Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Mock Turtle]

I don't believe anyone has successfully challenged anything at all, and especially not the simple fact that all known changes to life occur rapidly. Darwinian evolution as an explanation for speciation flies in the face of what is observed and is not supported by experiment. All science by definition is founded in experiment so "natural selection" is interpretation and not actually experiment or science.

From dictionary.com:

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.

Does that mention just 'experiment'? Erm, no.

 

[Audie]

From dictionary.com:

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.

Does that mention just 'experiment'? Erm, no.

Right there, I saw it! JUST EXPERIMENT!!

dont you see that??

 

[Mock Turtle]

Right there, I saw it! JUST EXPERIMENT!!

dont you see that??

I think I shouldn't really bother. Some are worth debating with and some not (cladking being one).

 

[Audie]

I think I shouldn't really bother. Some are worth debating with and some not (cladking being one).

The test is, can someone accept that they are in error about some really insignificant thing.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The test is, can someone accept that they are in error about some really insignificant thing.

Pretty much.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Shoot, what does observation and experience dictate!!!

Such profound, insular thinking!

Observation and experience dictate that evolution is a part of reality.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And what might an organism be other than 'fully formed"?

“In transition”, as in “half-formed.” Lol.

What, do you think a fish fin evolves into an appendage with digits, in one generation? The intermediate forms would lose function while transitioning from a water environment to living on land. Natural selection would stop selecting for ‘loss of function’! And on top of that, the organism would simultaneously have to transition from breathing water, to air.

Are you even aware of all the mutations required, in order for the following generations to evolve from one form to another?

 

[ArtieE]

I can't resist....where did the chemicals come from?

Can you build anything without materials? Did they just appear from nowhere?

On the origin of chemical elements

Do you need a being with intelligence to assemble materials to form a useful product, or to make a robot that performs functions for which it was designed and programmed? Can the components accidentally come together on their own to accomplish these things? What does logic dictate?

Logic dictates that atoms and molecules have inherent properties that make them stick to each other or repel each other. And logic dictates that with a universe 13.8 billion years old full of chemical reactions somewhere enough atoms and molecules are bound to keep bumping into each other and stick until somewhere you get clusters of them so big and with such properties that we call them alive.

Evolution not only fails to address, but completely overlooks the most basic questions.....where did matter come from?

Nothing to do with biological evolution. Scientists may have solved mystery of matter’s origin

How did life originate?

It originated when clusters of different atoms and molecules grew so big that they got the properties we require to call them alive.

You all speak about what you believe happened to matter once it somehow came to life

That would be biological evolution.

(no idea how that happened

Atoms and molecules keep bumping into each other and because of their inherent properties these molecules and assemblies of molecules got bigger and bigger until they aquired the properties we require for us to call them alive.

 

[Audie]

“In transition”, as in “half-formed.” Lol.

What, do you think a fish fin evolves into an appendage with digits, in one generation? The intermediate forms would lose function while transitioning from a water environment to living on land. Natural selection would stop selecting for ‘loss of function’! And on top of that, the organism would simultaneously have to transition from breathing water, to air.

Are you even aware of all the mutations required, in order for the following generations to evolve from one form to another?

“In transition”, as in “half-formed.

This is still very unclear to me what you might mean.
No such thing exists, or is thought to have existed, so I do not know why you speak of it.

Any organism is going to be fully what it is. The auroch
ancestor of the dairy cow was fully formed. So is the cow.

What, do you think a fish fin evolves into an appendage with digits, in one generation?

No, though I do hear creationists complain about supposed "jumps" in evolution, Still, no sensible person with a little education would think such a thing. The fish-ancestors of the early amphibians, btw, had the basic bone structure in place, complete with "digits". Look up some Sarcopterygian
fish, the modern Coelacanth being one of them. The rest are all long extinct.

The intermediate forms would lose function while transitioning from a water environment to living on land

A curious idea. It does not seem to bother the muskrat
or the frog,nor yet the walking catfish or mudskipper
to move back and forth, land to water and back no loss of function involved.

I wonder why you even say that? What would be an example?

Natural selection would stop selecting for ‘loss of function’!

huh? what does that even mean?

the organism would simultaneously have to transition from breathing water, to air.

There is a whole series of intermediate steps involved,
not just one sudden leap. The trout and the carp
can be seen to gulp air. There are lungfish, that live
in water, but can only breathe air, into, yes, lungs.

There is the mudskipper, which will drown if kept in water.

What problem are you envisioning?


Are you even aware of all the mutations required, in order for the following generations to evolve from one form to another?

Better, perhaps, for me to ask you if you are even aware of-well,no, you have shown you are not aware of
how easily and well your stump-a-chump questions
about gills-to-lungs, or fins-to-legs have been worked out, generations ago.

May I recommend Romer's Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy.

 

[ArtieE]

“In transition”, as in “half-formed.” Lol.

