Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[angellous_evangellous]

This is a disservice to those who want to see "intelligent design" or "creationism" treated as a genuine theory rather than as a bunch of cranks trying to sell books and sermons to the gullable and devout.

Now where are these people?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Most Creationist "theory" is more concerned with misrepresenting actual science in hopes of distracting people from the evidence. Rather than looking for actual testable evidence of thier own. This is a disservice to those who want to see "intelligent design" or "creationism" treated as a genuine theory rather than as a bunch of cranks trying to sell books and sermons to the gullable and devout.

.

How appropo.

 

[gmelrod]

I think it is interesting that everytime we add a new bit of science to the debate it is not understood.

E=MC^2
The energy in an object (E) is equal to the mass of the object (M) multiplied by the speed of light (C) to the second power or squared (^2)

Now this is a theoretical maximum and only occures in cases of 100% release. Modern technology has only achieved a 100% reliese on a sub atomic level.

It turns out that 95% of the "mass" of an object is actualy energy. Don't believe me. Then check out what these scientists have to say

[link]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html[/link]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

blah blah blah

 

[Runlikethewind]

Yes, I am. Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of science. There is a theoretical nature to science that theorizes about the connectedness of facts revealed through experimentation and observation. I have pointed this out several times and will repost my points just as a reminder.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of science. Scientific theories like evolution do not seek to prove anything, they only seek to explain that which we have proven through observation. We have certain facts of observation, evolution seeks to explain those facts.
Fact: micro evolution has been observed, by your own admission
Fact: the fossil record shows a huge diversity of organisms many of which no longer exist today
Fact: genetic research shows that there are many shared similarities between species
Theory to explain these facts, Evolution. The theory successfully explains the facts it doesn't necessarily prove anything especially where we came from since this occurred in the past and is therefore beyond observation short of the invention of a time machine. Believing in a theory is a matter of natural faith which is very different from supernatural faith. Many people do not make this distinction between natural and supernatural faith. it takes natural faith to say I believe in evolution just as much as it takes to say I believe my car will start when I turn the key or I believe that my sister will arrive at my place at 3. Supernatural faith is required when making claims about God and there is a world of difference between the two.

you simply misunderstand what the nature of science is, so I will explain it. In natural sciences there are two main components, experimental or observational science and theoretical science. Observational science uses observation and experimentation to establish facts about how the world is an how it work. Theoretical science then takes what facts have been gathered from observation and experimentation in order to create a hypothesis to explain the facts. The hypothesis must make predictions so that it can be tested and it must explain all the facts. If new facts arise that the hypothesis cannot explain or if the predictions of the hypothesis do not come to pass, the hypothesis is changed, developed, reworked, or rejected outright. The theory of evolution is a matter of theoretical science and not experimental scince, although the two go hand in hand and interact and influence one another, fundamentally it is theoretical science.

It appears that you are lumping all science into the category of experimental science. Your claims about the so called “missing links” are an example of this. Without the “missing links, you claim that evolution is not true. If evolution where a matter of experimental science you would be right. Not only would we need the 30,000 “missing links” between monkeys and humans (and I still have no idea where you get this number), we would have to have a complete chain from the very first bacteria to the present day. That might prove evolution as a matter of observational science, might. You would still need to have observed the changes between the fossilized “links”, just having the fossilized “links” doesn’t prove that one came from another unless you see it happen. But the problem is evolution is not a matter of experimental science it is a matter of theoretical science.

You see not all science is about proving facts it is also about using facts to theorize about the nature of reality. Evolution is a matter of theoretical science and I don’t know how to explain it any clearer than I already have in these last two posts. Evolution may be a bad theory in your opinion but the fact remains that it is a scientific pursuit because science is about theories and proving theories and theorizing theories to support theories to explain evidence and facts. That is how science advances by trying to understand things by making educated guesses (hypothesis) and trying to support those guesses (hypothesis) with experimentation and observation.

DEVISING THEORIES IS A MAJOR PART OF SCIENCE, THEORIES CAN BE SCIENTIFIC, SCIENCE IS NOT JUST ABOUT PROVING FACTS IT IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THINGS AND THAT INVOLVES SPECULATION AND THEORIZATION AT TIMES. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC, THIS IS SCIENCE, EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 100% PROVEN TO BE SCIENTIFIC. YOU FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I think it is interesting that everytime we add a new bit of science to the debate it is not understood.

E=MC^2
The energy in an object (E) is equal to the mass of the object (M) multiplied by the speed of light (C) to the second power or squared (^2)

Now this is a theoretical maximum and only occures in cases of 100% release. Modern technology has only achieved a 100% reliese on a sub atomic level.

