What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[solid_core]

Got a formula for that?

Take a cell, give it some mutation ability and then mutate it until it fits into its environment

 

[MIDutch]

Science is largely the study of the creation.

Which "creation"? There have been so many stories about it.

 

[solid_core]

Which "creation"? There have been so many stories about it.

The one we live in.

 

[pitabread]

Got a formula for that?

Sure, if you dig into any evolution textbook you'll find lots of formulas.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't need to. The evidence, and scientific (human) conclusions about that evidence, is widely available in THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, research hospitals, libraries, etc. in every country around the globe.

You creationists don't know because you refuse to look at, and/or understand, the vast amount of evidence. Creationists prefer to take the easy route and merely accuse everyone else of being as willfully ignorant as they are.

The most important science is the science of protecting the environment. We creationists are fighting a losing battle against the scientists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure, if you dig into any evolution textbook you'll find lots of formulas.

I have, but haven't found satisfactory answers, only brief descriptions of what might have occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pray tell, why would I wish to explain spirit to you?
Animals have instinct....
And why are apes not becoming more human?

You know, when it was thought that the universe was eternal, there would have been an extensive amount of time for these evolutions to happen....

Now that we know it is only about 13 billion years old, and life was not even possible till about 3 billion years ago....what happens to the chances of these random and select changes taking place in such a short amount of time to be able to end up with us?

Time is a problem.

You made a claim. That places a burden of proof upon you. Dodging and ducking when one needs to support a claim is roughly the same as admitting that one is wrong.

 

[MIDutch]

The one we live in.

But which story about it is the correct one (obviously we need to know that so we can choose which book of myth, fable and tall tale we need to teach in science class).

 

[solid_core]

But which story about it is the correct one (obviously we need to know that so we can choose which book of myth, fable and tall tale we need to teach in science class).

Many can be correct in some aspects.

There are theological aspects, philosophical aspects, scientific aspects.

In science class, scientific aspect should be taught. In philosophy class, philosophical aspect should be taught. In a church, theological aspect should be taught.

And if somebody wants to have a holistic view, he should have at least basics in all of them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But which story about it is the correct one (obviously we need to know that so we can choose which book of myth, fable and tall tale we need to teach in science class).

How about the one where manure is used for fertilizer, not ground up rocks treated with acid.

Traditional ag teacher: "Animal manures make great fertilizers."

Modern ag teacher: "Chemicals are superior to manures. In fact manure should be processed to produce energy."

 

[pitabread]

I have, but haven't found satisfactory answers, only brief descriptions of what might have occurred.

You asked for formulas, did you not mean mathematical formulas?

Because if you want math, there is lots applicable to evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure.
But you didn't explain about sight.
How did the eye evolve?
How long did whatever came first have to be blind before it could see?
Ditto for hearing.
Were the first creatures deaf?
The eye and ear are so intricate.

Do you seriously want to learn? Those concepts are well understood. Sight most likely began as merely a nerve cluster that was sensitive to light. In fact, I found a young man that can explain it far better than I can:

By the way, the argument that you are trying to use is an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.

The evolution of the mammalian ear is very well understood because there are quite a few transitional fossils that recorded the event. You are whistling in the dark right now. Why not let a little light in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how come there are so many variations of each TYPE of plant.....
and how did trees come into being?
Can you explain that in 25 words or less?
I don't think so because no one really knows.

But that is merely because you refuse to study the topic.

Twenty five words or less would guarantee a fairly poor explanation. Why ask for that?

 

[MIDutch]

The most important science is the science of protecting the environment. We creationists are fighting a losing battle against the scientists.

Really? What have you creationists done to protect the environment? From what I can tell, creationists have been more like (per Ann Coulter) "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "

Also, Scott Pruitt, the man who was chosen by the current president as head of the EPA (you know, that US government agency meant to protect the environment) to specifically destroy if from the inside, is a creationist (Southern Baptist, doesn't "believe" in evolution).

 

[MIDutch]

I have, but haven't found satisfactory answers, only brief descriptions of what might have occurred.

And yet you're willing to go with the "scientific answers" you find in a bronze age collection of myths, fables and tall tales.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You asked for formulas, did you not mean mathematical formulas?

Because if you want math, there is lots applicable to evolution.

It would likely take a blackboard size formula for just one tiny biological change, of the millions that would be needed for even a small evolutionary change. Picture a long hallway with a million locked doors, each representing a complex chemical or biological change that must take place successfully before even a small evolutionary change can occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that I believe I have the correct answer.

And how did math come about BTW?
How is it that science uses math for everything.
No math, no science.
Did man invent math....or does it exist throughout the universe?
Science works with methods that were pre-existant.

Your answer is demonstrably false.

Math is a human made tool based at least partially on observation. The universe does not add. It is a very useful tool. And that was a rather pointless question.

You are still trying not to learn. That may be a way to maintain your beliefs, but it will not bring you any closer to the truth.

The theory of evolution does not "refute God". People that try to claim that are no different from Flat Earthers that deny gravity. Most Flat Earthers have those beliefs based upon a very literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Too much literalism is harmful to one's faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would likely take a blackboard size formula for just one tiny biological change, of the millions that would be needed for even a small evolutionary change. Picture a long hallway with a million locked doors, each representing a complex chemical or biological change that must take place successfully before even a small evolutionary change can occur.

Not even close. For example the specific mutation for blue eyes is known. This is merely a gross exaggeration that you cannot support.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really? What have you creationists done to protect the environment? From what I can tell, creationists have been more like (per Ann Coulter) "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' "

Also, Scott Pruitt, the man who was chosen by the current president as head of the EPA (you know, that US government agency meant to protect the environment) to specifically destroy if from the inside, is a creationist (Southern Baptist, doesn't "believe" in evolution).

There are too few of us to make a difference. And, you have no idea of the level of disdain that we are held in by the conventional forces that are in charge.

 

[solid_core]

And yet you're willing to go with the "scientific answers" you find in a bronze age collection of myths, fables and tall tales.

Mythology is not fables and certainly not fairy tales.

Mythology is a pre-scientific view of the world. First tries of humanity to grasp the reality around them. To make sense of the world.

Later it was replaced by natural philosophy and very, very recently by science. We should not look down at these eras, they are shoulders we stand on.