Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[VirOptimus]

I never whine about Pluto; just the science behind it.

Whine whine whine.

 

[Astrid]

As many as you like, but I don't see the point of it. Scientific theories are constantly being modified or abandoned entirely as more evidence becomes available. That's how science works.

Would Dr. Speedwell PLEASE explain that you are not agreeing with him that
there are PROVEN theories that have been shown to be wrong??

 

[Astrid]

No thats completly wrong.

Evolution happens, thats a fact. Do you seriously say that thats not true? That populations dont change over time?

There was a whole lot more than that wrong but one thing at a time

 

[Astrid]

Nope. It's not a fact, if based on a theory. Or a lot of theory. Take out the framework, the evolutionary model that scientists assume is basically correct and all you have are a lot of observations that all add up to..what? What they add up to depends on what model of origins one places the observations into.

Nope nope nope.
Actually it depends on what theory is consistent with all the relevant facts.

ToE is the only one that fits. All the different creation
"theories' fail nassively at fitting the facts, with yec being
the most complete failure.
Nothing to disprove ToE has been detected.

"SEDI' ( Same Evidence Different Interpretation)
is a moldy trick that only fools the ones trying to
spring it once again.

 

[Speedwell]

Nope. It's not a fact, if based on a theory. Or a lot of theory. Take out the framework, the evolutionary model that scientists assume is basically correct and all you have are a lot of observations that all add up to..what? What they add up to depends on what model of origins one places the observations into.

No, it's a fact that life on Earth has changed and diversified over time. There are species alive on the Earth that haven't always been here and species that were here once and are now extinct. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact.

 

[Speedwell]

So you are arguing against what I said by saying the same thing with different words. Weird.
I still have had people bring up the gill slit theory to try to prove evolution, BTW.

Then they didn't know what they were talking about, because scientific theories are NEVER PROVEN.

Really, it's a simple concept, based on the difference between deductive and inductive logic.

 

[renniks]

No thats completly wrong.

Evolution happens, thats a fact. Do you seriously say that thats not true? That populations dont change over time?

No, I say that's not evolution. That's adaptation.
You can take the same information and put it into a different model and not conclude that everything started with a single cell and evolved into the variety we have now. In fact, there's always been vast variety from the start. I can observe animals adapting to their environment changes. I cannot observe a bird gradually transitioning to a dinosaur. Or a feline transitioning to a canine.

 

[renniks]

No, it's a fact that life on Earth has changed and diversified over time. There are species alive on the Earth that haven't always been here and species that were here once and are now extinct. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact.

Of course things change. That's doesn't show us that evolution as taught today is correct. Why should I believe one type or animal can transition into another type? I've never observed it happening. And why would I believe it started from a single cell? Why not believe what we observe?

 

[renniks]

Then they didn't know what they were talking about, because scientific theories are NEVER PROVEN.

Really, it's a simple concept, based on the difference between deductive and inductive logic.

So we get mocked for belief in what can't be proven when evolution supposes many things that can't be proven?

 

[Speedwell]

No, I say that's not evolution. That's adaptation.
You can take the same information and put it into a different model and not conclude that everything started with a single cell and evolved into the variety we have now. In fact, there's always been vast variety from the start. I can observe animals adapting to their environment changes. I cannot observe a bird gradually transitioning to a dinosaur. Or a feline transitioning to a canine.

Neither of those events have ever happened. For example, a feline--given suitable selection pressure over a long time--might eventually come to resemble a dog-like creature, but it would never become a canine. Of course way back in time (I don't know off the top of my head--you could look it up) the feline and the canine had a common ancestor. But the feline will never cross back to being a canine, no matter how dog-like it becomes.

 

[Speedwell]

So we get mocked for belief in what can't be proven when evolution supposes many things that can't be proven?

There are more alternatives than "prove" and "suppose." The conclusion of a deductive logical or mathematical discourse is said to be "proven." Given true premises and correct logic the conclusion is rock-solid. Science, on the other hand, proceeds by inductive logic. An hypothesis is formed and evidence collected and if the evidence sustains the hypothesis is said to be "confirmed." But it is not "proven" because at any time new evidence may turn up which falsifies the hypothesis. If an hypothesis is repeatedly confirmed it becomes a theory, but still it is not "proven" because again, at any time, new evidence may falsify it. So the theory of evolution is accepted, even if you think there is not enough evidence to "prove" it, but because so far no evidence has been discovered which would falsify it.

 

[chad kincham]

Talk of " ploy" and various other false and / or nvidious
remarks don't indicate you've an interest in honest talk,
no more than does your mini- gish, all of which you
lifted from some creationist site, none of which you've
the background to understand.
Hard core creationist beliefs such as those expressed are
never held by educated people, no more than they think
astrology is valid.
I have a friend from a poor farm family in SE Asia
who grew up not even knowing the earth is round, like
an orange, and just believing what the catholic church
taught.
She got a lucky break though and found herself in the
USA. Smart and ambitious, speaks three languages,
engineering degree, drives a Lexus.
Soaks up education like a sponge, loves it.

I knew her in college. I was so struck by something
she said, that I told her doesn't make sense, after a bit
she said, 'I see, that's just a superstition, I don't believe it now".

Very different from creationist mentality.

But never mind, I expect it's way too late for you
to unlearn the garbage you've soaked in.
I wish you well.

Back up your rhetoric- show me the transitional fossil evidence you claim exists, from single cell life to sexually reproducing multi-trillion celled life.

There is none.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand how it's supposed to work.

But you don't give any indication of that from your posts.

I have discussed evolution (and creationism and ID) with very many Christians over the years. As regards evolution, there are those who understand it extremely well and can discuss the various concepts and the scientific basis for much of the theory. I have learned from them in some cases. And there are those who are anti-evolution simply because they read portions of the bible literally. And who also have very little real knowledge of the subject.

You are firmly in the latter group at the moment. But I hope that you'll take some time to study the subject more closely so that your arguments will carry more weight.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Back up your rhetoric- show me the transitional fossil evidence you claim exists, from single cell life to sexually reproducing multi-trillion celled life.

There is none.

The whole of the Stromatolite fields of north Ontario and Quebec would like a word.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Oh I remember fine. It's a beaver with a bill. Half bird, half mammal, lol! Right!

No.
Its a monotreme mammal, as far removed from beavers as from goats.
All Mammal. No bird

 

[AV1611VET]

No.
Its a monotreme mammal, as far removed from beavers as from goats.
All Mammal. No bird

Neat.

Now explain these: Post 115

 

[Mr Laurier]

But those days of special miracles are now over. They ended in AD 96 with the completion of the Scriptures.

Tell that to General Arthur Wellesley.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Neat.

Now explain these: Post 115

Again?
Ok. One more tome. Once upon a time, primitive people made up imaginative creatures by mentally stitching parts of different animals together

 

[AV1611VET]

Again?
Ok. One more tome. Once upon a time, primitive people made up imaginative creatures by mentally stitching parts of different animals together

What mentality created this?

 

[essentialsaltes]

What mentality created this?

Whoever drew it for The Hornet's issue for March 22nd, 1871.