Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[LoG]

Deduction and prediction cannot verify. They can falsifiy. That is why science sorts out theories on the basis of what has been falsified rather than on the basis of what has been verified.

When a theory consistently resists falsification, in that all the evidence agrees with the predictions, it is considered to be a well-substantiated theory that provides a consistently accurate model of reality.

My bad. The theory is substantiated (not verified) by accurate predictions.

Using your method I could say that Creationism is true because we do not have Adam's bones or DNA to test and falsify that he is our common ancestor but I can deduce and predict that he is.

You are forgetting the evidence that supports the predictions. When evidence that must be there if the predictions are true, turns out to be there in fact, we are not dealing with just idealistic conjecture.

I'm not forgetting the supported predictions or I wouldn't have made the comment that it could have happened. However there are still many predictions which have not as yet been verified...substantiated. Therefore there is still room for much doubt.

No, you cannot, because you have nothing from which to deduce or predict anything. A prediction that is not testable is not a scientific prediction. A prediction that is not derived from a hypothesis is not a scientific prediction. A hypothesis that is not based on observed data is not a scientific hypothesis.

Yes I can. The bible is a book whether inspired by God or written by men that tells me (hypothesizes if you prefer) that men come from men, birds come from birds, fish come from fish, etc. and will continue to be so. This is predictable for creationism but is not the case for the mutations that had to have developed to prove evolution. Everytime a lifeform is born, hatched or spawned it is a greater evidence for creationism than it is for evolution due to it being of the same species as its parents.

If you have no observed evidence to begin with, there is no basis for hypothesis, deduction, prediction or test. Remember that the purpose of a theory (which will be the outcome of the testing of a hypothesis) is to explain observed data.

Lots of observed evidence for creationism to the degree that the "hypothesis" in the bible goes to.

So you can't even hypothesize Adam until you have some evidence upon which to build that hypothesis. And without a hypothesis, you have no basis for deduction, and no basis for prediction.

The evidence is all around us. For thousands of years Creationism was the accepted answer to where and how we got here. There are details that we don't know or understand but the hypothesis and its ensuing deductions and predictions have not been falsified. There are over 5 billion people and even more billions of other life forms on this earth that bear witness to that event. I assume you are speaking of some type of physical evidence. Isn't it true that Evolutionists are lacking the same evidence for a common ancestor and in fact have even less in that it doesn't have any historical writing to back up its theory? That has not prevented them from hypothesizing and even inventing "proofs" in an attempt to legitimize itself.

Evolution, from the beginning, has been a way of understanding concrete data about species past and present.

There are many more gaps in Evolution and materialism than there is in the Creationism hypothesis.

 

[gluadys]

My bad. The theory is substantiated (not verified) by accurate predictions.



I'm not forgetting the supported predictions or I wouldn't have made the comment that it could have happened. However there are still many predictions which have not as yet been verified...substantiated. Therefore there is still room for much doubt.

More to the point, there is to date, no evidence that falsifies the predictions.

Yes I can. The bible is a book whether inspired by God or written by men that tells me (hypothesizes if you prefer) that men come from men, birds come from birds, fish come from fish, etc. and will continue to be so. This is predictable for creationism but is not the case for the mutations that had to have developed to prove evolution. Everytime a lifeform is born, hatched or spawned it is a greater evidence for creationism than it is for evolution due to it being of the same species as its parents.

The bible per se is not evidence since it was not produced by nature. But chicks hatching from hen's eggs, piglets born of sows, and carrots growing from carrot seeds, etc. that is evidence.

However, since this is predicted by evolution as well as special creation, it is not evidence that favours one over the other.

The evidence is all around us. For thousands of years Creationism was the accepted answer to where and how we got here.

And for thousands of years geocentrism was the accepted answer to the motions of celestial bodies. And demon possession was the accepted answer to why people became feverish or epileptic or succumbed to all manner of illnesses. And the wrath of God was the accepted answer to explain earthquakes, famines, volcanoes and other disasters.

Studying natural phenomena scientifically challenges traditional, but superficial, explanations. It also brings out much more clearly what an amazing world God has created.

