Sign in to follow this  
cambrian_exp

14 proofs of young earth by creationist fanatics lol

Recommended Posts

I am one of those "individuals who are not trained in the scientific method" so I am going to need some help on this. So those of you who are "trained in the scientific method" first define what the scientific method is and then use the scientific method to prove evolution and disprove creation or vise versa.

 

One of the first things to learn is that science is inductive - there is no deductive "proof" as in mathematics. A scientific theory must be falsifiable - it needs to make predictions that, if not fulfilled, mean that it is incorrect. You gather evidence and check to see that it fits. If it doesn't, you either modify the theory, or you discard it altogether, depending on how far off you are.

 

Pitting evolution vs. creation is a contrived situation, though. Proving evolution false would not mean that creation is true, and similarly, showing creationism to be false (or unscientific) does not advance evolution at all. For this reason, scientists involved with evolution, by and large, completely ignore the question of creationism. It is much more a political battle and hasn't been a scientific issue for some time.

 

Many hypotheses of creationsim have been dealt with here; feel free to use the search function. If you have specific questions, ask them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying the evolution can no more be proved then evolution disproved? Furthermore, I would have to disagree with you, you said, "showing creationism to be false (or unscientific) does not advance evolution at all" statistics have shown that up to 50% of america claims to believe in a form of creation, so if I were a evolutionist I think it would be very benefitial to my cause to disprove the other leading theory. Isn't science suppose to test all areas not just the ones that benefit their theory. So, "scientists involved with evolution, by and large, completely ignore the question of creationism" doesn't make any sense, why would they ignore a topic that is directly related to their field of study. Sounds like they are avoiding it to me. Once again I am an "Untrained individual" and all i have to rely on is common sense so could someone clarify this for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying the evolution can no more be proved then evolution disproved? Furthermore, I would have to disagree with you, you said, "showing creationism to be false (or unscientific) does not advance evolution at all" statistics have shown that up to 50% of america claims to believe in a form of creation, so if I were a evolutionist I think it would be very benefitial to my cause to disprove the other leading theory. Isn't science suppose to test all areas not just the ones that benefit their theory. So, "scientists involved with evolution, by and large, completely ignore the question of creationism" doesn't make any sense, why would they ignore a topic that is directly related to their field of study. Sounds like they are avoiding it to me. Once again I am an "Untrained individual" and all i have to rely on is common sense so could someone clarify this for me.

 

You can have evidence in support of evolution, and there are mounds and mounds of it. It is in principle falsifiable, but nothing has come along that would do so.

 

Creationsim is not a competing theory to evolution, because creationism is not a theory. It is not scientific in nature, as it is not falsifiable. It's not directly related to their field of study, which is science. Creationism is about religion, politics and quasi-transvestitism (it likes to dress up and pretend it's science, but when you lift up the skirt you can plainly see it's not). It's similar to the reason that science spends very little time investigating the claims of astrology.

 

That 50% of Americans believe in some form of creationism is in part due to a deficient level of education in critical thought and science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The creationist's greastest success has been perpetuating the false dilema that if evolution is untrue or even has flaws, creationism is the only other option. Not true, there were many, many theories befoe Darwin of how life came about, both scientific and religious. If evolution were wrong, whose to say that the right answer wouldn't be the Norse myths? Personally, I'm kinda partial to the idea of a collosal sea serpent encircling the entire earth.

 

