The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Skwim]

They also make the Ducati I drive as well as Ferrari's

Which having nothing to do with this topic.


The important thing to take away is in 2011, 68 countries and their science academies have now deemed evolution as FACT

Yeah, big deal

fact (f

kt)n
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real
​

As if facts are important. :beach:

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, big deal

fact (f

kt)n
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real
​

As if facts are important. :beach:

What can they bring to the table besides faith, wish and want? mythology?


What they cannot bring is facts to the table. The will just dance higher and act more silly. Doesnt mean I wont raise the bar on the nonsense

 

[idea]

What can they bring to the table besides faith, wish and want? mythology?


What they cannot bring is facts to the table. The will just dance higher and act more silly. Doesnt mean I wont raise the bar on the nonsense

Those who believe facts exist - ie dualists - are at the lowest level of intellectual development. - William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Those who believe facts exist - ie dualists - are at the lowest level of intellectual development. - William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is nonsesne the way you worded it.

And has nothing to do with the Facts I have posted, its quite embarrassing to see people twist information to meet their needs.

 

[McBell]

That is nonsesne the way you worded it.

And has nothing to do with the Facts I have posted, its quite embarrassing to see people twist information to meet their needs.

Please see post 362.

Seems they do have something besides faith, wish and want, and mythology...

 

[McBell]

Those who believe facts exist - ie dualists - are at the lowest level of intellectual development. - William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is that supposed to be a quote?
If so, it is so badly mangled that a google search does nothing to reveal who said it, in what context, etc.


Care to try again, though this time for accuracy?

 

[Windwalker]

Those who believe facts exist - ie dualists - are at the lowest level of intellectual development. - William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I hardly think calling it intellectual development is accurate. It's more about reasoning processes, not how much knowledge you have. And furthermore, the black and white rigidity of 'it's either true or it's false' mentality is hardly the lowest rung on the ladder. Mythological thinking actually is the rung before that one on that developmental ladder. And magical thinking before that one.

What you are referring to as dualistic thinking, is really more binary thought. Even relativistic postmodern perceptual realities are themselves dualistic, inasmuch as they conceive in subject/object distinctions. But as far as binary thought goes, modernity inherits that from mythic thought, i.e., "God's Word is absolute and tells us right from wrong", to "Science tells us facts, correcting right from wrong". Postmodernity corrects modernity's preconceptions with a relativistic understanding, but then themselves inherit that black and white thinking and says that that way of thinking is true, and all else before it false. It's still there, just a little fuzzier and harder to see.

So, what's your point here? To say that because we can recognize relative truth that the findings of science are wrong? I think that's a gross misapplication of relativism. What is an appropriate use of it is to say that those who think how they interpret the findings of science is reflective of the truth of it are guilty of being blinded by their own worldviews. Same thing with black and white religious thinkers who presume God is only valid in their particular brand of religion, that theirs is the only 'way' to salvation, either in this life or in the next.

BTW, thank you for bringing this up. It illustrates some important points being overlooked.

 

[Man of Faith]

And yet you seem to be ignoring all of the evidence that I have posted. I would like to see you refute it.

Evidence has to be interpreted within a philosophical framework of prior understanding, which is why all the evidence for evolution came after the theory. From observable change, came the imaginary and philosophic framework that is used to interpret all future biological data. That is why any and all biological scientific data is looked at like this “how do we understand this data in the concept of Darwinian evolution?” “We know it happened, we just have to figure out how.” Any and all observable data can be interpreted multiple ways and can fit multiple models of change. If it isn’t understood, then the interpreter just says that it will take time to understand this within the framework of ___________. There is no data that fits Darwinism only.

 

[idav]

Evidence has to be interpreted within a philosophical framework of prior understanding, which is why all the evidence for evolution came after the theory. From observable change, came the imaginary and philosophic framework that is used to interpret all future biological data. That is why any and all biological scientific data is looked at like this “how do we understand this data in the concept of Darwinian evolution?” “We know it happened, we just have to figure out how.” Any and all observable data can be interpreted multiple ways and can fit multiple models of change. If it isn’t understood, then the interpreter just says that it will take time to understand this within the framework of ___________. There is no data that fits Darwinism only.

As we strive on in technology and knowledge, the possible replacement theories for evolution have become so limited that we are forced to concede that evolution is fact. Creationists have yet to provide a solid alternative. The orchard model comes close but it ignores the huge body of evidence pointing to an old earth and common ancestry across all species including plants.

