This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure why you linked those articles. I do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. I see the biodiversity represented in the over 8 million species in the world as a testament to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds that God built into the genomes of the originals. The finches have displayed changes and adaptations, as well as the blackcaps, but they are still birds and the salamanders though evolved into several subspecies with new color patterns and adaptations for living in different environments...are still salamanders.

If this type of observable variation is all evolutionists mean when they speak of "evolution" than there would be no controversy, but evolutionists extrapolate from the adaptations and variation of microevolution to macroevolution.

Of course they are. There is no "Change in kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. You share a common ancestor with other apes and you are still an ape.

EDIT: And the examples that I gave were all examples of macroevolution. Sadly most creationists do not understand that term either.

 

[osgart]

Don't go by what you see in movies.

I didnt see any movies for that comment. I made it up. DNA is programming with a 4 chemical language, is it not? Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. Sequenced , cut, copied, and replicated for RNA to build proteins. proteins carry out functions.

 

[oldbadger]

More dishonesty. Personal questions are not answered without a good reason.

Subduction Zone, no question could ever have been more simple, more easy to understand. Any infant (junior in the US) could understand it.

Your thread title and some of your posts seem to show a mindset that considers 'Genesis Believers' or 'Creationists' need 'simple', 'basic' communications.

I just hope that they have seen our shared posts.

Now you have a nice day. I'll see you on some other thread, sometime. Maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didnt see any movies for that comment. I made it up. DNA is programming with a 4 chemical language, is it not? Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. Sequenced , cut, copied, and replicated for RNA to build proteins. proteins carry out functions.

Nope, it is more of a recipe than programming, though analogies always fail when pushed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone, no question could ever have been more simple, more easy to understand. Any infant (junior in the US) could understand it.

Your thread title and some of your posts seem to show a mindset that considers 'Genesis Believers' or 'Creationists' need 'simple', 'basic' communications.

I just hope that they have seen our shared posts.

Now you have a nice day. I'll see you on some other thread, sometime. Maybe.

It is a personal question. If I asked you where you live without giving you a good reason I seriously doubt if you would give me your address. It has nothing to do with the thread, it is not a valid question.

And creationist do need simple and basic instruction. I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept of scientific evidence, a very simple concept. Nor do they appear to understand how science is done. Have you not observed the poor understanding of every creationist that has appeared so far? Or perhaps you suffer from that inability as well. That would explain your bad behavior here.

 

[ChristineM]

I've read every post in this thread so far and the only question I have at t his point is this: Is it necessary to mention creationist and creation in order to teach the basics of science while working up to evolution? It's just a distraction, isn't it?

Did i mention creationists?

So can i pose the same observation because i was replying to your post : Is it necessary to mention atheists and present misrepresentation in order to teach the basics of science while working up to evolution? It's just a distraction, isn't it?

Atheistic evolution??? As usual, you didnt answer the question but bottled out again by trying to twist and wriggle

 

[Earthling]

Any sort of research is a good starting point. I don't want to get ahead of myself yet.

Got it.

Right, but what your explanation lacks is that to be a scientific hypothesis it must be testable. As you have probably realized from life if you have an unknown and you observe it enough, whether it is how your neighbors dog gets into your yard or whether someone is trustworthy or not you begin to get a sense of what may be the answer. To be a scientific hypothesis your hopefully reasonable conclusion will be testable. One cannot simply assume that one's idea is true.

Well, yes, of course, and I know that, but what has always stumped me is - and this may be getting ahead, but what do you do if you can't test something?

Ideally you find a test that it would fail if it was wrong. Even if it passes that test it does not guarantee that an idea is right, but scientists try to disprove concepts more than they try to prove them.

It would never occur to me that passing the test wouldn't necessarily guarantee that an idea is right. Interesting, could you give an example of how that might work? Hypothetical or otherwise.

Actually all data should be recorded. Both successes and failures. Cherry picking the data is not proper in the sciences and if one ignores one's failures there will surely be another scientist that comes along and finds them for that person.

That much I know. It's obvious.

Correct. One learns from one's mistakes. Try to keep in mind the concept of "Not even wrong". That is far worse than being wrong. If one is wrong there is a chance to correct one's errors and still make an important discovery. If one is "Not even wrong" meaning one has an untestable idea, then one cannot advance.

That answers my question above.

Not too bad of an approach so far.

Well, I'm only in the first page of the thread, I've still got 8 more to go. All I've done so far is explain in my own words the chart in the OP.

 

[Earthling]

Did i mention creationists?

Uh, I'm not sure. It doesn't matter who mentioned them. I'm just taking the position that the creation / evolution debate is not my own personal goal in this thread and I'm not going to participate in it. Carry on if you wish.

So can i pose the same observation because i was replying to your post : Is it necessary to mention atheists and present misrepresentation in order to teach the basics of science while working up to evolution? It's just a distraction, isn't it?