Mokele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i understand what you are saying, you are saying that people who believe in creation have faith in it and nothing else, they don't have that "scientific evidence" whereas evolution is based on science. But since nobody has answered my original question to prove without doubt, evolution using the scientific method I will for now, until proved otherwise, assume that it can't be done. So since evolution cannot be proved to an absolute, that means that it also takes faith. Scientist may not want to call it that but regardless if evolution cannot be proved absolutely with evidence the only way to believe in it as strong as I feel some of you do, is with faith. Which I find somewhat ironic because most people I have talked to who are big evolutionist despise the idea of having faith in something instead of proving it. Now I also understand that there is evidence pointing towards evolution so it is possible to take that evidence and make and educated guess but, it still takes faith to believe that you came to the right conclusions. However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence. The old example of if I see a clock there has to be a clock maker, the hundereds of carefully timed gears did not just spontaneous come into existence and then randomly fall into working order. If someone were to suggest this they would be considered a fool. But yet we look at the universe and we say exactly that, only this time there are billion maybe trillions of carefully timed units and yet scientist say that there is no maker, that it all just spontaneously appeared and ramdomly fell into order. Again i challenge anyone to give an documented, scientifically proven case where something spontaneously came into existance on its own with no help and then ramdomly fell into order. If someone can do that I will stop asking questions and agree that science is onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw clouds that spelled out the word "ASS". Not perfect penmanship, but still... Now, either God was being profane again or random winds and condensation patterns led to an English word being spelled out in the sky. And that was just on one corner of this particular planet in this particular solar system in this particular galaxy in this particular local group of galaxies in this particular supercluster of galaxies in this particular universe in my admittedly short lifetime. I would find it odd that, in the infinite reaches of space, there is not a working watch out there that nobody made. Of course, nobody's probably around to find it either. The only reason that we're around to find life is that we're alive. So stop asking loaded questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think i understand what you are saying, you are saying that people who believe in creation have faith in it and nothing else, they don't have that "scientific evidence" whereas evolution is based on science. But since nobody has answered my original question to prove without doubt, evolution using the scientific method I will for now, until proved otherwise, assume that it can't be done.

That's not really how "science" works anyway, so you haven't really achieved anything there. You're just placing requirements on "evolution" that don't mean anything to anybody else.

 

 

So since evolution cannot be proved to an absolute, that means that it also takes faith.

Somewhat misrepresentative of the truth. We need faith in our interpretations to a certain degree, but to say we need to have faith in evolution is like saying we need to have faith in gravity, and we patently don't.

 

 

Scientist may not want to call it that but regardless if evolution cannot be proved absolutely with evidence the only way to believe in it as strong as I feel some of you do, is with faith.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have some very funny ideas about how the scientific method works, what scientists do with themselves all day, and what the term "evolution" represents in biology.

 

 

 

Which I find somewhat ironic because most people I have talked to who are big evolutionist despise the idea of having faith in something instead of proving it.

I suspect that if you were being totally honest with yourself, you'd probably come to the conclusion that they were reacting unfavourably to loaded and contrived questions being delivered as part of an argument from incredulity.

 

 

Now I also understand that there is evidence pointing towards evolution so it is possible to take that evidence and make and educated guess but, it still takes faith to believe that you came to the right conclusions.

That's not really true. We can plainly see evolution happening everywhere, in the present and historically. The vast bulk of research in the evolutionary sciences is done for the purpose of determining mechanisms, not collecting evidence that it happens at all.

 

Only an utter gibbon with the mental acumen of a twig would claim that evolutionary change doesn't exist.

 

 

However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence.

Why? No part of evolutionary theory makes any such claims.

 

 

Again i challenge anyone to give an documented, scientifically proven case where something spontaneously came into existance on its own with no help and then ramdomly fell into order.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

 

 

If someone can do that I will stop asking questions and agree that science is onto something.

Sorry to be so blunt, but "science" doesn't care if you agree with it or not. It isn't a popularists' club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think i understand what you are saying, you are saying that people who believe in creation have faith in it and nothing else, they don't have that "scientific evidence" whereas evolution is based on science. But since nobody has answered my original question to prove without doubt, evolution using the scientific method I will for now, until proved otherwise, assume that it can't be done.

 

I thought I answered this in post 26. No, you can't deductively prove it.

 

But that's true of any scientific theory. You can't deductively prove gravity, or electromagnetism, etc, etc.

 

So since evolution cannot be proved to an absolute, that means that it also takes faith. Scientist may not want to call it that but regardless if evolution cannot be proved absolutely with evidence the only way to believe in it as strong as I feel some of you do, is with faith.

 

But this is a different definition of faith than religious faith. Just so you know. I'd hate for you to fall prey to the fallacy of equivocation. That would be...bad.

 

So tell me, do you believe in gravity? Why?

 

 

Which I find somewhat ironic because most people I have talked to who are big evolutionist despise the idea of having faith in something instead of proving it. Now I also understand that there is evidence pointing towards evolution so it is possible to take that evidence and make and educated guess but, it still takes faith to believe that you came to the right conclusions.

 

That's why you gather gobs and gobs of evidence, so that the confidence level is really high. Again, it's not religious faith.

 

 

However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge[/u'] anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence.

