Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[Luke_17:2]

And right here you have shown you know practically nothing about evolution.
You are in great need of learning about this subject.

Or are you merely pulling a Hovind tactic of relying upon the ignorance of others?

I'm aware that it's the core of evolution, and my point is that it hasn't been proven. There are 30,000 missing links to prove a connection between the ape, and the human? Do you mean to say we have observed it? I think I'm winning... And as a matter of fact, I am a student of Hovind, and he's never lost a debate. Not only that, evolution professors, and college students refuse to debate him anymore because it's a long line of humiliation for them.

 

[McBell]

Why, thank you for bringing that up. I must have missed that one!

And how can you say that it's not science? Mathematics is the most irrefutable science in existence. Not only is it Science, it makes Chemistry look like a fairytale!

It works provided you take into consideration all the facts.
Problem is you are ignoring, or perhaps flat out do no know, the facts that interfere with your conclusion.

This is not science.
Science takes into consideration ALL the known facts.

Okay, now I'm angry. I've made it clear numerous times in this thread that I'm aware that Creationism is only a religion, but that evolution is not at all better. Look at the title of the thread; do you need any more assurance? My point here is that Evolution is no more science than Creationism is: at best it's a dying theory; at worst it's a dying religion.

And you will continue to spout such nonsense until you learn what evolution actually is.

 

[McBell]

I'm aware that it's the core of evolution, and my point is that it hasn't been proven. There are 30,000 missing links to prove a connection between the ape, and the human? Do you mean to say we have observed it? I think I'm winning... And as a matter of fact, I am a student of Hovind, and he's never lost a debate. Not only that, evolution professors, and college students refuse to debate him anymore because it's a long line of humiliation for them.

You have presented Mr Hovinds strawman version of evolution.
Then attacked it rather convincingly.

 

[Luke_17:2]

I think strawman defines evolution rather well.

 

[Luke_17:2]

And you will continue to spout such nonsense until you learn what evolution actually is.

I think I know it well enough. You've stopped countering, and started accusing; that is the first sign of defeat on your part, my friend.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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

There is no proof for either religion. The difference is that Creationists call Creationism a religion; evolutionists call theirs science.

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.

The word science means a branch of knowledge dealing with the sudies of facts or truths (dictionary.com).

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.

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

As far as a Creator goes, consider this: say you find a watch in the middle of the Sahara Desert; how could you assume it was made by an intelligent entity, while at the same time you can say a far more complex organism (such as a human being) evolved? That's a parable I heard; it makes sense, however, I realize it's not definitive. But it's not less definitive than evolutionist explanations.

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

Here are some more more concise, but extremely thought provoking examples

1) FACT: it is a scientifically documented fact that the atmosphere decreases in strength by 1/2 every 1400 years.
QUESTION: Why hasn't the earth imploded from the weight of gravity?

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"?

2) FACT: If evolution were true, all heavenly bodies (i.e. stars, planets, and moons) would revolve in the same directions.
QUESTION: Why do 2 planets specifically, and whole stars revolve in opposite directions?

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?

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.

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.

3) FACT: If evolution were true, there would be over 30,000 missing links.
QUESTION: Where are they?

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).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Note that Creationism, contrary to evolution, makes no prediction as to what sorts of fossilized organisms we might expect to find. Evolution, on the other hand, correctly predicts that we will find organisms that "straddle the line" of our trait-based definitions of classifications of organisms.

Examples of "missing links" can be found here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Here's more, from a post of mine on another thread (find here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=811014#post811014 )

I think the problem is that you are not taking into account the incredible diversity of animals, both living and in the fossil record. For example, by "birds" I assume you mean animals classified as the class called Aves, and by "reptiles" I assume you mean animals in the class Sauropsida.

Let's get one thing straight: you already agree that all birds could share a common ancestor, right? Well, that in itself is some pretty impressive evolution right there, if by birds you include emus, penguins, pelicans, owls, flamingos, parrots, chickens, and so on; you've got flying, flightless, running, and swimming "birds", and lots of combinations of those (e.g. penguins are great swimmers, but ducks can both swim and fly). Even among the flyers, you've just an incredible array of adaptations. Same thing with reptiles: you've got a stunning amount of diversity there as well, with all manner of crocodiles, snakes, lizards, turtles, and tortoises.

