Science vs. Evolution

[AV1611VET]

A kind is a creationist propaganda technique. It doesn't have a specific biological definition, so it allows creationists to sound authoritative without actually having to take a firm stance. It used to mean species. But since then most creationists started realizing the fact of speciation, so it has been elevated to the level of family or order or beyond, depending on who you ask and how much evolution they accept.

Peter

Yup -- and we'll move the goalpost again, if we have to.

 

[Hespera]

I'm well aware at what the theory of evolution says, however i reject it for two reasons:

(1) It's not compatable with the Bible i.e the story of Creation.
(2) It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

I therefore reject the theory of evolution because of my religion and science. It's not just that i am an ignorant uneducated creationist...

If the evidence for evolution was there i would start to believe it, however it isn't there, and also since there is no scientific evidence for evolution it reinforces my belief in the Bible.

You know, sometimes a person will talk like they know about something, but if they dont, they will soon give themselves away.

I might try to do the after game talk show and talk about football. When i said something about making scores and how all they seem to do is line up and knock eachother down and then stop the clock, id give myself away no matter how much i claimed i wasnt "ignorant and uneducated".

You claim to know "what the theory of evolutions says" but you give yourself away just about as fast. Talking about something "proving" the theory is a good one!

You should just stick to saying you dont believe it coz it doesnt match the bible. You go on past that into talking nonsense about evolution, claiming knowledge you clearly dont jave, and your credibility evaporates.

It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

The world scientific community except for a few cultists has no such problem with it. In all of the hard sciences they do work that contributes to / corroborates what is in the ToE. No contrary data, certainly no falsification. Does that ever strike you as, uh, odd, if its nonsense?

Your number 2 problem there basically says you know more, can see further, dive deeper and come up drier than the many hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world who are involved in actual science as a career. Whats the odds on that one, that you know more?

"there is no scientific evidence for evolution"

this is simply false. i would reinforce my observation based belief that no No creations has any objection to the ToE that is based on anything but superstition, falsehood, and ignorance. That it would, if it needed more reinforcement. i've seen it so many times thg.

Show us some DATA, not some assertions and opinions!

you dont have any do you?

 

[plindboe]

Yup -- and we'll move the goalpost again, if we have to.

I expect nothing more. No honesty, just big words and ever-changing goal posts.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

I expect nothing more. No honesty, just big words and ever-changing goal posts.

Peter

Yup -- just like the Periodic Table of the Elements.

10 ... then 25 ... then 50 ... then 60 ... then...

No honesty, just making a bigger Table to accommodate new discoveries.

Of course, should we do it, it's called 'lying'?

 

[Cassiterides]

It's already been established in this thread that it is. I'll also ask my question again: Who observed God create the Earth?

''Creation can not be scientifically proved:

1. Creation in not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past....thus inaccesable to the scientific method.
2. It is impossible to device a scientific experiment to describe the creation process.

Evolution can not be scientifically proved:

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and, therefore is outside the realm of empirical science.
2. To transmutate one kind of organism into another kind of organism would (according to evolutionists) take millions of years, and no team of scientists is able to make measurements on any such experiment.''

- Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, 1985, p. 5.

Yes it is, it's just that you won't accept it as evidence. What's quite interesting is that if you reject evolution because it is not directly observable, you should reject Creationism for the same reason. So why the double standard?

See above. Never have i claimed creationism can be proven by the scientific method, we can't go back in time to witness the creation now. However we have the Bible which says it happened. And my faith is in the Bible, just like an evolutionists faith is in their theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong

 

[plindboe]

Yup -- just like the Periodic Table of the Elements.

10 ... then 25 ... then 50 ... then 60 ... then...

No honesty, just making a bigger Table to accommodate new discoveries.

Of course, should we do it, it's called 'lying'?

Discovery isn't dishonest. Using an ill-defined word so you can never be shown wrong, that's dishonest.

Peter

 

[plindboe]

10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong

That's a whole lotta stupid. Seems every paragraph, at least the ones I skimmed through, has a distortion or a misunderstanding.

Peter

 

[SithDoughnut]

''Creation can not be scientifically proved:

1. Creation in not taking place now, so far as can be observed. Therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past....thus inaccesable to the scientific method.
2. It is impossible to device a scientific experiment to describe the creation process.

Evolution can not be scientifically proved:

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and, therefore is outside the realm of empirical science.
2. To transmutate one kind of organism into another kind of organism would (according to evolutionists) take millions of years, and no team of scientists is able to make measurements on any such experiment.''

- Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, 1985, p. 5.



See above. Never have i claimed creationism can be proven by the scientific method, we can't go back in time to witness the creation now. However we have the Bible which says it happened. And my faith is in the Bible, just like an evolutionists faith is in their theory of evolution.

Except that we've already established that evolution has been witnessed, so that argument has collapsed for you. I'd go find another one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Discovery isn't dishonest. Using an ill-defined word so you can never be shown wrong, that's dishonest.

Maybe you'd better read my "definition" again, mr honesty:

A "kind" is what I call a 'loner word'.

It is one of those words that has no definition this side of Heaven, but is effective in making its point.

Like "trinity" and "faith" -- it is useful in making its point, but cannot be defined to the satisfaction of all.

Without that word, the Flood story would be much harder to explain.

No definition ≠ ill-defined.

 

[lucaspa]

Science is supposed to be based on observations, and repeatable, reliable experiments, which limits its focus to the present.

That is a misstatement of science by creationists. It's a warped view of what Francis Bacon said. In his time, many scientists were still looking to Aristotle, and Aristotle emphasized logic in science. There was supposedly only one possible way things could happen, and we could deduce that one possible way by logic. Bacon noted that the universe was contingent and logic was insufficient to discover the universe. We needed to go out and observe. Some of those observations would be experiments. But that does not confine science to the present. It only means that the observations must be available now.

The scientific method entered the dictionary in 1810:

''The collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''.

But "Facts" declared about a distant past outside the realm of human experience are not really facts, but strongly advocated faith-points.

Are you sure you really want to do this? Notice that the definition says that we can collect data through observation and use that to test hypotheses.

So, how about Meteor Crator. A one time event in the past. Unrepeatable; we can't make a 10 mile crator in Arizona. But we can observe the crator and make hypotheses about the event that caused it. Of course, the hypothesis is that Meteor Crator was caused by a meteor impact. Observations of the crator strongly support that. Do you have any doubt that a meteor impact at the site is "fact"? If so, why do you have such doubt?

1. That life appeared on earth two or three billion years ago, or that the earth is billions of years is not a truly scientific statement. It was never directly observed to have happened by anyone or anything that can leave a conclusive historical record.

Like Meteor Crator, the events themselves leave a conclusive historical record. The appearance of life left fossils of mounds of prokaryotic organisms that we can observe today. The age of the earth is recorded in the radioactive isotopes in the rocks of the crust, the moon, and the asteroids. We can observe and measure those isotopes in repeatable experiments today.

2. The idea that things 'evolve' i.e an ape to a man is not observable. The theory of evolution simply has never been observed.

We have observed the evolution of new species in real time in the present. But again, that event -- evolution of a non-human ape to H. sapiens left a record. Part of that record is in the physiology, morphology, and genetics of living organisms. Part of that record is in fossils of hominids that lived in the past. We have transitional individuals linking H. sapiens -- us -- to H. erectus to H. habilis and then to A. afarensis. We have transitional species in the forms of Ardipithecus ramidus and others to more ancestral apes.

If you disagree, then you would have to explain why the scientific method (see above) does not support the theory of evolution, since evolution is not observable or testable in anyway. This also applies to the age of the earth.

But the method is applicable. I showed how, by looking at observations we do make today that are records of what happened in the past. Unless, of course, you wish to deny cause and effect. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was.

So please explain 1) where you got these mistaken ideas about science and 2) why we should discard cause and effect?

 

[plindboe]

Maybe you'd better read my "definition" again, mr honesty:


No definition ≠ ill-defined.

Without a minimum agreed upon definition it wouldn't mean anything. Creationists use it for groups of organisms and their created ancestors, so there is some minimum agreed upon definition that creationists use. It's ill-defined, not completely non-defined.

Peter

 

[lucaspa]

I'm well aware at what the theory of evolution says, however i reject it for two reasons:

(1) It's not compatable with the Bible i.e the story of Creation.
(2) It's not directly observable (i.e doesn't adhere to scientific method).

Well, you are in trouble on both fronts.

First, there is no "the story of Creation". There are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3 and they contradict on major points. For instance, did God create humans as a population of men and women by speaking as stated in Genesis 1:25 or did He create one man and then, after an interval of creating animals, create one woman? Can't have been both.

Second, by your mistaken notion of the "scientific method", very little is science because practically none of science is "directly observable". See below

If the evidence for evolution was there i would start to believe it,

No you wouldn't, because you have made a strawman so that you can say there is no evidence. BTW, have you considered the evidence of evolution happening in real time? Probably not, and you will reject that too.

it reinforces my belief in the Bible.