 

Quantum fluctuations. Electron/positron pairs come into existence and then annihilate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge[/u'] anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence. The old example of if I see a clock there has to be a clock maker, the hundereds of carefully timed gears did not just spontaneous come into existence and then randomly fall into working order. If someone were to suggest this they would be considered a fool.
I see three main mistakes come up in every creationist argument, including this one:

 

1) Creationists always equate "theory" with "an idea someone dreamed up". I think it's because of the sound byte "conspiracy theory" has such a hair-brained connotation. Fact: a scientific theory is as close to absolute certainty as it ever gets. Rigorous testing and observation, along with peer review and more testing go into a hypothesis before it gains the prestigious title of "theory".

 

2) Creationists always use the clockmaker strawman, or some other "designer" argument based on a human invention like airplanes and try to equate it to nature and evolution. Fact: Just because human inventions require a designer doesn't mean a process that can be set in motion and works as well as evolution needs one. It's perfectly possible that some higher power "designed" the evolutionary process so he wouldn't have to "design" everything individually. Science doesn't deny the possibility, it just implies that evolutionary theory doesn't require it.

 

3) Creationists are so stuck on the idea of "creation" that they apply it to evolution as another strawman argument. Fact: Evolution has nothing to do with how life started, only with how it changes over time.

 

There are other flaws in their arguments, but I see these three ALL THE TIME! And they usually don't change their stance one iota when these arguments are proven false. If I had that many props knocked out from under me so easily, I would at least start to wonder about the strength of my stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I had that many props knocked out from under me so easily, I would at least start to wonder about the strength of my stance.

Amen to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But since nobody has answered my original question to prove without doubt, evolution using the scientific method I will for now, until proved otherwise, assume that it can't be done. So since evolution cannot be proved to an absolute, that means that it also takes faith. Scientist may not want to call it that but regardless if evolution cannot be proved absolutely with evidence the only way to believe in it as strong as I feel some of you do, is with faith. Which I find somewhat ironic because most people I have talked to who are big evolutionist despise the idea of having faith in something instead of proving it.

There are few things that can be proven absolutely. Even a logically deduced conclusion is only as true as the premises it assumes. That said, if faith is defined as belief without evidence, then belief in evolution requires no faith. There is evidence for it. That this evidence falls short of absolute is irrelevant.

 

However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence. The old example of if I see a clock there has to be a clock maker, the hundereds of carefully timed gears did not just spontaneous come into existence and then randomly fall into working order.
The "evidence" you present here, first of all, is non-empirical, so it certainly cannot be regarded as science. As an a priori inference, it fails. You cannot infer design from "complexity" alone without making observations. If I stumbled upon a perfectly spherical rock in nature, I would probably conclude it was designed, but not because it's complex (a sphere is simple). The reason I conclude design is inductive: based on my observations of nature and natural phenomena, I know of no natural process that can carve out a perfectly smooth, spherical rock, so I infer that a human probably did it. This inference is not a priori. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is impossible to prove design a priori.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by zyncod

I once saw clouds that spelled out the word "ASS". Not perfect penmanship, but still... Now, either God was being profane again or random winds and condensation patterns led to an English word being spelled out in the sky. And that was just on one corner of this particular planet in this particular solar system in this particular galaxy in this particular local group of galaxies in this particular supercluster of galaxies in this particular universe in my admittedly short lifetime. I would find it odd that, in the infinite reaches of space, there is not a working watch out there that nobody made. Of course, nobody's probably around to find it either. The only reason that we're around to find life is that we're alive. So stop asking loaded questions.

 

So are you saying in infinte space there is an infinate probablity of things happening, if that is the case following your reasoning, somewhere in the infinite reaches of space the parts to a bomb so large that it could destroy all matter in the universe spontaneous appered and assembled and then detonated... well we are still here so unless I am misunderstanding your statement that is has at least one hole in it.

 

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Somewhat misrepresentative of the truth. We need faith in our interpretations to a certain degree, but to say we need to have faith in evolution is like saying we need to have faith in gravity, and we patently don't.

 

That is not what I am saying, because I can go outside and observe the law of gravity which means it takes no faith to believe in it. However unless you personally have preformed every experiment and collection of data for the theory of evolution, you have to have faith in those results.

 

 

Originally posted by Sayonara³

I suspect that if you were being totally honest with yourself, you'd probably come to the conclusion that they were reacting unfavourably to loaded and contrived questions being delivered as part of an argument from incredulity.

