Evolution and Science

[Freedom777]

The word Evolution has many definitions. In science there are 6 definitions used for the word Evolution.
1.Cosmic Evolution (something from nothing,Big Bang)
2.Steller Evolution (stars and galaxies)
3.Chemical Evolution (the elements hydrogen ect..)
4.Organic Evolution (Life from nonlife)
5.Macro-Evolution (single cell on up the latter to man)
6.Micro-Evolution or Genetic remnet Variation
The first 5 are inherently un-scientific.The sixth one Micro-Evolution is the only one that is scientific.
Empirical Science or True Science or Natural Science is something that is Testable, Repeatable and Observable, Its this kind of Science that put us on the moon.Of them 6, only the last one falls in that catagory.The others are, at best, Theories, outside of Empirical Science or more commonly just beliefs.

On a related note, this article drives home some truths about evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i6f.htm

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

It was terrible on the other thread - and it still is.

You just don't know any science and have no clue what you are stating.

I kind of feel sorry for you really!

 

[gluadys]

I saw that list in a Jack Chick comic.

Don't know whether they got if from AiG or the reverse.

In any case it is pseudo-scientific babble.

 

[Freedom777]

It was terrible on the other thread - and it still is.

You just don't know any science and have no clue what you are stating.

I kind of feel sorry for you really!

Look, i don't know everything about science,although i've been learning alot.But i do know what science is and what science is not.

Science: Knowledge as of facts,phenomena, laws, and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment , and correct thinking.

Scientific: Agreeing with the rules,princibles, or methods of science ; accurate; Systematic; exact.

The Scientific Method: A method of inquiry depending upon the reciprocal interplay of observable data and generalizations. it consists typically of the statment of a problem and the accumulation and analysis of revelent data that may lead to the construction of an hypotheses, in turn tested by the reliablity and accuracy of deductions from it and by its consistency with other hypotheses and observed data.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

No you don't. That, unfortunately is the whole bloody point. You don't.

It is so obvious that you are fumbling around terms and concepts you don't comprehend.

I cannot draw to save my life - so i don't pretend i'm an artist. You cannot understand science based upon your typings here - ergo, you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

I repeat - you have not the skill set to distinguish science from non-science. Actually your skill seems to be completely getting it wrong - hence in the future just take the position of anything you think isn't science then it probably is - anything you think is science probably is not - then you should be on the right course.

 

[Freedom777]

No you don't. That, unfortunately is the whole bloody point. You don't.

It is so obvious that you are fumbling around terms and concepts you don't comprehend.

I cannot draw to save my life - so i don't pretend i'm an artist. You cannot understand science based upon your typings here - ergo, you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

I repeat - you have not the skill set to distinguish science from non-science. Actually your skill seems to be completely getting it wrong - hence in the future just take the position of anything you think isn't science then it probably is - anything you think is science probably is not - then you should be on the right course.

Ok since you know, than what may i ask is Science,wait let me guess................................................................evolution.

 

[notto]

Freedom,

Please explain why the Big Bang theory is unscientific based on the definitions you gave us for the scientific method.

 

[Freedom777]

Freedom,

Please explain why the Big Bang theory is unscientific based on the definitions you gave us for the scientific method.

'Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.'

Burbidge, G., 1992. Why only one big bang? Scientific American, 266(2):96.

 

[notto]

An assertion does not answer the question.

Unless you can provide us with a list of these supposed untestable assumptions, shall we conclude that you are simply accepting the assertion without the proper knowledge to evaluate it for yourself? Why?

 

[Freedom777]

An assertion does not answer the question.

Unless you can provide us with a list of these supposed untestable assumptions, shall we conclude that you are simply accepting the assertion without the proper knowledge to evaluate it for yourself? Why?

I'll let you figure that out.I don't want to get into the big gang theory i have other interests at the moment.But i'll be glad to give you a link that will show you the many unscientific assumptions within it?Let me know

 

[notto]

I'll let you figure that out.I don't want to get into the big gang theory i have other interests at the moment.But i'll be glad to give you a link that will show you the many unscientific assumptions within it?Let me know

What would be even better would be some peer-reviewed articles written by degreed physicists.

 

[Freedom777]

What would be even better would be some peer-reviewed articles written by degreed physicists.

For one thing it does not take a physicist to know some of the assumptions of the big bang not only defy logic but also most of the known laws of the universe.Its nothing but a mixture of partial facts and fanciful story telling.Its been adhered to this long becuase no one has come up with another ,nothing more,nothing less.You know you shouldn't believe everything you here just becuase they say there on the side of evolutionism.Since what i have to contribute is usless and not scientific why even waste your breath, because if it is so obvious to you that my sources are corrupt than don't worry others will see the folly also.