It reinforces your unBiblical belief in the Bible. But aren't you supposed to have belief in God? Why this emphasis on belief in the Bible?

Anyway, on to the fallacy of "direct observation":

I had a paper published (Tissue Engineering, 1(4): 345-353, 1995) describing an experiment for a possible treatment for osteoarthritis. We drilled a 3 mm diameter hole thru the articular cartilage and part of the underlying bone in the knee of rabbits. This diameter hole will not regenerate on its own and is an established model for osteoarthritis. In the defect in one knee we placed a polymer alone and in the other knee we placed polymer into which had been grown special cells, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs for short). Animals were euthanized at 6 and 12 weeks post-op and the defect removed for histological (under the microscope) analysis. At 6 weeks there was no difference between defects with polymer alone and defects with polymer-MSCs. Both contained cells but there was no identifiable cartilage or bone. At 12 weeks, the defects with polymer alone contained fibrocartilage (which is NOT the same as articular cartilage) and no bone. It looked like a big hole in cartilage and bone filled with scar tissue. In contrast, the defect with polymer-MSCs had a surface layer of articular cartilage and an underlying layer of bone. The edges of the defect could not be observed. The bone in the defect could not be distinguished from the surrounding bone. We concluded that the MSCs had formed the new cartilage and bone that now filled the defect. However, the point here is that we DEDUCED, or INFERRED, the differentiation of the MSCs to chondrocytes (cartilage cells) or osteoblasts (bone cells). We never observed it directly. This lack of direct observation is true in other experiments. The best, and most accepted, "proof" is to insert the gene for beta-galactosidase into the MSCs. The beta-galactosidase produced by the labeled cells will stain blue with a chemical reaction. Therefore, we can the chondrocytes and osteoblasts in the defect treated with polymer-MSCs turn blue, "proving" that the MSCs differentiated into these cells. But that is still inferrence, or "detective style reasoning". Everything we observed happened in the past, from a microsecond to 6 weeks before we removed the tissue at 12 weeks post-op. It is still looking at the result of a past event we will never be able to see in real time. This is no different than Darwin observing the Galapagos finches and INFERRING that evolution occurred.

Take another example from chemistry. In high school we did an experiment where we mixed an alcohol and an organic acid. The two react to form an ester. Each ester has a distinct odor: strawberries, bananas, raspberries, etc. So, did we "directly observe" the molecules of alcohol come together with the acid to form the ester? NO! Instead, we smelled bananas and knew the reaction had taken place. In the past. The recent past, but the past.

Except when you are videotaping an event, all science deals with events in the past that are not directly observable. We observe the results of those past events in the present.

Which is just what we do with evolution and the age of the earth.

 

[lucaspa]

A "kind" is what I call a 'loner word'.

It is one of those words that has no definition this side of Heaven, but is effective in making its point.

Like "trinity" and "faith" -- it is useful in making its point, but cannot be defined to the satisfaction of all.

Without that word, the Flood story would be much harder to explain.

But "kind" should not be a "loner word" if creationism is correct. There should be very sharp boundaries between one "kind" and another, because each "kind" represents a separate and independent creation. So there should be morphological, physiological, and genetic boundaries to kinds. Sharp boundaries.

That you can't come up either with 1) a definition of kind or 2) a list of the groups between which there are those sharp boundaries says that "kind" is falsified. There are no "kinds".

The only "point" it is effective in making is in showing that creationism is falsified.

BTW, Trinity does have a precise definition. In Greek. It's just that many people have trouble understanding it.

"Faith" also has a good definition that is easily understandable: "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"

 

[lucaspa]

Creationists use it for groups of organisms and their created ancestors, so there is some minimum agreed upon definition that creationists use. It's ill-defined, not completely non-defined.

"These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by crossing over the divinely-established lines of demarcation." (Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961, p. 66)
"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances." (ICR Impact, "Summary of Evidence for Creation", May/June 1981)

Notice that the second definition is basically the Biological Species Concept.

Duane Gish talks about "kinds":

In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a basic kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes amphibians reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each.

Within the mammalian class, duck-billed playtpuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind."
Duane T. Gish, The Fossils Say NO!, 1973, pp 34-35.

Look at that carefully. "Kinds" are supposed to include all varieties that derive from a single stock. Yet Gish has "mammals" being a "basic kind". But then there are " basic kinds" within mammals. That can't be. Each of those "basic kinds" are supposed to come from a single stock, not be within another "single stock".

