Question for creationists: Does science work?

[Man of Faith]

Fact: Populations of organisms change over time (i.e., they evolve).

Theory: Lobe-finned fish which existed 380 to 390 million years ago evolved into the tetrapods which existed 363 million years ago.

Experiment: Locate the fossilized remains of a transitional form between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods which existed between 360 and 380 million years ago.

Proof: Tiktaalik roseae

You pretty much ignored my question which was below. There is no evidence that any form is transitional from one to the other without first making a deduction that evolution is true, based on naturalistic philosophy.

Originally Posted by Man of Faith
The scientific method is about doing experiments and we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

 

[Man of Faith]

We already know the mechanisms. And they are observable.

Evolution 101: Mechanisms of Evolution

What that link shows is variation of creatures, heredity of creatures, and differential production of creatures, all things that creationists accept. What we haven't seen and is not emperical is one creature becoming a different form of creature.

 

[Man of Faith]

Looking for clues on the sea shore is an experiment, in the scientific sense.

What you're trying to persuade us is that none of the thousands of scientists actually doing the science--Biologists--know what science is or how to do it, none of the universities teach the proper scientific method, but you, MoF, who have not done any science, know what it is and how to do it.

When scientists try to figure out what happened in the past, that is forensic science, think of CSI on TV, not emperical experimental science.

 

[Man of Faith]

What on earth are you talking about with this model business?

A scientific theory is the strongest scientific language given to something that can be duplicated and seen, such as the effects of gravity, the workings of electricity, which are both scientific theories. The ToE is not a scientific theory, it is a model of what scientists think happened in the past.

 

[camanintx]

You pretty much ignored my question which was below. There is no evidence that any form is transitional from one to the other without first making a deduction that evolution is true, based on naturalistic philosophy.

That's exactly how the scientific method works. First you make an observation that populations of organisms change over time. Then you make a deduction that lobe-finned fish could have evolved into tetrapods. If this deduction is correct, then there should be an intermediate form, which there is. If hypothesis were wrong, then we should find tetrapods existing 380 million years ago.

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

The scientific method is about doing experiments and we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

If you're expecting an experiment to reproduce the evolution of great apes into humans, the time frame required and the number of variables are just too great. That doesn't mean we can't reproduce the mechanisms which would allow it to happen. Scientists have been doing this for over 100 years.

 

[Revoltingest]

A scientific theory is the strongest scientific language given to something that can be duplicated and seen, such as the effects of gravity, the workings of electricity, which are both scientific theories. The ToE is not a scientific theory, it is a model of what scientists think happened in the past.

"Model" is just another word for theory.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The TOE sure seems to fit these criteria for 'scientific theory'.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The TOE's strength rests upon making predictions which could be possibly shown false.
That explains why this Pauli criticism of an associate's work is so funny...
" That's not only not right, it's not even wrong!"

But if that doesn't convince you, here's a movie of actual evolution in process....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY

 

[meogi]

What we haven't seen and is not emperical is one creature becoming a different form of creature.

Your issue is the time-scale. You refuse to extrapolate farther back than a few (hundred?) thousand years, when much, much larger time-scales warrant evaluation. Unless you think the theory of radioactive decay hasn't been observed and justified...

I'm curious what "one creature becoming a different form of creature" would look like, to you.

 

[outhouse]

they have minds like a umbrella, there closed and dont work.

we have showed almost every creationist here facts regarding evolution and they refuse to let there imagination go.

Its science reason and logic OR imagination and myths

 

[Tristesse]

A scientific theory is the strongest scientific language given to something that can be duplicated and seen, such as the effects of gravity, the workings of electricity, which are both scientific theories. The ToE is not a scientific theory, it is a model of what scientists think happened in the past.

The effects of gravity can be seen, but thats not what the theory explains. The theory is the explanation of how gravity works. In the case of evolution, the observation is the diversity of life. And evolution by natural selection is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life. "magic man done it" is not an explanation, but an assertion.

 

[Autodidact]

What that link shows is variation of creatures, heredity of creatures, and differential production of creatures, all things that creationists accept. What we haven't seen and is not emperical is one creature becoming a different form of creature.

Some creationists accept one thing, some another. There is no consensus among them.

How is "variation of creatures" different from "one creature becoming another."