Consider a few examples from feathered dinosaurs: was Microraptor a "bird"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Quote:
Like its close relative Cryptovolans (possibly a junior synonym of Microraptor), Microraptor had two sets of wings, on both its fore- and hind legs (close studies of the Berlin specimen of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx show that it too, had flight feathers on its hind legs, albeit shortened). The long feathers on the legs of Microraptor were true flight feathers as seen in modern birds, with asymetrical vanes on the arm, leg, and tail feathers. As in bird wings, Microraptor had both primary (anchored to the hand) and secondary (anchored to the arm) flight feathers. This standard wing pattern was mirrored on the hind legs, with flight feathers anchored to the upper foot bones as well as the upper and lower leg. It had been proposed by Chinese scientists that the animal glided, and probably lived in trees, pointing to the fact that wings anchored to the feet of Microraptor would have hindered their ability to run on the ground, and suggest that all primitive dromaeosaurids may have been arboreal.[3]
Sankar Chatterjee determined in 2005 that, in order for the creature to glide or fly, the wings must have been split-level (like a biplane) and not overlayed (like a dragonfly), and that the latter posture would have been anatomically impossible. Using this biplane model, Chatterjee was able to calculate possible methods of gliding, and determined that Microraptor most likely employed a phugoid style of gliding--launching itself from a perch, the animal would have swooped downward in a deep 'U' shaped curve and then lifted again to land on another tree. The feathers not directly employed in the biplane wing structure, like those on the tibia and the tail, could have been used to control drag and alter the flight path, trajectory, etc. The orientation of the hind wings would also have helped the animal control its gliding flight. Chatterjee also used computer algorithms that test animal flight capacity to test whether or not Microraptor was capable of true, powered flight, in addition to passive gliding. The resulting data showed that Microraptor did have the requirements to sustain level powered flight, so it is theoretically possible that the animal flew on occasion in addition to gliding.[
What about Beipiaosaurus ?

I seriously encourage you and anyone else to follow these links, look at some photos and artists' rendering, and read what the experts have found upon close, analytical comparison of modern birds and these many other species. Then judge for yourself. But just realize that words like "bird" are really referring to a list of traits....the fact is that there are all manner of combinations of animals, past and present, that have some of those traits but not others, means that there really is no fundamental barrier between a "bird" or, say, a "reptile".


There are many more similarities between birds and these bird-like things that just happen to appear in the fossil record shortly before mordern birds .... ... but you'll have to read and judge for yourself the similarities in skeleton, lungs, heart, sleeping posture, brooding, gizzards.... there's also molecular evidence, for example
Quote:
It has been found that modern-day birds are closely related to older dinosaurs at the molecular level. Scientists have analyzed protein from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bone (a femur). The seven collagen types obtained from the bone fragments, compared to collagen data from living birds (specifically, a chicken), reveal that older theropods and birds are closely related.
Here's a cool drawing of the Archeopteryx find: http://www.daily-tangents.com/Aves/Archaeop/#berlin77

A Talk Origins article that summarizes tons of evidence for "macro" evolution, including the bird-reptile connection: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ermediates_ex1

You be the judge!

4) FACT: If evolution were true, stars could form.
QUESTION: Why haven't there been any known documentation or observation of a star forming?

Again, this has nothing to do with biological evolution, but....

Short answer: there has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/sform.html http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2001/11

5) FACT: The two major founders of evolution, Henry Lyle and Charles Darwin, were respectively: a lawyer, and a preacher (Darwin had a masters degree of Theology).

QUESTION: How could we trust them to form a "scientific" basis of knowledge?

We shouldn't accept their theories based on them being trustworthy or even "scientific" people, we should accept their theories based on the observational evidence in support of their theories. No "trust" necessary. The facts should speak for themselves, and in the opinion of virtually every credible scientific organization in the developed world, they speak in favor of evolution.