Atheistic evolution??? As usual, you didnt answer the question but bottled out again by trying to twist and wriggle

Maybe you have mistaken me for having posted something I didn't? I didn't say anything about atheist or atheistic evolution, that was someone else.

 

[ChristineM]

Uh, I'm not sure. It doesn't matter who mentioned them. I'm just taking the position that the creation / evolution debate is not my own personal goal in this thread and I'm not going to participate in it. Carry on if you wish.



Maybe you have mistaken me for having posted something I didn't? I didn't say anything about atheist or atheistic evolution, that was someone else.

So why ask me? Seems you are the one worried about it

You didnt? Then i apologise. See how easy it is to be honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got it.



Well, yes, of course, and I know that, but what has always stumped me is - and this may be getting ahead, but what do you do if you can't test something?



It would never occur to me that passing the test wouldn't necessarily guarantee that an idea is right. Interesting, could you give an example of how that might work? Hypothetical or otherwise.



That much I know. It's obvious.



That answers my question above.



Well, I'm only in the first page of the thread, I've still got 8 more to go. All I've done so far is explain in my own words the chart in the OP.

It appears that you have no big problems with the scientific method. It is a tool that allows us to solve the solvable. And perhaps you can see how evolution neither proves nor disproves God. The Adam and Eve story could be a complete myth and that would have no effect on the validity of the Jesus story.

Do you have any questions before we move on?

 

[Earthling]

So why ask me? Seems you are the one worried about it

You didnt? Then i apologise. See how easy it is to be honest?

Yeah, you pulled it off without a hitch.

 

[Earthling]

It appears that you have no big problems with the scientific method. It is a tool that allows us to solve the solvable. And perhaps you can see how evolution neither proves nor disproves God. The Adam and Eve story could be a complete myth and that would have no effect on the validity of the Jesus story.

Do you have any questions before we move on?

Just one. Why are you mentioning God?

 

[Earthling]

You forgot testing that hypothesis, adjusting it as necessary and publishing one's results. A scientist must remember that he may be biased and he needs others to check his work. But otherwise not bad. It is a good beginning.

But since you identified that a hypothesis is needed let's go on to discuss evidence. Hypotheses are evidence based. One needs to have evidence to support a hypothesis. In the sciences scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If you want to read more this is a good article on the concept:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Now a simple question:

Is "Lucy" evidence for human evolution?

Yes

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah, you pulled it off without a hitch.

More than you could ever do. I wonder why you find it so difficult admitting when you are wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just one. Why are you mentioning God?

Because you have yet to acknowledge your earlier error.

 

[Earthling]

Because you have yet to acknowledge your earlier error.

What error was that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

More than you could ever do. I wonder why you find it so difficult admitting when you are wrong

Perhaps you may have inspired him. Let's hope for the best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What error was that?

Really? You ask about a claim that was used to correct an earlier error of yours and you forgot so soon? You disagreed when I said that if evolution was proven wrong it would not prove God.

Side note to @ChristineM , I may have been overly optimistic.

 

[Earthling]

Really? You ask about a claim that was used to correct an earlier error of yours and you forgot so soon? You disagreed when I said that if evolution was proven wrong it would not prove God.

Side note to @ChristineM , I may have been overly optimistic.

I was thinking about your having told me that this process, this teaching of science and evolution, didn't need to involve God. You keep bringing up God. You and I and anyone reading can see this and knows why.

This much I will say. Evolution, I would think, neither proves nor disproves God. I never thought that it did. However, what I disagree with is that the Adam and Eve story could be a complete myth and that would have no effect on the validity of the Jesus story.

If Adam was a myth then he didn't actually sin and there would therefor be no real reason for him to actually take our sins away, because we wouldn't have any. If Adam was a myth then we weren't meant to live forever and there would be, again, no need for Jesus. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

Are we going to be able to do this without your bringing up God, Adam and Jesus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was thinking about your having told me that this process, this teaching of science and evolution, didn't need to involve God. You keep bringing up God. You and I and anyone reading can see this and knows why.

This much I will say. Evolution, I would think, neither proves nor disproves God. I never thought that it did. However, what I disagree with is that the Adam and Eve story could be a complete myth and that would have no effect on the validity of the Jesus story.

If Adam was a myth then he didn't actually sin and there would therefor be no real reason for him to actually take our sins away, because we wouldn't have any. If Adam was a myth then we weren't meant to live forever and there would be, again, no need for Jesus. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

Are we going to be able to do this without your bringing up God, Adam and Jesus?

You do not see the immorality of the Adam and Eve myth if read literally? It is even denied in the New Testament where it is claimed that the son does not inherit the sins of the father. You end with a false dichotomy. Think about it, it is not a case of "either Adam sinned or there was no way for sin to enter". I can't help you though since you ended up by claiming that you can't be reasoned with.