Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you. I wasn’t aware of the difference.This is not entirely correct, Lemmings. Petrification is not the same as fossilization. Fossilization happens over millions of years, while petrification can happen quite quickly. This is because in fossilization all the carbon parts of the fossilized organism are exchanged for minerals, something which doesn't happen with petrification.
Just be sure to be concise when you research these arguments. Don't just accept the arguments of creationists, the same way as you don't just accept the arguments of evolutionists.I am not going to elaborate on these because I do not have enough knowledge about them to be able to do that but I have been learning online about things on both sides of this issue, as fast as I can (in between posting here) and I will continue to learn. You will have to look them up for yourself as I have been doing. I realize that it isn't the most concise argument but it is what I have for now. The more I do learn the more I realize that evolution does not always add up. I am still convinced of Creation as God's divine design. It is too wonderful and complex to just "happen" from nothing.
I am having a hard time understanding what you say here. I can definitely understand that the arguments raised wouldn't directly convince you. But what do you mean with "it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusion"? For example with the twin-nested hierarchy. Descent with modification will always give groups within groups (ie, a nested hierarchy). That is explained by the fact that with descent with modification there is always a splitting of already existing groups, instead of an overlap between groups. Vice versa, it also explains the conclusion. We draw the conclusion because descent with modification is the only thing we know of that would be in accordance with a twin-nested hierarchy. If we would see something different, this could not be explained by descent with modification and thus a different conclusion would be needed.Yeah Yeah Yeah I know you have explained the findings but what I am saying is that it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusions or convince me of the conclusions.
If creationism would be science, it should be able to explain these. So yes, that would be nice. My problem is that in all the years I am in these discussions now, I have never had them adequately explained to me. Not by lay creationists, and not by professional creationists. So I do not expect you to be able to explain them. But if you can, I will always be willing to think about the explanation you give.And did you WANT me to be able to explain these?
I find what you say above a bit disingenuous in several levels.I have done what you have done and read the results of these. I haven't memorized them so that I could really explain them back to you but I don't think you wanted that. Weren't you saying that I haven't EXPLAINED my conclutions of these findings? I could have an "idea" (just as scientists do) or I could also, surmise, (as scientists do) but will that change your mind? Of course not. That is not what you want. What you want is fodder to prey upon. I don't begrudge you that, I like the idea of a good joust myself. But you KNOW my conclusions. I agree that there is evidence of evolution BUT I DO NOT agree that this is evidence that creation did not take place. No matter what I say your mind is all made up and you will not be satisfied with my answer. I don't even think you could be satisfied to say "Okay there are people out there who don't agree with us, and even though they are wrong (from your viewpoint) I can accept it." I don't think you can accept this. I could be wrong but it seems that way to me. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I said all that to say this. I'm no even going to try to explain.
Wiccan_Child said:Just be sure to be concise when you research these arguments.
Ok first of all, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word 'concise' means. Here is a dictionary definition which might help you out:Shouting phrases isn't the most concise of arguments.
Second, before you get whisked away with an overblown sense of your own scientific prowess I think you might recall that you yourself, as well as every other human being on the planet starts with an opinion about creation well before they get a chance to "look at the evidence". A larger, definitely more intelligent question would be to ask yourself why people tend to start with these default opinions in the first place.Ah, I see... so, you decided Creation is correct BEFORE looking at the evidence, and are now trying to find evidence to support your prior assumptions
Umm, no. ToE follows many distinct lines of inquiry, not the least of them being biology, paleontology, and geology. Since gradualism uses environmental changes as a catalyst to natural selection, it is logical to include the study of geology in any body of information which contributes to the ToE.Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL Theory, not Geology.
No, first of all something does not need to be modern science in order to have explanatory power. The Judeo_Christian creation story is certainly an explanation of the existence of all life. Whether or not this explanation is testable is another issue altogether, but it certainly has explanatory power. So your statement that if "creation were science, it should explain x,y, or z is definitely wrong. Any hypothesis can have an instrinsic power to explain the natural world, it just remains to be seen of that hypothesis can be tested and or supported by facts.creationism would be science, it should be able to explain these. So yes, that would be nice. My problem is that in all the years I am in these discussions now, I have never had them adequately explained to me. Not by lay creationists, and not by professional creationists. So I do not expect you to be able to explain them. But if you can, I will always be willing to think about the explanation you give.
