Questions for creationists who ‘understand evolution’?

[FDRC2014]

What does the word 'Theory' mean, in a scientific context

Your answer reflects a common misconception of what constitutes a Scientific Theory.

A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis. Though a hypothesis can never be proven true (in fact, hypotheses generally leave some facts unexplained), it can sometimes be verified beyond reasonable doubt in the context of a particular theoretical approach.

A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions. New hypotheses inconsistent with well-established laws are generally rejected, barring major changes to the approach. An example is the law of conservation of energy, which was firmly established but had to be qualified with the revolutionary advent of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

A scientific theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2010

Well yes, you can always go and look up the answers.
Thanks for the good definitions though

 

[FDRC2014]

Not true.
First explained to me early in life...in grade school.
That the cause is not identifiable...doesn't matter...it's there.
For every cause there is an effect....for every effect there is a cause.

If every effect has a cause, then what causes the cause.

Just because someone told you this is the case, it doesn't mean it is correct.

If you are to blame any cause, just blame thermodynamic temperature, this is the cause of everything.

 

[camanintx]

scientists have tried to crossbreed chimps and humans and it doesnt work...this is the evidence that the apes and humans are not the same 'kind' (or family if you'd rather call it that)

Really? The only published experiments with crossbreeding chimps and humans are the Ilya Ivanov experiments from the 1920's. Since the first recorded artificial insemination in humans wasn't until the 1950's, I would hardly call this proof that chimps and humans cannot crossbreed.

 

[Thief]

If every effect has a cause, then what causes the cause.

Just because someone told you this is the case, it doesn't mean it is correct.

If you are to blame any cause, just blame thermodynamic temperature, this is the cause of everything.

And the laws of motion are a lie?

The singularity would remain at rest until 'something'....moves it?

And evolution was set in motion by 'what'?

And thermodynamics was brought into existence...how?

 

[camanintx]

And the laws of motion are a lie?

The singularity would remain at rest until 'something'....moves it?

And evolution was set in motion by 'what'?

And thermodynamics was brought into existence...how?

Cause and effect only applies to physical objects. Everything you list above are concepts which have no physical existence.

 

[Thief]

Cause and effect only applies to physical objects. Everything you list above are concepts which have no physical existence.

'And the earth was without form...and void....'

At some 'point'....all that you think you can prove....fails.

Then you're stuck...still thinking.

The singularity is one such point.
Only recently did I see a scientist fess up to the problem of the 'concept'.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Cause and effect only applies to physical objects. Everything you list above are concepts which have no physical existence.

Indeed, without time/space and matter/energy it cannot be shown that cause is necessary.
Nor can it be shown that cause is necessary at the subatomic or quantum levels.

 

[FDRC2014]

And the laws of motion are a lie?

The singularity would remain at rest until 'something'....moves it?

And evolution was set in motion by 'what'?

And thermodynamics was brought into existence...how?

Most things do have a cause, as such, i.e. something that you can see and perceive. For example me pushing a key on the keyboard has the effect of the letter appearing on the screen. The same is said in chaos theory, with a butterfly causing a tornado. Here it becomes quite complex and philosophical.
Energy changes state, and the universe becomes on whole more chaotic.
Therefore a singularity could just go from an ordered point, to a chaotic mess.
One hypothesis for the start of the universe is 'something' causing the amount of matter to become grater than the amount of antimatter, causing the creation of the universe. The thing that 'caused' this is philosophical, and debatable. This is the only thing i could even relate to a god, but really, once that happens the universe can form everything we see without the need for a god.
With regard to what evolution (the process) was set out by. You do not need a direct cause.
Evolution, as with every process on earth is driven by the sun, the sun provided the energy for life, and the energy for the organisation of the chaos into life.
We are just a momentary state of matter, powered by the sun.
If you want to call this a 'cause' you can, but in my opinion its just a natural flow of energy and organisation of matter.
As I stated above, the 'cause' of the universe is not really known, but the idea of God isn't falsifiable, therefore not a valid scientific hypothesis.

 

[Thief]

Most things do have a cause, as such, i.e. something that you can see and perceive. For example me pushing a key on the keyboard has the effect of the letter appearing on the screen. The same is said in chaos theory, with a butterfly causing a tornado. Here it becomes quite complex and philosophical.
Energy changes state, and the universe becomes on whole more chaotic.
Therefore a singularity could just go from an ordered point, to a chaotic mess.
One hypothesis for the start of the universe is 'something' causing the amount of matter to become grater than the amount of antimatter, causing the creation of the universe. The thing that 'caused' this is philosophical, and debatable. This is the only thing i could even relate to a god, but really, once that happens the universe can form everything we see without the need for a god.
With regard to what evolution (the process) was set out by. You do not need a direct cause.
Evolution, as with every process on earth is driven by the sun, the sun provided the energy for life, and the energy for the organisation of the chaos into life.
We are just a momentary state of matter, powered by the sun.
If you want to call this a 'cause' you can, but in my opinion its just a natural flow of energy and organisation of matter.
As I stated above, the 'cause' of the universe is not really known, but the idea of God isn't falsifiable, therefore not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Science will not have an equation or experiment for your believing.
Faith is an item that does not require proving.

