What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[GodsGrace101]

Except that scientists who dispute the theory of evolution can't present actual scientific evidence to replace it.

Something wrong can be wrong without having to replace it!

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know this.

 

[Shemjaza]

Something wrong can be wrong without having to replace it!

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know this.

True, but what I meant was that they can't present scientific evidence to justify their doubts.

Personal conviction is all well and good for your own piece of mind, but it is of little value as a tool for convincing anyone else.

 

[solid_core]

No, what I mean is that many scientists could no longer support the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it because they cannot find supporting proof for it.

What do you mean by "many" and what other theory they have instead?

 

[GodsGrace101]

True, but what I meant was that they can't present scientific evidence to justify their doubts.

Personal conviction is all well and good for your own piece of mind, but it is of little value as a tool for convincing anyone else.

I believe they've given up on the concept because it's been 150 years since the "theory" and it can't be proven scientifically.

For instance, Einstein's theories have been shown to be correct.

Maybe Darwin was wrong (for macro evolution).

Also, I think only 4 chemicals are needed to create life..so why can't life be created in a lab?

Too many questions, as I've said before.

 

[GodsGrace101]

What do you mean by "many" and what other theory they have instead?

Many do not accept means that NOT ALL accept.
I'm not going to look for numbers if that's what you want. If you don't know this,,,,I'm not going to try to convince you.

ALL SCIENTISTS accept Einstein's theories and are trying to expound on them.

ALL SCIENTISTS accept that the earth rotates around the sun.

ALL SCIENTISTS now know the universe had a beginning.

NOT ALL SCIENTISTS believe Darwin's theory is correct or can even be "proven".

 

[solid_core]

Many do not accept means that NOT ALL accept.
I'm not going to look for numbers if that's what you want. If you don't know this,,,,I'm not going to try to convince you.

ALL SCIENTISTS accept Einstein's theories and are trying to expound on them.

ALL SCIENTISTS accept that the earth rotates around the sun.

ALL SCIENTISTS now know the universe had a beginning.

NOT ALL SCIENTISTS believe Darwin's theory is correct or can even be "proven".

Well, if you say so...

 

[Strathos]

I believe they've given up on the concept because it's been 150 years since the "theory" and it can't be proven scientifically.

Nothing is ever 'proven scientifically'. Even the Theory of Gravity. It just has a strong preponderance of evidence in its favor and no plausible alternative theory.

100% proof is reserved for mathematics. That's not how science works. Einstein was wrong about many things too, and since then scientists have improved on his work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But back to my question:
Why did life begin on earth?

Human Exploration of Space: why, where, what for?
J Vernikos
Hippokratia. 2008 Aug; 12(Suppl 1): 6–9. PMCID: PMC2577404

Chemistry. And that is really a "How" question. But if you ask "Why" that is a sufficient answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The challenge was too good to pass up!



Why and how the early-life environment affects development of coping behaviours
M. Rohaa Langenhof, Jan Komdeur
Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2018; 72(3): 34. Published online 2018 Feb 9. doi: 10.1007/s00265-018-2452-3 PMCID: PMC5805793

Walking and talking the tree of life: Why and how to teach about biodiversity
Cissy J. Ballen, Harry W. Greene
PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar; 15(3): e2001630. Published online 2017 Mar 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001630
PMCID: PMC5358732

Too bad you failed so badly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it happening right now as we speak?

What? Is evolution happening as we speak? Of course. Life has not stopped.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh that's sweet.
When man DISCOVERED math, it already existed in all its wonderful concepts and rules. Yes, someone/thing had to INVENT it.

It's like electricity.
It has always existed, man just DISCOVERED it.

I'm sure you know the difference between discover and invent.

Science can function because it depends on patterns in the universe that are already in existance. It's the reliable consistency of these patterns that allow science to be able to come to conclusions.

I thank God for science...I don't like to fight with it.
If we get a cure for cancer...it'll be from there... Ditto for many other benefits.

oh my, such inconsistency.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, what I mean is that many scientists could no longer support the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it because they cannot find supporting proof for it.

Not all scientists believe the same hyposthesis.