If you mean that a single creature turns into something different, you realize that has nothing to do with ToE, right?

 

[Autodidact]

When scientists try to figure out what happened in the past, that is forensic science, think of CSI on TV, not emperical experimental science.

Is your position that we can't do science about the past? For example, say, we can't use DNA to solve a crime that happened last month?

 

[Autodidact]

A scientific theory is the strongest scientific language given to something that can be duplicated and seen, such as the effects of gravity, the workings of electricity, which are both scientific theories. The ToE is not a scientific theory, it is a model of what scientists think happened in the past.

Do you agree to this definition?

a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

If so, what about ToE causes you to say it does not meet this definition?
And why do you think all the Biologists in the world are so confused about this, while you got it right?

 

[painted wolf]

According to MoF a lot of science isn't science....

Geology
Anthropology
Archeology
Geography
Astronomy
Astrophysics

Just to start with...

wa:do

 

[Gloone]

This would be a good example of what I mean by basic ignorance. Science is theory. Theory is the goal of science. You know, like atomic theory, germ theory, heliocentric theory...and evolutionary theory.

It sounds like you think you know better than thousands of scientists how they should do their job?

If you think Science is just a theory then you probably think pigs can fly and roosters can bark too. “Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world.” Just because a theory is generally accepted doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged or questioned. To say theories like ToE shouldn’t be questioned or challenged is like telling everyone they should eat fast-food from McDonalds because there are no other restaurants like McDonalds. When there are actually plenty.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

To say theories like ToE shouldn’t be questioned or challenged is like telling everyone they should eat fast-food from McDonalds because there are no other restaurants like McDonalds. When there are actually plenty.

Plenty you say...

Name one.

 

[tumbleweed41]

To say theories like ToE shouldn’t be questioned or challenged is like telling everyone they should eat fast-food from McDonalds because there are no other restaurants like McDonalds. When there are actually plenty.

Theories, like the Theory of Evolution, which provides details and observations on the processes of the accepted fact of Biological Evolution, are constantly questioned, challenged, and verified.

Science, unlike many religious beliefs, rejects dogmatic adherence and encourages challenge.

 

[painted wolf]

If you think Science is just a theory then you probably think pigs can fly and roosters can bark too. “Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world.” Just because a theory is generally accepted doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged or questioned. To say theories like ToE shouldn’t be questioned or challenged is like telling everyone they should eat fast-food from McDonalds because there are no other restaurants like McDonalds. When there are actually plenty.

No one says the theory of evolution can't be examined, debated and questioned. People do that every day, biologists do that every day.
However, this doesn't change the fact that there is no scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

it's not so much saying that there are no other resturaunts but McDonalds, it's more like saying that the local Piggly Wiggly is just as much a restaurant as McDonalds is.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

If you think Science is just a theory

In science, there is no such thing as "just a theory." A scientific theory is a complete explanation for a complex set of phenomena that explains all the facts and can be used to generate correct predictions about the world. In other words, a scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge.

then you probably think pigs can fly and roosters can bark too. “Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world.” Just because a theory is generally accepted doesn’t mean it can’t be challenged or questioned.

All theories can be challenged and questioned all the time. That doesn't make them wrong. [qutoe] To say theories like ToE shouldn’t be questioned or challenged is like telling everyone they should eat fast-food from McDonalds because there are no other restaurants like McDonalds. When there are actually plenty.[/quote] They should be rigorously challenged and questioned. Once they survive all those challenges, they become the foundation for future research and knowledge. For example, we know that germs cause disease (= Germ Theory) so when we find a new communicable disease, we can research what germ caused it. ToE was rigorously challenged and questioned for around 50 years. It survived every challenge, and was determined to be sound. At that point, it became the foundation of all subsequent research and knowledge in Biology. That's where we are now.

 

[DustinHayden]

In science, there is no such thing as "just a theory." A scientific theory is a complete explanation for a complex set of phenomena that explains all the facts and can be used to generate correct predictions about the world. In other words, a scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge.

:clap

 

[Dirty Penguin]

we can't do an experiment to reproduce common ancestry can we?

Then you truly don't understand the Scientific Method. If DNA evidence that shows primates and humans are greatly related are to be thrown out the window then we need to call into question that same science when used to determine paternity or when it is used in a forensic capacity for court cases.