How to choose between creation and evolution.

[VirOptimus]

If your study has proven evolution to be true why not present evolution as true. If brief articles written by experts are shot through with speculation what good does your study do? The truth is that evolution can't account for the complexity of life on earth. In fact it makes no attempt to do so.

Evolution is true and is presented as such too.

Learn the basics.

 

[pitabread]

The truth is that evolution can't account for the complexity of life on earth. In fact it makes no attempt to do so.

It's well understood how simple, recursive processes can yield complex results. This is one reason I find genetic algorithms so fascinating. They can yield outputs that baffle even their creators.

 

[LordKroak10]

[QUOT

If your study has proven evolution to be true why not present evolution as true. If brief articles written by experts are shot through with speculation what good does your study do? The truth is that evolution can't account for the complexity of life on earth. In fact it makes no attempt to do so.

The theory of evolution is not presented as absolute fact because scientists are aware that things can change, as new evidence arises and new theories are proposed. A scientific mind is hesitant to say that much of anything is absolute fact because they know that errors and misunderstandings are possible. Presenting evolution as a theory is NOT a sign of its weakness or invalidity, it is the sign of careful minds that are prone to rigorous thought, who are not so proud or arrogant as to claim that they know all the facts yet. This is in stark contrast to certain creationists who tout their beliefs as fact despite not having the solid evidence to prove it, or the evidence to disprove evolution.

As I have pointed out before, complexity arises from simplicity literally every day on every scale, from the sub-atomic to the universal. It is simply incorrect to claim that simple things are incapable of becoming complex. Evolution gives us a very reasonable explanation, backed up by large amounts of evidence, of how life changes and develops over time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution is true and is presented as such too.

Learn the basics.

Why the speculation buzz words in every article?

 

[Speedwell]

Why the speculation buzz words in every article?

Because that's how scientists communicate with each other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because that's how scientists communicate with each other.

Why don't they publish the odds implicit in their theories? Even weatherpersons do this in their forecasts.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why don't they publish the odds implicit in their theories? Even weatherpersons do this in their forecasts.

Thats not how science works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thats not how science works.

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy, except the ToE. I (mostly) love what science has done for humanity, all except the ToE.

 

[LordKroak10]

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy, except the ToE. I (mostly) love what science has done for humanity, all except the ToE.

Actually, that's wrong. 100% certainty is almost unheard of in science. Scientific papers include extensive statistical analysis that checks for the likelihood of their results being found by random chance. If there's greater than, say, a 1% probability of their results being caused by chance, their findings are deemed not significant. In science, significance is used in the statistical sense of the word, not its common use. Papers that demonstrate findings with high statistical significance are the most reliable, but no one says their work is 100% accurate. Instead they say something like "the chance that this happened by chance is 0.0000000000000000001%"

 

[Astrophile]

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy

Does that include geochronology, stellar evolution, nucleosynthesis and Big Bang cosmology?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy, except the ToE. I (mostly) love what science has done for humanity, all except the ToE.

That's such a weird line to take, since the theory of evolution has helped with many forms of biomedical science, especially with heritable diseases and problems.
I didn't necessarily need to find out that my sister and I stand a good chance of inheriting glaucoma from our father, but it's because of the work done with the theory of evolution that we know that (rather unpleasant) fact.

 

[Brightmoon]

but genetic similarity can be evidence for a common designer too. so we cant realy use it as evidence for a common descent.

You’d have to have VERIFIABLE evidence of the designer, not faith in the designer, to be accepted as science

I've been asking how the specialized tissue evolves that makes it possible; down to the molecular level. So far....crickets.

The gene that makes a bacterial light sensing pigment is the same gene that is the “ master control gene” for eye formation in animals that have eyes. There is the molecular level you asked for . IIRC it’s called bacteriorhodopsin

 

[Brightmoon]

I believe everything is a product of purposeful design, even when the design goes wrong and produces a monstrosity. If the wrong chemicals are mixed and blow up the mixture was 'designed' to do so.

Not really, it just means the mixture formed an exothermic reaction that happened quickly . Exothermic means that the starting products were at a higher energy state than the end products and it gave off that excess energy as heat. Simple chemical reaction that once started goes by itself

 

[pitabread]

Why don't they publish the odds implicit in their theories?

Is this a joke?

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy, except the ToE. I (mostly) love what science has done for humanity, all except the ToE.

Is this also a joke?

 

[USincognito]

Why don't they publish the odds implicit in their theories? Even weatherpersons do this in their forecasts.

To what odds do you allude? How about giving us an example or two?

 

[bhsmte]

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy, except the ToE. I (mostly) love what science has done for humanity, all except the ToE.

Then, you need to learn about science.

 

[USincognito]

Most science is based on 100 percent accuracy, except the ToE. I (mostly) love what science has done for humanity, all except the ToE.

Oh wow. That's some serious scientific illiteracy.

 

[USincognito]

I was asking for details.

Oh please. Like you'd understand them or are sincerely interested in them. Anything evidence we present to you will be hand waved away.

Shot through with the usual suppositions and giant biological leaps. Nothing new here. Science says that nothing can be proven absolutely, but we are to believe the ToE as absolute fact. Or we are to believe the latest iteration...until a better one is devised. Curious.

^^^^ Yeah, like that.

Whenever a Creationist acts like they're sincerely interested in the evidence, they're being dishonest.

 

[r4.h]

This

How very convenient, Facts that change. Thats exactly my point, evolution science is not proven. Therefore it should only be taught as theory, and not paraded as fact.

Sorry but alot of your rebuttals have no actual back up and are just more provisional facts.

No slur intended my friend, just light hearted banter i thought.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

How very convenient, Facts that change. Thats exactly my point, evolution science is not proven. Therefore it should only be taught as theory, and not paraded as fact.

Sorry but alot of your rebuttals have no actual back up and are just more provisional facts.

No slur intended my friend, just light hearted banter i thought.

Facts don't change, only theories do. As we gain a better and better understanding of the world. Which is precisely the reason why science is the best method we have to describe the world. Because it tests and retests its theories and modifies or discards any that are found wanting.

Theories, particularly in the scientific meaning of the world, that change are infinitely preferable to dogma that doesn't change even when that dogma is clearly wrong.

BTW: Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is taught as fact, and the (scientific) theory of evolution is taught as theory. Which is as it should be.