What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Bungle_Bear]

It's a variation of Rugby football, in which the hands are allowed to be used. Blame the Brits.

Rugby predates football (soccer). It wasn't until 1863 that the rules of Association Football were formalised and the ball could no longer be carried in the hands. Contrary to popular belief, football is actually a variation of a more rugby-like game, not the other way round

 

[MIDutch]

Rugby predates football (soccer). It wasn't until 1863 that the rules of Association Football were formalised and the ball could no longer be carried in the hands. Contrary to popular belief, football is actually a variation of a more rugby-like game, not the other way round

Odd. I've seen illustrations of football (using the feet to propel a ball) that go all the way back to 400 BC. There are also 15th Century descriptions of "the game at which they had met for common recreation is called by some the foot-ball game. It is one in which young men, in country sport, propel a huge ball not by throwing it into the air but by striking it and rolling it along the ground, and that not with their hands but with their feet... kicking in opposite directions". But I suppose that if it comes down to "formalized rules" ...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Odd. I've seen illustrations of football (using the feet to propel a ball) that go all the way back to 400 BC. There are also 15th Century descriptions of "the game at which they had met for common recreation is called by some the foot-ball game. It is one in which young men, in country sport, propel a huge ball not by throwing it into the air but by striking it and rolling it along the ground, and that not with their hands but with their feet... kicking in opposite directions". But I suppose that if it comes down to "formalized rules" ...

That is indeed the case, but the ball could be picked up and carried as well as punched with the hand. That's why I say football is a variation of a rugby-like predecessor. Football without the use of hands is a pretty modern variation.

EDIT: The "new" rules also allowed for forward passes (something you can't do in rugby), and banned hacking and holding during tackles.

 

[SkyWriting]

We know what life is. The "why" questions are irrelevant to science. They are matters of philosophy.

Why are you so silly?
Why Do We Shiver?
Why do children vomit after head injury?
Why Does the Fœtus Present by the Cephalic Extremity?—The Treatment of Fœtal Impaction by Cleidotomy—Accidents during Curettage
Why won't doctors go where they are needed? deputy minister asks
Why Should I Live in Pain?
Why Additives? The Safety of Foods
Gut. 1978 Feb; 19(2): 160.PMCID: PMC1411819
Why Hospital Patients Complain
Hospital (Lond 1886) 1896 Apr 25; 20(500): 64.PMCID: PMC5245309
Why do they wheeze so much?
Why Are We Here?
Richard A. Prindle Bull N Y Acad Med. 1967 Aug; 43(8): 618–626.
PMCID: PMC1806713
Why should we seek consent for using left over tissue samples?
Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy?
Studies of Yeast Cytochrome C: Why They Started and Why They Continued
Why Nurses Choose to Leave Nursing Field West J Med. 1981 Feb; 134(2): 2–3.
PMCID: PMC1272522


Why are things hot?
Why are things cold?
Why to caterpillars change into butterflies?
Why do eggs have shells?
Why to chemicals mix?
Why are some chemicals more reactive than others?

• Why is the sky blue? ...
• Why does the earth spin
• Why are there black holes? ...
• Why do airplanes fly? ...
• Why do flies walk? ...
• Why are their are rainbows?

Why did life begin on earth?

• Why do we dream?
  
• Why is there matter?
  Why are things warm in the sun?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you so silly?
Why Do We Shiver?
Why do children vomit after head injury?
Why Does the Fœtus Present by the Cephalic Extremity?—The Treatment of Fœtal Impaction by Cleidotomy—Accidents during Curettage
Why won't doctors go where they are needed? deputy minister asks
Why Should I Live in Pain?
Why Additives? The Safety of Foods
Gut. 1978 Feb; 19(2): 160.PMCID: PMC1411819
Why Hospital Patients Complain
Hospital (Lond 1886) 1896 Apr 25; 20(500): 64.PMCID: PMC5245309
Why do they wheeze so much?
Why Are We Here?
Richard A. Prindle Bull N Y Acad Med. 1967 Aug; 43(8): 618–626.
PMCID: PMC1806713
Why should we seek consent for using left over tissue samples?
Why does NICE not recommend laparoscopic herniorraphy?
Studies of Yeast Cytochrome C: Why They Started and Why They Continued
Why Nurses Choose to Leave Nursing Field West J Med. 1981 Feb; 134(2): 2–3.
PMCID: PMC1272522


Why are things hot?
Why are things cold?
Why to caterpillars change into butterflies?
Why do eggs have shells?
Why to chemicals mix?
Why are some chemicals more reactive than others?

