Creationists and research

[phaedrus]

Why do I feel that you're not convincing in any way?

By the way, what phobias do you think I have that I project onto you?

P. S. I meant what I wrote. No satire here.

You said that I was scared, I only implied that it might be your own fears that prompted this assertion. As far was the satire in your posts, perhaps thats in the eye of the beholder. The rest is silence.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

So my question to creationists is this: what research have you done into the theory of evolution? I'm not talking of creationists writings - they don't count. What scientific journals or books on the subject have you read? The theory of evolution is well-served by a number of popular science authors - Dawkins, Gould, Diamond, etc. Have you read any of those?

no but I have read plenty of articles from talkorigins.org, and I have read a book on the New York Academy of Science's second conference on planetology and space exploration, does that count?

 

[LorentzHA]

No, I am making the assertion that the evidence is irrelevant.

Then why is it called evidence? LOL. So if a doctor said, "There is evidence you have cancer", would you seek treatment? Why or why not?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I have not read all of this thread, but I thought I'd jump in. Forgive me if I'm covering old ground.

I have long said that creation and evolution are both philosophical models employing scientific evidence to support themselves.

For those who think evolution is scientific, please present the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[Bushido216]

no but I have read plenty of articles from talkorigins.org, and I have read a book on the New York Academy of Science's second conference on planetology and space exploration, does that count?

TalkOrigins does. The rest doesn't.

 

[Bushido216]

I have not read all of this thread, but I thought I'd jump in. Forgive me if I'm covering old ground.

I have long said that creation and evolution are both philosophical models employing scientific evidence to support themselves.

For those who think evolution is scientific, please present the scientific theory of evolution.

I suggest you read Origin of Species. It's in there somewhere, maybe around chapter 12, I forget.

May as well read the whole thing, it's a good read.

 

[LorentzHA]

I have not read all of this thread, but I thought I'd jump in. Forgive me if I'm covering old ground.

I have long said that creation and evolution are both philosophical models employing scientific evidence to support themselves.

For those who think evolution is scientific, please present the scientific theory of evolution.

There are whole wings of libraries dedicated to this subject at major Universities.

Start with this, Do a search on PubMed for "evolution". and read this: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

What is the scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[Thurisaz Sowulo]

You said that I was scared, I only implied that it might be your own fears that prompted this assertion. As far was the satire in your posts, perhaps thats in the eye of the beholder. The rest is silence.

Valid question. Let me tell you that I am in contact with a number of ex-christians, or better ex-fundies... based on their own actions they told me that usually this is the reason for fundies behaving like you did.

(Not entirely sure if you will understand me... maybe the last glass of mead was one too many )

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I suggest you read Origin of Species. It's in there somewhere, maybe around chapter 12, I forget.

May as well read the whole thing, it's a good read.

I would prefer if you found it for me, since it is you presenting the argument that evolution is a scientific theory. Creationists are often asked to present a scientific theory of creation - to which I always respond, show me the scientific statement for evolution, and I will provide a creation one in kind.

Most importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

 

[mediaman]

What research do evilutionists do into creationism? It seems to me that those who believe in God would be less inclined to research claims that deny the existance of God than those that hold that God does not exist shoud have to look into the possibility that God does exist.

It takes a lot more faith to believe that everything came to be by radom processes (wich destroy, not build-thermodynamics & common sense/observable fact.) Than it takes to believe that a rational mind created everything.

Where in your opinon did (whatever you believe was at the beggining) come from?

What logic do you hold to that says order comes from disorder?

 

[toff]

I would prefer if you found it for me, since it is you presenting the argument that evolution is a scientific theory. Creationists are often asked to present a scientific theory of creation - to which I always respond, show me the scientific statement for evolution, and I will provide a creation one in kind.

Most importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

Your position appears to be less than honest. You request a scientific theory of evolution, when any amount of documentation on precisely this subject is available. Might I suggest that you do your own research, rather than asking others to do it for you?

 

[toff]

What research do evilutionists do into creationism? It seems to me that those who believe in God would be less inclined to research claims that deny the existance of God than those that hold that God does not exist shoud have to look into the possibility that God does exist.

It takes a lot more faith to believe that everything came to be by radom processes (wich destroy, not build-thermodynamics & common sense/observable fact.) Than it takes to believe that a rational mind created everything.