I am aware of what concise means. However, he simply shouted words. This is not an argument, and so is not a concise argument. Notice your definition said: [SIZE=-1]expressing much in few words. He did not express an argument, and thus did not express a concise arguement.[/SIZE]Ok first of all, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word 'concise' means. Here is a dictionary definition which might help you out:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...:concise&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
So in fact Inan was expressing these concepts not only in a concise manner, but in the most concise manner possible.
The theory of gravitation, for starters. Do you think people sat down and said, 'I hypothesis that masses attract one another according to this formula that I pulled out of my bum', and then went about dropping things off cliffs and measuring the motion of the planets? No. They saw that masses attract one another (or, at first, that things are attracted to the Earth), and created an explanation for why.Also, Im not aware of any scientific process which does not use evidence to support a prior hypothesis.
He said he has evidence against evolutionary theory and for Creationism, and so we asked for it. Noone has yet asked for evidence for evolutionary theory, though, so is it so unreasonable that none has been presented?And this 'evidence' your talking about seems very scarce indeed, I think it is the height of hypocritical ignorance to accuse Inan of not producing any evidence when after browsing this thread for the last few days I have certainly seen zilch from you yourself in the way of "evidence for evolution". At least Inan seems to be putting forth an effort, whereas the majority of those replying to him dont seem to be dragging up much at all in terms of content.
Noone is disputing the fact that geographical analysis has bolstered evolutionary theory, but attacks on geography do not, strictly speaking, constitute attacks on evolution. Evolution holds up on it's own biological footing; evidence from non-biological fields are simply the icing on the cake.Umm, no. ToE follows many distinct lines of inquiry, not the least of them being biology, paleontology, and geology. Since gradualism uses environmental changes as a catalyst to natural selection, it is logical to include the study of geology in any body of information which contributes to the ToE.
As a matter of fact it was uniformitism itself which led to initial questions of origins.
Since geology is the main instrument in determining ages of earth in various fossil contexts(through radiometric dating techniques) I would think any one interested in the ToE would recognize the relevance of geology. Thats just basic common sense as far as Im concerned.
No, but something must have explanatory power in order to be modern science.No, first of all something does not need to be modern science in order to have explanatory power.
Equivocation (of sorts). Explanatory power does not imply scientific validity, but scientific validity requires explanatory power.The Judeo_Christian creation story is certainly an explanation of the existence of all life. Whether or not this explanation is testable is another issue altogether, but it certainly has explanatory power. So your statement that if "creation were science, it should explain x,y, or z is definitely wrong.
Ad hominem. The age and/or experiance of a poster is irrelevant to his or her post. This is tantamount to flaming, which I'm sure you'll recall is against the rules.Second, judging by the age in your profile, and the relatively recent access to newsgroups and forums by the "average user" I would guess that the "years" your talking about would be relatively few, perhaps you'd care to tell me how many years we are talking about here.
OK, ignorance of the scientific method as well.Also, Im not aware of any scientific process which does not use evidence to support a prior hypothesis.
And this 'evidence' your talking about seems very scarce indeed, I think it is the height of hypocritical ignorance to accuse Inan of not producing any evidence when after browsing this thread for the last few days I have certainly seen zilch from you yourself in the way of "evidence for evolution". At least Inan seems to be putting forth an effort, whereas the majority of those replying to him dont seem to be dragging up much at all in terms of content.
Evolution by natural selection is purely a biological theory.Umm, no. ToE follows many distinct lines of inquiry, not the least of them being biology, paleontology, and geology. Since gradualism uses environmental changes as a catalyst to natural selection, it is logical to include the study of geology in any body of information which contributes to the ToE.
......
Since geology is the main instrument in determining ages of earth in various fossil contexts(through radiometric dating techniques) I would think any one interested in the ToE would recognize the relevance of geology. Thats just basic common sense as far as Im concerned.
Obviously not, why would you lie?I am aware of what concise means.
