• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creationism will only destroy science

Status
Not open for further replies.

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?
Please enlighten us and explain specifically why it is impossible to carry out direct experitments on evolution. And please explain why all the current research into evolution does not fall into this category.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
No... making yourself the questioner leaves you in charge of the discussion. I have asked an honest question. I have asked why it is that folks such as yourself have a hard time understanding the difference between science that is done such that each step of it is demonstrable and repeatable in real time, and a study such as evolution that relies on abstractions of known facts cast back through time that can never be demonstrated in real time?

You go first for once.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟24,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
No... making yourself the questioner leaves you in charge of the discussion. I have asked an honest question. I have asked why it is that folks such as yourself have a hard time understanding the difference between science that is done such that each step of it is demonstrable and repeatable in real time, and a study such as evolution that relies on abstractions of known facts cast back through time that can never be demonstrated in real time?

You go first for once.
I answered it already. yet, you ignore it and run around to others trying to get them to answer by bearing false witness, claiming it wasn't answered? Why the need for dishonesty?
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
steen said:
I answered it already. yet, you ignore it and run around to others trying to get them to answer by bearing false witness, claiming it wasn't answered? Why the need for dishonesty?

Is this your answer?

"This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic."

It does not address the question. I specifically asked how it is that you miss the difference between the study of evolution, which requires you to take the results of experiments and imagine how they might unfold in the past without the possibility of experimenting on those conclusions, vs the actual experiments themselves which can be carried out repeatedly and demonstrated to be reliable.

I await your next insulting tirade. It is I imagine all you have to offer, since the obvious answer to the question is something your theology cannot encompass.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And insulting people and accusing them of lying just because they do not buy evolution? Why is it that the difference between a science like physics, in which hypotheses can be tested and show repeatedly to work, and a study like evolution, which is quite frankly impossible to ever directly experiment with, is lost on you?
In the rush to defend evolution, somehow all of you neglected to address the actual difference I pointed out.

Could it be because underneath all the bluster there IS no answer?
You question was addressed, twice.

random_guy
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25645396&postcount=176
and steen
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25646118&postcount=177

And now again by the Fijian.

But you claim to have pointed out an 'actual difference' that is apparently lost on us TEs. Instead you simply claim it is there without any evidence that the difference exists. So instead of asking TEs why we can't see something that we cannot see (answer: because it doesn't exist), why not actually state you case before asking us why we disagree?

Edit: Some cross posting going on here.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Shane Roach said:
Is this your answer?

"This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic."

It does not address the question. I specifically asked how it is that you miss the difference between the study of evolution, which requires you to take the results of experiments and imagine how they might unfold in the past without the possibility of experimenting on those conclusions, vs the actual experiments themselves which can be carried out repeatedly and demonstrated to be reliable.

I await your next insulting tirade. It is I imagine all you have to offer, since the obvious answer to the question is something your theology cannot encompass.

I already gave a direct example and it was ignored. Also, by your same logic, forensic science is also not scientific since it relies on using experiments of the present to determine what happened in the past. The same with astronomy, comsology, paleontology, geology, and archeology. So what it is? Is evolution scientific or not? Is every other field I listed scientific or not? Until you can back up your claims, it seems like you do not understand the scientific method nor science.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟24,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
Is this your answer?

"This is a misrepresentation. Evolution and Biology is researched through the same Scientific method as is used to research physics. In Biology, hypotheses can be tested just as they can in physics. Your misrepresentation of the Scientific Method is frankly pathetic."

It does not address the question.
yes, it does. It shows your misrepresentation of science as not valid.

I specifically asked how it is that you miss the difference between the study of evolution, which requires you to take the results of experiments and imagine how they might unfold in the past without the possibility of experimenting on those conclusions, vs the actual experiments themselves which can be carried out repeatedly and demonstrated to be reliable.
Because The study of Evolution, biology, cosmology, geology and many other scientific fields are under no such silly contrains as what you claim. Or are you going to claim somethign as silly as that ONLY Physics is "real" science?

I await your next insulting tirade. It is I imagine all you have to offer, since the obvious answer to the question is something your lack of knowledge of science cannot encompass.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
steen said:
yes, it does. It shows your misrepresentation of science as not valid.

Because The study of Evolution, biology, cosmology, geology and many other scientific fields are under no such silly contrains as what you claim. Or are you going to claim somethign as silly as that ONLY Physics is "real" science?

I await your next insulting tirade. It is I imagine all you have to offer, since the obvious answer to the question is something your lack of knowledge of science cannot encompass.

Ah, a talking point answer. I am perfecly fine with it if you want to call evolution science. What I asked, however, is why it is you do not see the difference between a science that is characterized be repeatable demonstrations of its reliability vs a science like evolution which depends upon constant alteration as the actual, verifiable experimental evidence becomes available.

This is what, 3 posts? 4? And you still have not managed to address a simple question...
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
steen said:
Because there is no such thing as what you msirepresent.

It really is true, the tread's title. If you as proxy-creationist would get your way, science would be destroyed. You are proving the OP.

There's no such thing as a what, Steen?

