Creationists and research

[Bushido216]

a.) Again, I never said it did.
b.) The evidence in the fossil record and the similarity of our D.N.A. sequencing suggests a common ancestor. It's the sort of thing that we use evolution to explain.

 

[toff]

My point: the scientific theory of evolution does not contradict creationism.

So then, what is this scientific theory of evolution that states, in a falsifiable way, that we all descended from a common ancestor?

Remembering that science deals with the observable, and makes predictions about the future, and must be falsifiable.

You have just explained why creationism is not a science. Well done!

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

b.) The evidence in the fossil record and the similarity of our D.N.A. sequencing suggests a common ancestor. It's the sort of thing that we use evolution to explain.

That's not a scientific statement. I am looking for the scientific theory of evolution that includes an observable, falsifiable definition that has predictive powers about all life sharing a common ancestor.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You have just explained why creationism is not a science. Well done!

Nor did I ever claim creationism is science. It employs science to justify it's philosophical model.
But according to our currently agreed definition of evolution, creationism is not contradictory to evolution - and in fact the creation model relies on the currently given scientific definition of evolution:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

and

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.

 

[toff]

Nor did I ever claim creationism is science. It employs science to justify it's philosophical model.

No; you asked that someone explain why creationism is not a science. You did so yourself. It is not a science; it is a religious belief. Evolutionary theory, however, is a science. The two are mutually contradictory.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

No; you asked that someone explain why creationism is not a science. You did so yourself. It is not a science; it is a religious belief. Evolutionary theory, however, is a science. The two are mutually contradictory.

Ah, I see now what you meant. So you are satisfied with the scientific theory of evolution as given? Because if so, you have no cause to disagree with creation.

What I'm really looking for is that scientific theory of evolution that supposedly exists that contradicts creation.

 

[toff]

Ah, I see now what you meant. So you are satisfied with the scientific theory of evolution as given? Because if so, you have no cause to disagree with creation.

What I'm really looking for is that scientific theory of evolution that supposedly exists that contradicts creation.

Then do some research. Do you really expect anyone to be able to sum up over a hundred years of research into a neat little phrase for you? Encapsulations like "change in frequency of alleles within a gene pool" while accurate, do not - and cannot - tell the whole story. If you want to know what evolutionary theory is, go do some reading. If you want a one sentence definition that encompasses all of modern thinking on evolutionary theory...dream on.

 

[LorentzHA]

I think I know what you mean by "deeper", but that is the point of what I am to say.

I agree with those two scientific theories of evolution. They fit the observable data, and have been demonstrated time and time again. Therefore I am an evolutionist. I also believe the earth is only around 6000 years old, and that humans do not share a common ancestor with apes, dolphins, or whales. I believe that God created life on the earth around 6,000 years ago.

Why 6,000 years ago? What is so magical about this number? If God is eternal and timless why are you trying to bind him to a small time frame that you are confortable with.

 

[toff]

I think I know what you mean by "deeper", but that is the point of what I am to say.

I agree with those two scientific theories of evolution. They fit the observable data, and have been demonstrated time and time again. Therefore I am an evolutionist. I also believe the earth is only around 6000 years old, and that humans do not share a common ancestor with apes, dolphins, or whales. I believe that God created life on the earth around 6,000 years ago.

No, you are not an "evolutionist". Evolution requires billions of years and encompasses common ancestry. You are a creationist who appears to be trying to squeeze evolutionary theory into your beliefs. Sorry, won't work.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Why 6,000 years ago? What is so magical about this number? If God is eternal and timless why are you trying to bind him to a small time frame that you are confortable with.

You're missing the point. 6,000 is unrelated. All I'm pointing out is that 6,000 years is not incompatible with the scientific theory of evolution given.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Then do some research. Do you really expect anyone to be able to sum up over a hundred years of research into a neat little phrase for you? Encapsulations like "change in frequency of alleles within a gene pool" while accurate, do not - and cannot - tell the whole story. If you want to know what evolutionary theory is, go do some reading. If you want a one sentence definition that encompasses all of modern thinking on evolutionary theory...dream on.

Here's what I'm saying: I do not think there exists a scientific definition of evolution that demonstrates an old earth. That is why I am asking.