Nobody was shouting anything, thats another lie.However, he simply shouted words.
Obviously you don't know what an argument is either..it is an expression of disagreement, which certainly qualifies Inan's statements.[SIZE=-1]He did not express an argument[/SIZE]
Yes but plenty of evidence is used to support gravity. The initial observation is seperate from the explanation which is also seperate from evidence and possible tests. Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method, which is not surprising since you seem to be unable to learn what simple words such as concise, argument, and shout mean.The theory of gravitation, for starters. Do you think people sat down and said, 'I hypothesis that masses attract one another according to this formula that I pulled out of my bum', and then went about dropping things off cliffs and measuring the motion of the planets? No. They saw that masses attract one another (or, at first, that things are attracted to the Earth), and created an explanation for why.
What do you mean? Attacks on geography? geography has little to do with geology, which is the field of study in question. This is yet another word that you need to go back and look up. There is a big difference between geography and geology. And who is attacking anything? Your the one making claims about people shouting things.but attacks on geography do not, strictly speaking, constitute attacks on evolution
How does evolution hold up on its own "biological footing"?Evolution holds up on it's own biological footing;
How is "goddidit" in any way an explanation of any specific issue?No, first of all something does not need to be modern science in order to have explanatory power. The Judeo_Christian creation story is certainly an explanation of the existence of all life.
It is not wrong. As you yourself state, any hypothesis can have an intrinsic power to explain the natural world. I would go one step further, any scientific hypothesis has the power to given an explanation of the natural world. The reason for this is that any scientific hypothesis needs to make testable claims, and the basis for this testable claim almost invariably needs to be an explanation of some sort.Whether or not this explanation is testable is another issue altogether, but it certainly has explanatory power. So your statement that if "creation were science, it should explain x,y, or z is definitely wrong. Any hypothesis can have an instrinsic power to explain the natural world, it just remains to be seen of that hypothesis can be tested and or supported by facts.
Around 7 or 8, that enough for you? Although I had glimpses at the issue since the age of 12, I have studied the issue in ernest since around 19/20. Books have always been available for both sides of a lot of issues, including creationism/evolution. Whatever you may think of people of 'my age', some of us do use books, you know. Neither has the evolution/creation issue ever been limited to news forums only. AIG's website goes at least back 8 years, and talk origins goes back at least 10 to 15 years if not more. In this time I have read a range of creationist literature, dating back to the start of creationists, ie the '70s. Next to this I worked through college and university level material on biology in my spare time, while studying environmental health science (lots of physiology, genetics, ecology etc) and epidemiology (lots of statistics, comes in handy when trying to understand cladistic analyses) at university.Second, judging by the age in your profile, and the relatively recent access to newsgroups and forums by the "average user" I would guess that the "years" your talking about would be relatively few, perhaps you'd care to tell me how many years we are talking about here.
The explanation is not seperate from the possible tests. The reason being that the possible tests derive from the explanation. The explanation is also not seperate from the evidence, it is build on the evidence. They are different things, yes, but they are very much interrelated. Especially the explanations and tests.Yes but plenty of evidence is used to support gravity. The initial observation is seperate from the explanation which is also seperate from evidence and possible tests. Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method, which is not surprising since you seem to be unable to learn what simple words such as concise, argument, and shout mean.
<snip ad hominems>
snipped irrelevance
Through the evidence from genetics and morphology. For example, the twin-nested hierarchy points to descent with modification, because that is the only process we know of that would result in the observation of a twin-nested hierarchy. Evolution was already concluded on the basis of these (and other) findings before there was a clear enough picture from geology/paleontology.How does evolution hold up on its own "biological footing"?
Loaded question: you presume I lied.Obviously not, why would you lie?
In case you hadn't noticed, this is a forum for debates. An argument is a conclusion logically derived from premises. Inan's post was not an argument.Obviously you don't know what an argument is either..it is an expression of disagreement, which certainly qualifies Inan's statements.
Irrelevant. The inital observations came before the explanation.Yes but plenty of evidence is used to support gravity. The initial observation is seperate from the explanation which is also seperate from evidence and possible tests.
