Anyone up for a private debate on the merits of creationism as a science?

[Simonius]

Quote by: Jack Please expand on what you consider "true" science.

I said true empirical science, as in that which you test in a laboratory.

Quote by: Jack Evolution is a conclusion based on the evidence. How does that equate with two speculations based on no evidence?

Well I would argue that Evolution is a conclusion that is not inconsistent with the evidence, and that the same is true of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The fossil record for instance is not inconsistent with the idea that evolution occured, it does not prove it. It is not the only conclusion that can be drawn, I am not even sure that it is the most logical conclusion. The fossil record is equally not inconsistent with creationism, nor intelligent design. Indeed it shows that at certain points in history life burst forth in abundance in a relatively short space of time, and it offers no opinion as to whether or not an entity sat down and designed us.

Quote by: Jack It's incorrect to suggest evolution can't be tested in a laboratory. Here's just one example: Battling bacterial evolution: the work of Carl Bergstrom

Aaah... allow me to explain, what I really meant was that evolution as in the development of all life on earth from amino acids, the development of aquatic creaures to land dwellers, the development of humanity from ultimately a small rodent like ancestor etc etc can not be test in a laboratory. Creationists except that micro-evolution, small changes within a species can occur and that these can be observed, what they claim is that the sum of these micro-evolutionary changes can not change one species into another species. And that claim can't be verified in a lab, there exists other evidence either way but not laboratory evidence.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius I said true empirical science, as in that which you test in a laboratory. Well I would argue that Evolution is a conclusion that is not inconsistent with the evidence, and that the same is true of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The fossil record for instance is not inconsistent with the idea that evolution occured, it does not prove it. It is not the only conclusion that can be drawn, I am not even sure that it is the most logical conclusion. The fossil record is equally not inconsistent with creationism, nor intelligent design. Indeed it shows that at certain points in history life burst forth in abundance in a relatively short space of time, and it offers no opinion as to whether or not an entity sat down and designed us. Aaah... allow me to explain, what I really meant was that evolution as in the development of all life on earth from amino acids, the development of aquatic creaures to land dwellers, the development of humanity from ultimately a small rodent like ancestor etc etc can not be test in a laboratory. Creationists except that micro-evolution, small changes within a species can occur and that these can be observed, what they claim is that the sum of these micro-evolutionary changes can not change one species into another species. And that claim can't be verified in a lab, there exists other evidence either way but not laboratory evidence.

And the mating of one speicies with a different speices does not work and cannot produce a brand new speicies. And with mating as a method then how else can one speicies evolved from a older speicies?

What would really change cold blooded frogs into some warm fuzzy little animal, etc. None the less we have a geological record which indicates that certain kind of spiecies exsisted before later types of animals. Prehistoric ants have not changed much, but the sudden appearance of many kinds of warm blooded animals and birds following years and years where the earth was more or less dominated by liziards, salamanders, insects, frogs, and marine life would suggest that the latter evolved form the former. Does the fosil record confirm this however, with in-between samples of the drastic transformation? We can suggest climate changes and comet attacks but how can weather effect evolutionary changes, has that idea been lab tested?

For example: The bears can live in all kinds of climates. As do many of our different kinds of dogs. But they are still bears no matter where they live, even if some have white hair instead of brown hair, etc.

What exactly causes evolution from one speices into another speicies and how was that lab tested?

None the less, any attempt to prove that evolution is wrong does not make creationism the only other right answer. Or visa versa. Especially if the "wrong" is simply a lack of evidence at some point.

Which is the most apparent and most likely to be proven.

1 - that environment shaped the animal to fit that surrounding.
2 - that the animal was shaped to play a role in that environment and ecosystem.

3 - which of those two is most likely to be random selecton and which would be most likely to be creative organization to maintain balance.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul What would really change cold blooded frogs into some warm fuzzy little animal, etc. None the less we have a geological record which indicates that certain kind of spiecies exsisted before later types of animals. Prehistoric ants have not changed much, but the sudden appearance of many kinds of warm blooded animals and birds following years and years where the earth was more or less dominated by liziards, salamanders, insects, frogs, and marine life would suggest that the latter evolved form the former.

Well the fossil record shows that different species did exist at different times, but it provides very little evidence that one evolved from the other. Evolution is not inconsistent with this, but neither is the idea that at certain points in history God suddenly spawned new species of life, or that the aliens did!

[Rainbow]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Ok very basic , I am waiting for the specific that will be the trap your setting.