For example, what's the scientific theory that is observable, falsifiable, and makes predictions showing that all life comes from a common ancestor? That to me is essential to the theory of evolution as you understand it, but not according to the ones we've quoted. The ones I've quoted you see as a summary, while I see as definitive.

No, you are not an "evolutionist". Evolution requires billions of years and encompasses common ancestry. You are a creationist who appears to be trying to squeeze evolutionary theory into your beliefs. Sorry, won't work.

A statement of billions of years was not made in the provided scientific definition. But lets work with common ancestry. I want to see if such a scientific theory exists.

 

[toff]

Here's what I'm saying: I do not think there exists a scientific definition of evolution that demonstrates an old earth. That is why I am asking.

You are right. There is no scientific definition of evolution that demonstrates or requires an old earth. The THEORY of evolution, however, does. This, in fact, may be the root of your confusion. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two very different things. Evolution IS a change in the frequency of allelles within a gene pool. It is observed, and acknowledged by all involved in the debate. Creationists accept that it occurs (they call it "micro-evolution"). The theory of evolution is a theory which uses the observed fact of evolution as the basis for a much wider theory of how the planet came to be populated with the diverse life forms that currently populate it. It is this theory (not the observed fact of evolution) that deals with common descent and requires an earth age in the billions of years.

For example, what's the scientific theory that is observable, falsifiable, and makes predictions showing that all life comes from a common ancestor? That to me is essential to the theory of evolution as you understand it, but not according to the ones we've quoted. The ones I've quoted you see as a summary, while I see as definitive.

See my previous post. A hundred years of research cannot be summarised into a nice little sentence or two for your convenience. Do some research to find out what the theory of evolution is - for it appears you don't know.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You are right. There is no scientific definition of evolution that demonstrates or requires an old earth. The THEORY of evolution, however, does. This, in fact, may be the root of your confusion. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two very different things. Evolution IS a change in the frequency of allelles within a gene pool. It is observed, and acknowledged by all involved in the debate. Creationists accept that it occurs (they call it "micro-evolution"). The theory of evolution is a theory which uses the observed fact of evolution as the basis for a much wider theory of how the planet came to be populated with the diverse life forms that currently populate it. It is this theory (not the observed fact of evolution) that deals with common descent and requires an earth age in the billions of years.

Such is the nature of philosophy, which works to join the various sciences (geology, physics, biology, etc) together.

If the THEORY of evolution is not a scientifically testable one, then it is a philosophical one - it employs scientific evidence to justify a philosophical position.

If you disagree, then tell me how such a theory can be scientific.
Even better, tell me a scientific theory that is falsifiable, observable, and has predictive powers showing that all living things share a common ancestor. This is precisely the criticism leveled against creationists, and I am levelling it against the theory of evolution.
I'm not asking for one of all that people push under the umbrella of "evolution", but on only a specific part - common ancestry.

 

[toff]

Such is the nature of philosophy, which works to join the various sciences (geology, physics, biology, etc) together.

If the THEORY of evolution is not a scientifically testable one, then it is a philosophical one - it employs scientific evidence to justify a philosophical position.

If you disagree, then tell me how such a theory can be scientific.
Even better, tell me a scientific theory that is falsifiable, observable, and has predictive powers showing that all living things share a common ancestor. This is precisely the criticism leveled against creationists, and I am levelling it against the theory of evolution.
I'm not asking for one of all that people push under the umbrella of "evolution", but on only a specific part - common ancestry.

For the umpteenth time...go do some research! READ some books on the subject to LEARN what the theory of evolution is!

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

For the umpteenth time...go do some research! READ some books on the subject to LEARN what the theory of evolution is!

Sigh. I've done quite a lot of reading and research on evolution. What should I search google for - "scientific theory of common ancestry"? There is nothing.

I believe there is no scientific theory for testing, falsifying, and observing common ancestry. Because it's not science!!! It's philosophy, and it employs scientific observations to make it's case. If I go and look on the web for evidence of common ancestry, they will be forming a deductive argument (philosophical one) based on scientific evidence.

