Isn't this cute?

[Wildswanderer]

And they do

I seriously doubt it. Why would they? It's what they've been taught to believe since grade school.

 

[Polymath257]

You need to define creationalism a little better if you're going to make statements like that.

The belief that species are stable and that evolution is false. Along with the idea that the Earth is less than 20,000 years old or so you get Young Earth Creationism.

Often creationism comes along with a belief that geology is currently badly wrong in most ways and often denies the Big Bang cosmology (usually without really understanding it).

 

[Polymath257]

I seriously doubt it. Why would they? It's what they've been taught to believe since grade school.

Wrong. They have been encouraged to ask questions, probing the boundaries of what is known.

You seem to forget that science does, in fact, go through revolutions in its thinking. ideas that were once thought to be indisputable have exceptions found.

For example, there was such a revolution in physics about 100 years ago. Relativity and quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian physics as fundamental descriptions.

There have been revolutions in biology as well. Since Darwin, we have learned about genetics, we have learned about DNA, we have learned about biochemistry, we have had many question the details of Darwinian theory *and have modified it to fit the data*. The theory of Punctuated Equilibria was proposed and the evidence collected. it is now part of the range of explanations for how species change.

So, your idea that the basics are not questioned is simply false. They are questioned all the time. The theory we have is pushed with the *goal* of finding when it breaks. Why? because if it breaks, that is a wonderful opportunity to be at the cutting edge of a new understanding.

You don't seem to realize that what excites scientists the most is when they determine the current description is wrong: that it is broken. That is because such times are when they get to learn so much more than usual.

For example, one of the *hopes* in physics is that we will find evidence that the Standard model of particle physics is incomplete. hard evidence of something NOT explained by it would be applauded.

In the same way, a new understanding of biology that is based on new evidence showing the current ideas are wrong would be applauded and those that found the evidence would be up for Nobel Prizes.

Science doesn't work like religion. In religion, there are barriers protecting the basic ideas from being questioned. In science, the basic ideas are *expected* to be tested, questioned, and tested again. With each new technology, more tests are done with the goal of making some accepted idea break.

Faith is the antithesis of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Best guesses, given the state of the art.
Forensic reconstruction of present day skeletal remains has also improved significantly.

Correct but it doesn't mean the public was or perhaps still could be misled.

 

[YoursTrue]

The belief that species are stable and that evolution is false. Along with the idea that the Earth is less than 20,000 years old or so you get Young Earth Creationism.

Often creationism comes along with a belief that geology is currently badly wrong in most ways and often denies the Big Bang cosmology (usually without really understanding it).

While I no longer believe in evolution as the means for life on the earth, I also do not believe that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. But thanks for clarifying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong. They have been encouraged to ask questions, probing the boundaries of what is known.

You seem to forget that science does, in fact, go through revolutions in its thinking. ideas that were once thought to be indisputable have exceptions found.

For example, there was such a revolution in physics about 100 years ago. Relativity and quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian physics as fundamental descriptions.

There have been revolutions in biology as well. Since Darwin, we have learned about genetics, we have learned about DNA, we have learned about biochemistry, we have had many question the details of Darwinian theory *and have modified it to fit the data*. The theory of Punctuated Equilibria was proposed and the evidence collected. it is now part of the range of explanations for how species change.

So, your idea that the basics are not questioned is simply false. They are questioned all the time. The theory we have is pushed with the *goal* of finding when it breaks. Why? because if it breaks, that is a wonderful opportunity to be at the cutting edge of a new understanding.

You don't seem to realize that what excites scientists the most is when they determine the current description is wrong: that it is broken. That is because such times are when they get to learn so much more than usual.

For example, one of the *hopes* in physics is that we will find evidence that the Standard model of particle physics is incomplete. hard evidence of something NOT explained by it would be applauded.

In the same way, a new understanding of biology that is based on new evidence showing the current ideas are wrong would be applauded and those that found the evidence would be up for Nobel Prizes.

Science doesn't work like religion. In religion, there are barriers protecting the basic ideas from being questioned. In science, the basic ideas are *expected* to be tested, questioned, and tested again. With each new technology, more tests are done with the goal of making some accepted idea break.

Faith is the antithesis of science.

It depends on what faith.

 

[Polymath257]

While I no longer believe in evolution as the means for life on the earth, I also do not believe that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. But thanks for clarifying.

But why don't you think that evolution describes how species change?

What evidence do you bring to the table to bring it into question?

And do you agree that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? And that the universe at large is about 13.8 billion years old?

It is certainly possible to be an old Earth creationist.

There are even people who believe that a deity created the universe and that evolution is the mechanisms for producing the diversity of life.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Polymath257 you said, "Faith is the antithesis of science." But it's faith you have that evolution is the reason humans, lions, bees, worms are here.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The belief that species are stable and that evolution is false. Along with the idea that the Earth is less than 20,000 years old or so you get Young Earth Creationism.

Often creationism comes along with a belief that geology is currently badly wrong in most ways and often denies the Big Bang cosmology (usually without really understanding it).

Species are stable? No one claims species don't change. And YEC is only one of many kinds of creationism. And a creationist is under no obligation to deny the expansion of the universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Wrong. They have been encouraged to ask questions, probing the boundaries of what is known.

You seem to forget that science does, in fact, go through revolutions in its thinking. ideas that were once thought to be indisputable have exceptions found.

For example, there was such a revolution in physics about 100 years ago. Relativity and quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian physics as fundamental descriptions.

There have been revolutions in biology as well. Since Darwin, we have learned about genetics, we have learned about DNA, we have learned about biochemistry, we have had many question the details of Darwinian theory *and have modified it to fit the data*. The theory of Punctuated Equilibria was proposed and the evidence collected. it is now part of the range of explanations for how species change.