It turns out that 95% of the "mass" of an object is actualy energy. Don't believe me. Then check out what these scientists have to say

[link]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/experts.html[/link]

Thanks for the insight. I must admit that I am no physicist. So does this mean that it is wrong to say that matter can be converted to energy and that it is more proper to say that matter is energy (in some form)? Or something along those lines?

 

[gmelrod]

Well I am not a full expert but I think the best way to put it is that matter and energy are two forms of the same fundamental relationships between fields. They are the same thing.

In other news over 10,000 Chrisatian Clergy of multiple denominations endorse science.

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.​

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.​

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

Ok forget science are you going to argue with 10,000 people who study God and have faith for a living? Which seems more likley.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Luke -

I have taken the time to respond to the issues you have raised in posts 144 and 145, and also earlier in posts 66 and 67 . I put a good deal of effort into addressing your points, and I meticulously provided links to credible sources where you can find more information.

You have yet to respond to anything I said in those posts.

If you're going to make a bunch of claims, and post them in a public forum, you really should be prepared to defend them.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50852&page=7

 

[Luke_17:2]

Luke -

I have taken the time to respond to the issues you have raised in posts 144 and 145, and also earlier in posts 66 and 67 . I put a good deal of effort into addressing your points, and I meticulously provided links to credible sources where you can find more information.

You have yet to respond to anything I said in those posts.

If you're going to make a bunch of claims, and post them in a public forum, you really should be prepared to defend them.

I'm sorry for missing them. I'll answer them now. And I'm the only one exhibiting proof, and evidence in this scenario. A bunch of people who agree with each other about evolution seem to agree that I'm wrong. But that's about the only evidence leveled at me. I'll answer point by point in my next posts.

 

[darkpenguin]

Whenever I state my faith I say, "I believe.."; I don't say, "I have faith...". When you ask someone of their opinion of the existence of God/god/gods they don't say, "I have faith that God/god/gods exist; they say, "I believe..". The question itself is, "Do you believe in God?"

Dictionary.com:

believe-
1.to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
2.to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.

the word believe has no meaning to it other than what we associate the sounds of the word with and thats down to personal choice.
Not everyone likes to be dictated to as to what words and sounds mean to them, faith and belief can be the same to someone if they so wish and nobody has the right to tell them any different!

As for this argument, maybe you should have read a few physics books before entering into it, maybe then you could have backed up your arguments or realised that the argument is pointless as evolution has alot more validity than anything that a fictional book written looooooooong ago has to offer.

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry for missing them. I'll answer them now. And I'm the only one exhibiting proof, and evidence in this scenario. A bunch of people who agree with each other about evolution seem to agree that I'm wrong. But that's about the only evidence leveled at me. I'll answer point by point in my next posts.

Please note the following posts:
33
50
57
66
67
73
90
92
104
105
114
119
131
133
136
139
140
144
145
147
150
151
153
157
182
186
187
191
205
207

 

[Willamena]

I'm sorry for missing them. I'll answer them now. And I'm the only one exhibiting proof, and evidence in this scenario. A bunch of people who agree with each other about evolution seem to agree that I'm wrong. But that's about the only evidence leveled at me. I'll answer point by point in my next posts.

Thing is, as with ID supporters, we only need point out that your evidence is scientifically flawed to have supported our case.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Luke -

There is technically no "absolute proof" for anything in science, not even Newton's laws (e.g. Force = Mass x Acceleration). In fact, Newton's laws become a poor approximation of what is observed when things are moving at relativistic speeds (i.e. speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light).

What makes science what it is is that it can be observed, or proven. The II Law is observed everyday: in death, in erosion, go to Rome and see the ruins. We may not be able to understand how Newton's laws work, but we can observe them; that makes them science. The same cannot be said for evolution.

What makes Newton's laws and the theory of evolution science is that they are falsifiable.

No. That makes them theories. And before you call a theory science; I'd look at the theory. Evolution has been disproven along many of its points. (I'll elaborate after you respond) Theorization is an attempt to learn more about Science: it's not actually science by definition. And would you want evolution to be taught as the only alternatve while it remains a theory supported by even more theories? A theory that is more of a religion because it's based on even more theories to explain its very weak points; and when people question its veracity, it's defended with religious zeal.