My point is simple - the all encompassing theory of evolution that does include common ancestry is philosophical in nature. If you believe I am wrong then prove it. But I'm making this bold assertion now, so that you have opportunity to prove me wrong - there is no scientific theory of common ancestry that is observable, repeatable, falsifiable, and makes predictions about the future. Now, I can't provide evidence that something doesn't exist. I can point to a number of places as examples that no such theory exists. So, my claim is falsifiable - you merely need to show me a scientific theory of common ancestry to refute my claim.

 

[Bushido216]

That's not a scientific statement. I am looking for the scientific theory of evolution that includes an observable, falsifiable definition that has predictive powers about all life sharing a common ancestor.

a.) What you're looking for is impossible. How can I predict what has already happened?
b.) The theory of evolution would merely explain the mechanism by which the men and apes diverged. In this instance, it would say that a single population become separate and two different pressures acted on the two populations, thus resulting in two different evolutionary paths.
c.) I wonder why it is that you have a serious problem with evolution, which became a theory the same way as any other, but not other theories?

 

[Bushido216]

Here's what I'm saying: I do not think there exists a scientific definition of evolution that demonstrates an old earth. That is why I am asking.

For example, what's the scientific theory that is observable, falsifiable, and makes predictions showing that all life comes from a common ancestor? That to me is essential to the theory of evolution as you understand it, but not according to the ones we've quoted. The ones I've quoted you see as a summary, while I see as definitive.


A statement of billions of years was not made in the provided scientific definition. But lets work with common ancestry. I want to see if such a scientific theory exists.

You're getting things confused. Evolution doesn't require an old earth. Evolution being the agent responsible for the full house of life on earth requires an old earth.

I think that's the nashing point here.

 

[Bushido216]

Sigh. I've done quite a lot of reading and research on evolution. What should I search google for - "scientific theory of common ancestry"? There is nothing.

I believe there is no scientific theory for testing, falsifying, and observing common ancestry. Because it's not science!!! It's philosophy, and it employs scientific observations to make it's case. If I go and look on the web for evidence of common ancestry, they will be forming a deductive argument (philosophical one) based on scientific evidence.

My point is simple - the all encompassing theory of evolution that does include common ancestry is philosophical in nature. If you believe I am wrong then prove it. But I'm making this bold assertion now, so that you have opportunity to prove me wrong - there is no scientific theory of common ancestry that is observable, repeatable, falsifiable, and makes predictions about the future. Now, I can't provide evidence that something doesn't exist. I can point to a number of places as examples that no such theory exists. So, my claim is falsifiable - you merely need to show me a scientific theory of common ancestry to refute my claim.

We can't observe common ancestry, it's already happened. We can, however, observe the effects through the fossil record. There is a fairly unambigious chain from single-celled organisms to everybody else.

A theory of common ancestry, which would really be covered by the greater theory of evolution (responsible for all life) wouldn't make predictions about the future. The greater theory of evolution, however, predicts that those who are the most fit to survive have the greatest chance at doing so.

 

[toff]

Sigh. I've done quite a lot of reading and research on evolution. What should I search google for - "scientific theory of common ancestry"? There is nothing.

I believe there is no scientific theory for testing, falsifying, and observing common ancestry. Because it's not science!!! It's philosophy, and it employs scientific observations to make it's case. If I go and look on the web for evidence of common ancestry, they will be forming a deductive argument (philosophical one) based on scientific evidence.

My point is simple - the all encompassing theory of evolution that does include common ancestry is philosophical in nature. If you believe I am wrong then prove it. But I'm making this bold assertion now, so that you have opportunity to prove me wrong - there is no scientific theory of common ancestry that is observable, repeatable, falsifiable, and makes predictions about the future. Now, I can't provide evidence that something doesn't exist. I can point to a number of places as examples that no such theory exists. So, my claim is falsifiable - you merely need to show me a scientific theory of common ancestry to refute my claim.

I'm sorry, but based on your posts, I don't believe you have done "lot of reading and research on evolution". If you had, you wouldn't be asking these questions, and you wouldn't be insisting that the theory of evolution is philosophical, rather than scientific. Until you DO that reading, yes, you'll continue to be confused.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I believe there is no scientific theory for testing, falsifying, and observing common ancestry. Because it's not science!!!

Two words: Phylogenetic Tree