 

[notto]

For one thing it does not take a physicist to know some of the assumptions of the big bang not only defy logic but also most of the known laws of the universe.Its nothing but a mixture of partial facts and fanciful story telling.Its been adhered to this long becuase no one has come up with another ,nothing more,nothing less.You know you shouldn't believe everything you here just becuase they say there on the side of evolutionism.Since what i have to contribute is usless and not scientific why even waste your breath, because if it is so obvious to you that my sources are corrupt than don't worry others will see the folly also.

More assertions without support.

'defy logic but also most of the known laws of the universe'.

1) Logic is not a good guide when dealing with physics. Relativity defies logic, that is why it is so hard to understand and accept.

2) Physicists seem to have a pretty good handle on the 'known laws of the universe'. Without an example, I don't think it is realistic to say that they would spend time on a theory that defies 'most' of them. What would they have to gain?

3) Have you looked at the alternative theories from the big bang dissenters you have quoted? You should have a problem with them as well since they would fall under 'defying logic' as well. They certainly don't come close to a YEC understanding and in that regard, the Big Bang should be a much more accpeted theory for you. (hint - the alternative theory suggests that the univererse has always existed and does not have a beginning. No need for a creator or moment of creation in steady state theory).

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. You are confusing your fields of science. There are no valid models of the universe that put it at less than a billion or so years old (and this includes models other than the big bang). Your problem is not with 'evolutionists', it is with physicists and astrophysicists and with mainstream science in general.

 

[Freedom777]

More assertions without support.

'defy logic but also most of the known laws of the universe'.

1) Logic is not a good guide when dealing with physics. Relativity defies logic, that is why it is so hard to understand and accept.

2) Physicists seem to have a pretty good handle on the 'known laws of the universe'. Without an example, I don't think it is realistic to say that they would spend time on a theory that defies 'most' of them. What would they have to gain?

3) Have you looked at the alternative theories from the big bang dissenters you have quoted? You should have a problem with them as well since they would fall under 'defying logic' as well. They certainly don't come close to a YEC understanding and in that regard, the Big Bang should be a much more accpeted theory for you. (hint - the alternative theory suggests that the univererse has always existed and does not have a beginning. No need for a creator or moment of creation in steady state theory).

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. You are confusing your fields of science. There are no valid models of the universe that put it at less than a billion or so years old (and this includes models other than the big bang). Your problem is not with 'evolutionists', it is with physicists and astrophysicists and with mainstream science in general.

Okay i'll entertain you on this one i just need a little time.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Freedom,

Please explain why the Big Bang theory is unscientific based on the definitions you gave us for the scientific method.

It seems to me that the Big Bang Theory would only be a problem if one were trying to prove atheistic evolution. I mean if we are all Christians and believe God created the universe (only debating methods) then wouldn't it be easy to see that He said "Let there be light." and BANG the universe exploded into existence leaving the evidence behind that are pointed to as proof of the BBT? If we keep pushing for a purely naturalistic explanation aren't we assuming the AEs are correct? Just a thought.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No. We are just noting that God uses natural processes to create the universe and are finding out wht those natural processes are.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

No. We are just noting that God uses natural processes to create the universe and are finding out wht those natural processes are.

But if the universe is self-existing, then by definition, it was not created. Then of course the universe and God are both self-existant, in which case, He didn't create it and if we evolved by natural processes, then He didn't create us. So what right does He have to tell us what to do?

I'm not denying the BBT doctrine, just saying that I see no problem with it as a beginning if one assumes God caused it. To assert a naturalistic beginning is to deny the existence of God anyway. The naturalistic worldview states that nature is all there is. Or do you believe God was formed by/at the Big Bang also? That would explain a lot about the insistence on a purely naturalistic explanation.

 

[Freedom777]

Interesting ,Never thought of it that way, I see your point, it does make sense. What i'm trying to do with this is to see it through the eyes of the general theory of evolution.Than to try to point out fallacies with that way of thinking,in particular the origin of the universe, the assumptions drawn from it, and weather them assumptions fall in the realms of science. Although i have not got a start on it yet.

 

[notto]

Interesting ,Never thought of it that way, I see your point, it does make sense. What i'm trying to do with this is to see it through the eyes of the general theory of evolution.Than to try to point out fallacies with that way of thinking,in particular the origin of the universe, the assumptions drawn from it, and weather them assumptions fall in the realms of science. Although i have not got a start on it yet.

The general theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang.

 

[artybloke]

But if the universe is self-existing, then by definition, it was not created

You're self-existing, but you had a mum and dad.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't say that the universe came about entirely of its own accord, out of nothing. It says that there was a singularity that expanded over an enormous period of time (12-20 billion years) to become the universe we have now.

Science even at this level of complexity is essentially descriptive. It says "this is what we think happened, and this is way we think it happened." It says nothing about who started the process, or why it happened. These are theological and philosophical questions, not scientific ones.