How to choose between creation and evolution.

[DogmaHunter]

Why the speculation buzz words in every article?

It's called "intellectual honesty" and you'll find such language in every science papers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy

Err...... no science is "based on 100% accuracy".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Therefore it should only be taught as theory, and not paraded as fact.

Another person that fails at science terminology...

newsflash: really strong theories, are "still theories". Theories don't turn into facts in science. Theories explain facts. Evolution theory explains the facts of evolution, just like germ theory explains the facts of germs and gravitation theory explains the facts of gravity.

Sorry but alot of your rebuttals have no actual back up and are just more provisional facts.

Your rebuttal is one of semantics and scientific illiteracy.

 

[r4.h]

Facts don't change, only theories do. As we gain a better and better understanding of the world. Which is precisely the reason why science is the best method we have to describe the world. Because it tests and retests its theories and modifies or discards any that are found wanting.

Theories, particularly in the scientific meaning of the world, that change are infinitely preferable to dogma that doesn't change even when that dogma is clearly wrong.

BTW: Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is taught as fact, and the (scientific) theory of evolution is taught as theory. Which is as it should be.

Yes but evolution is not taught as theory is it?

Your also wrong that wrong dogma doesn`t get changed. Of course it`s die hard adherents refuse to budge as their interests are malevolent. But many have challenged and changed false dogmas even at the cost of their own lives, would you? Do you not know of Martin Luthers stand against the Catholic church? William Tyndale who translated bible into english so the common man could see how false teachers were taking advantage of them?

 

[tyke]

Theories explain facts. Evolution theory explains the facts of evolution, just like germ theory explains the facts of germs and gravitation theory explains the facts of gravity.

How much longer do creationists need this fundamental of science explaining to them?? Perhaps it ought to be a sticky at the top of the sub forum?

 

[r4.h]

Another person that fails at science terminology...

newsflash: really strong theories, are "still theories". Theories don't turn into facts in science. Theories explain facts. Evolution theory explains the facts of evolution, just like germ theory explains the facts of germs and gravitation theory explains the facts of gravity.



Your rebuttal is one of semantics and scientific illiteracy.

Wrong. The so called facts being backed up by those theories are not facts, but mathematics that can be wrong. Even germ theories and facts are found to be wrong.
Evolution is taught as fact in schools, and they dont say "we think" the world or atifacts etc are so many millions of years old, they say "we know"

I used to be an atheist, but when God showed up it was all over. Your welcome to your sad delusion, but I know God is real and I never will go back.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Yes but evolution is not taught as theory is it?

Yes it is. It's a scientific theory.

E.g. What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: How did life start?
Mechanisms of Evolution | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials
Lecture Notes | Evolution and Society | Science, Technology, and Society | MIT OpenCourseWare
https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135

The definition of a scientific theory from Wikipedia is good in my opinion.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

That's how Evolution is taught. It is often described (accurately) as one of the best supported scientific theories that we have.

Your also wrong that wrong dogma doesn`t get changed. Of course it`s die hard adherents refuse to budge as their interests are malevolent. But many have challenged and changed false dogmas even at the cost of their own lives, would you? Do you not know of Martin Luthers stand against the Catholic church? William Tyndale who translated bible into english so the common man could see how false teachers were taking advantage of them?

I was particularly talking about Young Earth Creationism based upon a literal reading of The Bible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes but evolution is not taught as theory is it?

The theory of evolution is taught as a theory.
The facts of evolution, which are explained by the theory, are taught as the facts of evolution.

As it should be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wrong.

No: correct.

The so called facts being backed up by those theories are not facts

Except that they are.

Here are a couple of examples:
- human chromosome nr 2 is factually a fused chromosome. When we split it at the fusion site, we factually end up with 2 chromosomes that match chimp chromosomes 2 and 13.

- humans factually share thousands of ERV's with the other great apes

- life factually falls into a nested hierarchy, both anatomically as well as genetically

- the factual geographic distribution of species

- newborns factually come with a set of mutations

- these mutations factually are inherited by off spring

- ....

All those, and many more like those, are the facts of evolution.

Also.... a theory doesn't "back up" the facts. It's the other way round... Facts provide support for theories. Theories are backed up by facts.

, but mathematics that can be wrong

Math, has nothing to do with this.
All the facts mentioned above are observations.

Even germ theories and facts are found to be wrong.

Is it not a fact that germs can potentially cause you to be sick?

Evolution is taught as fact in schools

Evolution IS fact. Just like gravity IS a fact.
The theory of evolution / gravity, is what explains the FACTS of evolution / gravity.

The theory explains the process, the mechanism. The "how".
The facts, are those things that are in need of an explanation. The theory provides that explanation.

