Science vs. Evolution

[Hespera]

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"

definitions of faith on the Web:

• religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
• complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
• religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
• loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

none of this has anything to do with atheism or science. as for "proof' that is an awful lot of stuff that can never be proven out past the first or second "why".



Unless you want to include under faith my firm belief that I have no alien spaceport in my molars; and in the procces do to the word what the kids did to the word "awesome"; completely ruined it and striped it of meaning. Now its used to mean 'thank you".

I'f think the religious would value this word, 'faith' and not demean it or give everyone credit for having it. By some people's usage, dogs have faith.

 

[Split Rock]

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

Go back and re-read what Lucaspa wrote. He explained exactly why science is all about indirect observation, and went into some detail in doing so, even with an example from his own research. Common Descent is inferred from all the anatomical, biochemical, genetic, embryological, biogeographical and paleontological evidence.

 

[SithDoughnut]

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.

Take up breeding flowers. That's human-influenced evolution right there.

 

[tanzanos]

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.

First of all are you qualified to understand the observation if you see it? Secondly; did you observe creation? If you insist on the "only what the bible says is true" then may I remind you to tread carefully for thou may be called a hypocrite and have to answer to your conscious. If you insist on adhering to the bible in the literal sense then you better be prepared to do some horrid things lest you be found ignoring God's commands.

Judge not lest you be judged in return!

 

[Greatcloud]

It is the spirit of the letter that we follow not the letter or we would all be in trouble. The letter of the law destroys the spirit will set you free.

 

[Hespera]

It is the spirit of the letter that we follow not the letter or we would all be in trouble. The letter of the law destroys the spirit will set you free.

Just as every man deciding for himself to ignore the letter of the law and go with his interpretation of the law will, uh, what? Set you free till you get caught "interpreting"?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

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

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.

Yet nothing a evolutionist believes is scientific, consider the following:

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.

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. This is something evolutionists even themselves admit from time to time, G. Ledyard Stebbins for example admitted in his Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1:

''No Biologist has actually seen...evolution of a major group of organisms''

Conclusion

The theory of evolution is a faith, a belief (a religious theory). It is NOT a scientific fact. 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.

This right here, encapsulates the very reason I have come to despise professional creationists. They sell their ingnorance, and good, well intentioned people buy this, and then spout this nonsense, perpetuating the ignorance. Reminds me of the dark ages.

 

[Split Rock]

This right here, encapsulates the very reason I have come to despise professional creationists. They sell their ingnorance, and good, well intentioned people buy this, and then spout this nonsense, perpetuating the ignorance. Reminds me of the dark ages.

While I agree with you that Professional creationists are charletons and snake oil salesmen who dupe the rank-in-file creationists, the latter empower the former to do this. Most creatonists don't care if their favorite Professional Creationist or "Creation Ministry" lies to them, as long as the lie reinforces what they want to believe. That is why Professional Creationists can basically get away with anything, and never disappoint or disillusion their flock. Afterall, none of the supposed scientific evidences supporting creationism or disproving evolution actually matter to most creationists in the first place, since it is apologetics arguments that matter to them, not science. They are just a convienent tool for debating evildoers and reenforcing what they know must be The Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

This right here, encapsulates the very reason I have come to despise professional creationists. They sell their ingnorance, and good, well intentioned people buy this, and then spout this nonsense, perpetuating the ignorance. Reminds me of the dark ages.

While I agree with you that Professional creationists are charletons and snake oil salesmen who dupe the rank-in-file creationists, the latter empower the former to do this. Most creatonists don't care if their favorite Professional Creationist or "Creation Ministry" lies to them, as long as the lie reinforces what they want to believe. That is why Professional Creationists can basically get away with anything, and never disappoint or disillusion their flock. Afterall, none of the supposed scientific evidences supporting creationism or disproving evolution actually matter to most creationists in the first place, since it is apologetics arguments that matter to them, not science. They are just a convienent tool for debating evildoers and reenforcing what they know must be The Truth.

I buy your whining to a point.

