• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If evolution were true

Biblestudent_007

Biblestudent_007

Active Member
The creationist group has a different approach to evaluating the evidence.

So does the evolutionist group.

Otherwise, if what you say is true then all the scientists would reach the same conclusion.

Which they don't.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But creationists don't evaluate evidence the way scientists do. Scientists examine facts and draw conclusions. Creationists begin with a conclusion and cherry-pick facts that seem to support it. Scientists test their theories by actively trying to experimentally disprove them. Creationists ignore contradictory evidence and seek to suppress it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biblestudent_007

Biblestudent_007

Active Member
Seyorni said:
But creationists don't evaluate evidence the way scientists do. Scientists examine facts and draw conclusions. Creationists begin with a conclusion and cherry-pick facts that seem to support it. Scientists test their theories by actively trying to experimentally disprove them. Creationists ignore contradictory evidence and seek to suppress it.
Click to expand...

Probably because they begin with the priori belief that God created all things.
 
Otherright

Otherright

Otherright
painted wolf said:
Because they are non-adaptive for us.... webbed feet would limit walking. We walk a lot you know.

Claws would limit manual dexterity... we use our hands a lot too.

There is no adaptive pressure to develop either of these traits. Animals only adapt in ways that make sense for their lifestyles. Why would a species that relies on it's ability to walk efficiently and use it's hands for complex tasks adapt away from that?

wa:do
Click to expand...

You and your scientific rationality. Shame on you for thwarting what could've been an incredible thread about animal affinity.
 
Yeshe Dawa

Yeshe Dawa

Lotus Born
Seyorni said:
Scientists test their theories by actively trying to experimentally disprove them.
Click to expand...

Hi Seyorni!
This is something that has me quite confused. I have a textbook on human biology that says:
Hypotheses that cannot be tested are idle speculation, so much hot air. But many hypotheses are so sweeping and comprehensive that ways must be found to test them under a variety of conditions...To have confidence in your hypothesis, you must make testable predictions... - Johnson, M. (2010) Human Biology: Concepts and Current Issues. San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc.
Is evolution a theory that can be tested? If not, is it still a theory or more of a philosophy? The reason I ask is that aren't philosophical statements proven by logic? It seems to me that people use logic to support the idea of evolution, but not experiments, as the scientific method requires (am I right?)

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Evolution is tested everyday. There are hundreds of papers published on the results of those experiments and studies every year.

Plus, in Biology theory is as high as it gets. Unlike the common definition of the word, in science theory mean a very well supported fact. Like the theory of Gravity or the Germ theory of disease.

wa:do

ps... here is a wiki on one of the evolution experiments, it's a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top