:-)))
There are many webpages filled out with the specific data you requested. Go there and get it on your own, then.

Trap my settings ?
I want to see any reversed and/or modified order and/or sequence that may challenge it.
Go ahead :-)

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius Well the fossil record shows that different species did exist at different times, but it provides very little evidence that one evolved from the other. Evolution is not inconsistent with this, but neither is the idea that at certain points in history God suddenly spawned new species of life, or that the aliens did!

The normal concept of a god or alien is that they are like people. Physical beings that make things like a Potter makes pots. I wish to get away from such "images" and concepts.

What I wish to propose is that a non-physical Mind was a Source point for what was established in the physical universe. Which I think has as much evidence as the non-evidence being provided by fosils for the transformation of species into other species. However, evolution is still part of my concept because an evolution of ideas as well as designs were employed throughout nature and in the universe.

[Technosoul]

Now you can do a labortory test to see if create a new speicies from an exsisting one.

You can attempt to aritifically cross breed animals to see what happens, I think that was attempted but failed.

But now we could splice genes with other genes to see what happens, through genetic experimentation.

Would it work with plants? And would it work with animals as long as the animals were somewhat compatible.

But I doubt if they will get anyplace with such testing other then to say it is not possible to do by mixing DNA insturctions from two species together.

I would have to ask someone into biology about that.

Could you create via DNA experiments a womb inside of bird that normally would lay an egg, for example.

Such experiments are not yet possible for current day scientists to even attempt.

But in theory could it not be possible someday in the future?

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul The normal concept of a god or alien is that they are like people. Physical beings that make things like a Potter makes pots. I wish to get away from such "images" and concepts. What I wish to propose is that a non-physical Mind was a Source point for what was established in the physical universe. Which I think has as much evidence as the non-evidence being provided by fosils for the transformation of species into other species. However, evolution is still part of my concept because an evolution of ideas as well as designs were employed throughout nature and in the universe.

I don't actually understand why you need to make assumptions about the nature of the designer, why assume that our creator/designer is a non-physical mind? Why assume he also created the universe?

For me it is quite simple, given the avaliable evidence what theories make logical sense.

And to me evolution/creationism/intelligent design are all valid theories because the avaliable evidence does not deny them. It may be one, it may be all three, I dont know but I have my hunch on one.

There is nothing I can see to even begin to specuate the nature of a designer however.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul Now you can do a labortory test to see if create a new speicies from an exsisting one. You can attempt to aritifically cross breed animals to see what happens, I think that was attempted but failed. But now we could splice genes with other genes to see what happens, through genetic experimentation. Would it work with plants? And would it work with animals as long as the animals were somewhat compatible. But I doubt if they will get anyplace with such testing other then to say it is not possible to do by mixing DNA insturctions from two species together. I would have to ask someone into biology about that. Could you create via DNA experiments a womb inside of bird that normally would lay an egg, for example. Such experiments are not yet possible for current day scientists to even attempt. But in theory could it not be possible someday in the future?

I am sure such things are/will be possible, but that does not awnser the question as to the source of life on earth, it would merely confirm that because humanity could design life, life can be designed!

[Technosoul]

And why "create" a whale with legs that it can no longer use? That would not be very Intelligent at all.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius I don't actually understand why you need to make assumptions about the nature of the designer, why assume that our creator/designer is a non-physical mind? Why assume he also created the universe? For me it is quite simple, given the avaliable evidence what theories make logical sense. And to me evolution/creationism/intelligent design are all valid theories because the avaliable evidence does not deny them. It may be one, it may be all three, I dont know but I have my hunch on one. There is nothing I can see to even begin to specuate the nature of a designer however.

Why assume the reverse of what you do not want me to assume. The reason I would assume this is because my overall outline (which we have yet to get around too) would include and support that my asumptions. However, unlike some Bible thumpers I would not wish to teach that any particular assumption is an absolute. No more so then science would assume that a theory is an absolute. The idea is to present a wise range of ideas and possiblities.

The reason you have not seen anything to suggest the nature of a designer is because you have ignored looking. What is the nature of "Mind" and what does a mind do? Well, a Intelligent mind is both creative and it would organize things, and by observing exsisting designs and pattens we can make an asumption. Or to be more articulate we can make two or more assumptions. The only important thing is to not make the misstake of claiming one assumption is the one and only right one. Because it is too early to make such a judgement in the on-going history of science and nature observation. Nor should we expect students to make a choice, nor that teachers should tell them which choice to make as the best one. Present the evidence, present the different potentials for interpretation of the evidence. That is all.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul And why "create" a whale with legs that it can no longer use? That would not be very Intelligent at all.

