Creationism vs. Evolution

[LogicaLunatic]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn&#39;t it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Actually it doesn&#39;t. Gravity has never ever been observed in a lab. The effects of gravity have but never gravity itself. For example...

We observe an apple falling out of a tree

From that we can draw at LEAST two hypotheses...

1) A natural force acted upon the apple causing it to move toward the Earth.

2) A Supernatural force named God plucked the apple from tree and put it on the Earth.

Both are valid hypotheses. The first only became a theory because of other observations that supported it and all of the hypothesis&#39; predictions that held true. Because of these observations we now know that when we see an apple falling to the Earth, the Earth is also falling toward the apple.

Now, lets take another look at an Effect of an invisible force...

There are thousands and thousands of different species on this Earth.

From this we can also draw at LEAST two hypotheses...

1) A natural force/process is responsible for the huge variety of species.

2) A Supernatural force named God is responsible for creating all of the species we see today.

Again, both are valid hypotheses. The reason the first became a theory is because of the mounds of other observations that scientists have made. Plus, the predictions made by the first hypothesis have all been found to be true.

Now, if you want to challenge either the Theory of Gravitation or the Theory of Evolution you must first understand them. Since I don&#39;t think you wish to challenge the Theory of Gravitation lets go with Evolution.

Evolution can be seen as a fact and a theory.

Evolution as a fact - Change in allele frequency in a given population over time.
This happens. It is a fact. To deny this is to be considered a retard.

Evolution as a theory - The process of Factual Evolution has given rise to every species on Earth and started from one or a few living common ancestors

PLEASE NOTICE THAT NEITHER OF THESE MENTION HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED. TO LUMP ABIOGENESIS IN WITH EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY

The Theory of Evolution requires a physical mechanism. That mechanism is Genetics.

Given genetics as the mechanism, the effect we see (Many different species) couldn&#39;t happen very quickly. So here we come to one of the first predictions of the Theory of Evolution, that the Earth has been around for a LONG time and life has been around for a long time too. It just so happens that the Earth and Life have been around for a long time. (If you don&#39;t agree, please don&#39;t try to DISCREDIT the evidence for an old Earth. Please provide evidence that it is short. Also, please don&#39;t use old arguments like Moon Dust or anything you find on Kent Hovind&#39;s site http://www.drdino.com because it is complete bullshit.)

Ok, back to challenging the Theory of Evolution. If you want to challenge it please provide an alternative that is supported by the observations. This alternative has to be testable and must make predictions that we can test.

Thanks,

LogicaLunatic

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
...Perhaps this geneticist is just "down right ignorant and stupid." <wink><hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I missed this one in my original scan of the posts. The obvious ignorance and stupidity of the question (or the skeptic in question), brings into question credibility of printing the article.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=LogicaLunatic,]

But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn&#39;t it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point.

LogicaLunatic gave a good response, but I would like to add a few more points. Careful with using entire point , it does not define an arguement well.

Examples:

Have scientists produced a supernova in the lab?

Of course not, but they have actually observed supernovas take place. The have also observed most of the different stages of supernovas to the formation of a black hole. They have recreated many of the individual subatomic events of a supernova in the lab.

Have scientists ever observed, weighed or measured a subatomic particle.

No, but scientists have learned a great deal about them by observing the indirect effects of the subatomic particles.

If science and math had to rely on direct observation we would not have the technology we have today in the world.

Scientists have never directly &#39;observed species forming&#39; because of the time restraints on direct observation. Scientists have observed the &#39;effects of specie formation in geologic history.

Scientists have recreated many of the possible steps for the formation of primative life forms in the laboratory and they wil likel be able to recreate the entire process in the future.

You should realize that modern evolution science is less than 200 years old and the knowledge of the actual molecular biology of genetics and evolution is less than fifty years old. We have only just begun.

[jpapadpapa]

Don&#39;t worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I&#39;m sure there are evolutionists that you would also consider poor "ambassadors" for your beliefs.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Than you realize statistics don&#39;t prove anything possible or impossible.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

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&#39;m sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won&#39;t have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate&#33;

Shunyadragon and LogicaLunatic, you do bring up some good points on the idea of observation. Actually, my husband mentioned to me the other day that technically, ideas such as gravity have never been proven scientifically, but they are held to be true because of the other evidence. I simply forgot. I don&#39;t believe there is enough evidence for evolution, however.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Scientists have never directly &#39;observed species forming&#39; because of the time restraints on direct observation. Scientists have observed the &#39;effects of specie formation in geologic history. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I will try to address this at some point, but I disagree with the later half of that statement. (Big surprise, huh?)

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Don&#39;t worry. I will not be refering to Dr. Dino for my arguements. Many young-earth Creationists consider him an embarassment, just as I&#39;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&#39;m sure I will have plenty more arguements that I won&#39;t have time for by the time I wake up tomorrow. We really need to find some others to help balance this debate&#33;<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 &#39;Creation Science&#39; believe that the genetic mutations required for evolution either do not take place or they are impossible.

You make an absolute statement that the &#39;probability of evolution is zero&#39;. I don&#39;t think this statement is supported by legitamite &#39;Test&#39;.

I had a T-shirt when I was a graduate student that read &#39;If it don&#39;t fit, use a different program or a bigger hammer.&#39;

[LogicaLunatic]

</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&#39;t to harm you but to help you better formulate your hypothesis. Then when we can&#39;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&#39;t happen, but only disagree about some hows and whens. This wouldn&#39;t be considered a major flaw or a damning argument.
Whether Noah had 2 or 3 of each animal doesn&#39;t really matter and of course, isn&#39;t damning. Was the world ever flooded? If ya can&#39;t answer that and back it up with evidence, then you&#39;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&#39;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]

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]

</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&#39;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]

I&#39;m going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she&#39;s somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn&#39;t speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn&#39;t be asking this, but she hasn&#39;t even gotten to my retort on page 5.

[shunyadragon]

</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?

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
I&#39;m going to step in here and say I think some of you should slow down, she&#39;s somewhat swamped as it is and adding to the load doesn&#39;t speed the process. If there were more than one person vigorously defending Creationism, I wouldn&#39;t be asking this, but she hasn&#39;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&#39;t been responded to. hello_caleb seems to entered the fry on the side of &#39;Creation Science&#39;.

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
I simply don&#39;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&#39;s only because you don&#39;t know what evolution actually is (which is usually the case with science deniers) ;).