There are details that we don't know or understand but the hypothesis and its ensuing deductions and predictions have not been falsified.

In how many of these cases is there really an hypothesis i.e. a tentative explanation based on observed evidence? A hypothesis is not an idea snatched out of thin air. It has to have a relation to concrete observation.

I assume you are speaking of some type of physical evidence.

Of course. That is the only kind of evidence science deals with.

Isn't it true that Evolutionists are lacking the same evidence for a common ancestor and in fact have even less in that it doesn't have any historical writing to back up its theory?

No. The phyiscal evidence supporting common ancestry is quite stong.

There are many more gaps in Evolution and materialism than there is in the Creationism hypothesis.

Hypotheses and consequent theories are based on evidence we do have. Speculating about evidence that has not been discovered yet is just a way to avoid the evidence that is known. When creationism cannot explain already observed evidence, why should we expect it to do any better at explaining unobserved evidence? Evolution both explains already observed evidence and predicts evidence not yet observed.

 

[The Lady Kate]

There are many more gaps in Evolution and materialism than there is in the Creationism hypothesis.

Only because Creationism fills in its gaps with "Goddidit." Science prefers to find evidence.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Point is, Lady Kate, there is no testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE of African ape C ever evolving into African human D. It's just an unfounded and biased assumption on the part of neo-Darwinist race theorists. That's why all 'respectable' scientists should disavow neo-Darwinist racial theories and condemn the inherent racism in all theories of human evolution in or out of Africa.

Should? I'm not seeing a reason to do so.Geographically speaking, every search for evidence regarding human origins leads to the same location... Africa. And reason not to follow the fossils?

No, you neglected to post them. Here, I'll make them magically appear again.

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Ah, there they are. How nice for them to make an appearance after your hypothesis was refuted.

How about the racial prejudice and bigotry inherent in assuming that so-called "primitive" African people (D and E) originated from hairy apes? (A, B and C) without a shred of testable or demonstrable scientific EVIDENCE to support such pretentious and abominable racial theories about the origins of African people?

Don't you mean "all" people? Why single out Africans?

 

[Numenor]

Don't you mean "all" people? Why single out Africans?

Because that omission is the only way he can get his ludicrous racist tag to stick.

 

[LoG]

More to the point, there is to date, no evidence that falsifies the predictions.

Even more to the point from a past pattern perspective is that no evidence can or will falsify evolution since it is simply incorporated into the theory through special explanations.

The bible per se is not evidence since it was not produced by nature. But chicks hatching from hen's eggs, piglets born of sows, and carrots growing from carrot seeds, etc. that is evidence.

However, since this is predicted by evolution as well as special creation, it is not evidence that favours one over the other.

Of course the bible isn't evidence just as Origin of the Species is not. They are books that give the framework for their respective theories.

And for thousands of years geocentrism was the accepted answer to the motions of celestial bodies. And demon possession was the accepted answer to why people became feverish or epileptic or succumbed to all manner of illnesses. And the wrath of God was the accepted answer to explain earthquakes, famines, volcanoes and other disasters.

Geocentrism has not been falsified according to this book.
Demon affliction is still potentially the reason people get sick. Just because science has not been able to rationalize it, does not mean it isn't true and do you also have incontrovertable proof that it isn't God's wrath that causes calamaties? Is there anything in the bible that you believe in?

Studying natural phenomena scientifically challenges traditional, but superficial, explanations. It also brings out much more clearly what an amazing world God has created.

Truly it is the scientific explanations which are superficial from my perspective.

In how many of these cases is there really an hypothesis i.e. a tentative explanation based on observed evidence? A hypothesis is not an idea snatched out of thin air. It has to have a relation to concrete observation.

The bible supplies a sound explanation of how everything organic and non-organic came about and is grounded in concrete evidence.Is there something in it that you have contentions with as a hypotheses?

Of course. That is the only kind of evidence science deals with.

What about the deductions, predictions, special explanations. In much of my readings about evolutionary theory, more weight is put on the non-tangibles than there is on the physical evidence.

No. The phyiscal evidence supporting common ancestry is quite stong.