Why can you not see a difference between a science that is characterized be repeatable demonstrations of its reliability in real time vs a science like evolution which depends upon constant alteration as the actual, verifiable experimental evidence becomes available?
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Shane Roach said:
There's no such thing as a what, Steen?

Why can you not see a difference between a science that is characterized be repeatable demonstrations of its reliability in real time vs a science like evolution which depends upon constant alteration as the actual, verifiable experimental evidence becomes available?
In English, please?
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Melethiel said:
In English, please?

He's saying that evolution is untestable in the present by repeated experiments (which's he's wrong, a literature survey proves this easily) and that evolution is updated as we gain new information (which is a basic part of science). Gee, we should not teach geology or astronomy since we constantly update those fields, either, which makes them not science.
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
random_guy said:
He's saying that evolution is untestable in the present by repeated experiments (which's he's wrong, a literature survey proves this easily) and that evolution is updated as we gain new information (which is a basic part of science). Gee, we should not teach geology or astronomy since we constantly update those fields, either, which makes them not science.
All fields are constantly updated...even Physics and Chemistry.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
A: that's not what I said, random, and B: the question is in English. It is framed as it is to deal with precisely the kind of canned answers I have seen thus far.

I am not asking anyone to redefine science. I am not asking anyone to refuse to believe in evolition. I am asking why those of you who think it is more or less a forgone conclusion find it difficult to discern between science that can be demonstrated in real time and science that is a mathematical model, or construct, that cannot be tested in real time? Note, I am asking about the difference, here. Why can you not tell the difference? I don't care what you call it, or how reliable you think it is, I wonder why you seem incapable of telling the difference in any real way?
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Melethiel said:
All fields are constantly updated...even Physics and Chemistry.

Well that's what you get for answering the question as framed by someone who is avoiding answering it.

No one is arguing that scientific fields are not constantly evolving. I would ask when's the last time you heard a substantial revamp however of the rate of gravitational acceleration close to the earth's surface?

Why do you have such a difficult time discerning the difference between that sort of thing, and science that is all about ideas and concepts that cannot be experimented on?
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Shane Roach said:
Well that's what you get for answering the question as framed by someone who is avoiding answering it.

No one is arguing that scientific fields are not constantly evolving. I would ask when's the last time you heard a substantial revamp however of the rate of gravitational acceleration close to the earth's surface?

Why do you have such a difficult time discerning the difference between that sort of thing, and science that is all about ideas and concepts that cannot be experimented on?

We did revamp gravity. It's called general relativity. While the basic idea remains the same, lots of new things came into play that wasn't there before in Netwonian physics. The same applies to evolution. Selection and mutation drives evolution and this idea has been pretty much the same. However, new information about what causes mutations and what kind of mutations exist update evolution. It's not as if we throw out everything we learned in evolution.

As for evolution not being able to be experimented on, again, I point out to this:
Botanical Society of America said:
For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.


The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.

How was this not real time experimentation?
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
I don't need to explain anything. I know full well you have no answer for it.

There is a fundamental difference in the reliability of information that has been repeatedly verified first hand vs information whose verification has to be gathered in other more roundabout ways. This is a fundamental fact of life and is at the heart and soul of the scientific method. It doesn't mean that evolution is not a science. It means that just because something is part of a scientific exploration does not make it automatically reliable information, and the degree of reliability differs from one subject to the other.

So, I ask again. Why is it that those of you so commited to evolution have such a hard time discerning the difference between science that is experimentally verified repeatedly in real time vs science that depends on an extrapolation of known, experimentally verfified concepts back into time? Why do you treat it as if it were the exact same thing as a light bulb turning on or off, which yes, I have had MANY evolution supporting people use EXACTLY that sort of analogy on me.

"Christians don't want to believe in evolution but they want to use electricity."
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Shane Roach said:
I don't need to explain anything. I know full well you have no answer for it.

There is a fundamental difference in the reliability of information that has been repeatedly verified first hand vs information whose verification has to be gathered in other more roundabout ways. This is a fundamental fact of life and is at the heart and soul of the scientific method. It doesn't mean that evolution is not a science. It means that just because something is part of a scientific exploration does not make it automatically reliable information, and the degree of reliability differs from one subject to the other.

So, I ask again. Why is it that those of you so commited to evolution have such a hard time discerning the difference between science that is experimentally verified repeatedly in real time vs science that depends on an extrapolation of known, experimentally verfified concepts back into time? Why do you treat it as if it were the exact same thing as a light bulb turning on or off, which yes, I have had MANY evolution supporting people use EXACTLY that sort of analogy on me.

"Christians don't want to believe in evolution but they want to use electricity."

Except evolution is more than a historical science, just like geology and astronomy are more than just a historical science. We can test and experiment, in real time, many tenets of evolution. I gave one direct example, which you continue to ignore. The problem isn't we're committed to evolution, it's that you don't seem to understand science.

Scientists use historical data to determine things about radioactive decay rates when they analyze the light spectrum of a star or supernova. They can then come up with experiments to verify their observations. Same thing applies to evolution.

If you believe evolution can not be tested in real time, then you probably thing the same applies to plate techtonics, astronomy, and nearly every other science that includes a historical aspect.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.