Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 11:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Don't worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I'm sure there are evolutionists that you would also consider poor "ambassadors" for your beliefs.

There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. And I'm sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won't have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This still reflects a misunderstanding of probability and statistics, which may need to confirmed by your husband. Statistics are designed to test different things in different ways. The methods and assumptions are important issues when designing a statistical model to test anything. If someone wanted to prove something false they simply would create a statistical model to do so. For a statistical test of the probability of evolution taking place to be valid we would both have to agree on the methods and assumptions of the statistical model used. The assumptions would be important, because to begin with the proponents of 'Creation Science' believe that the genetic mutations required for evolution either do not take place or they are impossible.

You make an absolute statement that the 'probability of evolution is zero'. I don't think this statement is supported by legitamite 'Test'.

I had a T-shirt when I was a graduate student that read 'If it don't fit, use a different program or a bigger hammer.'

LogicaLunatic · Jan 27, 2004, 12:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
The probability of evolution is zero.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Understood. Now that we have that out of the way we can stop talking about how you feel about evolution and can start discussing your hypothesis of how all the species in Earth came to be.
To convince us that the Theory of Evolution is false you cannot do it by showing supposed flaws in it. You have to provide a different hypothesis.
Of course, any new hypothesis is going to be criticized but it isn't to harm you but to help you better formulate your hypothesis. Then when we can't point out any major flaws* or come up with damning points* against the hypothesis I can guarantee you will have won at least a few supporters.

*There is still debate in the Evolutionist camp about how long it generally takes for new species to come about. None of us claim that it doesn't happen, but only disagree about some hows and whens. This wouldn't be considered a major flaw or a damning argument.
Whether Noah had 2 or 3 of each animal doesn't really matter and of course, isn't damning. Was the world ever flooded? If ya can't answer that and back it up with evidence, then you're screwed.

Also, if the world was flooded, how was the salt/sea water and fresh water kept separate? Today we have species of Fresh water fish and species of Salt/Sea water fish. There are also a few that can tolerate both to some extent. But, there are others that will die immediately if the salinity of the water is changed just a little bit. So, given that, the two types of water would have had to have been separated by something if the world were flooded. What separated them? Say the waters were allowed to mix and a lot of fish died. How would you account for the species of fish alive today that couldn't have made it through a flood? A second fish creation? Or do you submit that it is possible for speciation (evolution of new species) to occur?

LogicaLunatic

**Pooeypants** · Jan 27, 2004, 04:48 am

Actually, she can refute evolution if she had new contradictory data which does not fit the current model. But either way, she has to provide the set of data which has been obtained scientifically.

shunyadragon · Jan 27, 2004, 05:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Actually, she can refute evolution if she had new contradictory data which does not fit the current model. But either way, she has to provide the set of data which has been obtained scientifically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The newer contradictory data does not refute evolution. Like science throughout history a lot of new data contradictes current views. That's how science changes.

Example: New data on Potassium/Argon content in volcanic rocks in New Zealand does not fit the data we have for the rest of the world. This is contradictory data, but it does not refute evolution or radio active decay dating methods. It tells us that the K/Ar ratio in this particular environment is different than we originally thought. Scientists will be looking more closely at the K/Ar ratios in diferent volcanic rocks in different environments to better understand the reasons behind this anomoly.

Capitalist Pig · Jan 27, 2004, 05:13 am

I'm going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she's somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn't speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn't be asking this, but she hasn't even gotten to my retort on page 5.

shunyadragon · Jan 27, 2004, 07:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
"THEORY of Evolution"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you understand what THEORY means in this context?

shunyadragon · Jan 27, 2004, 07:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
I'm going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she's somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn't speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn't be asking this, but she hasn't even gotten to my retort on page 5. ;)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I was mainly responding to pooey pants. It is important what it means to refute an idea, view, theory when debating a subject. A number of posts haven't been responded to. hello_caleb seems to entered the fry on the side of 'Creation Science'.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 08:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
I simply don't have the time to get into another online discussion that will be entirely unprofitable. Most people already have their minds made up about what they choose to believe, so no matter what facts are presented, it will not matter. It really all comes down to faith and I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's only because you don't know what evolution actually is (which is usually the case with science deniers) ;).

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 08:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Also, Meatros, the percentage you gave is incorrect according to the site you linked to. It's 5% of scientists. While that is still not a majority, it is still a significant number when you consider that most of the media talks about evolution as though it were fact. Also, what the majority believes does not make something true or false, though human nature likes to conform, so we often simply accept what the majority says. I find that most truth in life is not accepted by the majority anyway. As I pointed out before, brilliant minds such as Einstein have been creationists. I find it a little hard to believe that Einstein would have accepted logic that "does not fit the 'Scientific Method'."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Read it again; one of the percentages is for earth and life sciences and the other is for all sciences.