And its critique even stronger.

Hypotheses and consequent theories are based on evidence we do have. Speculating about evidence that has not been discovered yet is just a way to avoid the evidence that is known. When creationism cannot explain already observed evidence, why should we expect it to do any better at explaining unobserved evidence? Evolution both explains already observed evidence and predicts evidence not yet observed.

I can't say that I have as yet come across unexplainable evidences other than some of the hoaxes that Evolutionists have attempted in past to foist on Creationists.

 

[LoG]

Only because Creationism fills in its gaps with "Goddidit." Science prefers to find evidence.

Evolutionary science seems to be more interested in finding evidence that "nature" did it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Evolutionary science seems to be more interested in finding evidence that "nature" did it.

And since when do Christians have to accept the atheist stance of "Natural=No-God"?

I see natural events as being the tools of God.

 

[gluadys]

Even more to the point from a past pattern perspective is that no evidence can or will falsify evolution since it is simply incorporated into the theory through special explanations.

Or because it is true. Truth cannot be falsified.

What "special explanatinos" are you talking about?

Of course the bible isn't evidence just as Origin of the Species is not. They are books that give the framework for their respective theories.

The bible does not present a scientific theory at all. It simply takes for granted the pre-scientific view of the age in which it was written.

Origin does present a theory and cites the evidence on which that theory is based. You are right, the book itself is not evidence, but biologists can readily study the evidence cited in the book and similar evidence.

Geocentrism has not been falsified according to this book.
Demon affliction is still potentially the reason people get sick. Just because science has not been able to rationalize it, does not mean it isn't true and do you also have incontrovertable proof that it isn't God's wrath that causes calamaties? Is there anything in the bible that you believe in?

Bravo for you. I have always said that to be consistent in their critique of the age of the earth and evolution, creationists needed to reject other cases in which scripture conflicts with such modern concepts as the spherical shape of the earth, its placement relative to the sun, its motion, as well as modern theories of disease, meterology, geology, etc. It is rare to meet someone who is prepared to go the whole nine yards.

The bible supplies a sound explanation of how everything organic and non-organic came about and is grounded in concrete evidence.Is there something in it that you have contentions with as a hypotheses?

The bible does not contain any hypothesis on this issue.

What about the deductions, predictions, special explanations. In much of my readings about evolutionary theory, more weight is put on the non-tangibles than there is on the physical evidence.

The deductions and predictions are drawn from the hypothesis which is grounded in observation and they are tested against further observations.

You will have to enlighted me as to what "special explanations" you are talking about.

And its critique even stronger.

Read it long ago. Typically, it does not deal with the evidence Theobald presents, but tries to divert attention to other, mostly irrelevant issues.

I can't say that I have as yet come across unexplainable evidences other than some of the hoaxes that Evolutionists have attempted in past to foist on Creationists.

I don't really know what you are talking about? And can you name any hoax in the history of evolutionary studies that was not aimed at fooling evolutionists?

 

[david_x]

No. The phyiscal evidence supporting common ancestry is quite stong.

But, you must ask yourself one thing. Does it point to common ancestry or a common creator who knew a good way of making things and did it nearly the same in every species?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

But, you must ask yourself one thing. Does it point to common ancestry or a common creator who knew a good way of making things and did it nearly the same in every species?

And the two have to be separate because?



Could it be that evolution is the tool that God used to design?

 

[david_x]

Could it be that evolution is the tool that God used to design?

uhhh.... i think thats kinda what i said? there will be no true knowledge of the entire encomposing issue until we're past the pearly gates.

 

[gluadys]

But, you must ask yourself one thing. Does it point to common ancestry or a common creator who knew a good way of making things and did it nearly the same in every species?

It points to both of course. Just as your and your siblings have both a common ancestry in your parents and grandparents, yet also have a common creator.

Evolution is a mode of creation, not an alternative to creation.

A common creator alone does not explain the patterns of similarity we see in species. Especially when the similarity is not a good way of making things. Common ancestry does.

 

[LoG]

Or because it is true. Truth cannot be falsified.

Of course truth can be falsified. That is why we have words like deceive and lie in our dictionaries.