There's no "proof" for the laws of thermodynamics, either. You can't prove that somewhere, in some distant part of the universe, for example, energy is not conserved (as stated in the 1st law of thermodynamics). All we have is a vast number of observations consistent with thermodynamics, and we have a vast number of observations consistent with evolution as well. Those same facts, I have no doubt, are also consistent with all manner of supernatural creation beliefs, but the difference is that one cannot empirically falsify supernatural influences.

So you're saying that the universe would not operate by the same laws universally? According to the uniformitarian theory of the origin of the universe, everything originated from one source, and because of that, would operate by the same laws universally. The same concept applies to a Creator. And you're explaining evolution's deficiencyies with a theory that laws, that can be observed do not operate universally-you're doing this for a "theory" that can't be observed.

Please Luke, let's not cherry pick. Here's what dictionary.com actually says about science:


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. 4.systematized knowledge in general. 5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6.a particular branch of knowledge. 7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

The operative words being systematic knowledge. Yes, let's not cherry pick. It means that knowledge of science is gained through observation, and experimentation: it does NOT say that observation and experimentation are science.

[color added] Words often have many definitions, depending on context. The theory of evolution is science (definition #2).

Not according to the definition given.

Yes, it is less definitive. If you believe "God did it" is the explanation for biodiversity, then there is no reason to expect, for example, that groups of fruit flies bred under different environmental conditions will speciate; there is no reason to expect that fossils will be found of animals which have BOTH traits normally associated with Aves (modern birds), and some traits associated with dinosaurs, or fossils that have mixed traits of humans and apes;

The words universe and university are similar; but that doesn't presuppose they're the same thing. You say similarities between ape, and man are proofs of a common ancestor; but I say that they're proofs of a common designer. Please elaborate as to the similar traits you mentioned; I'm aware of them, but I want them out in the open. And of course things will speciate; micro evolution is simple interbreeding among the same kind. It's also called adaption when a species is forced to a live in a new enviroment; it causes a new species that can handle the specific enviroment. This happens; it's observed; it doesn't prove evolution.

there is no reason to expect that modern horse fossils should never be found that predate or coexist with their evolutionary ancestors, Eohippus;

If I'm not mistaken about what you're talking about, the Eohippus sill lives today, and is quite different from a horse

there is no reason to expect that, during emryonic development, modern whales develop hair, nostrils in the usual place, and the precursors to hind limbs, only to have this all changed around before birth.

If you're referring to the "hind legs" that whales have, then I say are vital to their reproductive process; it has nothing to do with evolution, and is no evidence against a Creator.

However, if evolutionary theory is correct, then there IS good reason to expect all these things, and in fact all these things are born out in reality.

These things aren't born out in reality.

Could you please explain what you mean by "the atmosphere decreases in strength"? Could you please cite a source for this "fact"? And what in the world does it mean for something to "implode from the weight of gravity"?

I mean the magnetic field is weakening. I gave the formula numerous times, and no scientists deny the fact: they merely invent ways to try to explain it.

What I mean by implode is be crushed. Indeed it would be. Can you imagine having the atmosphere of Jupiter cover Earth?

This "fact" has no real bearing on the validity of biological evolution. But, to answer your question:

Your question doesn't make any sense. In our solar system, there is one star, the Sun. The Sun is one of billions of stars in our galaxy, and there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. What do you mean by, "whole stars revolve in opposite directions"? Which stars are you referring to, what are they revolving around, and in what sense are they going in the 'opposite' direction?

Do you mean that you don't know that stars revolve around the galactic core? Did you know that all stars (with the exception of Polaris) move?

Look it up, and you'll find that stars are indeed revolving in the opposite direction of the galactic core as several planets revolve opposite of the way the sun spins: this is a violation of the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. The evolutionary explanation of the origin of the universe states that the planets formed from the sun; obviously this couldn't have happened.

You'd have to define what counts as a "missing link". If you are classifying organisms (e.g. "birds", or Aves) via a set of traits unique to those animals, then yes evolution does predict that we should find lots of examples of organisms that have some of those traits but not others, or in other words they break our definition. Indeed, many many many such examples ARE found. Evolutionary theory basically predicts that you can't, in general, classify a group of organisms by identifying their characteristic traits without finding examples of other organisms which "straddle the line", in other words they have some of the defined traits but not others, and therefore organisms cannot be neatly classified into absolutely, perfectly distinguishable categories (or sets of traits).

I'm talking about the links in between ape, and man. Neanderthal man was just an old man with arthritis, and Cro Magnon was another old giant man. We don't even have all of Lucy's skeleton, and it is easy to figure out the she was just a big monkey from what we do have. And for the rest, there are areas in between that need to be filled, and they add up to around 30,000.

