Evolution vs. Creationism

[Stellar Vision]

E. The truth hurts.

 

[Silent Bob]

Oh forgot to add E!!! In case you didn't notice, lol.

Yeah right. What evidence do you have to support evolution?

As prax already pointed out EVERYTHING!

It would also be nice for once to acknowledge the fact that Science deals in evidence and it postulates theories trying to explain how the facts came to be. Nothing is set in stone, the theories often change when new evidence or better understanding make their way into the scientific community. To claim that theory X is completely wrong because it was based on theory A which now we know that is wrong is truly a scientific fallacy. Never forget that our understanding of physics change all the time, never forget that what Sir Isaac Newton proved was overturned by Einstein. Even scientists disprove their own theories even if they made bets about them (/me points towards Hawking's little bet on black holes)

On the other hand YECism or other flavors of Creationism are not at all scientific, they get the cart before the horse. All YECs do is take an ancient myth baptize it a theory and start picking their "evidence" to fit that theory. I've been around for some time and it would be nice to see some form of positive evidence for Creationism however all that I end up seeing is a bunch of straw arguments against well established theories based on lacking, altered and partial data. For once it would be great to see a Creationist go: the data is this, from the data our understanding is this, our predictions are these and if this occurred then our theory would be disproved.

And no, God did it cause thats what an ancient text says is no argument it bares no evidence and it has no use in improving our understanding of nature or God's ways.

Btw I have hang around in other forums as well you ll be amazed how many people left Christianity as a whole because when they really studied biology, history and physics they found their entire belief structure to be flawed. Cause that is exactly what happens when you take faith away from a religion and try to prove it to the world. People will attack it they'll prove it wrong and your kids and friends will end up without a religion because they didn't base their beliefs on faith but on false science. I would like to be double clear on this issue NO religion no matter which, can survive when it goes head to head against science. So embrace the fact that it is an alegorical myth, have faith in God, Jesus, Buddha or whatever you have faith into and stop looking for evidence, there is none. That is what having faith is all about.

But then again that is just me so if you DO have coherent evidence make your case if not stop wasting your time. All that will happen if you just throw claims at folks is that you'll be given a link to talkorigins that falsifies your claim and you'll get not even half a good debate.

 

[jwu]

The sun moves away from the earth at the rate of 5 miles per hour. If we were to go back just 1 million years, the sun would be so hot that the earth, and all it's inhabitants would be dead, and we wouldn't be here.

Some math about this?

If we assume these 5 miles per hour to be constant, then the earth moves away from the sun 43,800 miles per year.

The current distance to the sun is roughly 93,000,000 miles (plus minus some percent).

This means the earth would have touched the sun merely 2128 years ago...do you really wish to propose this?

PS:
The orbit of the earth around the sun is elliptic and thus the distance varies. Therefore it certainly happens that at some times it is moving away from the sun at this speed, so that information is not entirely incorrect. However, it doesn't keep moving away at that speed all the time, and it moves closer to the sun again too. In the end this pretty much balances out each other.

jwu

 

[Mistermystery]

Some math about this?

If we assume these 5 miles per hour to be constant, then the earth moves away from the sun 43,800 miles per year.

The current distance to the sun is roughly 93,000,000 miles (plus minus some percent).

This means the earth would have touched the sun merely 2128 years ago...do you really wish to propose this?

PS:
The orbit of the earth around the sun is elliptic and thus the distance varies. Therefore it certainly happens that at some times it is moving away from the sun at this speed, so that information is not entirely incorrect. However, it doesn't keep moving away at that speed all the time, and it moves closer to the sun again too. In the end this pretty much balances out each other.

jwu

Not to mention that we'd all get fried if we move in close enough. Well done on the math that I was to lazy for.

 

[The Bellman]

I'm predicting we won't see the OPer again...he's surely to embarassed after that ridiculous moving sun argument to show his face again.

 

[h2whoa]

Maths is an invention by Godless heathen atheistic baby-eaters. Your "numbers" mean nothing.

Ha!

h2

 

[william jay schroeder]

Im a creationist, the sun thing sounds odd, so i wont touch that. as for proving theories wrong that hard to do since there just theories, and theories arent excatly science but science and assuptiuons together. any one can make a theory and say it true, untill its proven one way or the other. So my first proof for creation is this. Ill start simple. Evilutionist acknowledge that fossil record is one of fully-formed abrupt appearances and no change of time. The simplest form of life is tremendously complex. like the simple bacteria cell which has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred BILLION atoms. All of those together, and none work without the other, For instance in a cell, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesis proteins is stored in the DNA, but the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already. Ill start there you next

 

[llDayo]

Just because YOU can't imagine something could have formed doesn't mean SOMEONE hasn't already or isn't able to. Irreducible Complexity (which you are describing here) is one of these ideas that says "this couldn't have come about naturally, therefore, goddit". Unless you can actually show this is not true by citing formations of proteins as not being able to combine into RNA and then developing into DNA then you have no case.

 

[jwu]

as for proving theories wrong that hard to do since there just theories, and theories arent excatly science but science and assuptiuons together. any one can make a theory and say it true, untill its proven one way or the other.

That's not quite what a scientific theory is, but pretty much the common speech meaning of the term theory.
What you described, science mixed with assumptions, would be a hypothesis. Once this hypothesis has been substantiated by *a lot* of evidence it can become a theory.
Note that scientific laws are something different. They describe how things are or behave. Theories describe why they are or behave that way. Therefore, since they are about entirely different things, theories cannot be promoted to laws, they already are as good as it gets.

Edit: Annoying typo...

jwu

 

[icebreaker]

Uh... every bit of evidence points to evolution, if there was evidence to falsify the theory of evolution we wouldn't use it anymore.

