Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Kenny'sID said:

Of course I want proof.

OK, it's theory, something I'd been saying since the beginning, but finally dropped because it was being claimed as fact, at which point I needed proof.

So, at least for you, it's theory, not a fact, and as long as you aren't pushing it as fact, no more need for us to waist our time.

Click to expand...

Depends on who you talk to. Facts are facts; genetics, the fossil record, observed instances of speciation, and so on. The theory purports to explain those facts. But it has explained them so well and for so long, that often it is said that it is a "fact," that it is a well confirmed theory with no competing hypotheses in sight. But even when people call the theory a "fact" they realize that it is, in principle, falsifiable. It has not yet been falsified, but creationism was falsified long ago, so I guess by comparison the theory is in some sense a "fact."

pitabread said:

"Commonality of the design" is just a catchphrase which implies constraints. And curiously the constraints in question are exactly the same as what would be expected if life arose and evolved via natural processes.

But there is nothing which suggests that a designer would necessarily need be constrained in such a fashion. Which begs the question as to why they would have been...

Click to expand...

Contemplate the vastness and complexity of everything in the universe and try using the word "constrained"...lol

DNA is but a grain of sand to all that is discovered and to be discovered. I would posit the statistical probability of all these things evolving from simple elements is zero.

EastCoastRemnant said:

Contemplate the vastness and complexity of everything in the universe and try using the word "constrained"...lol

DNA is but a grain of sand to all that is discovered and to be discovered. I would posit the statistical probability of all these things evolving from simple elements is zero.

Click to expand...

I'm going to take your reply to mean that you have no idea what I was talking about.

What I am referring to is the fact that if species are a result of biological evolution that means their genetics are largely constrained by hereditary descent. Whereas an all-powerful creator would not be constrained in the same fashion. Yet, I see creationists continually apologizing for the former while still claiming such a creator created everything.

It's an odd contradiction.

Speedwell said:

so I guess by comparison the theory is in some sense a "fact."

Click to expand...

Then prove it in some sense.

And prove this too since you might as well have just insisted you can.

Speedwell said:

, but creationism was falsified long ago

Click to expand...

mark kennedy said:

It's rather curious that I've never asked you about your work after all these years. I could just tell from the content of your posts that you knew what you were talking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Mark. We've butted heads over the years, but you've always been civil about it.

EastCoastRemnant said:

Because geology is an actual earth science, the article is rife with scientifically sound statements and conclusions but when comparison is made to Gentry's conclusions, the above language comes into play.

Click to expand...

Bottom line: there are very plausible explanations for the formation of Gentry's halos that do not require the instantaneous creation of solid rock, and that are consistent with the rest of geology. To support his claim, Gentry would have to have eliminated these possibilities. He didn't.

EastCoastRemnant said:

Contemplate the vastness and complexity of everything in the universe and try using the word "constrained"...lol

Click to expand...

Okay, I will. . . Now I'll try to use the word constrained: "DNA differences between species are highly constrained by shared ancestry and by observed mutational processes." Nope -- no problem using the word "constrained".

EastCoastRemnant said:

DNA is but a grain of sand to all that is discovered and to be discovered. I would posit the statistical probability of all these things evolving from simple elements is zero.

Click to expand...

I don't know if everything evolved from simple elements. But I do know that living species have evolved from common ancestors.

sfs said:

Thanks, Mark. We've butted heads over the years, but you've always been civil about it.

Click to expand...

Feelings mutual.

pitabread said:

Whereas an all-powerful creator would not be constrained in the same fashion.

Click to expand...

I'm not clear on why you think a creator is constrained to begin with?

sfs said:

Okay, I will. . . Now I'll try to use the word constrained: "DNA differences between species are highly constrained by shared ancestry and by observed mutational processes." Nope -- no problem using the word "constrained".

I don't know if everything evolved from simple elements. But I do know that living species have evolved from common ancestors.

Click to expand...

Evolution needs to to have a beginning which I notice most proponents seem to want to leave out.

sfs said:

I don't know if everything evolved from simple elements. But I do know that living species have evolved from common ancestors.

Click to expand...

You know this because you have observed one species actually "evolving" into another? Or just because you were told it? Where is the empirical evidence? What did the fruit fly experiment show? At the end of thousands upon thousands of mutation attempts they were still fruit flies...

EastCoastRemnant said:

You know this because you have observed one species actually "evolving" into another?

Click to expand...

I have not personally seen it, but it has been observed.

What did the fruit fly experiment show? At the end of thousands upon thousands of mutation attempts they were still fruit flies...

Click to expand...

What it was designed to show, which was not speciation.

EastCoastRemnant said:

You know this because you have observed one species actually "evolving" into another? Or just because you were told it? Where is the empirical evidence? What did the fruit fly experiment show? At the end of thousands upon thousands of mutation attempts they were still fruit flies...

Click to expand...

its not just thousands of mutations. some creatures are still the same creatures after about 400-500 my. means that even if the creature will get billions of mutations it will still stay the same creature.

Kenny'sID said:

Ah, the desperate, and very old old defense "you don't understand" even though I've asked time and time again for you all to explain/make me understand by simply proving evolution is a fact, with not a single taker that I recall...just excuses..

Click to expand...

You have been told repeatedly that science does not deal in proof. Your persistent demand for proof under these circmumstances is unacceptable. When you claim that reminding you about this is nothing more than an excuse, that is unacceptable.
Discontinue, or I shall be reporting you for provocative flaming/trolling.

EastCoastRemnant said:

You know this because you have observed one species actually "evolving" into another?

Click to expand...

No, because I have observed the unmistakeable patterns left by common descent in DNA. I have also observed the inability of anyone to offer any explanation for these patterns other than common descent.

EastCoastRemnant said:

Or just because you were told it?

Click to expand...

Nope. How about you? Have you compared the DNA of different species? Or do you reject common descent just because you were told to?

EastCoastRemnant said:

Not true, there is plenty of science behind Creationism. Actual science that doesn't rely on theories but is based on scientific principles of observable hypothesis'

Click to expand...

You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

Ophiolite said:

You have been told repeatedly that science does not deal in proof. Your persistent demand for proof under these circmumstances is unacceptable. When you claim that reminding you about this is nothing more than an excuse, that is unacceptable.
Discontinue, or I shall be reporting you for provocative flaming/trolling.

Click to expand...

Someones getting triggered....

sfs said:

No, because I have observed the unmistakeable patterns left by common descent in DNA. I have also observed the inability of anyone to offer any explanation for these patterns other than common descent.

Nope. How about you? Have you compared the DNA of different species? Or do you reject common descent just because you were told to?

Click to expand...

I believe in common descent... from our Creator!

Ophiolite said:

You have been told repeatedly that science does not deal in proof.

Click to expand...

And you all have been told repeatedly that science does deal in proof all the time, and your claim is a cop out of proving evolution. Very clearly a desperate move when you essentially feel evolution should be believed without proof.

Do you really think that just because you all say it, I should concede to that as a fact, no question? And even worse, I should buy evolution without proof? I'm sorry but it's just not going to be that simple for you, especially when it's not the truth...not even close.

If I claimed biblical creation doesn't deal in proof but you should still believe it's a fact nonetheless, you would be all over me, so...please.