All in all, "kind" is simply a buzzword to make creationism sound "scientific", but when you get down to it, even Gish can't but help noticing that living things are grouped in a nested hierarchy, and that is only possible if you have evolution. Creationism cannot produce a nested hierarchy.

 

[Cassiterides]

Well, you are in trouble on both fronts.

First, there is no "the story of Creation". There are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3 and they contradict on major points. For instance, did God create humans as a population of men and women by speaking as stated in Genesis 1:25 or did He create one man and then, after an interval of creating animals, create one woman? Can't have been both.

They were written by different authors but reflect the same event, there are also no contradictions. I think this isn't the place to get into this but briefly consider Jesus' own words on the matter:

Jesus believed of the following historical events and wrote of them as fact:

Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51),
Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39),
Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14),
The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40– 41).

As New Testament scholar John Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as the Old Testament describes creation.

Second, by your mistaken notion of the "scientific method", very little is science because practically none of science is "directly observable".

In other words since you have no directly observational evidence for your theory of evolution suddenly all of science has none...

 

[Cassiterides]

That is a misstatement of science by creationists. It's a warped view of what Francis Bacon said. In his time, many scientists were still looking to Aristotle, and Aristotle emphasized logic in science. There was supposedly only one possible way things could happen, and we could deduce that one possible way by logic. Bacon noted that the universe was contingent and logic was insufficient to discover the universe. We needed to go out and observe. Some of those observations would be experiments. But that does not confine science to the present. It only means that the observations must be available now.

Are you sure you really want to do this? Notice that the definition says that we can collect data through observation and use that to test hypotheses.

So, how about Meteor Crator. A one time event in the past. Unrepeatable; we can't make a 10 mile crator in Arizona. But we can observe the crator and make hypotheses about the event that caused it. Of course, the hypothesis is that Meteor Crator was caused by a meteor impact. Observations of the crator strongly support that. Do you have any doubt that a meteor impact at the site is "fact"? If so, why do you have such doubt?

Like Meteor Crator, the events themselves leave a conclusive historical record. The appearance of life left fossils of mounds of prokaryotic organisms that we can observe today. The age of the earth is recorded in the radioactive isotopes in the rocks of the crust, the moon, and the asteroids. We can observe and measure those isotopes in repeatable experiments today.

I'm not a scientist with a degree, i'm just a simple guy who demands some observation before believing in something. You don't need to get into anything technical, is there not just a simple piece of observational evidence i can go view that proves evolution? i.e in my garden or when i;m out and about...But as there is apparently not, that's why i won't believe in it. Evolution remains as complete faith as it can't be observed or experienced.

 

[AV1611VET]

But "kind" should not be a "loner word" if creationism is correct.

Tell God that -- don't tell me.

There should be very sharp boundaries between one "kind" and another, because each "kind" represents a separate and independent creation.

I'm fond of saying we worship a God of boundaries -- boundaries that even nature cannot cross.

So there should be morphological, physiological, and genetic boundaries to kinds. Sharp boundaries.

Then find them, if you think there should be.

But just like those who went out and searched for Enoch and [later] Elijah, I don't think you're going to find them.

I could be wrong though, as God says:

Pr 25:2 ¶ It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

That you can't come up either with 1) a definition of kind or 2) a list of the groups between which there are those sharp boundaries says that "kind" is falsified.

Oh, really?

Well ... like I said ... tell God that.

There are no "kinds".

The Bible says otherwise.

The only "point" it is effective in making is in showing that creationism is falsified.

Nope -- not hardly.

 

[29apples]

I'm not a scientist with a degree, i'm just a simple guy who demands some observation before believing in something. You don't need to get into anything technical, is there not just a simple piece of observational evidence i can go view that proves evolution? i.e in my garden or when i;m out and about...But as there is apparently not, that's why i won't believe in it. Evolution remains as complete faith as it can't be observed or experienced.

I hear you man. I feel the same way about gravity. I mean we can't see it, so how do you we know it is gravity? It could be God's will to keep our feet planted. I personally think it is all the guilt weighing us down. (I was raised as a catholic)


Can I also get an example of some kinds? Roughly how many kinds are there? 2? 3?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I hear you man. I feel the same way about gravity. I mean we can't see it, so how do you we know it is gravity? It could be God's will to keep our feet planted. I personally think it is all the guilt weighing us down. (I was raised as a catholic)