 

But if evolution has so much data pointing towards it, wouldn't that data be able to negate these "loaded" questions. But instead of taking the data and negating it you point fingers and yell about how I lying to myself and asking "loaded" questions.

 

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Sorry to be so blunt, but "science" doesn't care if you agree with it or not. It isn't a popularists' club.

 

I would somewhat dissagree, if science did not have public support, it wouldn't, mean nearly as much at least in a social stand point. One of the main things that public support gets science is funding which i am sure we can all agree that science takes money.

 

Originally posted by swansont

I thought I answered this in post 26. No, you can't deductively prove it.

 

But that's true of any scientific theory. You can't deductively prove gravity, or electromagnetism, etc, etc.

 

I seem to see a distinct difference. For example I can take my dog outside and throw it off my roof. Now lets say I do this 1,000,000 times my dog is going to fall to the ground all 1,000,000 times. But I can't take my dog outside and set it down and watch it become an entierly new species.

 

 

Originally posted by swansont

But this is a different definition of faith than religious faith. Just so you know. I'd hate for you to fall prey to the fallacy of equivocation. That would be...bad.

 

So tell me, do you believe in gravity? Why?

 

I would also hate for you to fall prey to the "fallacy of equivocation", because again it doens't take faith to believe in gravity I personally can test it and observe it, have you personally tested evolution? Furthermore religious faith is believing in what the holy text related to the religion says or what the leader of the religion says. Religion requires you to have faith that what they say is true. Again unless you have personally preformed every experiment or collection of data for evolution you have to have faith that what the people who preformed those results said is true. You have to have faith that they followed the scientific method and that they did not tamper the data. You have to have faith that they interpreted the data correctly. Now yes, most of the time everything they do including the data they collected is documented but then you have to have faith that it was documented correctly.

 

Originally posted by swansont

That's why you gather gobs and gobs of evidence, so that the confidence level is really high. Again, it's not religious faith.

 

Again, unless you personally collect that data, you have to have faith that the data was collected correctly.

 

Originally posted by swansont

Quantum fluctuations. Electron/positron pairs come into existence and then annihilate.

 

Now I am not entirely sure on this with out doing research on it I seem to recall that Quantum fluctuations occur in a stream of quantum particles which means that they did not come out of nothing. If this is not the case no need to correct me because I will admit I am probably wrong there. Regardless lets say that the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here and there particles are spontaneously appering. This only covers the first part (i know i left the second part out in the middle of my post but I restated the whole thing at the end) so lets say they spontaneously come into existence but do they ever randomly fall into order? if that is the case why don't we have random horses poping up or random tables. And back to an early example if it was all based on a this happening over an infinite amount of time wouldn't eventually a bomb so large it could destroy all of the known universe spontaneously apper and detonate. Further more there particles can only remain stable for a very short peroid of time meaning they have no time to "evolve"

 

Originally posted by Phi for All

1) Creationists always equate "theory" with "an idea someone dreamed up". I think it's because of the sound byte "conspiracy theory" has such a hair-brained connotation. Fact: a scientific theory is as close to absolute certainty as it ever gets. Rigorous testing and observation, along with peer review and more testing go into a hypothesis before it gains the prestigious title of "theory".

 

So are you saying that evolution is just as provable as gravity.

 

Originally posted by Phi for All

3) Creationists are so stuck on the idea of "creation" that they apply it to evolution as another strawman argument. Fact: Evolution has nothing to do with how life started, only with how it changes over time.

 

But when studying how life changes over time you clearly are going back in time. Well eventually you have to reach the beginning don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying in infinte space there is an infinate probablity of things happening, if that is the case following your reasoning, somewhere in the infinite reaches of space the parts to a bomb so large that it could destroy all matter in the universe spontaneous appered and assembled and then detonated... well we are still here so unless I am misunderstanding your statement that is has at least one hole in it.

 

How do you know that didn't already happen in this universe prior to the Big Bang or another one (contradicting all known laws of physics aside)? Note to all creationists or those wearing the lambskin of ID: the improbable does not equal the impossible. And I did give you an example of something complex spontaneously coming into existence. And yet you are still talking. Thankfully, nobody really cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not what I am saying, because I can go outside and observe the law of gravity which means it takes no faith to believe in it. However unless you personally have preformed every experiment and collection of data for the theory[/b'] of evolution, you have to have faith in those results.