Obviously.Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method, which is not surprising since you seem to be unable to learn what simple words such as concise, argument, and shout mean.
'I don't understand, so therefore it's ridiculous'. How trite.Its unclear what point you are trying to make here, I dont see what connection this has in any way to what I had said. Its ridiculous.
It was a typo, nothing more. Calm down. Besides, my point stands as geography is as beneficial to the ToE as geology.What do you mean? Attacks on geography? geography has little to do with geology, which is the field of study in question. This is yet another word that you need to go back and look up. There is a big difference between geography and geology.
Inan attacked the theory of evolution via geology.And who is attacking anything?
In case you hadn't noticed, I explained why I used the words 'concise' and 'argument' as I did. I will not admit to something I did not do, nor concede a correction where none is need.If you had at least admitted that you used the word concise and others incorrectly, and accepted correction I would be able to take you seriously, but this form of sidestepping obvious simple errors on your part points to a complete disregard for the truth.
Sympatric isolation and subsequent speciation has been observed. This was predicted by evolutionary theory, and has thus been supported by biological evidence.How does evolution hold up on its own "biological footing"?
Dont know what an explanation is, eh? Guess what, if you cant figure out basic English I dont feel responsible to teach you.How is "goddidit" in any way an explanation of any specific issue
Wait, your thinking that the existence of pseudogenes and other junk DNA shows a bad design? Is that your "point"? Thats ridiculous.If you have the question why there are pseudogenes in the genome, stating that 'goddidit' doesn't explain anything, because God could just as well have done it any other way
Well basically you are agreeing with me here but what specifically do you "see one thing but not something different", a little too much if a generalization.Next to this, the goal of science is to explain things. If creationism wants to purport to be science, it should be able to create an explanatory framework why we see one thing but not something different
Enough for me? Your the one who brought it up, so since you are the one making an appeal to your "years of experience" perhaps the more intelligent question would be: Is it good enough for YOU? Personally I never stop learning, and I am never presumptuous enough to think that after 4 or 5 or ten years that I cannot learn anything new. Its very "unscientific" thinking...especially for those who claim science to be their intellectual foundation.Around 7 or 8, that enough for you?
True, but the same could be said for evolution, and the fact that your years of experience have not gotten you any closer to understanding concepts which you disagree with really make it difficult for me to accept that you had been studying the issue for 7 or 8 years(unless you were reading very slowly). In only months of reading about things I was able to instantly understand the fruitless nature of a well supported scientific theory of origins on either the creation or evolution side. Apparently, with all the time you have had into it, your having a difficulty grasping it.If creationism would be science, both lay and professional creationists should be able to beat me around the bush easily with explanations, testable non-falsified hypotheses and a coherent framework, or at least differing coherent frameworks and a good internal discussion on those
We are not JUST talking about natural selection, we are talking about the entire theory, and the entire theory depends upon many different lines of inquiry. Besides, natural selection is probably studied closer by zoologists and specialists such as herpetologists, rather than being a "purely a biological theory"Evolution by natural selection is purely a biological theory.
really? well as it happens I was just talking to a post doctorate physicist the other day who seemed to find a lot of evidence of a inherent design in the universe he observes every day.If you asked a serious, professional physicisist about 'his' theory of evolution he would just laugh at you.
Well then, you are preaching to the choir, but now its your turn to tell me why science hasnt discarded the theory of evolution.If in your own words: "it is wrong and can be changed" then why hasnt it been changed?The big difference is that if the evidence doesn support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong and can be changed.
Oh so giving me a list of url's is your way of outlining evidence? No. I think I'd be much more interested in your interpretation of the information on those websites.Or shall I give you a few weeks to read this little lot.
In what world do you live in to think that I would ever PM you for anything?Any questions, please feel free to PM me and I will explain any big words
I agree, why then would he bring up his experience?Ad hominem. The age and/or experiance of a poster is irrelevant to his or her post.
quite possibly. However I bet he would laugh in your face if you asked him to confirm a universe that is only thousands of years old.really? well as it happens I was just talking to a post doctorate physicist the other day who seemed to find a lot of evidence of a inherent design in the universe he observes every day.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. #379Wait, your thinking that the existence of pseudogenes and other junk DNA shows a bad design? Is that your "point"? Thats ridiculous.