Because when it was created it did use those legs but it later evolved? Instead of random speculation and assumptions I'd just look at what was consistent with the evidence.

[BorisTheFerret]

Creationism is a religious belief proposed without a shred of scientific method and maintained in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. To call it a science is just stupid. Even I can see it's bullshit, and I'm a ferret!

[Simonius]

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Creationism is a religious belief proposed without a shred of scientific method and maintained in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. To call it a science is just stupid. Even I can see it's bullshit, and I'm a ferret!

It is a religious belief, but that does not mean that it can not be subjected to scientific process.
It does rely on a number of scientific or pseudo-scientific evidence.
There exists no scientific evidence against it.

Though you do type well for a ferret.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Creationism is a religious belief proposed without a shred of scientific method and maintained in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. To call it a science is just stupid. Even I can see it's bullshit, and I'm a ferret!

Science does not start of with a strong bias ether, so how would you even have a clue what science is?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius Because when it was created it did use those legs but it later evolved? Instead of random speculation and assumptions I'd just look at what was consistent with the evidence.

No fair cherry picking and taking stuff out of context.

For right now I will let Noah deal with the Big Whale problem.

[Technosoul]

what is consistant with logic?

To create something it must come from out of nothing. Otherwise you are just moving stuff around into a different shape or formula. Organizing what already is.

As somethings replace nothing you run out of nothing to do a lab test with, so we must turn to logic to answer the question.

It is my proposal that "thought" ( consciousness and the invisible essence of Mind ) can be counted as "the link" or medium between no-thingness and something. Thought becomes self-evident even it we cannot put it into a testube to find out what it is made out of.

Thought can generate energy and that vibration ( aka brainwave ) can be detected by science. Evidence of the mind that is otherwise a metaphysical concept.

I would agree that the first "thought" was a random occurance, and was not "created" by a No-Thing. If just occured out of the blue so to speak.
And the first thought was reproductive of more thoughts which I claim formulated the final "Mind" which pre-dated the universe and life on earth.

Even if you do not wish to call this explaination "science" it is still a good explaination that is logical. And should be mentioned in a science class that seeks to provide understanding about our "orgins". Because only in a science class would the concept maintain some degree of logical deduction and thusly, would not wander off into some religious philosophy.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul No fair cherry picking and taking stuff out of context. For right now I will let Noah deal with the Big Whale problem.

I quoted the whole post so your claim of cherry picking and taking stuff out of context would appear rather odd!

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul what is consistant with logic? To create something it must come from out of nothing. Otherwise you are just moving stuff around into a different shape or formula. Organizing what already is.

This does not seem to be a logical start, The question appears to be what theory accounts for the form that life takes, not the ultimate source of matter.

Quote by: Technosoul As somethings replace nothing you run out of nothing to do a lab test with, so we must turn to logic to answer the question. It is my proposal that "thought" ( consciousness and the invisible essence of Mind ) can be counted as "the link" or medium between no-thingness and something. Thought becomes self-evident even it we cannot put it into a testube to find out what it is made out of. Thought can generate energy and that vibration ( aka brainwave ) can be detected by science. Evidence of the mind that is otherwise a metaphysical concept. I would agree that the first "thought" was a random occurance, and was not "created" by a No-Thing. If just occured out of the blue so to speak. And the first thought was reproductive of more thoughts which I claim formulated the final "Mind" which pre-dated the universe and life on earth. Even if you do not wish to call this explaination "science" it is still a good explaination that is logical. And should be mentioned in a science class that seeks to provide understanding about our "orgins". Because only in a science class would the concept maintain some degree of logical deduction and thusly, would not wander off into some religious philosophy.

But all you have posted appears to simply be religious philosophy, instead of just looking at evidence and making rational theories you have come up with interesting and elaborate theory and description of a creator, its very nice but it is putting the cart before the horse surely?

[SoylentGreen]

And there you go tech, You now have a second opinion that you have difficulty understanding the difference between a meta-physical concept and physics.
It is as said, a an interesting an elaborate theory that you have only alluded to a source of fact to back up without actually presenting any.
So far I am of the opinion that you are just polluting a relatively good scientific evolutionary theory with some meta-physical make believe.

[The Dunedan]

...