It's truly not a significant number. Evolution is actually a fact adn I hope you aren't going to pull out that nonsense about it "being only a theory" because that will further demonstrate your inadequate knowledge of science (no offense).

Einstein, BTW, was *not* a 'creationist', he might have believed in "spinoza's God', but NOT a 6k year old earth and all.

In any event, why accept a physists opinion on biology? Do you go to your mechanic to get your teeth pulled?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
As for your offer, Shunyadragon, to "submit individual examples of this bogus and selective use of scientific evidence upon request," I don't doubt that for every one of those examples, I could come up with my own from the other perspective. That does not prove anything except that some people make poor arguments. That does not disprove creationism. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The difference being that your interpretations would be grasping at straws at best.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 08:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,)
are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Since when did creationism become a theory? How can you test if God created the world? You can't.

shunyadragon · Jan 27, 2004, 08:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

THEORY does not mean proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That sounds like determining if your guilty or inocent in court.

This is science not a court of law.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 08:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Where did you go to school? Science doesn't work on 'proofs', math does. And no, in order to be a valid theory, something doesn't have to be observed directly. It can be indirectly observed. In any event, we've directly observed evolution (immunities, mutations, etc). I suppose though, by your logic, atoms aren't real, and nor is gravity because neither can be 'observed'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

An old earth was discovered before Darwin was born...So unless you are going to postulate that psychics came along and tried to convince the Christian geologists that the earth was old to appease a man who hadn't even been born yet, then you have no legs to stand on.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 08:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Yes, we've established that there are occasionally beneficial mutations and that Creation Scientists do not debate that. That does not disprove what we believe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually some do, seeing as there truly isn't any such thing as a 'creation scientist'.

Unless you'd like to show me some scientifically peer-reviewed journals that involve creationism?

jpapadpapa · Jan 27, 2004, 09:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I'm going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she's somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn't speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn't be asking this, but she hasn't even gotten to my retort on page 5.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Capitalist Pig to my rescue! <smile> Where are those smilies, anyway???

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Since when did creationism become a theory? How can you test if God created the world? You can't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is exactly the arguement I used against the theory of evolution, to which I got some good replies. The arguement I received was basically that there are certain things generally accepted by science to be true because there is enough evidence to provide support (i.e.--gravity). The key is that I don't believe this is true for evolution, but I do believe it is true for Creationism. And, if time ever permits and you all give me a chance to catch my breath <wink> I will try to demonstrate this. Let's stay on track and try to not repeat points or I will never be able to keep up.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 09:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
This is exactly the arguement I used against the theory of evolution, to which I got some good replies<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Then you apparently used the argument wrong. Evolution is testable, makes predictions, and has evidence to support it.

Creationism does not, unless you'd actually like to try to russle some up for us.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
The arguement I received was basically that there are certain things generally accepted by science to be true because there is enough evidence to provide support (i.e.--gravity). <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Seems like you are reading what you want to believe. With scientific theories you are welcomed to go out and verify the results of those theories. Have you done this?

Nothing is just accepted as true in science. If it was, relativity would never have been discovered. We'd still accept the 'ether'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
The key is that I don't believe this is true for evolution, but I do believe it is true for Creationism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

But you base this on nothing aside from wants and wishes.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
And, if time ever permits and you all give me a chance to catch my breath <wink> I will try to demonstrate this. Let's stay on track and try to not repeat points or I will never be able to keep up. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Fair enough, I'll be waiting.

jpapadpapa · Jan 27, 2004, 09:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But you base this on nothing aside from wants and wishes.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No, that is your assumption based on the fact that I have had no time to provide you with any evidence yet. Come on, I am a housewife with a two-year-old and a husband to take care of, not a full-time scientist who can whip out a reply in seconds! It takes time for me to formulate adequate arguements for the simple fact that I do not deal with these ideas everyday. I am very close to having to quit this discussion entirely, which will leave you all with no one with whom to argue. And, with condescending, arrogant statements such as yours in many of the previous posts, I will not miss being here. Can you just try to be respectful, despite the fact that you think I am an idiot? Others are. Thank you.

jpapadpapa · Jan 27, 2004, 09:43 am

Now, I don't have time for the next day or so to work on a decent response to all the points that have been made. Sorry. I just have to get some other work done.

