Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[pitabread]

That’s okay with the physical and biological science stuff to the degree of their provability, but Evolution’s big ticket “ideas” on the whole (like projecting evolution back into different epochs, including origin) and without proof shouldn’t have a verifiable claim because it’s in the scientific method ‘revolving door’ any more than a religious idea.

The only real assumption there is that processes we observe today (i.e. biological evolution) also were operating in the past. And given everything we know about physiology of extinct organisms via fossil studies versus modern organisms, there is no reason to think otherwise.

This is part of the fundamental assumption in science that the universe is inherently objective. If one rejects that assumption especially when it comes to the past history of the universe, then one can make up whatever they want.

 

[sfs]

Evolution has a major advantage within the scientific method; if one of its hypotheses is false or can’t be proved (say it is only partially true), it just recycles back through the flow chart, all the while still considering itself a theory or evidence because it is well-supported (according to its own definition). That’s okay with the physical and biological science stuff to the degree of their provability, but Evolution’s big ticket “ideas” on the whole (like projecting evolution back into different epochs, including origin) and without proof shouldn’t have a verifiable claim because it’s in the scientific method ‘revolving door’ any more than a religious idea.

I don't know what this means. I do know that evolution, including evolution through different epochs, makes testable claims about what we should observe, and that those claims are repeatedly confirmed. In the absence of a competing theory that can do the same, this makes evolution the only game in town for understanding biological diversity.

 

[xianghua]

Attempt 4.

1) Being constructed from organic bits is bad for use of the term robot.

2) Being an organism that reproduces autonomously makes robot completely unacceptable.

so according to those critera this isnt a watch if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system:

(image from https://www.amazon.de/Viable-Harves...-Zifferblatt-Sandelholz-Lünette/dp/B01D1XXVJY)

agree?

 

[Brightmoon]

Wooden watches still don’t reproduce! And neither do robots.

 

[Speedwell]

so according to those critera this isnt a watch if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system:

(image from https://www.amazon.de/Viable-Harvest-Herren-Holzuhr-Bambus-Zifferblatt-Sandelholz-Lünette/dp/B01D1XXVJY)

agree?

Just one more failed attempt to argue that functionality is evidence of intelligent design. When are you going to give it up?

 

[Shemjaza]

so according to those critera this isnt a watch if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system:

(image from https://www.amazon.de/Viable-Harvest-Herren-Holzuhr-Bambus-Zifferblatt-Sandelholz-Lünette/dp/B01D1XXVJY)

agree?

I'll allow an exception for things constructed from dead and preserved organic components.

Will you not use machine terms for anything that still lives?

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't know what this means. I do know that evolution, including evolution through different epochs, makes testable claims about what we should observe, and that those claims are repeatedly confirmed. In the absence of a competing theory that can do the same, this makes evolution the only game in town for understanding biological diversity.

Plug Evolution's big ticket ideas (I referred to) into the flow chart and see for yourself.

 

[xianghua]

I don't know what this means. I do know that evolution, including evolution through different epochs, makes testable claims about what we should observe, and that those claims are repeatedly confirmed

actually there are many failed predictions of the evolution theory. here is one of them about the molecular clock:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nan_Patagonia_speak_on_evolutionary_radiation

as you can see: there is no real correlation between the molecular clock and the fossil record, at least for these species.

here is another possible failed prediction, this time with the suppose universal genetic code:

Universal genetic code may not be so universal

"There are significant errors in text books. The universal code is not universal and all species now on earth do not use a code "frozen in time" as claimed by Watson and Crick," Duax said. "Some basic assumptions about evolution are incorrect."

 

[sfs]

Plug Evolution's big ticket ideas (I referred to) into the flow chart and see for yourself.

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about with your reference to the flow chart, so I told you what I know about evolution. Evolution, including evolution across deep time, is very well supported by evidence. I don't know whether you're agreeing or disagreeing, so you'll have to spell out what you mean.

 

[pitabread]

Plug Evolution's big ticket ideas (I referred to) into the flow chart and see for yourself.

What flow chart?

 

[Shemjaza]

actually there are many failed predictions of the evolution theory. here is one of them about the molecular clock:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nan_Patagonia_speak_on_evolutionary_radiation

as you can see: there is no real correlation between the molecular clock and the fossil record, at least for these species.

here is another possible failed prediction, this time with the suppose universal genetic code:

Universal genetic code may not be so universal

"There are significant errors in text books. The universal code is not universal and all species now on earth do not use a code "frozen in time" as claimed by Watson and Crick," Duax said. "Some basic assumptions about evolution are incorrect."

Those are articles about changes in the particulars of evolutionary theory... not in any way evidence that it didn't happen.

 

[xianghua]

Wooden watches still don’t reproduce! And neither do robots.

so if they were able to do so you will not conclude design?