So, your idea that the basics are not questioned is simply false. They are questioned all the time. The theory we have is pushed with the *goal* of finding when it breaks. Why? because if it breaks, that is a wonderful opportunity to be at the cutting edge of a new understanding.

You don't seem to realize that what excites scientists the most is when they determine the current description is wrong: that it is broken. That is because such times are when they get to learn so much more than usual.

For example, one of the *hopes* in physics is that we will find evidence that the Standard model of particle physics is incomplete. hard evidence of something NOT explained by it would be applauded.

In the same way, a new understanding of biology that is based on new evidence showing the current ideas are wrong would be applauded and those that found the evidence would be up for Nobel Prizes.

Science doesn't work like religion. In religion, there are barriers protecting the basic ideas from being questioned. In science, the basic ideas are *expected* to be tested, questioned, and tested again. With each new technology, more tests are done with the goal of making some accepted idea break.

Faith is the antithesis of science.

This from the same guy who says you can not be a biologist unless you accept the ToE. I don't suppose you see the contradiction?

 

[YoursTrue]

But why don't you think that evolution describes how species change?

What evidence do you bring to the table to bring it into question?

And do you agree that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old? And that the universe at large is about 13.8 billion years old?

It is certainly possible to be an old Earth creationist.

There are even people who believe that a deity created the universe and that evolution is the mechanisms for producing the diversity of life.

I realize that. I see no real proof that evolution is the means of the diversity of life on the earth. ok, there's no proof in scientific theory, so it's almost like whatever...As far as the age of the earth and universe, I believe that it is very hard to determine when the universe started. I am learning there are innumerably more galaxies than we first thought. Or when the earth came about. It may well be billions of years. If not trillions.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257 you said, "Faith is the antithesis of science." But it's faith you have that evolution is the reason humans, lions, bees, worms are here.

Faith is the belief in something when there is no evidence of it.

 

[Polymath257]

I realize that. I see no real proof that evolution is the means of the diversity of life on the earth. ok, there's no proof in scientific theory, so it's almost like whatever...As far as the age of the earth and universe, I believe that it is very hard to determine when the universe started. I am learning there are innumerably more galaxies than we first thought. Or when the earth came about. It may well be billions of years. If not trillions.

We don't have absolute proof in science, but we do have demonstration beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact that species change over time is as close to a fact as you will get.

As for galaxies: if you go back 120 years, there was only one galaxy known: our own. if you go back 100 years, we finally figured out there were other galaxies. So I'm not sure what you are claiming.

The evidence at this point supports the Earth being about 4.52 billion years old and the universe (current expansion phase, if you want to be technical) being about 13.8 billion years old.

The Earth is very unlikely to be either much older or much younger than the 4.5 billion years figure.

If time can be extended before the beginning of the current expansion phase (the Big Bang), then it is most likely that the universe is infinitely old.

 

[Polymath257]

This from the same guy who says you can not be a biologist unless you accept the ToE. I don't suppose you see the contradiction?

Do you see a contradiction to the statement that you cannot be a modern astronomer if you think the Earth is the center of the universe?

The two are comparable.

New theories have to match the evidence better than the current theory. The *old* theories don't return because they have been shown to be wrong.

So, the details of our current description of how species change may well be wrong. There are a LOT of unanswered questions about this. But whether species change or not isn't going to change in a new theory.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, the details of our current description of how species change may well be wrong. There are a LOT of unanswered questions about this. But whether species change or not isn't going to change in a new theory.

Again, not one creationist claims species don't change.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wrong. They have been encouraged to ask questions,

One of the most memorable things that happened when I was an undergrad was when I asked our evolutionary biology professor a question about the existence of transitional fossils. I told him that I'd read some things from creationists that said they didn't exist and things from scientists saying they do and I was hoping to get his thoughts on the matter.

Instead he looked me square in the eye and said in a very serious tone, "You want to be a scientist? Then you need to learn to think like a scientist, and a major part of that is you don't just take people's word for things. If you really want to know whether or not transitional fossils exist, then go look! We have a museum collection right here on campus!"

I've never once had any professor do anything like creationists like @Wildswanderer suggest, where they merely tell us "this is true" and force us to accept it unquestioningly. In fact, it's almost always been the exact opposite.

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith is the belief in something when there is no evidence of it.

First of all, evolution is a theory. It's still a theory. the problem is, it's not like gravity. I can't literally "see" gravity like I can see a gorilla. But gravity is not a theory, it's a LAW that is demonstrated without variance. There is no real variation. The theory of gravity may be in question, in other words, the 'how's and why's.' But not so evolution. There is no law. No observation.

 

[YoursTrue]

One of the most memorable things that happened when I was an undergrad was when I asked our evolutionary biology professor a question about the existence of transitional fossils. I told him that I'd read some things from creationists that said they didn't exist and things from scientists saying they do and I was hoping to get his thoughts on the matter.

Instead he looked me square in the eye and said in a very serious tone, "You want to be a scientist? Then you need to learn to think like a scientist, and a major part of that is you don't just take people's word for things. If you really want to know whether or not transitional fossils exist, then go look! We have a museum collection right here on campus!"

I've never once had any professor do anything like creationists like @Wildswanderer suggest, where they merely tell us "this is true" and force us to accept it unquestioningly. In fact, it's almost always been the exact opposite.

To an extent, I would say that professor said a golden rule when he spoke about science. Although, again -- those "transitional fossils" and their analysis of position and evolutionary development do not prove, show, or demonstrate evolution. Except in the minds of the believers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. I don't disagree with observed biology.

Yes you do.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes you do.

Such as? Give an example of wildswanderer's disagreement with observed biology