No, the only reason any scientist rejects it is because it was incomplete. For example genetics was not a science at that time. And you are using the word "proof" incorrectly at best.

Nothing is "proven" in the sciences. Science is evidence based. And if you are using the term as it is used in a court of law you are still incorrect. The theory of has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" . That is why judges, who do understand evidence very well, always rule for the evolution side in a court of law. The only victory won by creationists was in the Scopes trial where a very biased judge that would not allow any expert evidence ruled in favor of a creationist law. And then that ruling was overturned on a technicality. Let me repeat, your side only "won" when the evidence was ignored.

 

[Shemjaza]

I believe they've given up on the concept because it's been 150 years since the "theory" and it can't be proven scientifically.

For instance, Einstein's theories have been shown to be correct.

Maybe Darwin was wrong (for macro evolution).

You are mistaken about the evidence for evolution. The theory and evidence is better supported and understood then the theory of relativity.

I suspect you have an flawed concept of what the theory actually predicts.
Can you describe what you mean by "macro evolution"?

Also, I think only 4 chemicals are needed to create life..so why can't life be created in a lab?

Even the simplest life form is very involved.

It's not really relevant to a theory explaining how life changes.

A star only requires hydrogen... but we can't make a star in a lab.

Too many questions, as I've said before.

But vague and unclear questions. In addition you don't seem to have made any real effort to seek answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not blaming anyone SZ.
I just made a point.

I don't believe in macro evolution because I believe it's impossible for one thing to become another thing...
NOT because I don't understand it or am totally ignorant of it as I've been accused here.

I just don't agree.
Your brain can't wrap around the thought that some great invisible being made everything.

My brain can't wrap around a fish becoming a human...no matter now long you give it or how it happens...

One thing does not become another thing in evolution. Like it or not, you are still an ape. Man never stopped being apes. How many times do you need to be reminded that a "change of kind" is a creationist strawman. It is not a claim of scientists.

Perhaps it is the word "ape" that you object to. Which is odd because I bet that there are even bigger changes that you accept.

Are you a mammal? In other words did your mother produce breast milk? That is a far bigger group than that of apes, and yet you probably accept that. Are you a vertebrate? Are you a chordate (that is asking if you have a major nerve running down the middle of your back)? Are you a eukaryote? That is asking if your cells have a nucleus. I can assure that you are. That takes your shared ancestry all the way back to single celled life without any example of "one thing changing into another".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many do not accept means that NOT ALL accept.
I'm not going to look for numbers if that's what you want. If you don't know this,,,,I'm not going to try to convince you.

ALL SCIENTISTS accept Einstein's theories and are trying to expound on them.

ALL SCIENTISTS accept that the earth rotates around the sun.

ALL SCIENTISTS now know the universe had a beginning.

NOT ALL SCIENTISTS believe Darwin's theory is correct or can even be "proven".

Actually since to reject the theory of evolution one has to stop following the scientific method it can be legitimately argued that all scientists accept the theory of evolution. One is not being a scientist when one abandons the scientific method. In other words, if one does not follow the evidence one is not being a scientist. And creationists cannot seem to find any evidence against the theory of evolution. All that they can do is to demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence at best. Some of them outright lie.

 

[46AND2]

I believe they've given up on the concept because it's been 150 years since the "theory" and it can't be proven scientifically.

For instance, Einstein's theories have been shown to be correct.

Maybe Darwin was wrong (for macro evolution).

Also, I think only 4 chemicals are needed to create life..so why can't life be created in a lab?

Too many questions, as I've said before.

Evolution is the most well supported theory in all of science. It is "proven" beyond any reasonable doubt. The only few RELEVANT scientists who don't accept it, reject it for religious reasons, not scientific.

We are as certain that we shared a common ancestor with chimps, for example, as we are when we show familial relationships between humans through DNA. Yes, it is that strong. In fact, the in-depth comparisons are more comprehensive and robust than a typical paternity test, so in one sense we are MORE sure that we shared a common ancestor with chimps than we would be if you and your father did a DNA test.

The only controversy within the community about the theory is the minor details. Whether it actually happened or not is not disputed, except for the fringe 1% who have religious axes to grind.