Meatros · Jan 27, 2004, 10:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
No, that is your assumption based on the fact that I have had no time to provide you with any evidence yet. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, I suppose to be entirely factual, it's a hypothesis based on a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence that I've collected over the years.

I'll give you time, which you'll need-in order to overthrow modern science. ;)

damnrad · Jan 27, 2004, 04:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, the theory of evolution is much-better established than any theory of gravity, because science doesn't have a very-good theory of gravity. It won't until there is a unified theory that can explain gravity alongside the other basic forces. Of course, what you mean by 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'no one argues with gravity' are some effects of gravity, or at best generalizations about those effects. Thus, Newton's laws as they apply to gravity might be among those you feel to have been 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' What's interesting there is that they were so considered until Einstein showed the ways in which they were wrong. Now, you might argue, Einstein's account is proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- well, it has, after all, been supported by a considerable body of experimental evidence. The thing is, what is anticipated is that when, if, there is a unified field theory, it will show in what respects Einstein's account is wrong. Well, that's science for you. And the same could occur with evolutionary theory. In fact, it happens all the time to specific accounts of evolutionary theory. But then, Einstein did not make Newton's laws of motion any less applicable and useful FOR MOST EVERYDAY USES (although if you use GPS, it needs Einstein's account, not just Newton's), and the same is likely to be true of current accounts of evolution.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 27, 2004, 06:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)

The newer contradictory data does not refute evolution. Like science throughout history a lot of new data contradictes current views. That's how science changes.

Example: New data on Potassium/Argon content in volcanic rocks in New Zealand does not fit the data we have for the rest of the world. This is contradictory data, but it does not refute evolution or radio active decay dating methods. It tells us that the K/Ar ratio in this particular environment is different than we originally thought. Scientists will be looking more closely at the K/Ar ratios in diferent volcanic rocks in different environments to better understand the reasons behind this anomoly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What I'm trying to get across, is that science is not infallible. I'm not saying some new contradictory data can refute a theory, but if we found a lifeform on earth which did not use nucleic acids as a genetic material, we'd have to re-examine the common origins model. Although its more likely that the hypothetical lifeform would be an extra terrestial in this case. :p

Jan 26, 2004, 11:52 pm	#101 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Don't worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I'm sure there are evolutionists that you would also consider poor "ambassadors" for your beliefs. There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. And I'm sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won't have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This still reflects a misunderstanding of probability and statistics, which may need to confirmed by your husband. Statistics are designed to test different things in different ways. The methods and assumptions are important issues when designing a statistical model to test anything. If someone wanted to prove something false they simply would create a statistical model to do so. For a statistical test of the probability of evolution taking place to be valid we would both have to agree on the methods and assumptions of the statistical model used. The assumptions would be important, because to begin with the proponents of 'Creation Science' believe that the genetic mutations required for evolution either do not take place or they are impossible. You make an absolute statement that the 'probability of evolution is zero'. I don't think this statement is supported by legitamite 'Test'. I had a T-shirt when I was a graduate student that read 'If it don't fit, use a different program or a bigger hammer.' The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 27, 2004, 12:55 am	#102 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The probability of evolution is zero.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Understood. Now that we have that out of the way we can stop talking about how you feel about evolution and can start discussing your hypothesis of how all the species in Earth came to be. To convince us that the Theory of Evolution is false you cannot do it by showing supposed flaws in it. You have to provide a different hypothesis. Of course, any new hypothesis is going to be criticized but it isn't to harm you but to help you better formulate your hypothesis. Then when we can't point out any major flaws* or come up with damning points* against the hypothesis I can guarantee you will have won at least a few supporters. *There is still debate in the Evolutionist camp about how long it generally takes for new species to come about. None of us claim that it doesn't happen, but only disagree about some hows and whens. This wouldn't be considered a major flaw or a damning argument. Whether Noah had 2 or 3 of each animal doesn't really matter and of course, isn't damning. Was the world ever flooded? If ya can't answer that and back it up with evidence, then you're screwed. Also, if the world was flooded, how was the salt/sea water and fresh water kept separate? Today we have species of Fresh water fish and species of Salt/Sea water fish. There are also a few that can tolerate both to some extent. But, there are others that will die immediately if the salinity of the water is changed just a little bit. So, given that, the two types of water would have had to have been separated by something if the world were flooded. What separated them? Say the waters were allowed to mix and a lot of fish died. How would you account for the species of fish alive today that couldn't have made it through a flood? A second fish creation? Or do you submit that it is possible for speciation (evolution of new species) to occur? LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 27, 2004, 04:48 am	#103 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	Actually, she can refute evolution if she had new contradictory data which does not fit the current model. But either way, she has to provide the set of data which has been obtained scientifically. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 27, 2004, 05:13 am	#104 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) Actually, she can refute evolution if she had new contradictory data which does not fit the current model. But either way, she has to provide the set of data which has been obtained scientifically.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The newer contradictory data does not refute evolution. Like science throughout history a lot of new data contradictes current views. That's how science changes. Example: New data on Potassium/Argon content in volcanic rocks in New Zealand does not fit the data we have for the rest of the world. This is contradictory data, but it does not refute evolution or radio active decay dating methods. It tells us that the K/Ar ratio in this particular environment is different than we originally thought. Scientists will be looking more closely at the K/Ar ratios in diferent volcanic rocks in different environments to better understand the reasons behind this anomoly. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 27, 2004, 05:13 am	#105 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	I'm going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she's somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn't speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn't be asking this, but she hasn't even gotten to my retort on page 5. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Jan 27, 2004, 07:52 am	#106 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) "THEORY of Evolution"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you understand what THEORY means in this context? The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 27, 2004, 07:55 am	#107 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) I'm going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she's somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn't speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn't be asking this, but she hasn't even gotten to my retort on page 5. ;)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was mainly responding to pooey pants. It is important what it means to refute an idea, view, theory when debating a subject. A number of posts haven't been responded to. hello_caleb seems to entered the fry on the side of 'Creation Science'. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 27, 2004, 08:10 am	#108 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I simply don't have the time to get into another online discussion that will be entirely unprofitable. Most people already have their minds made up about what they choose to believe, so no matter what facts are presented, it will not matter. It really all comes down to faith and I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's only because you don't know what evolution actually is (which is usually the case with science deniers) ;).