I'm afraid you are a little confused here, evolution by natural selection is a theory of biology, zoology in particular.We are not JUST talking about natural selection, we are talking about the entire theory, and the entire theory depends upon many different lines of inquiry. Besides, natural selection is probably studied closer by zoologists and specialists such as herpetologists, rather than being a "purely a biological theory"?
really? well as it happens I was just talking to a post doctorate physicist the other day who seemed to find a lot of evidence of a inherent design in the universe he observes every day.?
If there were any credible evidence that refuted evolution, then that is exactly what would happen.Well then, you are preaching to the choir, but now its your turn to tell me why science hasnt discarded the theory of evolution.If in your own words: "it is wrong and can be changed" then why hasnt it been changed?
i have give you my interpretaion, you asked for evidence. This is independant evidence that has been peer reviewed and regarded by the scientific community as true to the best of our current knowledge.Oh so giving me a list of url's is your way of outlining evidence? No. I think I'd be much more interested in your interpretation of the information on those websites.
To ask for help without embarrasing yourself.In what world do you live in to think that I would ever PM you for anything?
Feel free to explain. God is not an explanation because God can be used to explain any observation you see. We observed a twin-nested hierarchy? God designed it that way. Wait, we don't see one. God designed it that way. Because God 'explains' anything you can come across, no matter what the observation is, it actually explains nothing. God is not an observation.Dont know what an explanation is, eh? Guess what, if you cant figure out basic English I dont feel responsible to teach you.
No, that is not what I was thinking. What I was thinking is that God does not explain pseudogenes because whatever is observed about them, you can claim 'goddidit' in all those cases.Wait, your thinking that the existence of pseudogenes and other junk DNA shows a bad design? Is that your "point"? Thats ridiculous.
Start with pseudogenes then. Why do we observe pseudogenes in the DNA, instead of not seeing them. The theory of evolution explains this due to the nature of inheritence. A gene that was necessary in the past becomes unnecessary because natural selection doesn't act on it anymore. Hence, the gene deteriorates due to random mutations.Well basically you are agreeing with me here but what specifically do you "see one thing but not something different", a little too much if a generalization.
Yes, I was saying that I have been in the discussion for years and have never encountered a coherent framework for creation science. You put into question the amount of years that was, hence my (sarcastic) question whether that was enough for you. You were the one asking.Enough for me? Your the one who brought it up, so since you are the one making an appeal to your "years of experience" perhaps the more intelligent question would be: Is it good enough for YOU? Personally I never stop learning, and I am never presumptuous enough to think that after 4 or 5 or ten years that I cannot learn anything new. Its very "unscientific" thinking...especially for those who claim science to be their intellectual foundation.
I see that you have nothing to offer but insults here. If you have a general framework of creation science to offer that goes beyond 'goddidit', let me know. I speak in ernest that I never have. For you to presume beforehand that this is because I haven't looked is quite disingenuous.True, but the same could be said for evolution, and the fact that your years of experience have not gotten you any closer to understanding concepts which you disagree with really make it difficult for me to accept that you had been studying the issue for 7 or 8 years(unless you were reading very slowly). In only months of reading about things I was able to instantly understand the fruitless nature of a well supported scientific theory of origins on either the creation or evolution side. Apparently, with all the time you have had into it, your having a difficulty grasping it.
Good, however, I'm not so friendly as you I guess because I'm quite busy, and I would never have time to answer your questions by pm, especially since you don't seem to understand the basic principles I have outlined already. So if you need help, and you feel out of your depth, I personally will not be able to help you at all. And though I appreciate your willingness to help me if I have a question, I am not the type of person who asks questions on forums, I usually find the answers for myself.To ask for help without embarrasing yourself.
If i feel out of my depth, I often ask for help.
As I said before, we are talking about more than just natural selection here, and you failed to understand me the first time, therefore I would hesitate to answer any questions you might have.I'm afraid you are a little confused here, evolution by natural selection is a theory of biology, zoology in particular.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?