Question for Creationists

[seebs]

Just pointing out the basic similarity of "teeth" throughout most mammals. (Indeed, the code is so widely shared that some whales which don't actually form teeth develop tooth buds, then reabsorb them.)

 

[tellmewhy]

I never said that the evolutionist theory is not a pretty valid theory...but it is no more or less valid than the creationist theory.
I apologize for not being precise about Newton's Laws, I just meant to establish the existence of gravity, not the specifics.

"For all we know, a million years from now, people will be talking about the "early" humans"

And for all we know, a million years from now, the battle of armageddon may be determining Satan's permanent residence.

It's all based on faith.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tellmewhy
I'm sorry, but I cannot take you seriously at this point.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm going to respond again anyway, just in case you do not dismiss me as carelessly as you say you do.

Science deals with facts all the time.

Yes, it does. But, like I said before, those are never "proven" facts in a mathematical or philosophical sense. They are merely "observed" facts - data points. They are as "true" as our ability to perceive the world is accurate.

The Law of Gravity would not be a Law if it was not proven.

It is not a Law because it has been proven. In fact, it hasn't been proven. It is only a law because it has never been observed to fail.

The only proof that exists is the eye-witness account.

Eyewitness accounts are generally not very reliable. If you consider them "proof" then you have an extremely low standard of proof.

Whether it is a fossil, a picture, or a testimony from an unquestionable source, facts are fact because we witness them. Until microscopes were strong enough to view them, atoms only existed in theory.

Microscopes cannot allow us to directly view atoms the same way we view people. An electron microscope "illuminates" atoms with electrons, then records the pattern reflected back to the microscope. Then it translates the pattern into an image we can see. It is true that we think of "facts" as being things that are observed. But facts are never "proven" in the mathematical or philosophical sense... and there is no scientific sense of "proof". Facts are observed, theories are supported or falsified. Laws are observed ubiquitously.

The fact is that there is no full account of either evolution or creationism, therefore, the "missing links" in both theories are the peices that have no eye-witness account and only exist in theory (or in imagination, as I put it before).
By the way, thanks for taking me on

Theories are not based on imagination. They are based on a hypothesis which can be tested. Creationism, then, is not a theory, but an "idea" (a religious one in this case). Evolution is a theory, and a strongly supported one.

By the way - I look forward to our discussion.  Even if you cannot take me seriously

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by tellmewhy
I never said that the evolutionist theory is not a pretty valid theory...but it is no more or less valid than the creationist theory.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "creationist theory."  At best creation is a hypothesis.  However, I have yet to find a hypothesis of creation defined in any rigorous way.  Until you present what you consider to be "creationist theory" we can't determine its validity.

It's all based on faith.

What part of evolutionary theory is based on faith?  (I'm refering to the type of faith that is present in religion.)

 

[tellmewhy]

First of all, I apologize for not taking you seriously, I did not realize I was dealing with such a precise person
You do have too much of an advantage on me for me to continue talking precision.
But I do want to disagree with your last statement. What part of the "missing link" hypothesis can be tested? And why can't creationism be a theory? Creationists hypothesize all the time about their scientific findings.

 

[tellmewhy]

Rufus,
I don't know why you are debating this topic when you don't have an incling about what you are debating against.
I admit I am not a die-hard bookworm when it comes to either theory, but I at least know the basis of both.

 

[tellmewhy]

By the way, my definition of faith is any acceptance of a theory as fact. The word does not pertain to just religious beliefs. It can be used scientifically as well (edison had faith in his inventions before he even created them).

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by tellmewhy
First of all, I apologize for not taking you seriously, I did not realize I was dealing with such a precise person

No harm, no foul I was teasing you back a little bit on that one.. I hope you don't mind..

But I do want to disagree with your last statement. What part of the "missing link" hypothesis can be tested?

Well the "missing link" isn't a hypothesis. A "missing link" is a simple way of stating that many (indeed most) of the organisms that the theory of evolution says must have existed at some point in the past have never been observed in the fossil record. This isn't a hypothesis to be tested, it is a reflection of the state of the fossil record.  Common descent by natural selection is a theory to be tested, and the means for testing it are quite diverse. To get an overview, I truly suggest you check the talkorigins.org archive.

