How much longer?

[JonFromMinnesota]

Incidentally, if creation science were given even a fraction of the exposure that evolution has in the media, I wonder how many more would start to challenge the evolutionary view of origins?

Creationism is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Creationism is not testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science. This is why it is not taught in science classrooms. Because it is complete nonsense. Keep it in a religious studies class.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Creationism is not testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science. This is why it is not taught in science classrooms. Because it is complete nonsense. Keep it in a religious studies class.

And comedy shows.

 

[asherahSamaria]

I've yet to hear a rational explanantion for how the universe and life could have got started all on their own. In the absence of any such explanantion, to accept that the creator God of the Bible did it makes much more sense to me.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Religion:-
Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Since there is no scientific proof that the universe and subsequent life came into being all on its own without divine power, then atheism is by definition, a belief. There is nothing underhand about pointing that out as it's in the dictionaries, just one of which I have quoted from above. The only difference between Atheist beliefs and Christian's beliefs is that Christians know who they believe to be the creator, whereas Atheists have no idea and have to keep coming up with ever more fanciful ideas to explain everything.

Incorrect. Atheism addresses a single issue - do gods exist. Atheist's reject all the god claims. It says nothing about proof of how the universe come into being or how life started.

 

[mickiio]

Creationism is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Creationism is not testable or falsifiable. Therefore it is not science. This is why it is not taught in science classrooms. Because it is complete nonsense. Keep it in a religious studies class.

Neither is Darwinian Evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Neither is Darwinian Evolution

According to the Science Council (UK):

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

• Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
• Evidence
• Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
• Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
• Repetition
• Critical analysis
• Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

That would suggest that it is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How much longer do you think creationism will be tolerated in the US?

Actually I was wondering how much longer the falsified theory of evolution will be tolerated?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

According to the Science Council (UK):

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

• Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
• Evidence
• Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
• Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
• Repetition
• Critical analysis
• Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

That would suggest that it is.

Let's look at those.

• Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)

So we observe an Asian mate with an African and produce an Afro-Asian. We observe a Husky mate with a Mastiff and produce a Chinook. Yet you ignore the observations and propose a process never once observed, that of one creature evolving into another.

• Evidence

So you call Darwin's Finches that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring before your very eyes separate species - against your own definition of species.

• Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses

So you ignore the only experimental "Benchmark" evidence done with actual breeding or pollinating animals and plants in the last 200+ years.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

• Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples

So you ignore that only when you observe infraspecific taxa mate with other infraspecific taxa (Asian/African; Husky/Mastiff, etc) do you get variation within the species. Instead you classify for example these:

as separate species - when all observations say the logical conclusion is that they are merely different infraspecific taxa within the species as are these:

And that others you wrongly classified even when they were babies and adults of the same species.

• Repetition

Which showed you when mutation is involved - the same limited forms are produced over and over - see link above under experiments.

• Critical analysis

Still waiting for that from people that watch birds produce fertile offspring in front of their eyes and think its ok to call them separate species.
EDIT: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

" 2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

• Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

As stated above - all the testing with actual mutation in reproducing life falsified the theory. I see no scrutiny or logical deductions.

I see ignoring the key results - that E coli after billions of generations and billions of mutations - remained E coli - and always will.

Just as Asian will remain Asian and African will remain African (EDIT: and T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil to the youngest fossil found) - and only when two infraspecific taxa mate will a new infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian) come into the record. Suddenly - with no transitory species between them and the prior generation. There is no need to propose Fairie Dust transitory species - when all observations show they do not exist and are not needed; when and if one finally accepts how life actually reproduces itself.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Actually I was wondering how much longer the falsified theory of evolution will be tolerated?

How exactly has it been falsified?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How exactly has it been falsified?

Stop ignoring the evidence in the post right above yours.

 

[SkyWriting]

How much longer do you think creationism will be tolerated in the US?

Science says that nature cannot create energy, matter, intelligence, or useful information on it own.
So, as long as science lasts.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.…

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Science says that nature cannot create energy, matter, intelligence, or useful information on it own.
So, as long as science lasts.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.…

That's right. For that energy (that invisible aspect) of God that pervades all things and from which all things are (and will return to) is the same. The same thing which image we were made in.

22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;"

The "knowledge" of good freely given at the start - the image we were - and when we gained the "knowledge" of evil; through trickery and then purposeful disobedience, we became as them in image.

EDIT: But we are incapable of controlling that knowledge of evil without His help.

For God is Mind - consciousness - energy - that very thing that makes this conversation possible. That which can never be created or destroyed - but merely change form and has always - even in science - just existed, even prior to the creation of this universe.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Science says that nature cannot create energy, matter, intelligence, or useful information on it own.

Really?
You feel like showing any evidence that this statement is true?
Evolution is considered a fact by science and the theory of evolution is a scientific theory used to explain how evolution works. What part of the theory of evolution evokes something other than natural events in the evolution of man?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Let's look at those.

• Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)

So we observe an Asian mate with an African and produce an Afro-Asian. We observe a Husky mate with a Mastiff and produce a Chinook. Yet you ignore the observations and propose a process never once observed, that of one creature evolving into another.

• Evidence

So you call Darwin's Finches that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring before your very eyes separate species - against your own definition of species.

• Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses

So you ignore the only experimental "Benchmark" evidence done with actual breeding or pollinating animals and plants in the last 200+ years.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

And humans are just a different breed of primate.

 

[justlookinla]

And humans are just a different breed of primate.

Or a different breed of banana?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Or a different breed of banana?

Probably not, since the plant-animal split was well before bananas evolved.

Oh...wait. I see. You were just being derogatory.

 

[justlookinla]

Probably not, since the plant-animal split was well before bananas evolved.

Oh...wait. I see. You were just being derogatory.

Nope, just indicating that various classifications are arbitrary, subjective.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nope, just indicating that various classifications are arbitrary, subjective.

And I just showed you that they aren't arbitrary. Your attempt was a failure.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really?
You feel like showing any evidence that this statement is true?
Evolution is considered a fact by science and the theory of evolution is a scientific theory used to explain how evolution works. What part of the theory of evolution evokes something other than natural events in the evolution of man?

Strike one - trying strawmen when you should know your own science you claim to follow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

"In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed."

EDIT: Science once considered it as fact that the Milky-Way was the entire universe - with the math and observational evidence to prove it.

So strike two for using the strawman that majority is always correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

And humans are just a different breed of primate.

Except we are not - since breeds can interbreed. We are completely separate species by your own definition of species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
"...of the same species"

And I just showed you that they aren't arbitrary. Your attempt was a failure.

Where? You haven't "shown" anything - just made arbitrary unsubstantiated claims.

EDIT: Tell me why finches that interbreed and produce fertile offspring but were classified as separate species before they were studied - is not an arbitrary - and incorrect - classification?

 

[justlookinla]

And I just showed you that they aren't arbitrary. Your attempt was a failure.

You simply arbitrarily pick a point in the Darwininistic evolutionary tree and make the claim of humans being apes. I can do the same thing with humans being a different form of banana...or a banana being a different form of human.