Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[pitabread]

Yours is the misinterpretation.

And you answer that like others here who say they aren't trying to convince anyone of anything, yet here you are trying to convince us, and often...don't you see what a laugh that statement is?

I've been around these discussions long enough to know that trying to "convince" anyone of anything is generally a waste of time. Like I said, if we can achieve mutual understanding, then I consider that a win in and of itself.

For the most part, I'm generally curious how creationists respond to things relative to contemporary environment around science and evolution (particularly evolutionary applications). That and it's interesting to try to dissect some of the arguments put forth for various things.

Yes, you are going to be pre qualified not to use assumptions.

This is vague and still leaves way too much wiggle room for rejecting anything and everything.

For scientific inquiry to have any real meaning rests on making a few basic assumptions about the very nature of our own universe. A prime assumption is that the universe is inherently objective. If we assume otherwise, then it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from any scientific inquiry.

Likewise, hypotheses testing rests on making assumptions particularly around cause-effect relationships of particular phenomena (i.e. if X, therefore Y). If we can't make basic assumptions to form hypotheses, then we've effectively ruled out using the scientific method as a form of inquiry and knowledge gathering.

Finally, scientific theories and modeling invariably involve simplifications and incomplete knowledge. And with simplifications and incompleteness come unknowns and assumptions about those unknowns.

So when you say "you are going to be pre qualified not to use assumptions" I can't help but wonder if this is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method to begin with.

 

[Speedwell]

Yours is the misinterpretation.

And you answer that like others here who say they aren't trying to convince anyone of anything, yet here you are trying to convince us, and often...don't you see what a laugh that statement is?



Indicated? Either way, you now have my interest.



Cop out. Normally I wouldn't even have to pre qualify someone to use truthful/real evidence, or facts, but here, I can already see that's going to be a problem for you. Yes, you are going to be pre qualified not to use assumptions.



Oh, no, none of you are trying to do anything like that, no more than you're not trying to "convince anyone of anything"...

Mostly what we try to do is explain to you what the theory of evolution says.

 

[pitabread]

Mostly what we try to do is explain to you what the theory of evolution says.

At this point I'd settle for a just an agreement on basic terminology.

 

[Brightmoon]

You can google many pro & con reports concerning the accuracy of radiometric dating or radioactive dating of rocks. I may have misinterpreted what I have read, but it appears the accuracy depends on original conditions, and whether they are truly known. If that's correct, it kind of reverts back to 'what you want to believe' it seems.

The point is that Snelling relies on the general public’s ignorance of geological conventions . by using the error bars the way he did to mislead people into thinking that something was wrong with radiodating when it was his misuse of an established technique and his misreporting that was the real problem. Normal geologists can tell when a rock layer is a few decades old and won’t use a technique normally used to date billion year old rocks on it. He deliberately used the wrong technique. And the lab told him that the rock was less than 2.3 million years old. Remember I said that Using a technique for very old rocks on a very young rock was like using a yardstick to measure a bacterium. You can’t really get good detail . You’re only going to be able to say that the bacterium was less than a sixteenth of an inch long.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've been around these discussions long enough to know that trying to "convince" anyone of anything is generally a waste of time. Like I said, if we can achieve mutual understanding, then I consider that a win in and of itself.

For the most part, I'm generally curious how creationists respond to things relative to contemporary environment around science and evolution (particularly evolutionary applications). That and it's interesting to try to dissect some of the arguments put forth for various things.



This is vague and still leaves way too much wiggle room for rejecting anything and everything.

For scientific inquiry to have any real meaning rests on making a few basic assumptions about the very nature of our own universe. A prime assumption is that the universe is inherently objective. If we assume otherwise, then it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from any scientific inquiry.

Likewise, hypotheses testing rests on making assumptions particularly around cause-effect relationships of particular phenomena (i.e. if X, therefore Y). If we can't make basic assumptions to form hypotheses, then we've effectively ruled out using the scientific method as a form of inquiry and knowledge gathering.

Finally, scientific theories and modeling invariably involve simplifications and incomplete knowledge. And with simplifications and incompleteness come unknowns and assumptions about those unknowns.

So when you say "you are going to be pre qualified not to use assumptions" I can't help but wonder if this is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method to begin with.

I can assume evolution is a fact if I choose, but that's wasn't exactly what I was after, so since it appears what you're getting at is that's all you really have is assumptions, then I guess this isn't going to work out.