Jan 27, 2004, 08:13 am	#109 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Also, Meatros, the percentage you gave is incorrect according to the site you linked to. It's 5% of scientists. While that is still not a majority, it is still a significant number when you consider that most of the media talks about evolution as though it were fact. Also, what the majority believes does not make something true or false, though human nature likes to conform, so we often simply accept what the majority says. I find that most truth in life is not accepted by the majority anyway. As I pointed out before, brilliant minds such as Einstein have been creationists. I find it a little hard to believe that Einstein would have accepted logic that "does not fit the 'Scientific Method'."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Read it again; one of the percentages is for earth and life sciences and the other is for all sciences. It's truly not a significant number. Evolution is actually a fact adn I hope you aren't going to pull out that nonsense about it "being only a theory" because that will further demonstrate your inadequate knowledge of science (no offense). Einstein, BTW, was not a 'creationist', he might have believed in "spinoza's God', but NOT a 6k year old earth and all. In any event, why accept a physists opinion on biology? Do you go to your mechanic to get your teeth pulled? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) As for your offer, Shunyadragon, to "submit individual examples of this bogus and selective use of scientific evidence upon request," I don't doubt that for every one of those examples, I could come up with my own from the other perspective. That does not prove anything except that some people make poor arguments. That does not disprove creationism. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The difference being that your interpretations would be grasping at straws at best.

Jan 27, 2004, 08:15 am	#110 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,) are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Since when did creationism become a theory? How can you test if God created the world? You can't.

Jan 27, 2004, 08:18 am	#111 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> THEORY does not mean proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That sounds like determining if your guilty or inocent in court. This is science not a court of law. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 27, 2004, 08:22 am	#112 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Where did you go to school? Science doesn't work on 'proofs', math does. And no, in order to be a valid theory, something doesn't have to be observed directly. It can be indirectly observed. In any event, we've directly observed evolution (immunities, mutations, etc). I suppose though, by your logic, atoms aren't real, and nor is gravity because neither can be 'observed'. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> An old earth was discovered before Darwin was born...So unless you are going to postulate that psychics came along and tried to convince the Christian geologists that the earth was old to appease a man who hadn't even been born yet, then you have no legs to stand on.

Jan 27, 2004, 08:23 am	#113 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Yes, we've established that there are occasionally beneficial mutations and that Creation Scientists do not debate that. That does not disprove what we believe.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually some do, seeing as there truly isn't any such thing as a 'creation scientist'. Unless you'd like to show me some scientifically peer-reviewed journals that involve creationism?