Where in your opinon did (whatever you believe was at the beggining) come from?

What logic do you hold to that says order comes from disorder?

The typical straw-man attack. Sorry, but evolution does not deny the existence of God. Evolution does not dictate that everything came to be by random processes. What YOU find hard to believe is not a determining factor of truth.

And to answer your first question, most "evolutionists" (read "scientists who are active in trying to defend evolutionary theory from the religious zealots who would discard it") have done a great deal of research into creationism, trying - and failing - to find any scientific basis to it.

 

[Bushido216]

I would prefer if you found it for me, since it is you presenting the argument that evolution is a scientific theory. Creationists are often asked to present a scientific theory of creation - to which I always respond, show me the scientific statement for evolution, and I will provide a creation one in kind.

Most importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

It can be. Show that mutations never happen and that creatures are immutable.

 

[Bushido216]

What research do evilutionists do into creationism? It seems to me that those who believe in God would be less inclined to research claims that deny the existance of God than those that hold that God does not exist shoud have to look into the possibility that God does exist.

It takes a lot more faith to believe that everything came to be by radom processes (wich destroy, not build-thermodynamics & common sense/observable fact.) Than it takes to believe that a rational mind created everything.

Where in your opinon did (whatever you believe was at the beggining) come from?

What logic do you hold to that says order comes from disorder?

a.) Natural Selection isn't random.
b.) Entropy refers to the energy in a system available.
c.) Abiogenesis is a separate theory.

Do some research before bashing evolution, okay?

 

[LorentzHA]

What research do evilutionists do into creationism? It seems to me that those who believe in God would be less inclined to research claims that deny the existance of God than those that hold that God does not exist shoud have to look into the possibility that God does exist.

It takes a lot more faith to believe that everything came to be by radom processes (wich destroy, not build-thermodynamics & common sense/observable fact.) Than it takes to believe that a rational mind created everything.

Where in your opinon did (whatever you believe was at the beggining) come from?

What logic do you hold to that says order comes from disorder?

1. There is no research to be done regarding creationism. The evidence is what it is. The evidence God/nature/ what-have-you left behind says that all species were not created atone time and the Earth is not "young".

2. You may have some misconceptions regarding thermo-dynamics. If you are ref. to The Second LOT, it does not say everything goes from order to disorder, it simply speaks to the amount of energy available to do work.

3. Abiogenisis is not evoltution. Not sure where it came from, quite possible a divine being and quite possibly not---evolution has little or nothing to do with that, however.

4. Ice crystals, snowflakes, eetc. etc. Again, see The Second LOT mentioned above.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Your position appears to be less than honest. You request a scientific theory of evolution, when any amount of documentation on precisely this subject is available. Might I suggest that you do your own research, rather than asking others to do it for you?

I suspect you are guilty of confusing philosophy and science if you make such a statement. I am trying to demonstrate why science is philosophy - and for me to demonstrate that you must show me the scientific theory of evolution. If you just point to "any amount of documentation on precisely this subject", then I will point to a philosophical model. Let's get specific.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

It can be. Show that mutations never happen and that creatures are immutable.

Hang on, we've skipped a page here. You've told me that the theory can be falsified by this, but you have not shown me what theory it is that we're falsifying.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

a.) Natural Selection isn't random.
b.) Entropy refers to the energy in a system available.
c.) Abiogenesis is a separate theory.

Do some research before bashing evolution, okay?

Abiogenesis is random, and while not a part of the field of biology, is an absolutely essential part of the entire philosophical model of evolution. But of course, it's not possible to draw such distinctions until we are clear on what exactly the scientific theory of evolution is.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

3. Abiogenisis is not evoltution. Not sure where it came from, quite possible a divine being and quite possibly not---evolution has little or nothing to do with that, however.

Is it not true that naturalism holds that "the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"? And that, therefore, if you claim abiogenesis is possible to have been initiated by a divine being you are destroying the naturalistic foundation that evolution is built on?
If you are an atheist or a naturalist, then such a possibility for abiogenesis cannot be considered, leaving only the impossibility of it randomly occuring. Therefore either destroying a) naturalism & atheism, or b) philosophical model of evolution

Unless you have other naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis.

 

[Bushido216]

Evolution isn't based on naturalism. It's based on observed facts.