And why can't creationism be a theory? Creationists hypothesize all the time about their scientific findings.

A theory must be subject to some kind of test that will have different outcomes depending on whether the theory closely models the reality of nature or not. For instance, we tested general relativity by using the theory to calculate the orbit of Mercury, and showed that it correctly calculated the orbit of Mercury, and accounted for anomalies that could not be understood under the Newtonian view. The theories you never hear about are the ones which are tested by using them to calculate or predict some observable data, and which calculate or predict that data incorrectly. You never hear about them because they do not get a lot of attention in the press. The regular Joe doesn't care about what theories are falsified - he only wants to hear about the "successes"... On the other hand, scientists value a theory that is falsified nearly as much as one that is successful - they show us that "this" is the wrong place to look, and give us more insight into what we should be focusing on.

If any creationists have made their models subject to testing and falsification, we have not heard of them for this reason. Generally the creationist idea is left vague and malleable enough to account for any data.

By the way, my definition of faith is any acceptance of a theory as fact. The word does not pertain to just religious beliefs. It can be used scientifically as well (edison had faith in his inventions before he even created them).

Thanks for the clarification. In a debate between evolution and creationism "faith" is an unfortunate word. I can carry two meanings, but they can all to easily be confused. Creationists have religious faith in their idea. Indeed, religious scientists have religious faith, too.... but it is the mundane kind of faith (confidence in a theory) that is characteristic of their acceptance of scientific principles such as evolution. Their religious faith is reserved for their religious beliefs.

 

[tellmewhy]

I'm going to have to apologize to you again...because I do not see the difference in the faith of a religious scientist and the faith of an evolutionist. But I will save that for later.

You keep saying test, but much of the evolutionist theory cannot be tested. Creationists test their theories all the time. I'm sure they must have tested their theory that the Biblical Flood created many of the canyons on the earth's surface. I wish I knew more specifics but I think www.drdino.com might have more scientific proof of creationism.

I want to say that I cannot believe either theory to its full extent because I have not devoted enough time to study either. But as far as I have seen, both have large gaps that cannot be explained except by THEORY or FAITH. I always feel the urge to debate these two topics because both sides are so certain they hold the key to the beginning of life, when neither one has successfully proved their side. And neither one ever will...I personally do not think it is possible to prove.

So, it's getting late so I am signing off...but feel free to email me. I enjoyed our conversation so far...I will study up for our next debate

 

[seebs]

drdino is a page run by a con man with a degree from a mail-order diploma mill.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I'm signing off too, and will pick this up tomorrow when I can, but I want to do something before I do that.

I want to ask others not to pounce on the DrDino link.. I would like to do it myself, and hopefully avoid getting us side-tracked by the inevitable diatribes against him.

See, Hovind is a somewhat controversial feature, even in creationist circles. He has a reputation for dishonesty, for general paranoia and wackiness, and no reputation for conducting honest discourse in the creation/evolution debate. Most everyone who is not a "newbie" to this debate has discovered this, and even though some object to the hostility directed toward him, few will come out in defense of him. Professional creationists adhere to various standards of academic integrity and personal honesty, but if you investigate, you will find that Hovind gives no signs of adhering to any standards of integrity or honesty. Please surf the Answers In Genesis web-site, and compare. Of course, I am here to tell you that they do not represent quality science and that their conclusions are wrong, but you will see that they do make an effort to avoid perpetuating a hoax or repeating a claim that has been shown to be mistaken. Hovind seems to delight in perpetuating hoaxes and repeating false claims.

He is not even a real "Doctor." He bought his PhD from a non-accredited correspondence course. In the strictest sense, this is dishonest: the title "Dr." represents years of intense study in a field - it represents authority. Since authority cannot be bought - Hovind is misrepresenting himself as an authority when he uses the title "Dr." Sadly, this is the least of his dishonesty.

Tomorrow, I will try to discuss the differences between religious faith and scientific confidence in a theory. I will also explain about how gaps in our knowledge can be filled by speculation, by inference from a well demonstrated theory, and by some combination thereof.

I will also try to point out that we do not consider our filling of those gaps to be "fact," and that our confidence in the theory of evolution is not based on how we fill those gaps, but on how the theory is supported by the evidence.