You have 'professional creationists' come preaching evidence, then you guys take that evidence apart, then turn and rend the creationist.

I come 'preaching' no evidence, and you guys whine about it, while trying to rend me.

Either way -- you guys can't stand us.

In my opinion, which I have just formulated recently, I have come to the conclusion that you guys have a fear of 'higher powers' because it has the potential to deceive you.

Another thing, is that you guys cannot understand a deity that doesn't (yea, can't) lie, because it is very important to you that anything beyond your telescopes must needs be a deceiver -- (or an allegorist).

This makes your Scientific Method your salvation, as science then comes to the rescue of your fears.

 

[Cassiterides]

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)

Well it's a bit odd to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity. The latter doesn't involve the destiny or history of man, so it isn't an emotional or deep topic. Evolution has resistance because it is historically absurd, seriously think for a moment about your family tree, so you think there was once an ape, fish (?) or 'caveman' down the line? We can't go back in time to meet all our ancestors, so my belief my ancestors looked like me is as credible as the theory of evolution which states our heritage is fish or monkeys.

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

Well evolutionists don't even know how many 'species' there are. It's not as if we all get the chance to travel the earth and record all these animals. I would say there is several thousand. John ray condiered around 18,000 i believe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

dp.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I buy your whining to a point.

You have 'professional creationists' come preaching evidence, then you guys take that evidence apart, then turn and rend the creationist.

I come 'preaching' no evidence, and you guys whine about it, while trying to rend me.

Either way -- you guys can't stand us.

In my opinion, which I have just formulated recently, I have come to the conclusion that you guys have a fear of 'higher powers' because it has the potential to deceive you.

Another thing, is that you guys cannot understand a deity that doesn't (yea, can't) lie, because it is very important to you that anything beyond your telescopes must needs be a deceiver -- (or an allegorist).

This makes your Scientific Method your salvation, as science then comes to the rescue of your fears.

Argumentum ad martyrdom.

 

[Hespera]

Well it's a bit odd to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity. The latter doesn't involve the destiny or history of man, so it isn't an emotional or deep topic. Evolution has resistance because it is historically absurd, seriously think for a moment about your family tree, so you think there was once an ape, fish (?) or 'caveman' down the line? We can't go back in time to meet all our ancestors, so my belief my ancestors looked like me is as credible as the theory of evolution which states our heritage is fish or monkeys.



Well evolutionists don't even know how many 'species' there are. It's not as if we all get the chance to travel the earth and record all these animals. I would say there is several thousand. John ray condiered around 18,000 i believe.

Its even more odd that educated people who are not committed to a religious conclusion-before -evidence dont find the ToE a bit absurd.


Oddest of all would be if the theocreos, with no actual knowledge* of the subject, let alone of all the physics chemistry geology and so forth that go into the ToE, it would be so odd if THEY could figure out what is wrong with the ToE when the finest minds in science around the world cannot.

a bit odd is that anyone could be so self-deluded as to think its reasonable to believe that could happen.

The resistance is not to absurdity, it is to the conflict between reality and an odd old book of myths.

As for the good old argument from incredulity about ancestors, IF you didnt know better you might think it absurd that the miniature poodle could have a wolf ancestor

You are faced with having to discover an unknown and evidently nonexistent barrier to how far a plant or animal can go, in a long long series of small changes.

IF you could go back and meet your ancestors, at some point you'd find guys who you didnt want to claim as ancestors... i guess... coz they jsut arent enough like you. I wont blame them for being disgusted with you, that you deny them and all they went thru to survive and produce someone who says nah, you didnt exist, goddidit.


Examples of the lack of knowledge, we cite the bit about monkey ancestors, and the total irrelevance of not knowing how many species there are.

You want to go try to discover all the species of bark beetle in borneo?

According to your reasoning, if we dont now the names of everyone killed in WW3, well historians claiming there was a war must be pretty absurd.

We are unaware of just what you mean by "John ray (sic) condiered (sic)
18000", but if you dont know it, there are at least a half million species of beetles. There are organisms such as a blind cave salamander in Texas, known only from one artesian well. Good luck finding every species in the world!