 

[inquiring mind]

I couldn't figure out what you were talking about with your reference to the flow chart, so I told you what I know about evolution. Evolution, including evolution across deep time, is very well supported by evidence. I don't know whether you're agreeing or disagreeing, so you'll have to spell out what you mean.

Google a scientific method flow chart; you’ll see what I mean by revolving door. Beyond that, I was saying you can’t project back into a different time based on what we see happening in our time. The earth’s plates may not be moving and shifting at the same rates today, mountains a and landscapes may not be forming at the same rates, we don’t know what the atmosphere was like and how exactly it was changed due to possibly different change rates, we don’t know a lot of stuff that could affect rate changes as far as dating things go. There could have been colossal changes occurring rapidly and at much faster rates, just like the Bible says.

 

[sfs]

Google a scientific method flow chart; you’ll see what I mean by revolving door.

I'm a scientist and I've been applying the scientific method for decades, and I still don't know what you mean.

Beyond that, I was saying you can’t project back into a different time based on what we see happening in our time. The earth’s plates may not be moving and shifting at the same rates today, mountains a and landscapes may not be forming at the same rates, we don’t know what the atmosphere was like and how exactly it was changed due to possibly different change rates, we don’t know a lot of stuff that could affect rate changes as far as dating things go.

Okay, that's what you seemed to be saying. My point was that you're wrong. We don't have to just assume that things were the same in the past; we can test all kinds of things about the past to see what was the same and was different, based on all kinds of traces that have been left behind from past events.

 

[sfs]

actually there are many failed predictions of the evolution theory. here is one of them about the molecular clock:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nan_Patagonia_speak_on_evolutionary_radiation

So what does the paper actually say? "However, we find molecular divergence-age estimates (‘dates’) difficult to evaluate, and not only because many results differ strikingly from the fossil data. Molecular dates are extremely sensitive to placements of calibrating fossils at stem vs crown nodes (see Box 1) and to choices of methods and calibration scenarios." In other words, we can't tell whether a molecular clock (which isn't really a prediction of evolution anyway) is valid, since measurements are so filled with error.

here is another possible failed prediction, this time with the suppose universal genetic code:

Universal genetic code may not be so universal

This (a) hasn't been published, and hadn't even been presented in a conference yet, and (b) suggests that some genes use a more primitive version of an evolved genetic code, something that in no way conflicts with evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Google a scientific method flow chart; you’ll see what I mean by revolving door. Beyond that, I was saying you can’t project back into a different time based on what we see happening in our time. The earth’s plates may not be moving and shifting at the same rates today, mountains a and landscapes may not be forming at the same rates, we don’t know what the atmosphere was like and how exactly it was changed due to possibly different change rates, we don’t know a lot of stuff that could affect rate changes as far as dating things go. There could have been colossal changes occurring rapidly and at much faster rates, just like the Bible says.

And scientist understand that, take it into account by examining the evidence carefully for indications that those fundamental processes may have proceeded at different rates in the past. If they had, especially if they had happened so rapidly as to "save" the Genesis stories, different kinds of evidence would have been left behind than what is actually found.

 

[inquiring mind]

Okay, that's what you seemed to be saying. My point was that you're wrong. We don't have to just assume that things were the same in the past; we can test all kinds of things about the past to see what was the same and was different, based on all kinds of traces that have been left behind from past events.

But some assumptions have to be made, and I'm saying you do not know without a doubt that your tests begin with an accurate baseline in all studies.

 

[inquiring mind]

And scientist understand that, take it into account by examining the evidence carefully for indications that those fundamental processes may have proceeded at different rates in the past. If they had, especially if they had happened so rapidly as to "save" the Genesis stories, different kinds of evidence would have been left behind than what is actually found.

But you understand, that's like me saying Jesus is who the Bible says He was or evidence to the contrary would have been found. Is that still proof to some people?

 

[Speedwell]

But you understand, that's like me saying Jesus is who the Bible says He was or evidence to the contrary would have been found. Is that still proof to some people?

No, more like extra-biblical evidence that Jesus was who the Bible says He was.

 

[Ophiolite]

Google a scientific method flow chart; you’ll see what I mean by revolving door. Beyond that, I was saying you can’t project back into a different time based on what we see happening in our time. The earth’s plates may not be moving and shifting at the same rates today, mountains a and landscapes may not be forming at the same rates, we don’t know what the atmosphere was like and how exactly it was changed due to possibly different change rates, we don’t know a lot of stuff that could affect rate changes as far as dating things go. There could have been colossal changes occurring rapidly and at much faster rates, just like the Bible says.

You are mistaken in virtually everything you say here. I shall take a single instance, as per the highlighted text. Here are a couple of papers that illustrate the techniques. (Many, many more could be provided. I'm sure you can search for these yourself.) These and the associated technology continue to advance so that the determinations are refined and extended.

• A multiple proxy and model study of Cretaceous upper ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations

• Holocene atmosphere-ocean interactions: records from Greenland and the Aegean Sea