 

[Windwalker]

Evidence has to be interpreted within a philosophical framework of prior understanding, which is why all the evidence for evolution came after the theory.

Except that the theory of evolution was based on observation, and the theory was what arose as an explanation for the observations. Sort of the same thing as how we discovered the elliptical orbits of planets. We kept trying to fit them into perfect circles because of the belief that God orders things this way. But the data did not fit that model, and a new model had to be devised to fit the data. Elipses, not circles. Same thing with evolution. The previous bias was what creationists espouse like the perfect circles theory because God-did-it. The data doesn't fit, and we had to break away from it in order to find theory that did fit. In this case Evolution.

From observable change, came the imaginary and philosophic framework that is used to interpret all future biological data.

It's not a philosophical framework. It's a scientific model. But I do agree that ensuing philosophy after the fact will need to be loosened in order to fit the new data that keeps coming at us. Just as the God-did-it model had to give way to evolution. Eventually, a better model will arise, not one that negates the fact of evolution, but one that better understands it, just as evolution better understands God in creation than the magic model of Genesis chapter 1 myth did in its day. It's a new day. A new way of interpreting the world.

All you're espousing is backward movement. Not forward movement. What is your scientific theory to fit the data? Let's hear it discussed in scientific terms, and not religious faith statements. If you can't do that, then what are you hoping to discuss?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And yet you seem to be ignoring all of the evidence that I have posted. I would like to see you refute it.

Whatcha got for me?

 

[outhouse]

Whatcha got for me?

Facts you have no control over, that are taught as higher learning in every credible university world wide.

The question is, what do you have outside mythology?

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Parsimony]

Whatcha got for me?

My arguments start on page 24. Go take a look.

 

[McBell]

Whatcha got for me?

Nothing.
You have already stated on more than one occasion that you care not about truth or facts, you will believe what you want regardless.

So what is the point?
I mean, other than to let you make a complete fool of yourself....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Creationism (or some types of it) posit that the Universe is only in the neighborhood of 6,000 years old. If that is the case, then how did light from galaxies billions of light-years away get to us in only 6,000 years? By the way, don't say "the speed of light was faster back then", because I've already got a good counter to that one cooked up.

I am open to both YEC and OEC. In other words, it really doesn't matter to me, as I am open to wherever the evidence points. There are good arguments to be made on both sides of the coin, and I am open.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Facts you have no control over, that are taught as higher learning in every credible university world wide.

The question is, what do you have outside mythology?

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything beyond this is to deny reality and resort to some fantasy Alice in Wonderland nonsense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nothing.
You have already stated on more than one occasion that you care not about truth or facts, you will believe what you want regardless.

I said dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. I assure you there is nothing non-factual about that.

So what is the point?
I mean, other than to let you make a complete fool of yourself....

:beach:

 

[outhouse]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything beyond this is to deny reality and resort to some fantasy Alice in Wonderland nonsense.

Facts you have no control over, that are taught as higher learning in every credible university world wide.

The question is, what do you have outside mythology?

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

. Anything beyond this is to deny reality and resort to some fantasy Alice in Wonderland nonsense.

Yes we know you refuse facts and education, and knowledge.


Do you think it is logical or reasonable to make statements like that about the institutions that teach higher learning to the whole world in every single educated country this world has?

What qualifications do you have to make such weak unsubstantiated opinions ?


Do you think willful ignorance should be taught instead of credible knowledge in colleges worldwide?

 

[Parsimony]

I am open to both YEC and OEC. In other words, it really doesn't matter to me, as I am open to wherever the evidence points. There are good arguments to be made on both sides of the coin, and I am open.

Glad to hear that at least. Now how about the fact that ERVs are more than 99.9% similar between humans and chimpanzees, the presence of human body hair with piloerectile muscles, the thousands of broken olfactory genes in dolphins, the dolphin with the hind flippers, the finger bones/fingernails in manatees, nylonase and AZT-resistance in HIV? Take your time. I can wait.

EDIT: Ah yes, one more thing. A study was done with an HIV-infected patient cataloging the amount that the virus changed over a period of 7 years. The viruses at the end of the 7-year period were almost 8% different in terms of their nucleotide content than those sampled at the beginning. By comparison, humans and chimpanzees are only 2% different. So there you have an observable example of large genetic change over time (indeed, since creationists consider humans and chimps to be different "kinds", then these viruses would have evolved sufficiently to be considered having changed "kinds").