A Different take on evolution and Creation

[5010]

Creation:
Speculates on the distant past which cannot be directly observed or replicated.
Doesn't predict the future.

Evolution:
Speculates on the distant past which cannot be directly observed or replicated.

Hmm... I couldn't put both points under evolution. I wonder why...:)

[Zhavric]

Observed Instances of Speciation

Evolution:
Speculates on the distant past which cannot be directly observed

Double you tee eff, man? Did you just not see that or are you trying to be difficult?

[5010]

OK, speculate is not a good term for it. How about conclude?

[RickSp]

Creation:
Speculates on the distant past which cannot be directly observed or replicated.
Doesn't predict the future.

Evolution:
Speculates on the distant past which cannot be directly observed or replicated.

Hmm... I couldn't put both points under evolution. I wonder why...:)

What part of the distant past is not observable? I started digging up fossils as kid of about 8. Ammonites mostly, sea creatures in a Texas desert. There is even a grade of building limestone called fossilstone because it contains fossilized marine life. The past is all around us.

[5010]

That's why I mentioned 'directly'. Consider this. An eyewitness directly observed a crime. A crime scene investigater directly observes the evidence of that crime, and so also observes the crime, but not directly like the eyewitness. The CSI's observation requires a bit of inference.

[RickSp]

That's why I mentioned 'directly'. Consider this. An eyewitness directly observed a crime. A crime scene investigater directly observes the evidence of that crime, and so also observes the crime, but not directly like the eyewitness. The CSI's observation requires a bit of inference.

You make a distinction without a difference.

Your analogy is also very weak. As has been well established, eyewitness observations are far less reliable than physical evidence. Eyewitnesses often make mistakes.

One cannot "directly" see many processes and events in science. Everything one does see requires interpretation and analysis whether it is "directly" observed or not. Everything requires inference.

[Chaossaber314]

That's why I mentioned 'directly'. Consider this. An eyewitness directly observed a crime. A crime scene investigater directly observes the evidence of that crime, and so also observes the crime, but not directly like the eyewitness. The CSI's observation requires a bit of inference.

*Splitting hairs...*

The closest thing to a real life "CSI" is an evidence tech and they merely collect evidence while others make the inferences about it.

[dthmstr254]

I take it you are willfully ignorant of the subject.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lizard experiment suggests rapid evolution

Evolution: Fact and Theory by Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D.

Ok, Wikipedia talking about differences no more dramatic than same species changes such as are found in humans across the world and things that have always yielded the same response to domestication (maize).

the second part was only restating that organisms adapt to their environment. this has no bearing on "rapid evolution," because the species itself didn't change.

The third one is simply restating the tenants of evolution.

No.. Science textbooks are based in science, not the other way around.

And the first place most people find out about evolution is where? A science textbook. Most people never go beyond that textbook in their knowledge of evolution. Because of that, their belief in evolution is based on faith in that textbook.

The Miller-Urey experiment had to do with abiogenesis, not evolution.

Besides, objections to the experiment had to do with the quantities used. It would be foolish to completely discount the results based on that (Not to mention assuming the opposite).

However, when reduplicated, using the new measurements, instead of yielding amino acids, it yielded two substances which destroy proteins. I doubt a cell would have emerged from this, and if abiogenesis is impossible, as a result, evolution would never occur, since there would be no starting point for evolution. Obviously, if nothing started it, evolution could never occur. Am I correct on that part?

Sure, it presumes the non-existence of the (albeit impossible) tri-omni, Christian god of the bible.

Actually, it presumes the nonexistence of any god powerful enough to create life, because if it can create life, then it can manipulate life. This absolutely destroys natural selection, because if a god can manipulate the evolutionary chain, then it becomes SUPERnatural selection and not natural selection.

[dthmstr254]

What part of the distant past is not observable? I started digging up fossils as kid of about 8. Ammonites mostly, sea creatures in a Texas desert. There is even a grade of building limestone called fossilstone because it contains fossilized marine life. The past is all around us.

However, if a worldwide flood were to have occurred, would that not explain why those fossils were there as well as evolution would?

You were not able to observe that animal's life. You, likewise are unable to observe the animals evolution. You cannot observe the evolutions people assume happened by the fossil record. You cannot observe all of the possibilities, because you were not there. Until you figure out how to build a time machine, there will be no observable evidence.

[dthmstr254]

Evolution can in fact be observed and duplicated in scientific terms in a myriad of ways.
Ridiculous. It presumes no such thing.

Read my first response. for my answer to the last two.

However, since evolution can be observed, how then do I observe the speciation from single cell to multi-cell organisms?

Or maybe the speciation from reptile to bird?

Oh....wait....the subjects are DEAD.

[Keith Hamburger]

However, if a worldwide flood were to have occurred, would that not explain why those fossils were there as well as evolution would?

Absolutely not.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

However, when reduplicated, using the new measurements, instead of yielding amino acids, it yielded two substances which destroy proteins. I doubt a cell would have emerged from this, and if abiogenesis is impossible, as a result, evolution would never occur, since there would be no starting point for evolution. Obviously, if nothing started it, evolution could never occur. Am I correct on that part?

And, again, no.

Keith