 

[Luke_17:2]

I'm not going back over all of them! :areyoucra I have a life, and work to attend to. Because I have a life, I missed a lot of your questions, but I've done my best to keep up. Repost the questions, and your responses that you want answered most in about 10-11 hours (I live on the east coast), and I'll answer them either tonight or early tomorrow morning.

 

[Luke_17:2]

With respect to the 2 planets, I presume you are referring to the spin of Venus and Uranus, which spin in the opposite direction of all the other planets. I presume you are asking how this does not contradict the theory that the solar system formed from the gravitational condensing of a large cloud of gas and dust. Short answer: before all that gas condensed into objects the size of planets, it would have formed many much smaller objects, and there would have been frequent catastrophic collisions. In fact, there are still many relatively small objects in our solar system, and there are still very impressive collisions - at least since the Moon was formed (look at all those craters), and of course Shoemaker Levy 9 hit Jupiter a decade or so ago. A big impact could account for a radical change in spin, as was likely the case with Venus and Uranus.

So the most recent explanation is that a gas cloud formed the planets? Where did this gas cloud come from? A theory that changes its very foundations so often like this would normally be dismissed as unviable. Of course, this is not what is taught in text books. Like Hovind, I adopted the hobby of collecting text books (the evolutionist equivelant of the Bible), and those things are still taught. There is nothing to replace them.

One of my professors studies astrophysics and does computer simulations of how many objects interact with each other gravitationally. The fact is that when you apply Newton's law F = M x A to a system composed of more than two objects (called an N body simulation) you get a chaotic system that is very difficult to predict. The solar system is not some perfect, divinely-tuned machine that runs like clockwork. There are all sorts of subtle physical effects far beyond the simple orbiting of planets around the Sun that you never learn about in gradeschool.

It seems like you're trying to push the agenda that there are no laws in certain areas. If that is so, evolution will never be verefied because it needs laws, not the lack thereof, to be proven right.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Thing is, as with ID supporters, we only need point out that your evidence is scientifically flawed to have supported our case.

You've not pointed out anything. You've pointed out that Creationism doesn't have all the answers: we don't deny it. Our religion, we admit, is a religion: yours is not science at best, and we just try and point out the many flaws.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:troll:

 

[McBell]

I'm not going back over all of them! :areyoucra

Then stop making the false claim that you are the only one presenting evidence.

 

[camanintx]

I mean the magnetic field is weakening. I gave the formula numerous times, and no scientists deny the fact: they merely invent ways to try to explain it.

I've already pointed out that while Earth's magnetic field may be weakening, there is no evidence to support your claim that it was four times stronger 6,000 years ago. The evidence shows that the magnetic field varies irregularly and has even reversed itself several times so your formula is absolutely worthless.

What I mean by implode is be crushed. Indeed it would be. Can you imagine having the atmosphere of Jupiter cover Earth?

Earth's magnetic field strength has no effect on the density of the atmosphere so there has never been any chance of Earth "imploding".

Do you mean that you don't know that stars revolve around the galactic core? Did you know that all stars (with the exception of Polaris) move?

Look it up, and you'll find that stars are indeed revolving in the opposite direction of the galactic core as several planets revolve opposite of the way the sun spins: this is a violation of the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. The evolutionary explanation of the origin of the universe states that the planets formed from the sun; obviously this couldn't have happened.

While all of the stars in our galaxy revolve around the galactic core (including Polaris), there is no violation of the conservation of angular momentum. The next time you empty a bathtub, pour some food coloring in and watch how small eddies spin off in the opposite direction of the water going down the drain. This law, like the second law of thermodynamics which you keep bringing up, only applies to the total system and does not prevent parts of the system from behaving in a contrary manner.

 

[Panda]

Luke, the theroy about how solar systems were made has never changed. We know how it happens, we watch it happen it is a fact.

The gas clouds are from matter created during the big bang and from other solar systems when there sun explodes and often destorys lots of its planets with it.
This gas then forms gas clouds and starts colapsing in on itself to form all the objects in the solar system, most of it forms the star. Well that is the basic idea.

However this has nothing to do with the ID/Evoloution debate.
Evoloution is science because there is some evidence pointing towards it. ID is not science because it stems from a lack of evidence. ID has no scientific evidence at all to support it, Evoloution does. We have observed micro evoloution, we can not observe macro evoloution because of the time frame involved. However the logical conclusion is that is micro evoloution happens then maco evoloution will also happen if the time scale is long enough.