Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[xianghua]

No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation

incorrect. if creation is true we should find evidence for design. and we do find many.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Such as? Do you know that in the granite around the world are found polonium halos trapped in the granite. In order for this fast decaying isotope to be captured in the rock it would have had to cool within minutes or the decaying uranium would have escaped to atmosphere. How long does evolutionary theory say the planet cooled? What evidence?

That is just one of many, many evidences showing Creation science has empirical proof and evolution only has theories or suppositions.

Have you ever looked at the intricate workings of a DNA strands and how it replicates and repairs itself? Chance or random in the making?... statistically impossible. You would have to be a fool to come up with that idea after seeing how impossibly complex the smallest particle is designed.

The Age of the Earth - Polonium Halos as a Creationist Clock: Scott Pfahler
In short, there is no way to know if this is polonium. And polonium cannot be used for finding age, so the granite may be formed at a later stage as well.
Also, as far as I know, a radioactive substance never fully decays. It has a half life. I.e.
xg of tritium decays in 12.33 years to become x/2
x/2g of tritium decays is 12.33 years to become x/4
and so on.
Which is why scientists are able to conduct carbon dating. Not sure if this is of any use though.

EDIT: Another source
Origin of Polonium Halos

 

[Jjmcubbin]

the problem is that the argument from consensus isnt a scientific argument. science was wrong many times in the past.

Yes, and each time it was wrong, it was told WHY is was wrong and replaced by another theory that explained all the existing phenomena aka not creationism. Currently, darwin's idea are accepted. Earlier, Lamarck's ideas and mutation theory were considered by discarded because of the reason I mentioned.

 

[xianghua]

common descent by means of mutation and natural selection is very much science.

if its indeed science we whould be able to test it. now tell me how to test the claim that a dog and a banana shares a common descent.

 

[pitabread]

incorrect. if creation is true we should find evidence for design. and we do find many.

Arguments based on the False Equivalence fallacy don't count.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, and each time it was wrong, it was told WHY is was wrong and replaced by another theory that explained all the existing phenomena aka not creationism. Currently, darwin's idea are accepted. Earlier, Lamarck's ideas and mutation theory were considered by discarded because of the reason I mentioned.

since we have evidence against that consensus we dont need to rely on the consensus. very simple.

 

[xianghua]

Arguments based on the False Equivalence fallacy don't count.

tell this to prof dawkins who said: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

 

[pitabread]

if its science we can falsfy or test it. can you give such a test for evolution?

As a scientific theory, evolution is quite broad in the biological phenomena it covers. Asking for a test to falsify evolution is like asking for a test to falsify physics.

You will have to be a lot more specific.

 

[pitabread]

tell this to prof dawkins who said: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”

Have you actually read The Blind Watchmaker (the source of that quote)? Because if you had, you'd know that Dawkins entire argument is arguing that life is not the product of intelligent design, but rather natural forces.

Quote mining a single sentence from that book doesn't support your argument. Especially given that Dawkins never proposes a methodology for detecting design, and is using the term in a colloquial sense in the context of that quote.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Again, such vacuous rhetoric suggests you don't know anything about science in general, much less what a scientific theory is in particular.
Science at multiple levels

Theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable. In fact, theories often integrate and generalize many hypotheses.​

I have a theory about you.. what are the chances I'm right?

 

[pitabread]

I'll take that to mean my point slipped right by you.

If you're suggesting that I wouldn't go out of my way to read creationist literature, then you'd be incorrect in that assumption. In fact, I'd wager I've absorbed more creationist/ID material than most creationists.

Otherwise, I don't really care what point you were making since you've already long revealed you have little to no interest in learning about the ToE. Which reinforces the point of my question to the other poster.

 

[xianghua]

As a scientific theory, evolution is quite broad in the biological phenomena it covers. Asking for a test to falsify evolution is like asking for a test to falsify physics.

You will have to be a lot more specific.

ok. do you think that a fossil in the wrong place will falsify evolution as prof dawkins admit?

 

[xianghua]

Have you actually read The Blind Watchmaker (the source of that quote)? Because if you had, you'd know that Dawkins entire argument is arguing that life is not the product of intelligent design, but rather natural forces.

Quote mining a single sentence from that book doesn't support your argument. Especially given that Dawkins never proposes a methodology for detecting design, and is using the term in a colloquial sense in the context of that quote.

of course that dawkins dont believe in design. but he also think that nature looks designed.

 

[pitabread]

ok. do you think that a fossil in the wrong place will falsify evolution as prof dawkins admit?

We've already had this conversation. I'm not interested in rehashing it.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution has plenty of evidence when it comes to genetics and the fossil record

can you give an example please?

If Creationism does, I'm unfamiliar with it, so you're going to have to provide actual sources

do you think that a robot that is almost identical to human is evidence for design? (say a robot that has DNA).

 

[xianghua]

We've already had this conversation. I'm not interested in rehashing it.

see what i mean?

 

[pitabread]

of course that dawkins dont believe in design. but he also think that nature looks designed.

He thinks that biological organisms are "designed" via evolution.

Again, quote mining him is not supporting your argument especially given his central thesis of The Blind Watchmaker. If you haven't read it, I'd encourage you to do so so you can better understand his views.

 

[pitabread]

see what i mean?

See what you mean what? You've asked me this in the past and we already discussed it. Go search the forum archives for my thoughts on the subject.

 

[xianghua]

See what you mean what? You've asked me this in the past and we already discussed it. Go search the forum archives for my thoughts on the subject.

and i already falsify the claim that such a fossil will falsify evolution. for instance: if we will find a monkey fossil with a dino we can explain it by convergent evolution (monkeys evolved twice) or claiming for anomaly. simple as that and evolution is ok in any case. this isnt science but religion.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No, I didn't just make that up. You can read a detailed explanation of the processes involved here.

I find these articles basically the same... lots of scientific nomenclature that at first glance impresses the reader of authenticity. However, when one starts reading critically, these are the statements frequently used...

plausibly explained
could, perhaps,
have indicated
that could have
is possible
may also
probably indicates
it is plausible

Because geology is an actual earth science, the article is rife with scientifically sound statements and conclusions but when comparison is made to Gentry's conclusions, the above language comes into play. It is much easier to spot this admission of supposition in papers dealing with age of the earth, age of the universe, origin of the universe etc.