Until then, Goodnight!

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by tellmewhy
Rufus,
I don't know why you are debating this topic when you don't have an incling about what you are debating against.
I admit I am not a die-hard bookworm when it comes to either theory, but I at least know the basis of both.

Enlighten me.  What is the basis of both?  Please cite both creationist and biological sources to support your contention.

I would also like to know what led you to conclude after one post that I don't have an incling about creationism?

Furthermore, if you would like to refute my initial statement, provide me with a description of the "theory of creation" as you understand it.

By the way, my definition of faith is any acceptance of a theory as fact. The word does not pertain to just religious beliefs. It can be used scientifically as well (edison had faith in his inventions before he even created them).

It appears that you don't have an incling as to what "theory" and "fact" refer to in science.  Faith has nothing to do with determing the facts of science.  Here is part of a National Academy of Science's report on the teaching of evolution.  You can read the full report here.

Glossary of Terms Used in Teaching About the Nature of Science

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]

[/font]

Evolution and the Nature of Science

Teaching about evolution has another important function. Because some people see evolution as conflicting with widely held beliefs, the teaching of evolution offers educators a superb opportunity to illuminate the nature of science and to differentiate science from other forms of human endeavor and understanding.

Chapter 3 describes the nature of science in detail. However, it is important from the outset to understand how the meanings of certain key words in science differ from the way that those words are used in everyday life.

Think, for example, of how people usually use the word "theory." Someone might refer to an idea and then add, "But that's only a theory." Or someone might preface a remark by saying, "My theory is . . . ." In common usage, theory often means "guess" or "hunch."

In science, the word "theory" means something quite different. It refers to an overarching explanation that has been well substantiated. Science has many other powerful theories besides evolution. Cell theory says that all living things are composed of cells. The heliocentric theory says that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Such concepts are supported by such abundant observational and experimental evidence that they are no longer questioned in science.

Sometimes scientists themselves use the word "theory" loosely and apply it to tentative explanations that lack well-established evidence. But it is important to distinguish these casual uses of the word "theory" with its use to describe concepts such as evolution that are supported by overwhelming evidence. Scientists might wish that they had a word other than "theory" to apply to such enduring explanations of the natural world, but the term is too deeply engrained in science to be discarded.

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. For example, Chapter 3 describes how the geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory." A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. As the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations.

Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories—which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.


Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have. es, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

 

[Morat]

 The Law of Gravity would not be a Law if it was not proven.

  A few notes: The term "Law" isn't really used in science, except as a holdover (those things once called Laws still are). Laws are, and were, mathematical descriptions of universal relationships.

  Ohms Laws, Boyle's Law, Newton's laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Ideal Gas Law. All terse mathematical relationships. They are, supposedly, universal and very limited in their scope.

   We stopped using "law", by the way, because so many of these turned out to be merely shadows of something else. Newton's Laws of motion, of instance, were merely low-velocity/low-mass approximations of something far larger in scope.

   Laws are not, and have never been, "proven theories". Laws are, and were, merely relationships.

   Theories are now, and have always been, the goal of science. Theories cannot be proven, anymore than laws can.

   Newton's Laws are merely a subset (a special case) of the far more sweeping and important Theory of Relativity, for instance.

  These are basic notions  of the scientific method. Often they are "dumbed down" for elementary and junior high students, and sadly such notions seem to stick far longer than the (relatively) more accurate depictions in high school.

   But anyone attacking science based on a high-school or lower education in it deserves the pasting he gets. You don't learn science in high school. You learn the results of science, and get a rough overview of the method.

 

[Morat]

  Rufus beat me to it. Curses, foiled again!

 

 

[choccy]

I think I'll leave this discussion mostly to the ones better qualified than me. There is however one little point I want to nitpick on.

I want to say that I cannot believe either theory to its full extent because I have not devoted enough time to study either. But as far as I have seen, both have large gaps that cannot be explained except by THEORY or FAITH. I always feel the urge to debate these two topics because both sides are so certain they hold the key to the beginning of life, when neither one has successfully proved their side. And neither one ever will...I personally do not think it is possible to prove.