What, do you think a fish fin evolves into an appendage with digits, in one generation? The intermediate forms would lose function while transitioning from a water environment to living on land. Natural selection would stop selecting for ‘loss of function’! And on top of that, the organism would simultaneously have to transition from breathing water, to air.

Are you even aware of all the mutations required, in order for the following generations to evolve from one form to another?

You might be interested in hox genes. Homeotic Genes and Body Patterns

 

[cladking]

From dictionary.com:

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. Any of the branches of natural or physical science.

Does that mention just 'experiment'? Erm, no.

Obviously I'm referring to definition #2. ...And it's not based on "observation or experiment", it is based on "observation AND experiment". Indeed, "observation" probably doesn't need to be listed as defining property of science but without proper scientific observation hypothesis formation, experiment design, and interpretation of results are all impossible.

As the definition says ALL SCIENCE is based on experiment. . Everything else is word games or speculation.

The problem with modern science is that its metaphysics is so simple very few people understand the implications of experimental results. You can't understand science without understanding its metaphysics. People don't even understand the definition of science, far less its meaning. They don't understand the definition of "metaphysics" either so everything is faith based. To one person evolution proves there is no God and the next sees proof there is a God. Meanwhile most of evolution "science" is really speculation not based on observation or experiment.

 

[Audie]

On the origin of chemical elementsLogic dictates that atoms and molecules have inherent properties that make them stick to each other or repel each other. And logic dictates that with a universe 13.8 billion years old full of chemical reactions somewhere enough atoms and molecules are bound to keep bumping into each other and stick until somewhere you get clusters of them so big and with such properties that we call them alive.Nothing to do with biological evolution. Scientists may have solved mystery of matter’s originIt originated when clusters of different atoms and molecules grew so big that they got the properties we require to call them alive.That would be biological evolution.Atoms and molecules keep bumping into each other and because of their inherent properties these molecules and assemblies of molecules got bigger and bigger until they aquired the properties we require for us to call them alive.

On that last part, there are a lot of complex organic molecules that self assemble under a variety of conditions.

Given a few hundred million cubic miles of water, a few hundreds of millions of years, a fantasticatillion number of atoms and the speed of interaction among them, it is not totally unreasonable to think that anything that can happen will happen. We do know that life can happen, even if we dont know zactly how.

 

[Audie]

Obviously I'm referring to definition #2. ...And it's not based on "observation or experiment", it is based on "observation AND experiment". Indeed, "observation" probably doesn't need to be listed as defining property of science but without proper scientific observation hypothesis formation, experiment design, and interpretation of results are all impossible.

As the definition says ALL SCIENCE is based on experiment. . Everything else is word games or speculation.

The problem with modern science is that its metaphysics is so simple very few people understand the implications of experimental results. You can't understand science without understanding its metaphysics. People don't even understand the definition of science, far less its meaning. They don't understand the definition of "metaphysics" either so everything is faith based. To one person evolution proves there is no God and the next sees proof there is a God. Meanwhile most of evolution "science" is really speculation not based on observation or experiment.

The problem here is you going to war with the dictionary and making up definition to suit yourself.

Speaking of people who do not understand the definition!

(BTW, science does not do "proof" )

 

[cladking]

The test is, can someone accept that they are in error about some really insignificant thing.

Can you admit you used the dictionary wrong?

Or will you compound the error with a semantical argument.

 

[cladking]

The problem here is you going to war with the dictionary and making up definition to suit yourself.

Speaking of people who do not understand the definition!

(BTW, science does not do "proof" )

And this is a semantical argument.

 

[Jumi]

In short: Creation and evolution are compatible, but some versions of creationism aren't compatible with the science of evolution.

 

[cladking]

In short: Creation and evolution are compatible, but some versions of creationism aren't compatible with the science of evolution.

Yes. And some of the "theory" might not be compatible with reality or science.

 

[Audie]

And this is a semantical argument.

Uh, no, it is me pointing out the difference between sense and nonsense, what is actual and what you just make up as it suits you.

 

[ArtieE]

On that last part, there are a lot of complex organic molecules that self assemble under a variety of conditions.

Given a few hundred million cubic miles of water, a few hundreds of millions of years, a fantasticatillion number of atoms and the speed of interaction among them, it is not totally unreasonable to think that anything that can happen will happen. We do know that life can happen, even if we dont know zactly how.

And of course if you count 13.8 billion years and all the water in the observable universe and a 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe you just have to wonder how many atoms and molecules have been interacting with each other and keep doing it... one must be extraordinarily brave to declare that nowhere in the observable universe could so many atoms and molecules have self assembled that they acquired the properties we require to call the assemblies alive. Astronomers estimate 100 billion habitable Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, 50 sextillion in the universe - ExtremeTech

 

[Audie]

Yes. And some of the "theory" might not be compatible with reality.

Demonstrate one thing that is not, and you will get a Nobel. Knock yourself out.