 

[SERVANTOFSET]

We cannot know for certain where we came from, and when you ask an evolutionist what his position is, he says: "I believe..." -a religious statement. So in the end evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism, or I.D. is.

I believe it was Adam Smith who said: "science is the great antidote to the poison of enthuissiasm and superstition".

 

[lilithu]

I adhere to Kent Hovind's position on Evolution: teach it in the schools as one alternative for where we came from; but teach Creationism and I.D. too because it is no less "science" than Evolution is.

I say it's not science for several reasons: we have never observed or found sufficient evidence for: macro evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution. The only type of evolution we have ever observed is Micro Evolution; that is the evolution within species. Another reason, though that last one is by far enough, is population. Those are just some reasons, though there are plenty, those are the biggest reasons I think.

We cannot know for certain where we came from, and when you ask an evolutionist what his position is, he says: "I believe..." -a religious statement. So in the end evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism, or I.D. is.

sigh...

Certainty is not the key criterion of science. One can have a theory in which one is not at all certain and for which there is little evidence, as long as the theory is based on what little evidence there is.

What disqualifies creationism and ID (which are basically the same thing imo) is that these "theories" posit a supernatural explanation. You cannot do that in science, period.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I adhere to Kent Hovind's position on Evolution: teach it in the schools as one alternative for where we came from; but teach Creationism and I.D. too because it is no less "science" than Evolution is.

I say it's not science for several reasons: we have never observed or found sufficient evidence for: macro evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution. The only type of evolution we have ever observed is Micro Evolution; that is the evolution within species. Another reason, though that last one is by far enough, is population. Those are just some reasons, though there are plenty, those are the biggest reasons I think.

We cannot know for certain where we came from, and when you ask an evolutionist what his position is, he says: "I believe..." -a religious statement. So in the end evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism, or I.D. is.

We should put people like this on a reservation in Kansas.

 

[lilithu]

We should put people like this on a reservation in Kansas.

AE, I am shocked by this statement. What do you have against Kansas?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Well, certainly not the one that says something exploded from nothing 15 billion years ago.

Then I propose we teach the one that says the land was shaped by the actions of a giant rainbow snake. It's a much older story than this whole big man in the sky cobbled everything together in 6 days then had an RDO malarkey. Shorter, easier to understand and also somewhat more engaging to the little kiddies I've found.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I adhere to Kent Hovind's position on Evolution: teach it in the schools as one alternative for where we came from; but teach Creationism and I.D. too because it is no less "science" than Evolution is.

I say it's not science for several reasons: we have never observed or found sufficient evidence for: macro evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution. The only type of evolution we have ever observed is Micro Evolution; that is the evolution within species. Another reason, though that last one is by far enough, is population. Those are just some reasons, though there are plenty, those are the biggest reasons I think.

We cannot know for certain where we came from, and when you ask an evolutionist what his position is, he says: "I believe..." -a religious statement. So in the end evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism, or I.D. is.

I suppose that as long as Creationism and I.D. theory hold to the naturalistic assumption of science and use the scientific method, then they can be taught in science class.

However, being that Creationism begins with theistic assumptions and uses this assumption to interpret scientific data that has no theistic assumptions, Creationism as a "science" is intellectually dishonest and a fraud. We cannot teach fraud in our schools.

I.D. is unacceptable as a science because it assumes the existence of a "Creator" (whether God or aliens or whatever) that is unproven by any scientific method. If the "Creator" is found, then I.D. theory would have to be taught.

It is fraudulent to argue that science and creationism should both be taught in science class because they have assumptions. Science -that which is taught in science classes - assumes naturalism (which requires no faith at all) and creationism assumes theism (which requires faith in a religious system). So as a starting point, scientists assume that nature can be explained by the scientific method, and creationists by faith that God created everything, for which there is no natural proof (unless, of course, theists imagine that God is a natual being that can be discovered in a test tube). Creationism perhaps could be taught in a religious class with the stern warning that it is not science, and the teacher should be careful to point out where it defies logic and its proponents misinterpret and abuse scientific findings.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AE, I am shocked by this statement. What do you have against Kansas?