The bible does not present a scientific theory at all. It simply takes for granted the pre-scientific view of the age in which it was written.

Do I take that to mean you do not believe the Bible to be the infallible or inspired words of God but simply a book of myths written by men in the distant past?

Bravo for you. I have always said that to be consistent in their critique of the age of the earth and evolution, creationists needed to reject other cases in which scripture conflicts with such modern concepts as the spherical shape of the earth, its placement relative to the sun, its motion, as well as modern theories of disease, meterology, geology, etc. It is rare to meet someone who is prepared to go the whole nine yards.

Other than the flat earth dealy I think you've got a good idea where I'm coming from. The Earth being the centre of the Universe is a new one on me actually that came as a result of several links I ran across while researching a previous post. It is something I will look into futher when I have some time. On the surface there is good support for it. I will also admit that until a month ago, I believed in an old earth with previous creations. That belief was radically altered when I started to research present Evolutionary and Creationism models and saw a lot of deceptive interpretations of data coming from the Darwin camp. That is making me question a lot of the information that is coming from the scientific arena.

The bible does not contain any hypothesis on this issue.

So you believe that the story of creation was "snatched out of thin air"?
The definition for hypothesis in my dictionary is a good description for what the bible contains in regards to creation so I have to conclude you are stating your opinion in this as opposed to the facts.

The deductions and predictions are drawn from the hypothesis which is grounded in observation and they are tested against further observations.

Sounds good. In reality many predictions have been wrong and yet the theory was simply expanded to accomodate the different result. Then in turn the result was used as proof of the theory. Not normally considered good scientific methodology and why I said previously that Evolution will never be proved wrong. When the results of a prediction are considered proof of a theory regardless of whether the prediction was accurate or not is it then falsifiable?

You will have to enlighted me as to what "special explanations" you are talking about.

You can start with Darwin's Principle if Divergence. Look around and you will find more but not unfortunately on the sites that are attempting to prove Evolution.

I don't really know what you are talking about? And can you name any hoax in the history of evolutionary studies that was not aimed at fooling evolutionists?

You're a smart lady who is well versed in this field. I have no doubt you can rhyme off more examples than i can from both sides.

 

[shernren]

Do I take that to mean you do not believe the Bible to be the infallible or inspired words of God but simply a book of myths written by men in the distant past?

Can't a myth be infallible and divinely inspired?

 

[AngCath]

Yes I affirm evolution as a scientific theory because like all other good theories it is constantly being tested, re-tested, revised, re-tested, etc. (scientific method) and being formed over time. It may prove extremely false in 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years but that doesn't change it's status. Remember that Science is a process.

 

[david_x]

It points to both of course. Just as your and your siblings have both a common ancestry in your parents and grandparents, yet also have a common creator.

Evolution is a mode of creation, not an alternative to creation.

A common creator alone does not explain the patterns of similarity we see in species. Especially when the similarity is not a good way of making things. Common ancestry does.

uhhh.... i think thats kinda what i said? there will be no true knowledge of the entire encomposing issue until we're past the pearly gates.

Can't a myth be infallible and divinely inspired?

NO, that whould make it true and therfore not a myth!!!

Yes I affirm evolution as a scientific theory because like all other good theories it is constantly being tested, re-tested, revised, re-tested, etc. (scientific method) and being formed over time. It may prove extremely false in 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years but that doesn't change it's status. Remember that Science is a process.

Yeah, so doesn't it stand that the Bible is actually ahead of our time like it has been to so mant other times in history.

 

[Numenor]

NO, that whould make it true and therfore not a myth!!!

The parables of Christ are true, but the events described did not necessarily happen.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Er...uh....'scuse me......

That would be 'no'.

 

[artybloke]

NO, that whould make it true and therfore not a myth!!!

Again, why can't a myth be true?

Like a lot of people, you're making a false assumption that all truth has to be "factual". By "factual" I mean verifiable by scientific or historical method. But the truths of the creation story are theological and philosophical truths that can't be verified in such ways. Those truths are told through telling a story, just like you might tell Aesop's fables to teach your children good values.