 

Another anti-evolutionist who doesn't know the distinction between law and theory. What were the odds?

 

Theories do not "grow up" to become laws. Laws are actually a subset of theories, and are statements that can be expressed as an equation or other simple relationship.

 

 

But if evolution has so much data pointing towards it, wouldn't that data be able to negate these "loaded" questions. But instead of taking the data and negating it you point fingers and yell about how I lying to myself and asking "loaded" questions.

 

It requires a little bit of exposure to science to be able to understand the data. Typically the ones asking the loaded questions haven't bothered to e.g. learn the difference between a theory and a law, or even what the theory of evolution is, so they don't understand the implications of the data.

 

 

I seem to see a distinct difference. For example I can take my dog outside and throw it off my roof. Now lets say I do this 1,000,000 times my dog is going to fall to the ground all 1,000,000 times. But I can't take my dog outside and set it down and watch it become an entierly new species.

 

Yes, I agree that your dog will fall. But you can't prove it beforehand. But evolution doesn't say that your dog is going to become a new species (see my previous remark about not learning the basics), it says that over time a population of dogs can change into something that is no longer a dog. Since that would take many generations (i.e. a fairly long time by human standards), we instead look to the past for supporting evidence (fossils), and genetics, and biogeography, and biostratigraphy, and other areas. However, we can test the individual mechanisms on smaller systems with shorter generation times. Just like noticing that your dog falls allows us to be confident that gravity is also acting on Jupiter, which explains its motion around the sun, even though we can't do experiments directly with Jupiter.

 

 

 

 

I would also hate for you to fall prey to the "fallacy of equivocation"' date=' because again it doens't take faith to believe in gravity I personally can test it and observe it, have you personally tested evolution? Furthermore religious faith is believing in what the holy text related to the religion says or what the leader of the religion says. Religion requires you to have faith that what they say is true. Again unless you have personally preformed every experiment or collection of data for evolution you have to have faith that what the people who preformed those results said is true. You have to have faith that they followed the scientific method and that they did not tamper the data. You have to have faith that they interpreted the data correctly. Now yes, most of the time everything they do including the data they collected is documented but then you have to have faith that it was documented correctly.

 

Again, unless you personally collect that data, you have to have faith that the data was collected correctly.[/quote']

 

Well, you went ahead and did it anyway. Different use of "faith." Yes, the system depends on people not engaging in bald-face lying. If you in fact have evidence of a worldwide conspiracy of all scientists attempting to defraud the world by faking data, please present it. It's amazing how we are able to bamboozle the world into thinking that things like internal combustion engines, nuclear reactors, atomic clocks, medicines and computers actually work, though. You don't get to discard the small slice of science you find unpalatable, on philosophical grounds, when all the rest of it works. I can test the science, even if I don't personally oversee the original work.

 

 

Now I am not entirely sure on this with out doing research on it I seem to recall that Quantum fluctuations occur in a stream of quantum particles which means that they did not come out of nothing. If this is not the case no need to correct me because I will admit I am probably wrong there. Regardless lets say that the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here and there particles are spontaneously appering. This only covers the first part (i know i left the second part out in the middle of my post but I restated the whole thing at the end) so lets say they spontaneously come into existence but do they ever randomly fall into order? if that is the case why don't we have random horses poping up or random tables. And back to an early example if it was all based on a this happening over an infinite amount of time wouldn't eventually a bomb so large it could destroy all of the known universe spontaneously apper and detonate. Further more there particles can only remain stable for a very short peroid of time meaning they have no time to "evolve"

 

The quantum fluctuations happen in a vacuum. You can violate conservation of energy for short periods of time, as long as it's constrained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. All the rest of this is simply argument from incredulity/ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to see a distinct difference. For example I can take my dog outside and throw it off my roof. Now lets say I do this 1,000,000 times my dog is going to fall to the ground all 1,000,000 times. But I can't take my dog outside and set it down and watch it become an entierly new species.

First of all, vacuous claims such as this aren't apt to get you much respect around here. Read, and think about what Swansont said:

It's amazing how we are able to bamboozle the world into thinking that things like internal combustion engines, nuclear reactors, atomic clocks, medicines and computers actually work, though. You don't get to discard the small slice of science you find unpalatable, on philosophical grounds, when all the rest of it works.

As an aside, Pumices, what particular aspect of evolutionary theory do you have a problem with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
although i am commerce student, i love reading about prehistory and evolution. but i was shocked when we had a few lines on evolution in enviormental science that to in commerce! what the hell commerce students will do of evolution?

