run and hide claiming that the theory doesn't address the issue. Maybe the theory needs to address the issue before it calls itself fact.
And we're not even really that superior - the humble bacteria and virus can stike us down. Some "super-bug" strains of staph are resistant to anti-biotics and we're in a constant race against new strains of flu, while there's no vaccine for HIV and Ebola. One pandemic could severely disrupt human life.
All species are suseptable to illness, this is not so different.
I don't know where you get "evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature." That's nowhere in evolutionary thoery. Technology does not cause evolution.
But the ability to survive does and man does not have that built in equipment for survival. What we have for survival is not mirrored in any other creature.
We have evolved since H. Habilis into H. Erectus and now H. Sapiens, but that has been due to genetic change over time and population isolation that allowed new traits to build up in a species. If anything, technology, because it allows virtually anyone to breed with anyone else has put the brakes on human evolution, because there's no need to sexually select for fitness and there's no truly isolated populations for genetic change to build up over time.
And how can we prove that we have evolved? My whole point, long and short of it is that we can interprete the data in more ways than are being presented, which in turns means that the proof is not there. It is possible that H.Havilis and H. Erectus were two completely different creatures with similar structure. Today we can see that Crocadiles and Alligators have similare structures, are they missing links to some other chain of changes? How do we know?
Actually, because science works by disproving theories, things like Paluxy turning out to be frauds bolster the status quo. Part of evolutionary theory is that beings that did't exist together won't be found in the same geological strata. Paluxy being a fraud would just be a confirmation of that observation. On the flip side, if humans and dinosaurs did walk together, it would mean that human evolution would need to be re-evaluated. Unless we started finding other incongruities from the standard fossil record, the rest of evolutionary theory would be unaffected.
But I have no interest in disproving any theory other than that evolution is not fact. So the point is invalid because either way, nothing is proven.
Creationism (young earth, instant special creation of species) is a falsified theory. Geologists have known for over 150 years that the earth is old and it's topography is not the result of Noah's flood. Biologists have shown over the last 150 years that species were not instantly and specially created.
I hear this arguement all the time from evolutionists and it would seem from my discussions that the entire proof surrounds old earth, new earth claims. The problem is, C and ID neither one are disproven by old earth claims. It only proves the possibility for evolution which does not equal proof that it is fact. This is one of the reasons that Merle started this thread, because I said that it didn't matter to my theory whether the earth was young or old and therefore he felt compelled to argue evolution with me.
Intelligent Design is God of the Gaps. It points to areas where we have incomplete knowledge and says, "God did it." That's not science, and it's not a theory.
I am sorry but I must differ with you there, at least from the standpoint of my theory and belief system. It is more than filling in the gaps, but it does help create gaps in your theory.
You seem to have some confusion about theory and fact. This is a common occurance. Evolution has occured. This is a fact. The theory of evolution explains why evolution occured. This essay from Talk.Origins might help explain how the two words are used in describing evolution and hopefully will clear up your confusion.
I understand the difference, but still maintain, the evolution is a theory and that the so called overwhelming evidence can have different interpretations. Looking at these possible interpretations would be good science.
Could you define what a "kind" is? I've never gotten a definition from creationists that didn't basically mean "species." If kind means species, then we have indeed seen populations of beings that in very short spans of time have been observed to become seperate species (i.e. can't breed with each other).
Simple genetics, lions, have baby lions, iguanas, baby iguanas, etc. This allows for mirco evolution, because it is genetic.
The sentence I've blued shows you're either ignorant of the scientific method, or you've been fed the cock and bull story of creationist apologists about direct observation being the only method of observation.
Do you watch CSI? Notice how there's rarely, if ever a witness to the murder? And yet the investigators are able to use science (and it's theories) to prove what happened. The same applies to evolution. We have a myriad of methods of investigating whether evolution has occured.
Sticking with the CSI motif, let's take two staples of the show - Skeletal remains and DNA - and see if there are evidences supporting evolution.
Here are 14 skulls. The first is a chimpanzee. The last is a modern human. Can you point to the dividing line between ape and human, and explain why. I'd also like to ask, if every "kind" was specially created, why do we have this seemless change in skull morphology? Or if you want to suggest design, why does it appear that the "designer" was tinkering with his design over the eons?