• Why is the sky blue? ...
• Why does the earth spin
• Why are there black holes? ...
• Why do airplanes fly? ...
• Why do flies walk? ...
• Why are their are rainbows?

Why did life begin on earth?

• Why do we dream?
  
• Why is there matter?
  Why are things warm in the sun?

You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?

 

[solid_core]

You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?

Some of these "why" seem to be of the same sort.

 

[Jimmy D]

Each and every creationist suggesting that creationism should be taught in schools, is a viable alternative to mainstream science, or has any validity whatsoever as a way of explaining what we see in the natural world needs to be directed to this thread.

Never mind 25 words, creationism can be described in three... ignorance and denial.

I urge all creationists to go and study the Biologos website if you want to participate in science threads, because frankly, all you are doing here can only be counterproductive to promoting Christianity in any positive light.

 

[solid_core]

Each and every creationist suggesting that creationism should be taught in schools, is a viable alternative to mainstream science, or has any validity whatsoever as a way of explaining what we see in the natural world needs to be directed to this thread.

Never mind 25 words, creationism can be described in three... ignorance and denial.

I urge all creationists to go and study the Biologos website if you want to participate in science threads, because frankly, all you are doing here can only be counterproductive to promoting Christianity in any positive light.

I like biologos, I watched some of their debates on youtube.

I also like Hugh Ross, even though he is an old earth creationist. But he talks more about universe, astronomy etc, its his domain. And there, he is really interesting to watch. He also debated young earth creationists.

 

[GodsGrace101]

God is the a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma wrapped in story the elemental passage of the unknowable who became known through the spirit within and without from the first and originating singularity til now and beyond. A gift, a hope, a home to go to, a presence to feel, the beating of our hearts, the sounds of our breaths, the love and compassion we share, the silence, the serenity of just siting with others. There are many mundane mysteries in this word and cosmos that we still cannot solve. This mystery is one hidden by God which we will receive on going before him. So why are we like silly children looking in the cupboard and corners of the house and not simply pursuing our work of life in the Kingdom.

in love
Jay

Because not everyone believes God is real.

It used to be that Christianity and science worked together --- most scientists believed in God.

Now, it seems that some have created a war between Christianity and science when, actually, this shouldn't be so.

Religion/faith explains why we are here.
Science could explain how we are here.

The how cannot detract from the why since the why is metaphysical and cannot be accepted by everyone.

It is a mystery to me how anyone could look at the sky and not believe someone/thing made it. But it's just as much a mystery to them to think someone could believe in a great invisible force that came out of nowhere to create everything.

I think both camps have a problem and we should be working together. Whatever the outcome may be it will have to be accepted...

But I do believe it's still far off....

 

[GodsGrace101]

Nope, but they share a common ancestor.

Is it happening right now as we speak?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You have been given the short explanation. All you did was to deny it. That means you need to try to understand the more in depth explanation. How many times have I had to remind you that it is natural selection and variation together that are two of the main driving forces of evolution, but every time that you refer to them you only refer to one at a time?

You can't blame those that give you the 25 word version if you refuse to understand it.

I'm not blaming anyone SZ.
I just made a point.

I don't believe in macro evolution because I believe it's impossible for one thing to become another thing...
NOT because I don't understand it or am totally ignorant of it as I've been accused here.

I just don't agree.
Your brain can't wrap around the thought that some great invisible being made everything.

My brain can't wrap around a fish becoming a human...no matter now long you give it or how it happens...

 

[GodsGrace101]

To clarify explanatory power, I'm talking about a scientific framework / model that not only fits with with existing observations in nature, but can also be used as a predictive framework for future discoveries.

I'm also looking at something that would be able to derive useful applications based on said framework.

In order to formulate the above, said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.

To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists. In that sense, the OP is entirely rhetorical; if creationists could actually have come up with something to replace the theory of evolution, it likely would have already happened.

Except that many scientists have given up on Darwin's theory.

No reply necessary.

 

[Strathos]

Except that many scientists have given up on Darwin's theory.

No reply necessary.

If you mean scientists have learned much more since Darwin's day and corrected the various mistakes he made in order to form the modern theory of biological evolution, then that's true, and expected.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Why? That makes no sense. That is almost the same as claiming that someone had to "invent" gravity. Math just is. It is a concept. Man developed it but it is not unique to man. There is no sign that anyone needed to invent it.