 

[pitabread]

Except that many scientists have given up on Darwin's theory.

1) The Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin's time. It's no longer "Darwin's Theory".

2) Those who reject the modern Theory of Evolution typically do so because of religious beliefs, not anything to do with science.

 

[46AND2]

ALL SCIENTISTS accept Einstein's theories and are trying to expound on them.

Wrong:

Physics Beyond Relativity – Science 21 Conference 2019

ALL SCIENTISTS accept that the earth rotates around the sun.

This might be true, but with all the flat earth propaganda out there, there's probably at least a few with credentials.

ALL SCIENTISTS now know the universe had a beginning.

Wrong, not even close to true:

1. https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

2. Some scientists are still researching the "Big Bounce" hypothesis.

There are several other "no beginning" hypotheses.

NOT ALL SCIENTISTS believe Darwin's theory is correct or can even be "proven".

Ok. Sure. There is about 3% of scientists (including irrelevant fields of study) who reject evolution.

Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

How much of that 3% is due to belief in a certain interpretation of the Bible? I'm guessing most of it.

 

[Resha Caner]

The first and most important step is the one that creationists seem to be incapable of. One needs a testable hypothesis. It is a must if one wants to claim to have evidence. Do you think that you can come up with a model that can be tested on its own merits? In other words what reasonable test (and please do not refer to evolution here) that could possibly refute creationism would you make?

I am not the OP, but have at it. It would be nice if you could find alternatives that have evidence that support them (that means they should be falsifiable).

If I proposed anything, it wouldn't be to suggest testing God or any claims of what God has done. That is why I've been asking: what do you really want?

The conditions of the request entail 2 things: 1) That the hypothesis be mechanistic in nature, 2) that the phenomena studied be understandable. Those two things, by their very nature, strip the primary motivation Christians have for discussing this topic in a creationist context. The only motivation that is left if those conditions are accepted are things like stroking my ego that I'm right, the satisfaction of proving you wrong, etc. That such is the case should be obvious from the way thousands and thousands of these conversations have proceeded in the past.

That's not an encouraging premise for a sincere conversation. But I will add one more wrinkle.

I am, for the most part, an instrumentalist. Therefore, my approach to science is: If the model is effective, that's fine - use it. I could give you a long list of engineering models that are effective, but which are physically wrong. Therefore, if evolution is effective in producing a new medical cure, etc. - that's fine, use it. That will never address the philosophical or theological issues, however, which require a different intellectual framework. If that's not the point you aim to discuss, then I guess it doesn't matter.

And, for my part, I'm more interested in combating the rampant realism and Platonism in science than I am evolution in and of itself.

- - -

So here we are. In short, I would be interested in investigating the possibility of the rapid emergence of organisms from DNA pools rather than by mutation and inheritance.

But let's also face up to another issue. Evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population, yes? That's the technical side of it. But on another side, the word "evolution" has become so politically charged as to be untenable IMO. What I am proposing is, I think, testable - falsifiable (though you will likely need much more detail to really understand what I'm saying - more than 25 words). I also think it would be a radical change to current thought in biology. Yet, in the end, if one wanted to be pedantic about it - one could say that what I'm proposing is still evolution.

Limiting the definition of evolution to allele frequency doesn't really get at the essence of what people implicitly mean by the word. I've asked questions about allele frequency before, and people's reaction is, "You're being silly and intentionally difficult." But my point is to show some of the latent meaning not expressed in the definition.

One of those questions would run something like this: I have a population of red roses. I then plant some pink roses in that same garden. The allele frequency has changed. Is that evolution? People roll their eyes, "No, of course not." Ah, but technically it fits the definition ... the short definition. In order to rule out such things, we have to add many, many more words. And what evolution "is" becomes a pedantic exercise in definitions - to a large extent it becomes a power struggle over who controls the word. If this conversation becomes that type of thing ... well ... I'm not interested.

 

[pitabread]

Ok. Sure. There is about 3% of scientists (including irrelevant fields of study) who reject evolution.

And among those with relevant credentials (e.g. biologists) the number appears to be well under 1%.