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.
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.
That is most kind of you since before this thread began I told Merle that I did not wish to engage in debate at this time because I simply didn't have the time to do it justice and Merle went ahead and posted false information and asked me to defend my opinions. Now you are saying that you doubt me unless I can take more time that I don't have to prove somthing to you that requires a simple yahoo word search. You people are so kind and thoughtful.
You can start here for the discussion http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Devel...an-air_20solid I am not sure this is the same I saw on the program but it is a place to start, if you are truely that interested, may I suggest you research it yourself in depth.
This article was mentioned further up in this thread. It refutes what you have said here.
Ron
Please read the articles you suggest before posting your opinion, for the article futher supports my position.
Well, maybe you should continue with this discussion, my opinion is looking stronger all the time.
I quote from the article your posted
"These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fairs in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions. These predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover. "
Notice that the it says that in every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contridicted by the empirical evidence. Hummmmmm! Not overwhelming proof! Who could have quessed?!
Please read the articles you suggest before posting your opinion, for the article futher supports my position.
Well, maybe you should continue with this discussion, my opinion is looking stronger all the time.
I quote from the article your posted
"These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fairs in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions. These predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover. "
Notice that the it says that in every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contridicted by the empirical evidence. Hummmmmm! Not overwhelming proof! Who could have quessed?!
How does this support your position Razzelflabben? The only thing stated here is that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence, not that they are contradicted by it. The further aim of the article is that, although it would be very easy to think of empirical evidence contradicting macro evolution, it has not been found. That is the thrust of the article, that evolution can be easily found with the right empirical evidence, but that this evidence has not been found.
__________________
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.
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 </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 </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
But again you miss my point and since the OP boasts to know my opinion, I would think that the discussion should be about my opinion. My opinion is that evocution, creationism, and intelligent design are all theories, not fact. I will add to my opinion here that it seems to follow that anyone who claims otherwise has crossed the line between theory and belief system and thier belief system is open to philosophical questions based thereon.
How does this support your position Razzelflabben? The only thing stated here is that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence, not that they are contradicted by it. The further aim of the article is that, although it would be very easy to think of empirical evidence contradicting macro evolution, it has not been found. That is the thrust of the article, that evolution can be easily found with the right empirical evidence, but that this evidence has not been found.
My assertions:
1. there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution
supported in this article.
2. without overwhelming evidence, evolution is theory and not fact
1. there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution
supported in this article.
Wrong, the article states 29+ different ways of proving/disproving macro evolution and gives an overview of the facts backing up each of these different, independent lines of evidence.
2. without overwhelming evidence, evolution is theory and not fact
again, supported by the article.
The problem is that the article main argument is that there is indeed an overwhelming amount of evidence, which makes evolution theory as good as it gets. No, it will never be fact, but it is as close to fact as you can get with scientific theories. That is the thrust of the article. It does not support your first premise, neither your second.
__________________
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.
But again you miss my point and since the OP boasts to know my opinion, I would think that the discussion should be about my opinion. My opinion is that evocution, creationism, and intelligent design are all theories, not fact. I will add to my opinion here that it seems to follow that anyone who claims otherwise has crossed the line between theory and belief system and thier belief system is open to philosophical questions based thereon.
Hmmm, first to clear up one question I still have. Is the difference between creation and creationism now clear to you? Because you did not seem to understand the distinction made between them by Jet Black.
__________________
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.
My opinion is that evocution, creationism, and intelligent design are all theories, not fact. I will add to my opinion here that it seems to follow that anyone who claims otherwise has crossed the line between theory and belief system and thier belief system is open to philosophical questions based thereon.
And as your opinion, that's fine. However, you should know that it is a false opinion.
The three are not all theories in the same sense. Evolution is the only one that is a theory in the scientific usage of the word; the other two are not, as they have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting them.
In addition, while evolution is a theory, it is also fact. It is as proven as anything in science ever gets. It is as proven as gravity. To doubt this is either to be ignorant or simply in denial of the truth because it offends or violates some other belief.
__________________ 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!
Linear Mode