It was in regard to environmental science, right? Well, changes in the environment affect the evolution of organisms. Commerce students should be aware of that to understand one of the consequences of toxic waste of commerce in the environment.

 

I'd appreciate the exact quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am one of those "individuals who are not trained in the scientific method" so I am going to need some help on this. So those of you who are "trained in the scientific method" first define what the scientific method is and then use the scientific method to prove evolution and disprove creation or vise versa.

First, let's separate creation from creationism.

Creation is the theological idea that God created.

Creationism is a specific method God is said to have used to create. In this thread, God is alledged to have zapped the universe into existence in its present form less than 20,000 years ago.

 

Evolution can also be viewed as the method God created. In fact, most Christians do view it that way.

 

There is really no "THE" scientific method. "The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong." Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27.

 

In general, science works by the hypothetico-deductive method. You propose a hypothesis or idea. A hypothesis is a statement about the physical universe. You assume the statement is true -- just for testing You then deduce consequences of that statement: think of things you should observe if the statement is true. You then go looking for those consequences. If you find the consequences, the hypothesis is supported. If you find the opposite, things that simply could not be there if the hypothesis is true, then the hypothesis is falsified -- shown to be wrong.

 

Notice that this is what the OP is trying to do for the hypothesis that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Every example are things that supposedly can't be there if the universe is that old. However, the reason we don't take them seriously is that the consequences are seriously flawed. They misrepresent what happens and/or they have bad data. Criticisms also get criticized.

 

Now, if the earth were created as it says in young earth creationism, these are some of the things we should see (consequences):

1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments.

2. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and stars becoming visible thru history as their light first reached the earth.

3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust.

4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments.

5. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms.

 

We see the opposite of all these, thus young earth is falsified.

 

Now, each theory stands on its own. That is, falsifiying creationism would not mean evolution is true. Or falsifying evolution does not mean creationism is true. After all, they could both be wrong! The idea that falsifying an old earth means a young earth is true is one of the mistakes of the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if I were a evolutionist I think it would be very benefitial to my cause to disprove the other leading theory. Isn't science suppose to test all areas not just the ones that benefit their theory. So, "scientists involved with evolution, by and large, completely ignore the question of creationism" doesn't make any sense, why would they ignore a topic that is directly related to their field of study.

This doesn't take history into account. Pumices, young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1831. Scientists did try it out. They falsified it by 1831. So there is no need for scientists now to falsify it all over again. The data that falsified creationism in the early 1800s still exists; the data didn't go away. Scientists have better things to do than keep re-inventing the wheel or falsifying theories already falsified.

 

What we have are a group of people who refuse to accept that creationism is false. If it were not for their insistence on lying to our kids by teaching creationism in public schools, we would simply ignore them.

 

BTW, the scientists who falsified creationism in the early 1800s were all Christians. Most of them were ministers. So you can forget the "atheist conspiracy" idea that is so popular in creationist circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But since nobody has answered my original question to prove without doubt, evolution using the scientific method I will for now, until proved otherwise, assume that it can't be done.

This is a red herring. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you innocently did this.

 

Strictly speaking, you can't "prove" anything by deductive logic. This true for 2 reasons:

1. No matter how many times you test a theory, there are still an infinite number of tests to do (such as dropping your dog off the roof to test gravity) and it is always (barely) possible that the theory may fail the next test.

2. There is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that there is a better theory to explain the data out there that we haven't thought of.

 

So what happens is the we provisionally accept a theory as true. Unless and until new data comes along to falsify it. In the meantime, we use that theory as the basis for new hypotheses and testing those hypotheses become more support for the theory. Let me try a simple example. We have the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system and the planets orbit the sun. We accept that as (provisionally) true. We then plan the paths of our spacecraft based on that. When the spacecraft arrive when and where we calculated, that is more support for the theory.

 

it still takes faith to believe that you came to the right conclusions.

No, it's not faith, because of that "provisionally". Based on the data we have now, we conclude evolution is true. If new data shows up, then we change our conclusion.

 

However, there is also some evidence for creation, mainly (Again this is my "untrained" mind) the fact that we are here, now this might now seem like much but I challenge anyone to give an example of something spontaneously coming into existence.