Possible theories to the data, 1. a new species, 2. a link to evolution, 3. hoax, 4. incomplete skeletal remains. So how them does this prove evolution? As to the question about morphology. We see related species in our world today, take primates for example.
Now let's move to the DNA lab. Endogenous retroviruses are when a virus inserts its DNA into a hosts DNA which can be passed down to the descendants of the host. There are at least 7 examples found in both chimps and humans. How could we share the genetic leftover of a viral infection from one of our ancestors, unless we shared a common ancestor?
Is eboli not passed form primaties to man? Not proof of anything but that the genetic makeup is similar enough to share certain diseases. Possible theory, it's all about the possibles.
T
here are literally tons of other evidence that is not circumstantial or circumspect, but directly points to evolution having occured as explained in the Theory of Evolution.
(I'm breaking this up in parts for space and clarity)
<snip>What science has seen is micro evolution. This is not disproven in the alternate theories of C and ID. There has been no evidence as far as I know to macro evolution and if there has, please show us. And no, cloning and introvitero is not evidence.
Yet someone else on this thread says that creationism has been disproven. Which is scientifically correct?
And when you can show me in science how this is proven, we can have an intelligent discussion. Untill then, I can only assume you are blowing smoke to make a point.
I will likely be unable to respond because of my work schedule (and the fact that I do most of my substantive replies from there), but your reply to far elicits a That's no indightment of you, but only of what you seem to understand of science and evolutionary theory.
If no one addresses it before Wednesday night, I will get back to you.
And to set the proper tone. Thanks for replying. I never want these exchanges to become "you vs. me," and I realize that can be the case in a reply sans smilies. So here's some more.
Thank you again for your reply, and if my repsonses to them take a few days, I beg you give me a few days break for them.
Saw a scientific program on it some time ago, it was quite interesting to say the least. I do not recall the name of the substance. I would imagine a little research would reveal that info.
I would imagine it would not. I doubt VERY much if such a substance exists, and believe you have probably misunderstood something you saw. However, it's up to you to demonstrate such. You made the claim, please present evidence to support it.
I shall wait for that evidence, and also wait for the complete revolutionizing of the entire modern world that the discovery of such a substance would result in (imagine passenger airplanes that weighed a few ounces fully loaded...a car that weighed a pound. The ramifications are so far-reaching that I'm confident in saying that no such substance exists, or we would have heard of it long since).
__________________ The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
I would imagine it would not. I doubt VERY much if such a substance exists, and believe you have probably misunderstood something you saw. However, it's up to you to demonstrate such. You made the claim, please present evidence to support it.
A little research reveals that razzleflabben probably means aerogel, a kind of silicon sponge that, if saturated with helium, appears to be lighter than air. This is not mentioned in the Nasa article above, but Googling for aerogel "lighter than air" gives a bunch of hits that indicates this is possible.
creation has not been disproven, since the fact that we exist proves we were created,
Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Yet someone else on this thread says that creationism has been disproven. Which is scientifically correct?
Just to clear up some semantics here. There is a difference between creation and creationism. With creation we mean the fact that we have been created. This is undoubtably true, since we are here to discuss this. Whether creation occurred through abiogenesis and evolution, intelligent design or creationism is what is discussed here.
With creationism we mean the model put forth by creationists stating that the earth was created by (the christian) God. I hope the distinction between the two is clear from this. It's just a semantics thingie to keep people from getting confused.
Creationism as a model/theory has been falsified. There are different threads discussing this. What is most compelling (in my opinion) against creationism is the fact that each thread in which creationists discuss evidence in favor of creationism, they in fact only discuss evidence http://www.christianforums.com/t724847][/i]against evolution. When asked to present evidence in favorof creationism, they come up with nothing.
Evolution threads on the other hand tend to discuss both evidence http://www.christianforums.com/t721763][/i]in favor of evolution and evidenceagainst creationism.