It would get all of them out of Texas.

I mentioned Kansas because it's well known that Kansas is the final frontier for higher thinking skills. They've been on TV more than most for rebelling against the education of our youth in scientific thinking. Kansas is one of the few places in the Western world where it's like the Enlightenment never happened.

 

[MaddLlama]

If evolution is incorrect, then the only logical explanation is that the earth was created by a flying spaghetti monster.

Really, there's no point in trying to argue matters of science with someone who doesn't actually know very much about science. You'd be doing something more productive if you were bashing your head into a wall than trying to "prove" any scientific idea to someone who has already made up their mind and isn't interested in learning.

On topic, Creationism can't be taught in science classes as an "alternative theory" because there is nothing scientific about it. First, it starts with the assumption of a "higher power", which is an idea that is completely outside the realm of science. Secondly, it can't be taught as a scientific theory because it doesn't follow any of the processes of the scientific method, probably because the idea would crumble to pieces if it had to. Third, Creationism doesn't belong in the science class because it is a religious idea. It can be disguised with a different name, generic words, pseudo-science and men in suits, but it is impossible to get around the fact that Creationism is dependent on the assumption of a God-like creature. And, whenever God enters the equation, it ceases to be science. Teach Creationism in your Biblical literature electives, but please do us all a favor and let our children learn real science and not the propaganda crap science of "Intelligent Design".

 

[MaddLlama]

It would get all of them out of Texas.

I mentioned Kansas because it's well known that Kansas is the final frontier for higher thinking skills. They've been on TV more than most for rebelling against the education of our youth in scientific thinking. Kansas is one of the few places in the Western world where it's like the Enlightenment never happened.

So...why would we put them there?

Better send them to Montana. I think the whole state has a population of....oh...6? There's plenty of room!

Speaking of Texas, I found an article I think you might like *off to post it*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So...why would we put them there?

Better send them to Montana. I think the whole state has a population of....oh...6? There's plenty of room!

Speaking of Texas, I found an article I think you might like *off to post it*

Why ruin a good thing? Kansas is already messed up.

 

[McBell]

I think strawman defines evolution rather well.

No surprise there.
Especially with as heavily as you are relying on strawmen.

I think I know it well enough. You've stopped countering, and started accusing; that is the first sign of defeat on your part, my friend.

I have not made an accusation.
I have stated a fact.





but already I digress...

 

[camanintx]

I answered the post, but I must have missed the question. There is population. The current population can be counted back to about 4500 years ago. If there was 50,000 years of modern humans, there would be far more the 6 billion people. And as it is, we there is only 6,000 years of recorded human civilization-it just happens to correspond with the date of Creation (the start of the Hebrew calendar).

I would be interested in seeing the formula you use to calculate this. I would also like to hear how you explain human artifacts such as the Venus of Willendorf which dates back over 20,000 years.

There is the half-life of 1400 years. At the end of every 1400 years the Earth's atmosphere has weakened by 1/2. And if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old than the Earth would have imploded under its own weight. As it is, 6,000 years ago the atmosphere's strength would have been more than quadruple what it is now.

You haven't explained what you mean by this statement? Half life of what? How does Earth's atmosphere "weaken" and if it was quadruple it's current strength, how did humans survive? And last, but not least, why would the Earth implode under it's own weight?

 

[camanintx]

That is also a definition, but it doesn't apply to the Law of Gravity because we know how gravity works; it doesn't require an explanation.

We may know what gravity does, but we have no clue how gravity works.

When the sun was formed, and it was spinning, and when parts of it broke off because of the speed, and formed the planets, everything in the solar system should be spinning in the same direction, but that's not the case; three planets spin backwards, and at least 6 moons revolve backwards.

Have you studied any cosmology? First, the planets did not form by breaking off from the sun because of the speed. They condensed on their own out of the same cloud of gas. As for planets and moons rotating backwards, if you watch any sufficiently large body of rotating gas (the clouds of Jupiter are a good example) you will see several smaller eddies spinning opposite of the main rotation.