, and they dont say "we think" the world or atifacts etc are so many millions of years old, they say "we know"

Because we DO know. The earth is factually billions of years old.
Atoms don't lie.

I used to be an atheist, but when God showed up it was all over. Your welcome to your sad delusion, but I know God is real and I never will go back.

"sad" delusion?

Anyhow...nothing about evolution prevents a god from existing.
"God" is a non-issue when it comes to the topic of evolution.

To evolution, it matters not if a god exists or not.

Off course, if you are holding on to a dogmatic YEC belief, that's another story....
But that's just your faith-based dogma. It is irrelevant to actual science.

 

[xianghua]

I've been asking how the specialized tissue evolves that makes it possible; down to the molecular level. So far....crickets.

i afraid that you will not get an answer since no one can answer such a question. it means that we cant realy test evolution and this is why its not a scientific theory.

 

[bhsmte]

Big time, major league; LOL

 

[AnotherAtheist]

i afraid that you will not get an answer since no one can answer such a question. it means that we cant realy test evolution and this is why its not a scientific theory.

His request was very vague (possibly because he doesn't understand biology enough to ask the right question.) Even then he was given information. Look, I can give even more:

Foundational Toolkit Genes

or: Molecular Evolution of Bat Color Vision Genes | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

or: A clear, molecular view of how human color vision evolved

or: http://www.rctn.org/vs265/landfernald92.pdf

etc. etc. etc.

Just pretending that he 'won't get an answer' when he already has been given several answers is going to achieve ... what exactly?

Let me guess: Both you and him will not be able to give any rebuttal to this research, will try to arm-wave it away, and then pretend later on that you haven't been given an answer/any evidence.

 

[xianghua]

If it's organic and living, what makes it a robot? What do you define as a "robot" that allows such a thing to be alive? If it's alive, I assume it's a living thing and not a robot.

so if you will this object. and lets say that it was made from organic components and has a self replicating system, you will not conclude design because of that?:

(image from https://www.amazon.com/Treehut-Genuine-Leather-Quality-Movement/dp/B00PT75I7Y)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, that's wrong. 100% certainty is almost unheard of in science. Scientific papers include extensive statistical analysis that checks for the likelihood of their results being found by random chance. If there's greater than, say, a 1% probability of their results being caused by chance, their findings are deemed not significant. In science, significance is used in the statistical sense of the word, not its common use. Papers that demonstrate findings with high statistical significance are the most reliable, but no one says their work is 100% accurate. Instead they say something like "the chance that this happened by chance is 0.0000000000000000001%"

Sorry, I was referring to the practical application of science, as in metallurgy, chemistry, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You’d have to have VERIFIABLE evidence of the designer, not faith in the designer, to be accepted as science




The gene that makes a bacterial light sensing pigment is the same gene that is the “ master control gene” for eye formation in animals that have eyes. There is the molecular level you asked for . IIRC it’s called bacteriorhodopsin

How did the "master control gene" evolve?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really, it just means the mixture formed an exothermic reaction that happened quickly . Exothermic means that the starting products were at a higher energy state than the end products and it gave off that excess energy as heat. Simple chemical reaction that once started goes by itself

If the process can be replicated chances are there's a 'law' involved, isn't there?

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will this object. and lets say that it was made from organic components and has a self replicating system, you will not conclude design because of that?:

(image from https://www.amazon.com/Treehut-Genuine-Leather-Quality-Movement/dp/B00PT75I7Y)

No. Design can only be concluded if there is evidence of human manufacture. If there is no evidence of human manufacture then no conclusion can be reached, one way or the other.

The above answer applies to any other fantastic imaginary object you can think of.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's such a weird line to take, since the theory of evolution has helped with many forms of biomedical science, especially with heritable diseases and problems.
I didn't necessarily need to find out that my sister and I stand a good chance of inheriting glaucoma from our father, but it's because of the work done with the theory of evolution that we know that (rather unpleasant) fact.

How far back do 'soft tissue' studies of the eye go that provide this information?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

How did the "master control gene" evolve?

From other genes. E.g. PaxB. Origin of Pax and Six gene families in sponges: Single PaxB and Six1/2 orthologs in Chalinula loosanoffi. - PubMed - NCBI

It seems to be as if you believe that if you can avoid googling something, then: Goddidit.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh please. Like you'd understand them or are sincerely interested in them. Anything evidence we present to you will be hand waved away.

I just keep asking why until you have no answers, which occurs rather quickly.

Whenever a Creationist acts like they're sincerely interested in the evidence, they're being dishonest.

We are interested in painting evolutionists into a corner. You are a slippery bunch though, like a wet bar of soap. We have a hard time 'grasping' what you are trying to put over on us.