Just as a side note, the threads mentioned might not be the best demonstration. I just don't have time to read through all of them
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
I shall wait for that evidence, and also wait for the complete revolutionizing of the entire modern world that the discovery of such a substance would result in (imagine passenger airplanes that weighed a few ounces fully loaded...a car that weighed a pound. The ramifications are so far-reaching that I'm confident in saying that no such substance exists, or we would have heard of it long since).
Well Aerogel is actually lighter than air when it's saturated with Helium. However we couldn't just build airplanes, etc. out of it because it certainly wouldn't be lighter than air once you put people on board, plus the fuel, and the engines.
As I read your post I am not sure if you understand what I purpose or if you are still judging my opinions on what Merle has said, COMMENTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. At times I think you get what I really believe and then I read on and wonder if you really do. I have NO interest in proving or disproving any of the theories! I am not saying that evolution is false, only that it is not fact. Only that science cannot prove evolution or disprove C or ID. In fact, since it is possible within the theory of ID to include some evolutionary theory, an attempt to prove ID over evolution would be strawman to say the least. I have read your post and still assert that evolution is theory and not fact and here are the reasons why...
Originally Posted by USincognito
Part 2 and I'll try not to step on stuff Jet's already covered.
Flood Geology was falsified 150+ years ago by Christian geologists who were investigating the creator by studying his creation. What they discovered was that geology pointed away from a flood and away from a young earth.
For an in depth () discussion with evidences and claims by both sides, check out this Talk Origins essay and you'll see that claims about the flood flounder. ()
Now my point is made if I simply give possible solutions that are not discussed, so let us look at the questions provided in this resference.
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
For there to be a world wide flood, it would have taken time for all the world to be covered by the water and could explain at least some of the difference in erosion. Further erosion could be caused by environmental changes specific to the area.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series?
Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
Where does the water come from for the ice to form?
How are the polar ice caps even possible?
Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
The depth of the water and the time required are not known and therefore, there is no real way to answer these questions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors?
A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
First, unless things have changed dramatically since I studied this, we cannot reach the floor of every ocean for this type of data. Secondly, the data we are searching for could be uncharacteristic for the bottom of the ocean and have changed over time. Thridly, If a world wide flood did exist, much of the fossil finds would be elsewhere than the ocean floor.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating?
Now I really am limited in time and requested many times that Merle not engage me in this debate until I had more time. So I will not look at all these references at this time. What I will say is that there are alternative explainations and this is what I have said from the start. I am not here to prove or disprove any theory, only to prove that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution. The very fact that there are other possible answers is enough to prove my point.
That would be partially correct. It's not always changing, and the fundamentals of evolutionary theory haven't changed since Darwin's time. New discoveries (like DNA and new fossils) help to tweak the specifics. That's how science works. When a new edition comes out, that becomes the standard.
A lot of creationists take this to be a weakness because their beliefs are based on the faith in the Bible which doesn't change (much), and for them something set in stone is better than something which grows and improves with new knowledge. But let me ask you something. Do you do your taxes on an abbacus?
I am not a lot of creationists, please don't confuse me as such. My beliefs of the origins of this world have nothing to do with this discussion. In fact, if I did believe in the evolutionary theory, I would still be having this discussion with you. Theory is theory, not fact!
I doubt you've heard reputable biologists or geologists debating this. There is debate amongst biologists about specifics of evolutionary theory, but there is no debate as to whether evolution has occured. One thing to keep in mind about verbal debates is that a lot creationists are not professional scientists, but professional debators. They sound very convincing, but only until you start digging into their claims and you see how weak they are.
You do not know of my background, word to the wise, don't assume to know who I am or what I believe and why I believe it.
As to the overwhelming evidence for evolution. It's there, you're just blinding yourself to it.
If it is there, then present it rather than beating around the bush.
I'm not going to respond to the what you and Merle were discussing, but I want to take this opportunity to correct you on something. Science isn't about interpretations. You don't interpret data. It's not art or rhythmic gymnastics. The data stands or falls on it's own.
I appreciate leaving Merle's and my discussion out of this debate I have been trying to get him to do so for quite some time now. But if one does not interpret the data, when where do theories come from?