But hasnt there been ideas or theories within Evolution that have been found false or have been dropped by evolutionists over time? I am no expert but I think it was something like the pepper moth theory.

Another thing I remember was something like the fruit fly experiment that didnt show any change of species or something I will have to look more into it before I talk more about.

I did a quick search for the stuff that I mentioned above and this site talks about both.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/

And yes im sure there have been ideas by creationists that have been disproved was just trying to bring up that some things about evolution have been disproved.

If you know of any others please let me know

 

[Sphere]

Im a creationist, the sun thing sounds odd, so i wont touch that. as for proving theories wrong that hard to do since there just theories, and theories arent excatly science but science and assuptiuons together.

You're right. For example, whats with that germ theory? It hasnt been 100% proven, so why waste time seeing a medical "doctor"? I think the whole germ theory is complete rubbish. When I get sick, I visit my local voodoo priest for a healing.

any one can make a theory and say it true, untill its proven one way or the other.

Yeah that! Also, the germ theory isnt 100% proven, so out the window it goes. Right?

 

[curious_george]

Im a creationist, the sun thing sounds odd, so i wont touch that. as for proving theories wrong that hard to do since there just theories, and theories arent excatly science but science and assuptiuons together.

Actually Theories are based on science. Theories must have a large amount of evidence for it, or it would still be a hypothesis. Theories can be tested over and over, and they provide predictions for similar cases. Theories can be proven wrong, if there is plenty of evidence to show that it does not work. The following is how scientific testing is done... if a hypothesis is shown to provide a good working model over and over, it eventually becomes a theory.



1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.



(Taken from the following)http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

 

[Clem is Me]

I am definately an evolutionist. Nothing else fits. But I have no oppinion on genesis, either of life or of the universe. Which is smashing, as niether does evolutionary theory.

 

[Silent Bob]

But hasnt there been ideas or theories within Evolution that have been found false or have been dropped by evolutionists over time? I am no expert but I think it was something like the pepper moth theory.

Another thing I remember was something like the fruit fly experiment that didnt show any change of species or something I will have to look more into it before I talk more about.

I did a quick search for the stuff that I mentioned above and this site talks about both.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/

And yes im sure there have been ideas by creationists that have been disproved was just trying to bring up that some things about evolution have been disproved.

If you know of any others please let me know

No idea of the moths and I have read about speciation in fruit flies. BUT if the evidence don't match the theory then the theory has to change. That's exactly what science is all about. Some ideas are not as central to a theory so the theory simply changes to explain the new data but sometimes a scientist must have the guts to admit mistake, go back to the drawing board and start from square one.

The problem with Creationists is that their theory CANNOT change. Otherwise Genesis would consist of 30 books containing theories from astrophysiscs, atomic physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology etc. And the average person wouldn't be able to understand half of it.

It takes more "cahunas" to admit error than to come up with wild ideas to try to defend an undefendable position. One of the greatest scientists in modern history lost a lot of his credibility trying to defend his idea of God not playing dice. In the end even Einstein lost and as far as I know the creationist think tanks don't even have one single scientist with half the intelect of Einstein. And to add to this their scientific "heresies" go against many well established theories and laws from across the board of scientific principles.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Some math about this?

If we assume these 5 miles per hour to be constant, then the earth moves away from the sun 43,800 miles per year.

The current distance to the sun is roughly 93,000,000 miles (plus minus some percent).

This means the earth would have touched the sun merely 2128 years ago...do you really wish to propose this?
jwu

Hmm, so then if the OP was correct about the 5 miles thing then the maths shows us that the Battle of Thermopylae was fought about 300 years BEFORE the Earth emerged from the sun. Cor, no wonder they called them the hot gates!

Ghost

 

[william jay schroeder]

You're right. For example, whats with that germ theory? It hasnt been 100% proven, so why waste time seeing a medical "doctor"? I think the whole germ theory is complete rubbish. When I get sick, I visit my local voodoo priest for a healing.



Yeah that! Also, the germ theory isnt 100% proven, so out the window it goes. Right?

the germ isnt a theoery its what it is. you didnt excactly disprove what i wrote besides what i said about theories which no matter how you say it its not fact. its an assuption with a lot of science in it. So you add scientific proof throw in asumptions from your hypothesis and boom you get a theory. You just made the hypothesis seem more real. please give me a specific theory that proves evilution. just one, so i can disprove it.

 

[william jay schroeder]

Just because YOU can't imagine something could have formed doesn't mean SOMEONE hasn't already or isn't able to. Irreducible Complexity (which you are describing here) is one of these ideas that says "this couldn't have come about naturally, therefore, goddit". Unless you can actually show this is not true by citing formations of proteins as not being able to combine into RNA and then developing into DNA then you have no case.

So you cant use much of what you say for the same reason, so you have no case either. i see why you say this because evilutionist imagine alot of what is not seen or proven and deduct that it just did it on its own. Everything comes from something man made . But if you were to split the atoms untill the very beginning were would it come from. in your theory the spliting would never end. Which i cant imagine is possible, for there is a beginning to every thing. and if not than something could not begin. And seeing how the very simplest form is rather complex it becomes a problem. So something or someone had to create it for it to begin.

 

[The Seeker]

evilutionist

Oh yes, oh yes

 

[NeoTrio]

Evilutionist

MUAHUAHUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mistermystery]

the germ isnt a theoery its what it is.

No it isn't. Both are a fact and a theory. The fact is that there are germs, the theory is that they can make us sick. The fact is that gravity is there, the theory explains how that works. The fact is that animals changed greatly over time, and that is explained by the theory of evolution.

You just made the hypothesis seem more real. please give me a specific theory that proves evilution. just one, so i can disprove it.

No need for namecalling mate. Or else we will be forced to report you.