Thanks for letting me know ahead if time, saves us both the trouble/time.

 

[Jimmy D]

Xianghua, they’re not going to accept "design" in any form or fashion.

Wrong, present some positive, empirical evidence rather than "it looks like it to me" and it will be accepted. That doesn't mean I'll accept any supernatural shenanigans though, unless you can provide evidence of course.

Design implies no need for “time,” and evolutionists must have time, and lots of it for layers of the earth to slowly build up, crawling things to walk, etc., or their belief is shot down. That’s why they dispel any argument like questionable rock dating, rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale

Wrong. Geological timescales are what they are, independent of biological theories.

Have you got evidence that overturns a century's worth of scientific endeavour?

You are probably correct that young earth arguments are "dispelled" out of hand to a certain extent, but that is because they tend to be tired old PRATTs copied from creationist websites that have been addressed in detail many, many times on this forum by members who are actually qualified in the relevant disciplines.

Please present positive evidence for a "young earth" or pipe down.

Adamic-man's creation with words like ignorance and stupidity. There is no better defense for your belief than convincing people that those who oppose your argument are unenlightened.

If the cap fits.....

And there is a better defence, it's called evidence.

 

[pitabread]

I can assume evolution is a fact if I choose, but that's wasn't exactly what I was after, so since it appears what you're getting at is that's all you really have is assumptions, then I guess this isn't going to work out.

Well no, that wasn't what I was getting at. There's certainly a lot more to science and the theory of evolution than just 'assumptions'.

My point was more about the fact that assumptions are part of science at certain levels (including fundamental assumptions about the nature of the universe). So if one is looking to reject something in science, it's all too easy to find an assumption somewhere and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How do you feel about the scientific method itself? What is your understanding of the scientific method and the philosophical basis behind using the scientific method for knowledge acquisition?

I ask because I'm getting from your posts that your objection to evolution appears more fundamental than evolution and rather appears to be a rejection of the scientific method itself.

 

[Snappy1]

evolution is a fact.

Well I'm glad that's settled.

 

[inquiring mind]

Wrong, present some positive, empirical evidence rather than "it looks like it to me" and it will be accepted. That doesn't mean I'll accept any supernatural shenanigans though, unless you can provide evidence of course.

I was referring to Divine design (what other would there be?) and “No” I don’t think you will accept it in any form or fashion. Your belief is apparently locked into a closed loop thought pattern that will not even consider another possibility. That in itself seems to diminish potential scientific advancement when you’re trying to find such deep history, and assumptions on both sides often have to be made in place of actual evidence.

Wrong. Geological timescales are what they are, independent of biological theories.

I don’t get your point; yes, both are independent time scales... that still require lots of time.

Have you got evidence that overturns a century's worth of scientific endeavour?

No, I’m certainly no expert, but I’ll remind you again that neither is all your evidence indisputable. And when you have any percentage of questionable data, you shouldn’t remain in a closed loop thought pattern.

You are probably correct that young earth arguments are "dispelled" out of hand to a certain extent, but that is because they tend to be tired old PRATTs copied from creationist websites that have been addressed in detail many, many times on this forum by members who are actually qualified in the relevant disciplines.
Please present positive evidence for a "young earth" or pipe down.

Can’t pipe down Jimmy; I think you’re wrong, in part any way. As far as arguing science, I told you I’m no expert, but if you want scientific opinions and some evidence considered contrary to yours, watch what some actual scientists have to say on the documentary I mentioned “Is Genesis History?” They present sound arguments in favor of Creation. If you want to pick something apart, start there… I think they know what they’re talking about.

And there is a better defence, it's called evidence.

Yes, but not necessarily the "interpreted evidence" in every case.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well no, that wasn't what I was getting at. There's certainly a lot more to science and the theory of evolution than just 'assumptions'.

OK, then I misunderstood, did you want to continue to offer proof without assumption. Honestly, seems I'm getting wishy washy responses from you, first you seem to indicate you cannot do what we want here without assumptions, then you indicate you can.

Tell you what, I'll just wait to see what happens as far as actually taking the challenge without assumptions. I'll respond when something along those lines happen

Well I'm glad that's settled.

Imagine that, a pro evolutionist taking things grossly out of context. Go figure.

 

[Snappy1]

Imagine that, a pro evolutionist taking things grossly out of context. Go figure.

Hey, if you're allowed to do it...