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way, shape or form hold the key to the begimmimg of life, neither does it claim to. The ToE simply (well maybe not simply, but you get my point?) explains the diversity of life from a single common ancestor. Were the first life came from is not addressed by the theory, it cannot be since the ToE by it's very definition needs a population of replicationg individuals to work on. Whether the first life was created by a superior being, or arose by accident does not make any difference at all to the validity of the theory.

As a side note, the search for a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of the first life forms is called the theory (or rather hypthesis) of abiogenesis. It's a small, but I think important point.

Tomorrow, I will try to discuss the differences between religious faith and scientific confidence in a theory. I will also explain about how gaps in our knowledge can be filled by speculation, by inference from a well demonstrated theory, and by some combination thereof.

As always, I'm looking forward to it. Just in case your getting discouraged by the lack of positive feedback to your work I will say that your posts here are a joy to read. Hopefully when I grow up I might be able to write half as well a you.

Choccy

 

[truthinchrist]

Originally posted by blader
I rest my case.


Yes, exactly. You don't see anything wrong with complaining about "lack of evidence" when you yourself admit that no possible amount of evidence would convince you anyway? I could have all the evidence in the world and you would be saying the exact same thing you're saying now "not enough evidence".

I think the probem here is differing systems of thought.
Creation is a Truth - a faith statement, and thus it is not based upon evidence (other than the biblical evidence). Creationism is a choice - i Choose to believe that God Crated the world in 7 days just like it says in the bible.

Evolution is different. we look at the world today, look to history and say "it looks like this is happening".
Evolution falls or stands upon the preponderance of ALL the available evidence.
so a single factoid against the theory will not damage it.

Creationism as a faith statement depends upon the single decision of faith. a single piece of evidence can radically alter the professed view - thus the creationsit is touchy about the evidence - the next discovery could shatter his worldview.

and hence the unequal discussions.

the two camps should first discuss the definition of the terms of the argument BEFORE launching into the debate.

The two camps look at the same evidence and get two opposing views.

look at the bird - no intermediate forms therfore created.
look at the bird - genetically similar to the gecko therefore evolution

as an ex evolutionist, neo creationist, i would love some real evidence pro or con. something real to chew on.

for these "My dad is bigger than your dad" type arguments get tiresome.

Your Brother in Christ
David

 

[Defending Our Lord]

I was born raised, and liked the evolutonist theroy.

But It leaves to many what ifs for me.

Earth a million + yrs old;
Where are the bones from past creatures.

Evolution;
Where are the half breeds.
There is not any documented record proving that one organisim evolved into another. Per Darwin.
Would we not all be more alike....physically?

Scientific proof of the Earths age;
Interplanetary dust falls at a very slow rate, but to believe that earth is 5 billion years old, mathematically it had enough time for it to wash up millions upon millions of tons of it in the oceans, but by calculating the small amount we have by the rate it descends, brings us to approximately 7-10 thousand years.

The moon has information of earth's age, as well as it's own. The dust on the moon, according to NASA which accepted the 4.5-5 billion year old story, expected to find 54 feet of interplanetary dust on the moon. However, upon landing for the first time, they found only an eighth of an inch to three inches of dust. Enough to match approximately 8,000 years.

Did you also know that the earth's rotation is slowing down? Not enough to make a difference on earth even over a few billion years, but it has other effects. For instance. The moon's distance is constantly reducing, even as you read this, the moon has just made a 182.5 of an inch away from earth. So when the year is over, the moon will be 2 inches farther than it was at the beginning. What does that say? Well, 2 billion years ago, the moon and earth would be touching, did you realize that? Because the distance they are at now, multiply the rate by 2 billion years, and they will be touching only 2 billion years ago. Or you could look at it another way, at a decent distance, 5 billion years later, the moon would be out of sight right now. But only 7-10 thousand years ago, it would not make a very big difference. (1,333.3 feet)

Physicist Thomas Barnes has done careful research in the study of the magnetic field, and since the magnetism was first measured in 1835, it has been decaying gradually. Now if you had any ideas about lowering your idea a few million years, this will prove even that wrong. Following the second law of thermodynamics, the field is leading to a state of disorder, as is everything else in the world, including animals, and humanity. This is not evolutionary. However, Dr. Barnes made the statement that life could not have been possible at anymore than 10,000 years ago without the magnetic field, yet we were to have been already sophisticated humans (Almost) by then?

I can get more scientific proof that the Lord has created all we see .

Please don't flame me or talk down to me.....responed in a mature manner.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by Defending Our Lord

Earth a million + yrs old;
Where are the bones from past creatures.

The Earth is on the order of billions of years old. The bones are fossilized and contained in the geologic record.

Evolution;
Where are the half breeds.
There is not any documented record proving that one organisim evolved into another. Per Darwin.

There is not "proof" per se, but there is evidence. Archaeopteryx is merely one example of such an organism.

Would we not all be more alike....physically?

It certainly seems as though humans are quite alike with respect to other primates both physically and genetically, but not as similar to reptiles, for example, physically or genetically.

Scientific proof of the Earths age;
Interplanetary dust falls at a very slow rate, but to believe that earth is 5 billion years old, mathematically it had enough time for it to wash up millions upon millions of tons of it in the oceans, but by calculating the small amount we have by the rate it descends, brings us to approximately 7-10 thousand years.

The moon has information of earth's age, as well as it's own. The dust on the moon, according to NASA which accepted the 4.5-5 billion year old story, expected to find 54 feet of interplanetary dust on the moon. However, upon landing for the first time, they found only an eighth of an inch to three inches of dust. Enough to match approximately 8,000 years.

Did you also know that the earth's rotation is slowing down? Not enough to make a difference on earth even over a few billion years, but it has other effects. For instance. The moon's distance is constantly reducing, even as you read this, the moon has just made a 182.5 of an inch away from earth. So when the year is over, the moon will be 2 inches farther than it was at the beginning. What does that say? Well, 2 billion years ago, the moon and earth would be touching, did you realize that? Because the distance they are at now, multiply the rate by 2 billion years, and they will be touching only 2 billion years ago. Or you could look at it another way, at a decent distance, 5 billion years later, the moon would be out of sight right now. But only 7-10 thousand years ago, it would not make a very big difference. (1,333.3 feet)

These have already been refuted on this very forum and refutations have come up again recently in another thread, so there's no point going over this again.

Physicist Thomas Barnes has done careful research in the study of the magnetic field, and since the magnetism was first measured in 1835, it has been decaying gradually.

This is because the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time. Not only does the magnitude fluctuate, but the magnetic pole reverses its orientation periodically as well. This was not known in 1835. You are using outdated information.

Now if you had any ideas about lowering your idea a few million years, this will prove even that wrong. Following the second law of thermodynamics, the field is leading to a state of disorder, as is everything else in the world, including animals, and humanity. This is not evolutionary. However, Dr. Barnes made the statement that life could not have been possible at anymore than 10,000 years ago without the magnetic field, yet we were to have been already sophisticated humans (Almost) by then?

Your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, first of all, and again, you are using outdated information. This was before we understood paleomagnetism and plate tectonics. The ocean floor evidently documents reversals in the Earth's magnetic field and fluctuations in field strength over time. The ocean floor also documents approximately 200 million years of Earth's history.

 

[lithium.]

Dang Mechanical Bliss, I was about to post, but you beat me to it LOL. Nice post man.

 

[Defending Our Lord]

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
The Earth is on the order of billions of years old. The bones are fossilized and contained in the geologic record.



There is not "proof" per se, but there is evidence. Archaeopteryx is merely one example of such an organism.




It certainly seems as though humans are quite alike with respect to other primates both physically and genetically, but not as similar to reptiles, for example, physically or genetically.



These have already been refuted on this very forum and refutations have come up again recently in another thread, so there's no point going over this again.



This is because the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time. Not only does the magnitude fluctuate, but the magnetic pole reverses its orientation periodically as well. This was not known in 1835. You are using outdated information.



Your understanding of thermodynamics is flawed, first of all, and again, you are using outdated information. This was before we understood paleomagnetism and plate tectonics. The ocean floor evidently documents reversals in the Earth's magnetic field and fluctuations in field strength over time. The ocean floor also documents approximately 200 million years of Earth's history.

 

I apologize for rehashing...i am new and was unaware.  I will regroup and try to out you again.  Thanks for the reply.