Actually, this is evidence against the theory of special creation. After all, if God has been zapping species into existence, why isn't He doing it anymore?

 

However, if you want an example of life coming from non-life, then that has been observed happening spontaneosly:

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm'>http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

http://www.siu.edu/%7Eprotocell/

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

 

The old example of if I see a clock there has to be a clock maker, the hundereds of carefully timed gears did not just spontaneous come into existence and then randomly fall into working order.

Ah, but here is the genius of Darwin. Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that will make design. It's natural selection. The designs in plants and animals did not come into existence "spontaneously"; they took many generations. But they did come into existence without being manufactured like a clock.

 

scientist say that there is no maker, that it all just spontaneously appeared and ramdomly fell into order.

Actually, a scientist, speaking as a scientist, does NOT say this. He can't say that there is no deity or that God did not cause the universe to come into existence. What the scientist CAN say is that: once the universe exists, there are processes within the universe that will cause the order without God having to intervene directly. Science is NOT atheism. Science is agnostic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not what I am saying, because I can go outside and observe the law of gravity which means it takes no faith to believe in it. However unless you personally have preformed every experiment and collection of data for the theory[/b'] of evolution, you have to have faith in those results.

1. Laws are not more reliable than theories. Laws are simply well-confirmed theories. However, in the 1800s when scientists realized that deduction could not strictly "prove", they stopped calling theories "laws". Based on how it was done in the 1700s, we could say the Law of Common Ancestry and the Law of Natural Selection.

 

2. Science is such a reliable form of knowledge because it ONLY uses information that ANYONE can get under approximately the same circumstances. So, you COULD do the experiments. That you don't is due to lack of time, lack of interest, or lack of money. In contrast, I cannot stand with Thomas and put my hands in the nail holes in the risen Jesus. Therefore, I must trust the Biblical account. But I do not have to trust the data for evolution. I can get the same data myself. That's the difference between faith and science.

 

I seem to see a distinct difference. For example I can take my dog outside and throw it off my roof. Now lets say I do this 1,000,000 times my dog is going to fall to the ground all 1,000,000 times. But I can't take my dog outside and set it down and watch it become an entierly new species.

Because evolution happens to populations, NOT individuals. You are born with your alleles (forms of genes). They do not change during your lifetime. However, your children will not have exactly the same alleles as you (and the other parent). Mutations occur at the rate of 1 per individual. The genetic makeup of a population will change over the course of generations as some alleles become "fixed" (are present in every member of the population) and other alleles are eliminated. Over the course of generations the population will slowly change such that the individuals in the population 10,000 generations from now won't look like the individuals now. This has begun in dogs. Genetically, dogs are now four different species, not one. Each species has alleles different from all the other species.

 

So, if you want to understand evolution, you must think in terms of populations. Understand evolution correctly first. Then, if you disagree with it, you are at least disagreeing with what evolution really is, not some imaginary thing.

 

have you personally tested evolution?
Yes. Like plotting the course of spacecraft based on heliocentrism and gravity being true, my research is based on evolution being true. That the research works is further evidence that evolution is true.

 

Furthermore religious faith is believing in what the holy text related to the religion says or what the leader of the religion says.

And here I thought Christianity was about having a personal relationship with Jesus! That doesn't depend on any text or leader of the religion.

 

You have to have faith that they followed the scientific method and that they did not tamper the data.

Again, the data they used becomes an accepted hypothesis for the next investigator's hypothesis. If the original data were fabricated, then the next experiment doesn't work. In fact, this is how fraud in science is usually detected.

 

Let's consider Piltdown Man. A fake. It tended to show that humans evolved in England. Yet the next transitional form showing a mixture of ape and primitive human traits was discovered in South Africa. In fact, instead of 2 fossil individuals, dozens of A. africanus were found. The hypothesis that humans evolved in England didn't work with the new data. Thus, most anthropologists were convinced Piltdown was a fake for 2 decades before it was finally proven.

 

Now I am not entirely sure on this with out doing research on it I seem to recall that Quantum fluctuations occur in a stream of quantum particles which means that they did not come out of nothing.

Virtual particles occur in our existing spacetime. This is what you meant. However, one of the attractions of String Theory is that quantum fluctuations could make a spacetime.

 

Regardless lets say that the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here and there particles are spontaneously appering.

The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to getting a universe. It tells us what happens IN this universe. But it doesn't forbid getting a universe to begin with.

 

do they ever randomly fall into order?