Science also doesn't start with an assumption, and then set out to prove the assumption correct - that's what creationism does. And the last time they tried 150+ years ago, they proved a young earth and instant special creation of the species was false. What science does is observe - then formulate a theory to explain the observations - then observe some more to see if it buttresses or demolishes the theory. For the last 150 years, the observations have done nothing but shore up evolution.
Be careful here, this assumes you know what I believe, I assure you you do not. So show us the overwhelming proof of evolution. The data that can be reproduced to show that animals evolved and are evolving. I thought the theory stated that it happens over millions of years yet you are talking about only the last 150+
Rubbish. Even if everyone or if no one believed something, that would in no way effect the percentage of its possibility. What effects somethings possibility is evidence that supports it actually existing or happening. Not how many people believe (in) it.
Before the theory of evolution came to be, was there 0% possibility that it existed? The possibiltiy of somthing existing is not known without the theory. Thus, a theory holds a possibility until or unless proven or disproven.
Math has done no such thing, nor could it. For one thing the possibility of evolutionary theory being correct is 50/50 - either it is, or it isn't. That's how science works. We're not determining probably of a winning Lottery ticket being sold. We're looking at mountains of evidence from fossils and DNA and trying to determine if the observations match the theory. They do.
You prove my point, because you yourself say that science is trying to determine. If we are trying to determine, then how can we say they do? This is a contridiction in your own words. We would not try to determine and fit the observations into our theories if they already fit.
We're discussing science here. The philosophy department is in another building. As long as creationists continue to seperate "facts" from "TRVTH"TM then they'll never understand why they just don't get that possibility and probabilty have nothing to do with things that are factual or true. They're either true or their not.
And yet by your own statement, we do not know if they are facts. It is the assertion that evolution is fact that I call into question, not the evolutionary theory itself.
Here's that magic word "proof." Proof is for logic, math and liquor. Science does provide evidence that evolution has occurred sufficient to call it a fact. And please reread what I wrote above about science not being an interpretation of data. That's your misconception of it... not a fact.
See above.
The skulls and DNA in my previous post are from the essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution written by a Christian biologist. There are evidences there showing how evolution is a fact - and more importantly - potential falsifications for each of the evidences. That is why science isn't about interpretation. Each claim of evidence must be able to be falsified.
First off how does a paper written by a Christian biologist prove or disprove my claim? Secondly, if the observation is falsified, then how is it proof of anything. If I falsify my college gpa, am I more intelligant then I am?
Let me give you an analogy to show your claim of interpretation if wrong.
The theory is a shoe.
The evidence is a foot.
Either the foot fits the shoe, or you need to get a new shoe.
You don't change the foot to fit the shoe.
If your claim of interpretation in science was valid, that would be the equivilent of changing the foot instead of the shoe.
But, the shoe can go on a foot that is too large or too small. It just doesn't fit right. Therefore my claim that there is not overwhelming proof of any of the origin theories.
And as far as evidence goes, creationists just blind themselves to it. Check out what happened in this thread where we were asked to show creationists transitional fossils.
Again, word to the wise, do not assume to know what I believe.
Again, science is not an interpretation of the data. It's an observation of the data, which is checked to see if it fits the theory, or if the thoery must be discarded. Let's use CSI again. When they investigate a murder and take hair and blood samples, do they interpret it into a case? No, they'd be laughed out of court. They develop a theory based on observations (Joe was caught driving the victims car), then check the gathered evidence to see if it matches the theory (victims hair and blood on Joe's clothes) in order to bolster or dismiss (no evidence, Joe no longer a suspect) the case.
And they often have more than one working theory. So again, we see further evidence that the theory of evolution is only that, a theory.
That's how science works.
And speaking of fallible man. Wouldn't a man made particular interpretation of Genesis be just as likely to be incorrect as a man made scientific theory or man made muder prosocution case?
My point made for me again! evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are all theories. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's no indightment of you, but only of what you seem to understand of science and evolutionary theory.
Thanks for replying. 
) discussion with evidences and claims by both sides, check out 
First off how does a paper written by a Christian biologist prove or disprove my claim? Secondly, if the observation is falsified, then how is it proof of anything. If I falsify my college gpa, am I more intelligant then I am?
Linear Mode