Jan 27, 2004, 09:00 am	#114 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I'm going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she's somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn't speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn't be asking this, but she hasn't even gotten to my retort on page 5. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Capitalist Pig to my rescue! <smile> Where are those smilies, anyway??? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Since when did creationism become a theory? How can you test if God created the world? You can't.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is exactly the arguement I used against the theory of evolution, to which I got some good replies. The arguement I received was basically that there are certain things generally accepted by science to be true because there is enough evidence to provide support (i.e.--gravity). The key is that I don't believe this is true for evolution, but I do believe it is true for Creationism. And, if time ever permits and you all give me a chance to catch my breath <wink> I will try to demonstrate this. Let's stay on track and try to not repeat points or I will never be able to keep up. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 27, 2004, 09:14 am	#115 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) This is exactly the arguement I used against the theory of evolution, to which I got some good replies<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Then you apparently used the argument wrong. Evolution is testable, makes predictions, and has evidence to support it. Creationism does not, unless you'd actually like to try to russle some up for us. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The arguement I received was basically that there are certain things generally accepted by science to be true because there is enough evidence to provide support (i.e.--gravity). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Seems like you are reading what you want to believe. With scientific theories you are welcomed to go out and verify the results of those theories. Have you done this? Nothing is just accepted as true in science. If it was, relativity would never have been discovered. We'd still accept the 'ether'. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The key is that I don't believe this is true for evolution, but I do believe it is true for Creationism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But you base this on nothing aside from wants and wishes. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) And, if time ever permits and you all give me a chance to catch my breath <wink> I will try to demonstrate this. Let's stay on track and try to not repeat points or I will never be able to keep up. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Fair enough, I'll be waiting.

Jan 27, 2004, 09:42 am	#116 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But you base this on nothing aside from wants and wishes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, that is your assumption based on the fact that I have had no time to provide you with any evidence yet. Come on, I am a housewife with a two-year-old and a husband to take care of, not a full-time scientist who can whip out a reply in seconds! It takes time for me to formulate adequate arguements for the simple fact that I do not deal with these ideas everyday. I am very close to having to quit this discussion entirely, which will leave you all with no one with whom to argue. And, with condescending, arrogant statements such as yours in many of the previous posts, I will not miss being here. Can you just try to be respectful, despite the fact that you think I am an idiot? Others are. Thank you. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 27, 2004, 09:43 am	#117 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Now, I don't have time for the next day or so to work on a decent response to all the points that have been made. Sorry. I just have to get some other work done. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 27, 2004, 10:40 am	#118 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) No, that is your assumption* based on the fact that I have had no time to provide you with any evidence yet.* <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, I suppose to be entirely factual, it's a hypothesis based on a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence that I've collected over the years. I'll give you time, which you'll need-in order to overthrow modern science. ;)

Jan 27, 2004, 04:14 pm	#119 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) evolution has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. not like gravity. no one argues with gravity. except michael jordan.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, the theory of evolution is much-better established than any theory of gravity, because science doesn't have a very-good theory of gravity. It won't until there is a unified theory that can explain gravity alongside the other basic forces. Of course, what you mean by 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' and 'no one argues with gravity' are some effects of gravity, or at best generalizations about those effects. Thus, Newton's laws as they apply to gravity might be among those you feel to have been 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' What's interesting there is that they were so considered until Einstein showed the ways in which they were wrong. Now, you might argue, Einstein's account is proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- well, it has, after all, been supported by a considerable body of experimental evidence. The thing is, what is anticipated is that when, if, there is a unified field theory, it will show in what respects Einstein's account is wrong. Well, that's science for you. And the same could occur with evolutionary theory. In fact, it happens all the time to specific accounts of evolutionary theory. But then, Einstein did not make Newton's laws of motion any less applicable and useful FOR MOST EVERYDAY USES (although if you use GPS, it needs Einstein's account, not just Newton's), and the same is likely to be true of current accounts of evolution.

Jan 27, 2004, 06:45 pm	#120 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) The newer contradictory data does not refute evolution. Like science throughout history a lot of new data contradictes current views. That's how science changes. Example: New data on Potassium/Argon content in volcanic rocks in New Zealand does not fit the data we have for the rest of the world. This is contradictory data, but it does not refute evolution or radio active decay dating methods. It tells us that the K/Ar ratio in this particular environment is different than we originally thought. Scientists will be looking more closely at the K/Ar ratios in diferent volcanic rocks in different environments to better understand the reasons behind this anomoly.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What I'm trying to get across, is that science is not infallible. I'm not saying some new contradictory data can refute a theory, but if we found a lifeform on earth which did not use nucleic acids as a genetic material, we'd have to re-examine the common origins model. Although its more likely that the hypothetical lifeform would be an extra terrestial in this case. :p War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before