 

[FDRC2014]

Science will not have an equation or experiment for your believing.
Faith is an item that does not require proving.

I'm confused
What can science not account for? There is a logical hypothesis at least. Did you read the above? What is 'your believing'?

And sorry, I have no faith.

 

[Thief]

I'm confused
What can science not account for? There is a logical hypothesis at least. Did you read the above? What is 'your believing'?

And sorry, I have no faith.

It seems for every question there is an answer.
Once the answer is achieved...two more questions arise.

Knowledge...partly because of computers and high tech....
doubles every few years.

I suspect, a spiritual existence might be a bit more.....'sighted'.
Here in this life, we try to 'prove' everything.
That way we can say we know.
And apparently, some people 'feel better' being able to 'say so'.

But do you really think Man will ever...know it all?

No need to apologize for lack of faith.
Not to me ...anyway.

 

[FDRC2014]

It seems for every question there is an answer.
Once the answer is achieved...two more questions arise.

Yes, this is just because you understand more of what you are looking at. Not because of anything supernatural. For example you could just look at a box, but when you open it more questions arise; if that makes sense. This is just science, understanding more and more.

Knowledge...partly because of computers and high tech....
doubles every few years.

Hmm, i wouldn't say doubled, but as knowledge isn't quantifiable, it's hard to say. But again, this is down to science, not god.

I suspect, a spiritual existence might be a bit more.....'sighted'.

'spiritual existence'? I have no idea what you are talking about. How can a sprit be more sighted. I don't understand how this relates to science having a logical hypothesis for everything?

Here in this life, we try to 'prove' everything.

I think, that as I do not see any reason why i would be conscious again as myself after death, while alive I should discover as much about the world as possible. Science is based on proof, and that is what has brought around all the amazing things science has (i.e. technology). If you want to have any substance to an argument (hypothesis) you should have proof. This is why i have no respect for religion (as a teaching of what is true), as it has no substance/proof. It is (conveniently) not falsifiable.

I think Richard Dawkins put this idea of proof across very well in his Ted talk on 'militant atheism'. Here is the transcript of the section of interest.
He considers some different fictional articles in a scientific journal.

Now, there's a typical scientific journal, the Quarterly Review of Biology. And I'm going to put together, as guest editor, a special issue on the question, "Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?" And the first paper is a standard scientific paper presenting evidence, "Iridium Layer at the K-T Boundary, Potassium-Argon Dated Crater in Yucatan, Indicate That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs." Perfectly ordinary scientific paper. Now, the next one, "The President of The Royal Society Has Been Vouchsafed a Strong Inner Conviction that an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs. - It Has Been Privately Revealed to Professor Huxtane That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs. - Professor Hordley Was Brought Up to Have Total and Unquestioning Faith that an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs. - Professor Hawkins Has Promulgated an Official Dogma Binding on All Loyal Hawkinsians That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs." That's inconceivable of course.

I think this illustrates well how religion is paralleled with science.

That way we can say we know.

You don't know for an absolute fact, you just know based upon the current evidence. There is absolutely none for suggesting a supernatural god.

And apparently, some people 'feel better' being able to 'say so'.

I don't quite understand. But if you are saying knowing is a comfort. It is in a way, but its better than blindly believing something that you are told, just a tradition, which religion teaches (i.e. creationism). There is no reason to believe that each animal was created separately, accept if you are told by an authority (e.g. the church).

But do you really think Man will ever...know it all?

No, as knowledge is subjective. You cant know everything, as the universe is constantly every becoming more chaotic. You cant know, but you can take an educated guess (everything is an educated guess)

No need to apologize for lack of faith.
Not to me ...anyway.

That's ok. Evolution makes us susceptible to faith, and religion.

 

[Thief]

Yes, this is just because you understand more of what you are looking at. Not because of anything supernatural. For example you could just look at a box, but when you open it more questions arise; if that makes sense. This is just science, understanding more and more.


Hmm, i wouldn't say doubled, but as knowledge isn't quantifiable, it's hard to say. But again, this is down to science, not god.


'spiritual existence'? I have no idea what you are talking about. How can a sprit be more sighted. I don't understand how this relates to science having a logical hypothesis for everything?


I think, that as I do not see any reason why i would be conscious again as myself after death, while alive I should discover as much about the world as possible. Science is based on proof, and that is what has brought around all the amazing things science has (i.e. technology). If you want to have any substance to an argument (hypothesis) you should have proof. This is why i have no respect for religion (as a teaching of what is true), as it has no substance/proof. It is (conveniently) not falsifiable.