 

[AV1611VET]

Oddest of all would be if the theocreos, with no actual knowledge* of the subject, let alone of all the physics chemistry geology and so forth that go into the ToE...

Did evolution's prophet Charles Darwin understand 'all the physics chemistry geology and so forth' [sic] when he wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races?

 

[Split Rock]

I buy your whining to a point.

You have 'professional creationists' come preaching evidence, then you guys take that evidence apart, then turn and rend the creationist.

I come 'preaching' no evidence, and you guys whine about it, while trying to rend me.

Either way -- you guys can't stand us..

Either way -- you're wrong. But at least when you stick to "Goddidit, that's it," you aren't propagating falsehoods. Some os us do appreciate that.

In my opinion, which I have just formulated recently, I have come to the conclusion that you guys have a fear of 'higher powers' because it has the potential to deceive you.

Another thing, is that you guys cannot understand a deity that doesn't (yea, can't) lie, because it is very important to you that anything beyond your telescopes must needs be a deceiver -- (or an allegorist).

This makes your Scientific Method your salvation, as science then comes to the rescue of your fears.

Another poorly formulated opinion. As for myself, the only thing I fear concerning the subject, is the effect of creationism on the teaching of science and the acceptance of scientific conclusions by our society. The rest is just wishful thinking on your part to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy inside. Oh and btw, the use of an allegory does not make anyone a "deceiver' and, as you already know, evolution does not equal atheism.

 

[Split Rock]

Did evolution's prophet Charles Darwin understand 'all the physics chemistry geology and so forth' [sic] when he wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races?

Did you stop burning witches yet, AVET?

 

[Cassiterides]

Its even more odd that educated people who are not committed to a religious conclusion-before -evidence dont find the ToE a bit absurd.

I have a brother (non-Christian, nor apart of any religion) who doesn't believe in evolution. In fact i know many, also Michael Denton famous author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is an Agnostic.

Evolution is being questioned by many non-religious, not only fundamental Christians who believe in creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you stop burning witches yet, AVET?

Why? who do you have in mind?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I have a brother (non-Christian, nor apart of any religion) who doesn't believe in evolution. In fact i know many, also Michael Denton famous author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is an Agnostic.

Evolution is being questioned by many non-religious, not only fundamental Christians who believe in creation.

Considering the massive amounts of Disinformation being spread by people like ben stein and kent hovind, the fact even uninformed agnostics and atheists start to have doubts proves nothing but the effectiveness of propaganda. (And, to be quite fair, it shows the lack of proper education on the subject which is not their fault but schools)

It is ofcourse quite good to question everything, it is encouraged and should be. the problem is the missinformation taking advantage of peoples willingness to question and missconcieved ideas of fairness like "teach both"

 

[Hespera]

I have a brother (non-Christian, nor apart of any religion) who doesn't believe in evolution. In fact i know many, also Michael Denton famous author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is an Agnostic.

Evolution is being questioned by many non-religious, not only fundamental Christians who believe in creation.

Just ignoring the rest of what i said, but even on these you are several pionts off bearing. Guess I will assume you agree with the others, or at least have no capacity to make a meaningful response.

What your brother does or doesnt "believe in" has Zero to do with what is real.

At a guess, he knows next to zero about it, because its pretty hard not to accept it as vaild it if you do. ("belief" is for religion; in science we base things on fact not on feeling)

It is fine to question any theory in science; in fact it is encouraged, its a necessary part of how science works. Your statement about people questioning it promises more than it delivers.

Uninformed shallow "questioning' such as yours tho has no actual value.

Your quite famous author will not in his entire book have so much as one lonely data point that is contrary evidence. Im sure he, like the other theocreos is quite good at concealing that "inconvenient truth" in a screen of a lot of impressive looking words. But stripped away, there is nothing there but empty words.


To falsify the ToE is probably impossible, but it sure wont be done by uninformed, agenda driven fakers.