DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Why? Or rather, why bother?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Turkey Will Stop Teaching Evolution in Secondary Schools
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Why? Or rather, why bother?
Not quite true. Special relativity was well established in particle physics by the 1920's. General relativity relied on three lines of evidence until much later: the bending of light past the sun (seen during an eclipse), the procession in the orbit of Mercury, and the red-shift of light as it moves up in a gravitational field (which can now be detected between floors of a building). The expansion of the universe (known by the mid-1920's) was another piece of evidence. Other tests have taken longer, but these were all known during Einstein's lifetime.
it should be remembered that Einstein did more than just relativity. His Nobel prize was for his explanation of the photo-electric effect, which later developed into quantum mechanics (although he rejected the way QM developed later--incorrectly). He also explained Brownian motion, which showed the actual existence of molecules. Further, special relativity is partly derived by a consideration of Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment.
BTW, none of the things in the last paragraph had any experimental side done by Einstein. The experiments were all done by other people.
Einstein was more of a pantheist in the style of Spinoza. He was very clear that he did not believe in a personal deity, but he did have a religious side to his personality.
Well, that is how *scientific* theories are verified. They have to predict a new phenomenon that was not predicted by the older theory and is later verified by observation.
Arthur Eddington was the first to test predictions of general relativity in 1919.
He used a solar eclipse to measure the bending of light, & hence space.
Oh I'm quite science-y challenged. Try not to be dishonest just sarcastic but ehh
In what world is creationism considered a valid scientific theory? Except in the minds of those who believe in the very specific interpretation of the Biblical account of creation as being literal? Not even all Christians meet those criteria.
Like do you even science, bro?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Because that's what would render it a scientifically viable hypothesis, as you have repeatedly asserted it is.
So, present one testable prediction of creation theory.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Present one testable prediction of macro-evolution theory. Better yet, make some predictions based on the theory.
Per Creation theory, cats will always be cats and dogs will always be dogs. What does your theory predict they will evolve into next?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Transitional fossils, genetic sequencing and countless observed instances. For example, we have predicted the existence of specific transitional forms and where we would find them in the geological strata. Lo and behold, when we go digging in that exact area we find something matching the description of what evolution expected us to find. We also use evolutionary theory to predict the evolution of viruses in order to immunize ourselves and produce vaccines. We also predicted that humans and other animals share common genetic lineage, and not only was it discovered to be true, but species that shared closer lineage as predicted by evolutionary theory also shared similar genetic codes, and this was consistently true across the entire spectrum of life.
1) How do you test that?
2) How does that test creationism?
Variations of cats and dogs.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Transitional fossils, genetic...
You don't have any transitional forms, you just think you do. You just have forms. You haven't proven anything except for the fact that you can't prove anything. Good try, though, to convince me. Your buddies may buy into your beef but I don't. Give me specific examples, proven to have evolved from whatever.
1) You don't. You can't. Cats are still cats and dogs are still dogs. You can wait a few millions years, good luck.
2) It doesn't. It is silly to think a cat will be something other than a cat in a few million years. Right now I see cats, I don't see cats "becoming" anything but more cats.
"Variations of cats and dogs" isn't macro-evolution, that's micro-evolution. You need to be able to predict exactly what they will evolve into - if your theory holds water - you should be able to by studying the DNA. But, guess what, you can't. Because your theory is a pitiful excuse for a valid theory.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
It's so fascinating to watch creationists in action. Just like Deeje and Omega you demand "Show me X", and when we show you X all you can muster in response is "No it isn't", with no explanation of why it isn't X or any indication that you even looked at what was posted.
You want to know why you and the other creationists are laughed at? Why your primary value in these forums is the entertainment your behavior provides? It's because you all do the same exact thing over and over again....
Show me X!
Here's X.
No it isn't!
Why isn't that X? Did you look at it or even understand it?
I don't need to look at it or understand it.....it's not X!
If you didn't look, how do you know?
I'm done with this conversation.
Here's X.
No it isn't!
Why isn't that X? Did you look at it or even understand it?
I don't need to look at it or understand it.....it's not X!
If you didn't look, how do you know?
I'm done with this conversation.
Keep doing that and no one will ever take you at all seriously.
If I or anyone else gives you specific examples of successful predictions from evolutionary biology, will you 1) look at it, and 2) respond with something other than mere reflexive denial?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
So, it's not a testable prediction, then. 1 - 0 to me.
But you do see lots of variations of cats, which is how evolution works.
Macro-evolution is evolution above the species level, which is something directly observed. For example, all dogs are descended from gray wolves, but not all breeds of dogs can successfully interbreed with wolves. That is because of macro-evolution.
Now you're just being silly. Mutations are random, so there's no way of possibly determining ahead of time exactly which beneficial mutations will appear and proliferate within a population.
Meanwhile, when I ask you for testable predictions of creation theory (something you consider to be scientific), you give me an answer that -ONE POST LATER - you acknowledge is not even testable, and nor can you explain how and why it would be a test for creation theory.
So, I'm going to simplify this for you:
For the sake of argument, let us assume that evolution is absolutely false - all of your points against it are totally true, and evolutionary theory falls apart. Nobody now accepts evolution theory in this hypothetical world we now both inhabit. With that in mind, please answer the following request:
Present ONE TESTABLE prediction of creation theory.
I've tried reasoning with the turkey, but he just won't listen.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I hear if conditions are right, this David Firth fellow may end up on that list.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Agree, although in practice, belief in Darwinian evolution is only about 19% in the U.S. (Gallup) despite being taught as fact by many high school teachers & pop science media etc. This tradition of independent free thinking is what made America #1 in science, & is alive and well.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It largely depends on age. 73% of those (now - the poll is three years old) 33 or younger accept evolution. After some more Boomers die off, that 19% is going to begin to rise, and perhaps even faster than it ever has in the past.
Denouncing, ridiculing, and dismissing science as unscientific and claiming it is "just a theory" does not make any one person, let alone an entire nation, competent or skilled in science.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
And what are the outcomes?
Will neglecting the toe affect the scientific progress in Turkey?