Not "randomly", but they fall into order without direct intervention by an intelligence. In chemistry, hydrogen gas and oxygen gas combine to form water. Water has more order than the gases. But I've never heard any creationist claim that God has to directly intervene to get that to happen.

 

And back to an early example if it was all based on a this happening over an infinite amount of time wouldn't eventually a bomb so large it could destroy all of the known universe spontaneously apper and detonate. Further more there particles can only remain stable for a very short peroid of time meaning they have no time to "evolve"

1. Virtual particles can gain permanence if energy is supplied. This is what happens in particle accelerators. The energy of the collision makes the virtual particles permanent so they can be studied. You collide 2 refrigerators and get a toaster and a blender in addition to the 2 refrigerators.

 

So are you saying that evolution is just as provable as gravity.

Oh yes. Been done. Species have been observed forming from existing species hundreds of times and natural selection has been documented even more.

 

But when studying how life changes over time you clearly are going back in time. Well eventually you have to reach the beginning don't you?
And that's where life comes from non-life by chemical reactions. Which are NOT random. See the previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Notice in all of this' date=' the author doesnt give a single number, nor indicate how fast the galaxy is rotating.

 

Just for the record, the solar system takes 220 millions to orbit the galaxy. That isnt so fast.

 

But, more importantly, this information comes from a man by the name of Humpreys whose methodology is seriously faulty: the author was a guy by the name of Humphrey, who deduced his conclusion by following a model from a supercomputer. The problem: he made all the starts attract to the center of the galaxy, but not to each other.

First, thank you for taking the time and effort to answer each and every one of the points in the OP. WELL DONE! :cool:

 

Second, there is no requirement that the Milky Way has always been a spiral galaxy or will always be one. My recollection is that, as you look farther out in distance/farther back in time, there are no spiral galaxies. Galaxies change shape. Humphreys, in addition to the problems you discussed, has made a mistaken assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not what I am saying, because I can go outside and observe the law of gravity which means it takes no faith to believe in it. However unless you personally have preformed every experiment and collection of data for the theory[/b'] of evolution, you have to have faith in those results.

This is not true.

 

One does not and can not observe "a law" or "a theory". In both cases you are observing the consequences of the mechanisms at work. Whether or not our descriptions of those mechanisms are accurate has naff all to do with whether they occur. Zero causality, in other words, in the direction you are looking.

 

Putting law and theory in bold as you have done implies a "rightness hierarchy" that simply does not exist.

 

 

But if evolution has so much data pointing towards it, wouldn't that data be able to negate these "loaded" questions. But instead of taking the data and negating it you point fingers and yell about how I lying to myself and asking "loaded" questions.

And it can negate those questions, and has done time and time again, which is why people are no longer inclined to give full explanations.

 

The fact that the question is asked on a site where the answer is already available in multiple locations is usually an effective indicator that the asker is not interested in the details of the response.

 

In any case, in debate one is perfectly entitled to take a counter-argument no further than the identification of the opponent's logical errors.

 

 

I would somewhat dissagree, if science did not have public support, it wouldn't, mean nearly as much at least in a social stand point. One of the main things that public support gets science is funding which i am sure we can all agree that science takes money.

Firstly, I am not talking about public support. I am talking about subjective appraisal. The two are not the same, and only the latter has anything to do with the matter at hand.

 

Secondly, whether or not "science takes money" has nothing to do with determined outcomes (well, unless it's pretend science - like L'Oreal trialling their new product on a whopping 200 women then telling us what percentage of them reported shinier follicles. That's a whole other game though).

 

 

I seem to see a distinct difference. For example I can take my dog outside and throw it off my roof. Now lets say I do this 1,000,000 times my dog is going to fall to the ground all 1,000,000 times. But I can't take my dog outside and set it down and watch it become an entierly new species.

This is an intellectually dishonest comparison, and the latter half is a strawman.

 

Gravity predicts the dog will fall. Evolution does not predict spontaneous cross-species changes in individual organisms.

 

If you want to see evolution in action on the order of species differentiation you might try something that has much larger populations and much shorter generation times, such as bacteria - which very much have been observed evolving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we can scale up from the Bacterial level to macro lifeforms such as Drysophila or certain worms too, it`s been observed with them, and that`s just the Animal kingdom, plants have also been seen to evolve also. and I KNOW Yeasts have, I`ve done it myself :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this