Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[xianghua]

You don't. You say, "creation" but you can't tell us when it came about, how it came about or who did it.

i dont need to. i just need to show design.

 

[Speedwell]

i dont need to. i just need to show design.

So basically your position is, "I don't know where we came from or how, I just know evolution isn't true." What good is that?

 

[pitabread]

are you saying that we have other options?

When you start to consider the variation within a given theory or hypothesis, yes there are multiple options.

The point is that the null hypothesis of a particular hypothesis is simply that that hypothesis is not correct. That's it. It doesn't say anything about any other hypothesis.

Or in other words, disproving currently evolutionary theory doesn't prove design. All would it do is take us back to square one of not having any explanation.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

no. you still remain with a design at once (alien, unicorn etc). so we have design at once or s tepwise evolution.

Just like if we found out "why lightning occurs" is wrong, we go back to Thor doing it?

Bunk.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just like if we found out "why lightning occurs" is wrong, we go back to Thor doing it?

Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:

Interesting that Job knew that lightning causes thunder ... long before some scientist "discovered" it, isn't it?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:

Interesting that Job knew that lightning causes thunder ... long before some scientist "discovered" it, isn't it?

Seriously?? I knew lightning and thunder were synonymous before I was old enough to go to school... Did you not know that before you read it in a book?

The point I was making was that these people had no idea why lighning occurred and just attributed to their respective Deities. We wouldn't be right to go back to thinking a God was responsible if we found out we didn't know why it occurred again.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Seriously?? I knew lightning and thunder were synonymous before I was old enough to go to school... Did you not know that before you read it in a book?

The point I was making was that these people had no idea why lighning occurred and just attributed to their respective Deities. We wouldn't be right to go back to thinking a God was responsible if we found out we didn't know why it occurred again.

A few years somebody on this forum was arguing that lightning was caused by God. I left the discussion in awe

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

A few years somebody on this forum was arguing that lightning was caused by God. I left the discussion in awe

........BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha! <cough>

 

[AV1611VET]

A few years somebody on this forum was arguing that lightning was caused by God. I left the discussion in awe

The way my words get twisted, I would have to see his post before I believed that.

I've been accused of saying clams could fly.

 

[AV1611VET]

........BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha! <cough>

Either it was misinterpreted (on purpose?), or it was Matt Mariott or someone like that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you start to consider the variation within a given theory or hypothesis, yes there are multiple options.

The point is that the null hypothesis of a particular hypothesis is simply that that hypothesis is not correct. That's it. It doesn't say anything about any other hypothesis.

Or in other words, disproving currently evolutionary theory doesn't prove design. All would it do is take us back to square one of not having any explanation.

I'ld like to point out at this point that the theory of evolution is the model that explains the process by which evolution takes place.

That evolution takes place is actually a fact: it is demonstrable that each new generation slightly differs from the previous one AND that those differences can and will be inherited by off spring - who in turn adds their own differences etc.

Common ancestry of species is not a theory. It is a genetic fact.

The theory of evolution details the mechanism / process of how a population of species X can diversify overtime into populations of species X1, X2, X3, etc.

Creationists tend to forget that the theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.
Just like the theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity.

If the theory of gravity is falsified later today, then tomorrow when you let go of an object with mass, it will still fall to the earth and not start shooting into space instead.

The facts of gravity will remain what they are. It's only the explanatory model that will be discarded.

Evolution isn't any different.

 

[xianghua]

When you start to consider the variation within a given theory or hypothesis, yes there are multiple options.

so what other possibility do you have instead of creation or evolution? name just one.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

When you start to consider the variation within a given theory or hypothesis, yes there are multiple options.

so what other possibility do you have instead of creation or evolution? name just one.

I understand that english is not your first language, so I'm just going to put your gross error down to that.

@pitabread talked about "variation within a given theory or hypothesis" - which in this case is Evolution - Creation isn't even a scientific idea let alone part of any hypothesis, and think nothing of even being part of a Theory such as Evolution. In the Scientific Community, the Only thing we have to explain the diversity of life on this planet, is the Theory of Evolution. All @pitabread was explaining is that the various mechanisms and other observations are all variations within the Theory of Evolution. That's it.

 

[Speedwell]

so what other possibility do you have instead of creation or evolution? name just one.

Hold on there, Slick. A while back you were arguing that the only two alternatives were evolution and design, not evolution and creation. But creation is not the same as design and evolution doesn't rule out creation. You need to figure out what it is you believe before you start fussing about what other people believe.

 

[pitabread]

so what other possibility do you have instead of creation or evolution? name just one.

It's not about evolution versus creation. It's about numerous variations of each including the possibility of a combination of both (depending on what sort of 'creation' you subscribe to). Historically speaking there have been multiple types of evolution that have been considered at different times. Some have been falsified, and some have lead to the modern theory of evolution. But even the modern theory of evolution isn't complete and biologists still work out the specific mechanisms by which biological forms change.

Like many creationists, you're trying to overly simplify things in a manner that can't be simplified.

 

[sfs]

Sfs ive actually been studying it off and on for 10 years

It's a large part of what I do for a living, and have been doing for the last 18+ years.

 

[pitabread]

Actually the insults, mocking and condemnation do not
come from me.
There is one who scorns you without mercy:

Of course they are coming from you since you are the one posting on this forum. The very least you can do is take responsibility for your own posts. But I guess hiding behind scripture makes it easier to fling insults.

You do realize though that Christians like yourself only do harm to the way others perceive your faith. Assuming you care about that.

 

[xianghua]

It's not about evolution versus creation. It's about numerous variations of each including the possibility of a combination of both (depending on what sort of 'creation' you subscribe to).

if its the combination of both then its also design. so again we have creation vs evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if its the combination of both then its also design. so again we have creation vs evolution.

Since one of the varieties of creationism is a being seeding this planet with early life and then leaving it to evolve on its own, not necessarily much design there.

 

[xianghua]

Since one of the varieties of creationism is a being seeding this planet with early life and then leaving it to evolve on its own, not necessarily much design there.

but its still a creation. so again we have natural evolution or creation.