I think Richard Dawkins put this idea of proof across very well in his Ted talk on 'militant atheism'. Here is the transcript of the section of interest.
He considers some different fictional articles in a scientific journal.

Now, there's a typical scientific journal, the Quarterly Review of Biology. And I'm going to put together, as guest editor, a special issue on the question, "Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?" And the first paper is a standard scientific paper presenting evidence, "Iridium Layer at the K-T Boundary, Potassium-Argon Dated Crater in Yucatan, Indicate That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs." Perfectly ordinary scientific paper. Now, the next one, "The President of The Royal Society Has Been Vouchsafed a Strong Inner Conviction that an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs. - It Has Been Privately Revealed to Professor Huxtane That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs. - Professor Hordley Was Brought Up to Have Total and Unquestioning Faith that an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs. - Professor Hawkins Has Promulgated an Official Dogma Binding on All Loyal Hawkinsians That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs." That's inconceivable of course.

I think this illustrates well how religion is paralleled with science.


You don't know for an absolute fact, you just know based upon the current evidence. There is absolutely none for suggesting a supernatural god.


I don't quite understand. But if you are saying knowing is a comfort. It is in a way, but its better than blindly believing something that you are told, just a tradition, which religion teaches (i.e. creationism). There is no reason to believe that each animal was created separately, accept if you are told by an authority (e.g. the church).


No, as knowledge is subjective. You cant know everything, as the universe is constantly every becoming more chaotic. You cant know, but you can take an educated guess (everything is an educated guess)


That's ok. Evolution makes us susceptible to faith, and religion.

You'll find this kind of discussion easier if you just simply reply.
Science is no more than a means of discovering how things work.

We learn of God as the experiments unfold.

God is the Source and cannot be unseated.

 

[FDRC2014]

You'll find this kind of discussion easier if you just simply reply.
Science is no more than a means of discovering how things work.

We learn of God as the experiments unfold.

God is the Source and cannot be unseated.

I don't do a simple reply because it is necessary in an argument/debate, to provide adequate information.
Let me ask, are you a creationist? If not, are you religious? If your religious with a religion that believes in creationism, why aren't you a creationist.

So here you are just ignoring science, which has proved how life works, and continues to do so.

I have no need for religion in my life, nor God. I can explain the whole world with logical hypothesises and theories.

God is not a source, and as he is non-existent, cannot be unseated, or seated.

Prove to me god exists.
And what about the flying spaghetti monster, or sun-orbiting Russell's' teapot? They have as much authority as a religious god (that is none).

 

[Thief]

I don't do a simple reply because it is necessary in an argument/debate, to provide adequate information.
Let me ask, are you a creationist? If not, are you religious? If your religious with a religion that believes in creationism, why aren't you a creationist.

Rogue theologian...check my banner.

So here you are just ignoring science, which has proved how life works, and continues to do so.

I don't ignore science...I love it.
I watch every science documentary I can.

I have no need for religion in my life, nor God. I can explain the whole world with logical hypothesises and theories.

And these by their nature.....are not proving.

God is not a source, and as he is non-existent, cannot be unseated, or seated.

God as Creator is source of all.
Your decision of denial is yours.....not mine.

Prove to me god exists.

You're new here aren't you?

And what about the flying spaghetti monster, or sun-orbiting Russell's' teapot? They have as much authority as a religious god (that is none).

Have a look around.
Much of your post is covered...all through this forum.

 

[FDRC2014]

Have a look around.
Much of your post is covered...all through this forum.

WHY DO YOU DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER?

Did you know, he ties invisible pieces of spaghetti to you, which stop you flying away into space. He also has a giant piece of tagliatelle that anchors the moon to the earth and stop it flying away!

Also, what did Zeus do wrong, or the tooth fairy?

 

[Thief]

WHY DO YOU DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER?

Did you know, he ties invisible pieces of spaghetti to you, which stop you flying away into space. He also has a giant piece of tagliatelle that anchors the moon to the earth and stop it flying away!

Also, what did Zeus do wrong, or the tooth fairy?

You can call God anything you want to.....and suffer later for having done so.

I call Him.... Almighty.

There's a thread around here somewhere.... about the name of God.

 

[FDRC2014]

You can call God anything you want to.....and suffer later for having done so.

I call Him.... Almighty.

There's a thread around here somewhere.... about the name of God.

The spaghetti monster did not create anything! He just actively holds you to the earth.
Also, who created god, you say everything must have a cause (supposedly), so what caused god?
Who created god? If you say he is eternal, then the need for god is non existent, as anything can be said to be 'eternal', in the sense of energy.

 

[Man of Faith]

I understand and interpret evolution to mean God created everything in six ordinary days 6,000 years ago.

 

[FDRC2014]

I understand and interpret evolution to mean God created everything in six ordinary days 6,000 years ago.

NO
I suppose you can interpret anything as anything - but evolution is not this, by any stretch.

If you are being sarcastic, sorry, i missed it.