Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[VirOptimus]

A theory is defined as “a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree,” which in a sense includes both creation and evolution. This is broad I know, but why then should evolution be considered any more scientific (“1 the state or fact of knowledge; 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied”), or well-thought-out within the context of definition 2 (since you would think 1 means only proven), than creation then?

Creation(ism) has no supporting facts or data. It isnt falsifible, it has no explanatory power. It simply isnt science, its religion.

The ToE is incredibly well supported by data and facts and has extrordinary explanatory powers. In short, one of the most wellresearched scientific theories in science today.

 

[xianghua]

What this paper appears to be saying is that Tikiguania is probably not a Triassic fossil lizard but a fossil of a Quaternary or Late Tertiary lizard that was accidentally incorporated in fissured or eroded Triassic sedimentary rocks; in other words, it is not an "out of place" fossil.

of course. but this is the problem: in such a way we can reject any out of place fossil. so e ven if we will find a human with a dino fossil we can reject it as "anomaly" that may happen because a geological procoess, known or unknown. see now why evolution isnt testable? by the way: as i already said as a note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general in our discussions.

 

[Jimmy D]

A theory is defined as “a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree,” which in a sense includes both creation and evolution. This is broad I know, but why then should evolution be considered any more scientific (“1 the state or fact of knowledge; 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied”), or well-thought-out within the context of definition 2 (since you would think 1 means only proven), than creation then?

He was referring to the scientific definition of theory which is slightly more specific....

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

or

In science, an unproved idea or a mere theoretical speculation is regarded as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. However, in science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation or a set of statements that have been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments.

 

[xianghua]

Why do evolutionists have so much trouble comprehending just because you all claim this convenient way out as fact, anyone with half a brain knows science DOES prove things, and what you are claiming is far from fact. It's as laughable as your evolution actually.

Pretend all day long if you like, and though you all would be much more comfortable if some would just buy your nonsense without question, you're just going to have to settle with the fact, that isn't going to happen.

yep. its like saying that science cant prove that the earth isnt flat.

 

[xianghua]

That silly graph is made up by you out of thin air. It has been exposed as the nonsense that it is more times then I can count on this forum alone.

Unlike actual phylogenetic trees which show the nested hierarchies in living things, which are the result of decades of rigorous testing, mapping, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, genome sequencing, etc by thousands of scientists.

its not silly since its base on reality.

 

[xianghua]

How do we test creation?

we can detect design in nature. so we can test it.

 

[xianghua]

How much evidence, and what sort of evidence, would you need in order for you to accept it as proof of the reality of evolution?

prove that a creature can evolve into another kind of creature. say a cat to a dog or a
squirrel. since we cant do that (its suppose to take millions of years) its just a belief.

 

[VirOptimus]

we can detect design in nature. so we can test it.

No we cant.

First, There is no way to measure ”design”.

Secondly, there is no data or evidence that support ”design” in nature. See the Dover trials.

 

[VirOptimus]

prove that a creature can evolve into another kind of creature. say a cat to a dog or a
squirrel. since we cant do that (its suppose to take millions of years) its just a belief.

Really? May I suggest evolution 101?

 

[DogmaHunter]

A theory is defined as “a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree,” which in a sense includes both creation and evolution. This is broad I know, but why then should evolution be considered any more scientific (“1 the state or fact of knowledge; 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied”), or well-thought-out within the context of definition 2 (since you would think 1 means only proven), than creation then?

Because evolution is testable, verifiable, falsifiable and actually the result of honest empirical research with great explanatory power.. As such, evolution is a conclusion of large scale studies.

Creation.... that's just religion which is being imposed on the data. It is not testable, verifiable, falsifiable, has no explanatory power whatsoever, nore is it the result of honest empirical research.
It is rather simply the result of a certain interpretation of a certain religious text. It is an answer that is imposed before we even asked the question.

There's no such thing as "creation theory" in the scientific sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

yep. its like saying that science cant prove that the earth isnt flat.

Note the bolded part. That's a negation.

To say "prove the earth is NOT flat", actually means "DISPROVE the eart is flat".
Science is very much able to DISPROVE positive assertions, if those assertions are wrong.

Lawrence Krauss once said it quite clearly: "Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science is more in the business of disproving things. Science as such can not tell you what is abolutely correct. But it CAN tell you what is absolutely wrong!"

What you just said about a flat earth, is not positively proving something correct.
It is, disproving a positive assertion. That assertion being "the earth is flat". Negating the assertion and then removing the "dis" from "disproving", does not change that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its not silly since its base on reality.

No. It's based on your limited imagination.

 

[DogmaHunter]

we can detect design in nature.

What is the method by which design can be objectively detected?
And be thorough. Detail the method in such a way that I will be able to grab 2 random objects and tell which one is designed and which isn't.

so we can test it.

We'll see.

 

[inquiring mind]

Creation(ism) has no supporting facts or data.

But, you’re not saying evolutionism is a proven fact either… a theory, right?

It isnt falsifible, it has no explanatory power.

Evolutionism isn’t falsifible either.

It simply isnt science, its religion.

For argument sake, we can just consider it a second opinion if you want.

The ToE is incredibly well supported by data and facts and has extrordinary explanatory powers. In short, one of the most wellresearched scientific theories in science today.

I certainly don’t discount science and even some form of evolutionary process (as in creation plus some form of it), but by your own definition it still isn’t proof, even after over a 100 years of attention by the best scientific minds.

 

[VirOptimus]

But, you’re not saying evolutionism is a proven fact either… a theory, right?


Evolutionism isn’t falsifible either.


For argument sake, we can just consider it a second opinion if you want.



I certainly don’t discount science and even some form of evolutionary process (as in creation plus some form of it), but by your own definition it still isn’t proof, even after over a 100 years of attention by the best scientific minds.

Scientific theries arent ”proven”, they are supported by facts and data. There is a theoretical multitude of ways that the ToE could be falsified, that it hasnt is what makes it a solid scientific theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But, you’re not saying evolutionism is a proven fact either… a theory, right?

Do you know what a theory means in science?

 

[inquiring mind]

There is a theoretical multitude of ways that the ToE could be falsified, that it hasnt is what makes it a solid scientific theory.

There is apparently a multitude of ways Creationism is attempted to be falsified. Doesn't the fact it hasn't make it a solid second opinion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is apparently a multitude of ways Creationism is attempted to be falsified. Doesn't the fact it hasn't make it a solid second opinion.

Not at all. There's many ways for it to be falsified but has absolutely zero scientific evidence to support it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you know what a theory means in science?

Was the definition provided in post #480 wrong?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Was the definition provided in post #480 wrong?

No, but your summation of it was.