Oh that's sweet.
When man DISCOVERED math, it already existed in all its wonderful concepts and rules. Yes, someone/thing had to INVENT it.

It's like electricity.
It has always existed, man just DISCOVERED it.

I'm sure you know the difference between discover and invent.

Science can function because it depends on patterns in the universe that are already in existance. It's the reliable consistency of these patterns that allow science to be able to come to conclusions.

I thank God for science...I don't like to fight with it.
If we get a cure for cancer...it'll be from there... Ditto for many other benefits.

 

[GodsGrace101]

If you mean scientists have learned much more since Darwin's day and corrected the various mistakes he made in order to form the modern theory of biological evolution, then that's true, and expected.

No, what I mean is that many scientists could no longer support the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it because they cannot find supporting proof for it.

Not all scientists believe the same hyposthesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?

I added scientific papers direct from PubMed. It's cool that you noticed.

I might add some more.

Correction: Why are the Japanese living longer?
BMJ. 1990 Jan 27; 300(6719): 226.
Corrects:
BMJ. 1989 Dec 23; 299(6715): 1547–1551.

Why do people use paracetamol for suicide?
Br Med J. 1976 Jan 31; 1(6004): 293.
Corrects: Br Med J. 1976 Jan 24; 1(6003): 212–213.

Why Children Are Not Immunised
D. Hull
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1987 Jan; 21(1): 28–31.
PMCID: PMC5379423

Why Vitamin E?
Alastair Weir
Can Fam Physician. 1982 Sep; 28: 1467–1468.
PMCID: PMC2306599

Epidemiology of disabling neurological disease: how and why does disability occur?
D. Wade
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1997 Nov; 63(Suppl 1): S11–S18. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.63.2008.11s PMCID: PMC2169883

Why widowers drink more
West J Med. 2000 Jan; 172(1): 57. doi: 10.1136/ewjm.172.1.57
PMCID: PMC1070730

Why doctors must grapple with health economics
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987 Apr 4; 294(6576): 906.
Corrects:
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Mar 21; 294(6574): 769.
PMCID:
PMC1245980

 

[SkyWriting]

You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?

I found more:

Why twenty amino acid residue types suffice(d) to support all living systems
Robert P. Bywater
PLoS One. 2018; 13(10): e0204883. Published online 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204883 PMCID: PMC6188899

Why Worry about How Many Species and Their Loss?
Robert M. May
PLoS Biol. 2011 Aug; 9(8): e1001130. Published online 2011 Aug 23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001130 PMCID: PMC3160330

An open letter to The American Society of Human Genetics: the neglected genetic issue--the why and how of curbing population growth.
J V Neel
Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Feb; 56(2): 538–542. PMCID: PMC1801147

Antimicrobial Nanomaterials: Why Evolution Matters
Joseph L. Graves, Jr., Misty Thomas, Jude Akamu Ewunkem
Nanomaterials (Basel) 2017 Oct; 7(10): 283. Published online 2017 Sep 21. doi: 10.3390/nano7100283
PMCID: PMC5666448

 

[Shemjaza]

No, what I mean is that many scientists could no longer support the theory of evolution as Darwin explained it because they cannot find supporting proof for it.

Not all scientists believe the same hyposthesis.

Except that scientists who dispute the theory of evolution can't present actual scientific evidence to replace it.

 

[SkyWriting]

You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?

The challenge was too good to pass up!

We know what life is. The "why" questions are irrelevant to science.
They are matters of philosophy.

Why and how the early-life environment affects development of coping behaviours
M. Rohaa Langenhof, Jan Komdeur
Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2018; 72(3): 34. Published online 2018 Feb 9. doi: 10.1007/s00265-018-2452-3 PMCID: PMC5805793

Walking and talking the tree of life: Why and how to teach about biodiversity
Cissy J. Ballen, Harry W. Greene
PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar; 15(3): e2001630. Published online 2017 Mar 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001630
PMCID: PMC5358732

 

[SkyWriting]

You changed the sort of "why" questions that you were asking. Do you seriously think that no one would notice?

But back to my question:
Why did life begin on earth?

Human Exploration of Space: why, where, what for?
J Vernikos
Hippokratia. 2008 Aug; 12(Suppl 1): 6–9. PMCID: PMC2577404