 

[tas8831]

Hey, if you're allowed to do it...

Looks like turnabout is not fair play?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Hey, if you're allowed to do it...

"Allowed" makes your statement completely null, or it means nothing.

Did you mean I do do it? If so, show me.

 

[pitabread]

OK, then I misunderstood, did you want to continue to offer proof without assumption. Honestly, seems I'm getting wishy washy responses from you, first you seem to indicate you cannot do what we want here without assumptions, then you indicate you can.

I'm trying to get at your understanding of the scientific method. Because right now I have no idea whether you even accept the basis for which science functions, and especially given that you pre-invoke vague criteria by which you'll reject scientific findings.

So I ask again:

Do you feel you understand the scientific method? (e.g. What is your understanding of it)
Do you accept the scientific method as a valid methodology for learning about the universe?

If the answer to either of these is "no", then evolution is the least of the issue here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm trying to get at your understanding of the scientific method. Because right now I have no idea whether you even accept the basis for which science functions, and especially given that you pre-invoke vague criteria by which you'll reject scientific findings.

So I ask again:

Do you feel you understand the scientific method? (e.g. What is your understanding of it)
Do you accept the scientific method as a valid methodology for learning about the universe?

If the answer to either of these is "no", then evolution is the least of the issue here.

I understand proof..

Vague? How is expecting you not go on assumptions in any way, vague?

Do I accept scientific method? And you say I"M vague? I've seen your end of this make all kinds of bogus/ridiculous claims citing that's how science works, so since I've even been flat out lied to on what is what at times, on that, and rightfully so, we'll just have to see.

Setting up excuses before hand isn't going to work. If I see a problem, I'm going to mention it, and I'm not going agree to be locked into accepting some weird convenience something that you can throw in anytime, and call science.

 

[pitabread]

Vague? How is expecting you not go on assumptions in any way, vague?

It's vague because I have no idea what you would even consider an "assumption" in this context.

Again, the very basis of science makes certain fundamental, philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe. You could reject all of science on that basis for all I know.

Do I accept scientific method?

That is what I'm asking *you*.

If I see a problem, I'm going to mention it, and I'm not going agree to be locked into accepting some weird convenience something that you can throw in anytime, and call science.

That you are being evasive in even answering a basic question about understanding and/or accepting the scientific method tells me my answer already. And it appears that answer is "no".

 

[Allandavid]

I understand proof..

Vague? How is expecting you not go on assumptions in any way, vague?

Do I accept scientific method? And you say I"M vague? I've seen your end of this make all kinds of bogus/ridiculous claims citing that's how science works, so since I've even been flat out lied to on what is what at times, on that, and rightfully so, we'll just have to see.

Setting up excuses before hand isn't going to work. If I see a problem, I'm going to mention it, and I'm not going agree to be locked into accepting some weird convenience something that you can throw in anytime, and call science.

“Proof” is probably a poor term to use with respect to the scientific method...

 

[Kenny'sID]

“Proof” is probably a poor term to use with respect to the scientific method...

Tell me about it.

 

[Allandavid]

Tell me about it.

Yes, “evidence” is probably the word you wanted....

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Tell me about it.

How thick headed are you? A week ago, you were asking for proof, and people explained to you that science doesn't deal in proofs. Now, you bring the same dead argument to the table.

But hey, we're both laymen, what is evidence for scientists may as well be proof for us.
So, I present proofs of evolution, common ancestry and connecting links (I've posted the same thing a bunch of times, no one understands it because it is easier to talk nonsense that scientific evidence)


Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.
Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Plants?
Cycas is a gymnosperm but has circinnately coiled yound leaves, Ramanta and multiflagellate male gametes, features of fern.
It is pretty obvious how the sporophylls evolved. In pteridophytes, all plants are not even heterosporous. In angiosperms, the megasporophyll modifies to wrap around the megasporangium.
Algae follow a haplontic life cycle, gymnosperms and angiosperms follow a diplontic one. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are the transition states and follow a haplodiplontic life cycle.
Order Gnetales is a connecting link between gymnosperms and Angiosperms because they have vessels. Order Cyacadofilicales is the connecting link between Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.
Fungi
Fungal evolution is seen by changes in sexual reproduction. Oomycetes from gametes and at times, fuse gametangia. Zygomycetes just conjugate their gametangia. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes get rid of all that and just fuse two cells.
If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims.