Science: For Young Earth Creationists

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Just as a warning, this post will be a bit lengthy.

This topic is also intended for anyone else that may be curious about Science in general, or on some specific topics that Creationists tend to inevitably disagree with. If you don't know very much about Science in general, or you think you know everything about it but for some reason are constantly told that you don't (by proposers of Scientific topics), than this topic is perfect for you! Please take the time to read, and comment with any questions or accusations, both are more than welcome!




I have nothing against an individual who is purely not knowledgeable about a subject. After all, not one of us can know everything. The most intelligent person on this planet will not know about several thousands, if not millions of subjects. Knowledge does not make you intelligent.

It is how you apply the information you already know, forming new ideas/products/tools/etc with that information, and being open to all information (while also being responsibly skeptical and analytical with that new information) that makes someone intelligent.

This is what makes "Bias" so dangerous. When you are compelled (for whatever reason) to choose something over another, regardless if that choice is wrong or not, is accepting a state of "unintelligence". When this Bias choice effects various important aspects of your life, and the lives of others you influence (your children for example), this inhibition to allow rational thought spreads.

Ironically, both sides (creation and those who accept the scientific method) accuse the other of having this bias.

Regardless of what you may believe, do not believe, or if you have a bias or are truly open minded, what we can all accept is general definitions. If, for example, you were to explain to me a concept you knew very well, and showed me that the vast majority of others who also know about that concept agree with that explanation, then it is only rational for me to also accept that what you've explained is what describes that concept.

This is a large issue for me when discussing Scientific matters, usually with Creationists. For whatever reason, most of them seem to be incapable of accepting an honest description of a process within the Scientific Method, and especially a Scientific Theory, even after it has been confirmed over and over again (not the theory itself, just the definition of the theory).




The most commonly misinterpreted definition of anything that pertains to Science would most likely have to be The Theory Of Evolution.

Simply enough, the Theory of Evolution only describes what the changes within a gene pool (such as a species) through reproduction.

A slightly more detailed way to say that is that The Theory of Evolution only describes the changes in Allele frequencies (or "gene frequencies") within a gene pool (or "Species") through reproduction. That is it. Nothing else at all. It does not explain how life began, only what happens to life once it already exists. It certainly does not relate at all to anything pertaining to cosmology, such as the big bang.

Why is the Theory of Evolution a theory at all? Because it went through the process of the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

To have a Scientific Hypothesis in the first place, the hypothesis must be testable and also falsifiable.

A Scientific Hypothesis turns into a Scientific Theory when it is repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation.

An unfortunate commonality when discussing the Theory of Evolution is that "it's just a theory". If the above isn't clear enough for you, perhaps I can explain it in another way. Of which you've likely heard.

A "Theory", in science, is an attempt to explain the functions behind a naturally occurring phenomenon. The Theory of Relativity (the "Theory of Gravity"), is humanities attempt to explain how and why Gravity works the way it does. Gravity is the natural phenomenon, the "Theory of Gravity" is our explanation of the phenomenon.

Similarly, the Theory of Evolution and Evolution itself are two separate things. The Theory of Evolution is our explanation of the naturally occurring phenomenon, Evolution. Which is why you'll constantly here people who accept and debate the topic of Evolution with individuals who may not know as much about it (or science in general) say "Evolution is both a fact and a theory".

Just as Gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is Evolution.

Before I bore any more of you with more information, feel free to ask questions, accuse whatever you want, or - if you feel like it - applaud me


Hopefully this first post has helpfully explained a few common misconceptions. Thanks for reading!




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Hm. I didn't see anything in the scientific method about making stuff up so that certain equations or theories will work. Such as dark matter with gravity. Or the more honest "missing link" in evolution. But that's beside the point...

Modern science is not simply about postulating and testing hypotheses. It has become an institution unto itself, complete with social, political, and economic influences (and hierarchies) that both direct and negate modes of inquiry and the interpretations derived therefrom. As such, the "scientific community" is no more trustworthy a source of accurate information than is the Catholic Church.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


The American Naturalist © 1983 The University of Chicago

Abstract:

Theories of causality in ecology and evolution rarely lend themselves to analysis by the formal method of "hypothesis testing" envisioned by champions of a "strong inference" model of scientific method.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Science by its very definition must be
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable

Evolution by its very nature can not and has not complied

Evolution is a faith, you want to believe and so do without evidence.

As a Christian I accept creation is a faith, hence why I cant prove it



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Question ...What is the reason you made this thread ? It is very close to what may be considered a rant by a number of members .Now we could take a vote and come up with a consensus based on the definitions of a rant .We might have to go look at all of the voters posts to determine if they may be guilty of some kind of bias . If the theory of evolution were true in my opinion then the fossil record would have the part man part monkey part whale or what ever part or parts they need to convince people . when I see that even science into the fossil record has issues ,mostly in the interpretation ,. ie they date the rocks based on the age of the dino's and date the dino's based on the rock ...When they claim one day a species went extinct millions of years ago and then find a live one the next day .

When they claim a molecule "CO2" a pollutant that is absolutely essential to life . When they look deep into the Cosmos and are surprised . When these Scientist who know the scientific method cant agree then it's not a big deal that Theist who believe that God created everything we see would not buy into the theory of evolution that claims everything just happened . For me there is just not enough evidence to buy into that theory .But like you I have enough evidence to believe there is a God ...We just are looking with our own eyes .
and we are both biased in that respect .....peace



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Evolutionists say that breeding a dog a certain way to make changes in it's specie is an example of evolution.

So what happens when we breed the dog back to it's original state from whence we began? Did we just devolve it?

Who is to say...that we didn't evolve a certain distance and then devolve right back to the original state?

well....the fossils tell us that didn't happen in either direction.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith.
Faith that scientific method has been applied appropriately and correctly, and faith in the teachings and findings of others.
I do not FULLY believe ANYTHING unless i can verify personally.
And that is the difficulty for me... to fully believe that the planets revolve around the sun, i would have to take my telescope out every night, plot and map the planets (or whatever those main moving points of light are) (aka Copernicus ~1510-1515) develop some interesting hypotheses, and confirm heliocentricity. Of course I take faith in other peoples work because it seems to fit with my own meagre observations.
Or i could watch an apple fall and say 'effect of gravity', but how does gravity work? should i believe Newton? Are the priests of science sure? Some say global warming is occuring some say not, some say aether doesnt exist but will back the idea of dark matter, etc etc...
Believe me. I am not bagging out science or the scientific method, I have a background in Physics, and i still believe its the best option for gaining answers.
But it still requires a faith.
Only a closed mind and blind faith is dangerous.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Wow OP you've got your work cut out for you with these guys, some deeply enrooted ignorance on show......



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Prezbo369
Wow OP you've got your work cut out for you with these guys, some deeply enrooted ignorance on show......


Yes he has got some work ahead of him
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science

Care to add some reasonable comments that enlightens us, or are you just here to act like you know what you are talking about
Cos seriously your comment offers nothing of value at all, sadly a tactic used by many atheists and Christians alike, still isnt a good look no matter who it comes from



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

NthOther
Hm. I didn't see anything in the scientific method about making stuff up so that certain equations or theories will work. Such as dark matter with gravity. Or the more honest "missing link" in evolution. But that's beside the point...

Modern science is not simply about postulating and testing hypotheses. It has become an institution unto itself, complete with social, political, and economic influences (and hierarchies) that both direct and negate modes of inquiry and the interpretations derived therefrom. As such, the "scientific community" is no more trustworthy a source of accurate information than is the Catholic Church.

What precisely is so "honest" about the "missing link"? Anyone who asks for an example of a "missing link" is only exhibiting a lack of understanding of the claims made by the theory of evolution. The whole concept of a "missing link" is a fallacy.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

borntowatch
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science


If I thought you applied these same standards to your own beliefs on the subject (or on any topic) I'd take you and this challenge seriously...



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Prezbo369

borntowatch
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science


If I thought you applied these same standards to your own beliefs on the subject (or on any topic) I'd take you and this challenge seriously...



I dont call my beliefs science, read the ops opening address, mine is a faith just like yours, I dont pretend my beliefs are science like evolutionists
I am not delusional/

again without
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable science to back it up, its all just a faith in science, not science at all

He is trying to prove creation wrong with no evidence, its not difficult to understand, is it?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by Ghost147
 


The American Naturalist © 1983 The University of Chicago

Abstract:

Theories of causality in ecology and evolution rarely lend themselves to analysis by the formal method of "hypothesis testing" envisioned by champions of a "strong inference" model of scientific method.

"Model selection in ecology and evolution," Trends In Ecology And Evolution, Vol. 19, No. 2, Feb 2004

Abstract:

Recently, researchers in several areas of ecology and evolution have begun to change the way in which they analyze data and make biological inferences. Rather than the traditional null hypothesis testing approach, they have adopted an approach called model selection, in which several competing hypotheses are simultaneously confronted with data. Model selection can be used to identify a single best model, thus lending support to one particular hypothesis, or it can be used to make inferences based on weighted support from a complete set of competing models. Model selection is widely accepted and well developed in certain fields, most notably in molecular systematics and mark-recapture analysis. However, it is now gaining support in several other areas, from molecular evolution to landscape ecology. Here, we outline the steps of model selection and highlight several ways that it is now being implemented. By adopting this approach, researchers in ecology and evolution will find a valuable alternative to traditional null hypothesis testing, especially when more than one hypothesis is plausible.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

borntowatch
Science by its very definition must be
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable

Evolution by its very nature can not and has not complied

Evolution is a faith, you want to believe and so do without evidence.

As a Christian I accept creation is a faith, hence why I cant prove it

Evolution is reproducible, just familiarize yourself with the work of Lenski. It is also very observable, both in the lab and in the wild on a variety of levels. Countless potential falsifications have been offered for evolution, I am surprised you are not familiar with Haldane's pre-Cambrian bunnies at the very least. It is also quite testable.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

borntowatch
I dont call my beliefs science, read the ops opening address, mine is a faith just like yours, I dont pretend my beliefs are science like evolutionists


That's right your beliefs are not science....but you if you care whether or not the things you believe are in fact true, you should apply the exact same standards (especially considering the outrageous nature of your beliefs).


I am not delusional/



again without
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable science to back it up, its all just a faith in science, not science at all


The fact that the theory of evolution has complied to all of the above and has been pointed out to you personally and the vast majority of creationists here on ATS many many many times in the past only points to you being dishonest, delusional or a combination of both i'm afraid.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

borntowatch

Prezbo369

borntowatch
That deeply encrusted ignorance can be removed instantly by some
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable
Science


If I thought you applied these same standards to your own beliefs on the subject (or on any topic) I'd take you and this challenge seriously...



I dont call my beliefs science, read the ops opening address, mine is a faith just like yours, I dont pretend my beliefs are science like evolutionists
I am not delusional/

again without
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable science to back it up, its all just a faith in science, not science at all

He is trying to prove creation wrong with no evidence, its not difficult to understand, is it?


This post is specifically for the Christians on here. We have to rightly divide what is truly established, observed science versus fairy tales cloaked in scientific garb. What is observable is what they call micro-evolution, meaning genetic variation within a species and the natural selection and removal of certain preexisting genetic traits. No new information is added, its just a reshuffling and or removal of genetic information already present. A dog is still a dog, and a cat is still a cat regardless. Biblically , its just a variation within a kind. What hasn't been observed is macro-evolution, which means the changing of one kind of species into another. The debate about our origins centers around this pagan fairy tale, as one of the evolutionist stated below.


“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” - Theodosius Dobzhansky


We can see that even some in the evolutionist camp have openly admitted throughout the years that macro-evolution and real science have nothing in common. I'm sure we all know the story of the Princess kissing the frog which turned into a prince, of which we would call a fairy tale. In school, we were told that a long time ago there was an amphibian, which over millions of years became a mammal. The only difference between the two is the former is recognized as a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a mammal while the latter is taught as "science" because "millions" of years turned the amphibian into a mammal. To an evolutionist, time is their magic wand. But due to the lack of transitional fossils, all kinds of completely made up theories have been proposed to explain away the lack of evidence.

One of the more recent theories proposed is punctuated equilibrium, which simply means evolution in a hurry. Since the fossil records doesn't suggest any slow gradual change from species to species, it is assumed that it must have happened in big leaps. The process happened too fast to be observable according to them, a complete 180 from the rubbish that was previously taught. This is also where the idea of the E.T interventionist theory of evolution is given more "credibility" in the eyes of some evolutionists. So what we have is unobservable, untestable , and henceforth unfalsifiable "science". To put it simply it means that its not real science in the slightest. It is every bit a faith as it was taught ages ago in the pagan religions of old.

Evolution: an ancient pagan idea

What is important for all Christians to understand is the role this ancient materialist ideology will play in the promotion of the anti-Christ of which I discuss in painstaking detail throughout the threads linked below. When the anti-Christ arrives performing miracles, Moses turning a stick into a snake will be akin to turning a primate into a human in the eyes of the world. Understanding this simple concept is the first step in fully understanding the deceptive long term agenda behind it all.

The anti-christ and the media's role in promoting him

The giants of Genesis 6 and how they will be presented to the populace



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 



Why is the Theory of Evolution a theory at all? Because it went through the process of the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.


I find it interesting that you claim the Scientific Method is involved in the theory of Evolution. I guess it depends on which type of evolution you are talking about, because there are six types of evolution.

THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF EVOLUTION ARE DESCRIBED:

Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.


OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVOLUTION

Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.
The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.
The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.
They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.
Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.


Now certainly, and admittedly, the same thing can be said about Creationism. By the way, I am a Christian and a "young Earth creationist". I believe that everything was created in the exact manner that is depicted and described in the Bible, or more specifically, the Book of Genesis (with some elaboration found elsewhere throughout the Bible). Having said all of that, my wish is to not "convert" one who subscribes to the theory of Evolution. No, my wish is for only the evolutionist to admit that their belief system is just as unprovable as mine is, and that evolution takes just as much faith as mine does.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Okay I'm going to say this, in just about anything we do there is bias. That was the first thing I learned about history, historians and most things in life even science and religion. There will be bias in this post due to my own beliefs, experiences and current situation. Just like how there will be bias in say a religion or even a scientific hypothesis. Now while the theory of evolution isn't accurate enough to be called fact, can you tell me that you're any better than someone who's saying that god created man ? Just because someone said it was so doesn't mean they're right even for evolutionists that one goes.

Sure it's easier to say that god did this and that. But people thought no wait there must be more to life than god did everything. They decided to start to try and look at life and how it works and through that came the marvels of the modern world we have today, if we didn't look at how life and the world around us works we wouldn't have most of the medicine and operations necessary to save peoples life's. So not everyone is correct about evolution sometimes, but at least they're making an effort to try and understand. I'm sure you have a motive for everything you do as well.

We all make mistakes, sometimes were not right, I'm sure that to some people every little detail seems to be more important than the larger picture. You can stare at the stars and the heaven's above but in the end the evolutionists will need creationists and the creationists will need evolutionists simply because one can not exist without the other, because I bet you that if all the atheist's and evolutionists left only creationists would remain and squabble and argue amongst each other for years before splitting into smaller groups trying to kill each other. And the same would happen with the evolutionists no matter what.

The point I'm trying to make is that the creationists need evolutionists and vice versa. Why? having too much of one ideology is biased and closed minded meaning that nothing will ever progress and if it does it will constantly regress till there's nothing left.

So evolutionists and creationists stop trying to say that you're better than each other because in truth watching the two of you is like watching two kids fight on a playground. It's actually pretty funny too.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I'll try to answer everyone's posts at once, please restate any questions I may have missed. Also, I am by no means an expert in all scientific fields, so I may not be able to answer a few specific ones, but instead offer a reputable source that may better answer your questions.


NthOther
Hm. I didn't see anything in the scientific method about making stuff up so that certain equations or theories will work. Such as dark matter with gravity. Or the more honest "missing link" in evolution. But that's beside the point...


Would you be able to provide a more specific example when referring to your Dark Matter response?

As for the "missing link", it has already been addressed by another individual in this topic, I'll elaborate on that posters comments.

Essentially, the Theory of Evolution does not require there to be a step by step model - as in every single individual who existed - for us to be able to draw the similarities together and describe what species derived from another. We do indeed require an - at least - decent quantity of quality examples (fossils) that show a progression through both skeletal and organ remains in order to make a reasonable assessment and taxonomic position.

Of course, as you clearly understand, these judgements aren't necessarily finite. That's why taxonomy is changed so often. Whenever another specimen of a new species is found or a better quality specimen of the same species is discovered, we can alter our definition of that species, or its placement within a given gene pool.

However, there are exact skeletal and DNA formations (as well as other specifics) which are described within a specific family, group, genus, etc, that are not shown in any other. This is the bases of how we can make certain classifications. Due to these similarities, we can relate a given number of species together. We can even look further into a specific formation and see which specimen had come before all the others, and determine, to some extent, that this would have likely been the later species' ancestor, perhaps even common ancestor.

Which means a missing link is not a detriment to the theory itself, but rather how detailed our taxonomic records are.



NthOther
Modern science is not simply about postulating and testing hypotheses. It has become an institution unto itself, complete with social, political, and economic influences (and hierarchies) that both direct and negate modes of inquiry and the interpretations derived therefrom. As such, the "scientific community" is no more trustworthy a source of accurate information than is the Catholic Church.


You are absolutely correct, to some degrees. Many scientific theories, or hypothesis, or simply theses, are not taken as seriously as others due to a social and political sense. This is usually due to the fact that a specific researcher is not as well known, has made many incorrect hypotheses in the past, or the hypothesis (or whatever is in question) is just so "out-there" and conflicting to what we already mostly accept in an extreme way.

This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. It could potentially weed out any unnecessary use of funding which could be put towards a more solid theory. This does not mean that that specific hypothesis is rejected entirely, though. It simply means that it may take longer to gather funds. It may also mean that the hypothesis will receive a lot more attention in the form of attempting to disprove it; which is also a good thing. The more research there is in an attempt to falsify a claim, the better! If the hypothesis is subjected to such scrutiny, and was continuously shown to actually be correct, the more solidity the hypothesis gets to being able to accurately describe whatever subject its attempting to describe.



borntowatch
Science by its very definition must be
Repeatable
Observable
Falsifiable
and Testable

Evolution by its very nature can not and has not complied

Evolution is a faith, you want to believe and so do without evidence.

As a Christian I accept creation is a faith, hence why I cant prove it


Evolution being:

Repeatable: We can do this simply by breeding anything within the same species. The offspring are both a combination of the parents, and also in possession of new information that it's parents did not have. In fact, if this were not true, then you would be an exact copy of your mother or father. Even in identical twins, their DNA is not 100% the same. If my mind serves me correctly, they are only %99.8 similar in reference to DNA.

This is due to the fact that when an offspring is gestating, and receiving all that DNA Combination, it may receive a "double dose" of a gene (one from the mother and one from the father) and it could cancel the function of that genetic coding, or enhance it in a way that it did not function the way that only one of those genes would. Thus, new information. All we need to repeat this process is by breeding.

Observed: We could say that the above example is also an observation, But lets move to something else. Environmental effect. When we see that a species, or family, or genus (or what have you), is specifically adapted to a certain environment, that is technically an observation of evolution. These species (and so forth) have adapted to their environments. Let us assume that you are referring to Evolution occurring "before our eyes". The best examples for that (other than the one under the "repeatable" explanation) would be in bacteria and viruses. If we have a strain of the Flu Virus becoming immune to the vaccinations, that would be an example of an observed form of Evolution.

Falsifiable: There are many ways to falsify Evolution. Technically I've already stated one way in the Repeatable example, but lets elaborate. If we were to have something that is otherwise not related so directly (a duck and a crocodile), and all of a sudden a combination of a duck and a crocodile were to appear, this would falsify evolution. It simply would not make sense. The same would go for mythological creatures like Mermaids and Centaurs. Life just doesn't work that way, according to the Theory of Evolution.

The one falsifiability that creationists love the most, is the observation of life being created in it's modern form. We simply do not see that occur according to our fossil record. It also would not make sense why we would have the biological functions we see clearly (reproduction with variation) in every day life. Thus, an example of a fully formed animal being created in such a way, would falsify Evolution.

Testable: Testability in Evolution is quite simple. An example would be to have any given number of groups of populations of a same species, have them in separate environments, and also have a control group in their natural environment. We would eventually see changes in biological and even physiological manners, separately, depending on the new environment. This has been recorded multiple times. Mostly in bacteria and viruses as they reproduce quickly and have short life spans (generally). I can provide examples if you'd like?



the2ofusr1

Question ...What is the reason you made this thread ?


To help educate some individuals who may be curious and/or have otherwise false information about specific topics within Science, or Science in general.


the2ofusr1It is very close to what may be considered a rant by a number of members .Now we could take a vote and come up with a consensus based on the definitions of a rant .We might have to go look at all of the voters posts to determine if they may be guilty of some kind of bias .


You are free to do as you wish, but i assure you, this is not a rant. It also complies with the forum rules, so I doubt it would be taken down. If it does for any reason, then so be it. I'm not trying to insult anyone, though.


the2ofusr1

If the theory of evolution were true in my opinion then the fossil record would have the part man part monkey part whale or what ever part or parts they need to convince people .


Ironically, this would actually disprove evolution. I suggest that you continue reading the posts throughout this topic so as to let you know a more accurate assessment on the Theory of Evolution and the functions behind the phenomenon of Evolution.



the2ofusr1
But like you I have enough evidence to believe there is a God ...We just are looking with our own eyes .
and we are both biased in that respect .....peace


On the contrary. I disbelieve in a God for the same reasons I do not accept all theories within Science. I analyze the given information and make an opinion on my observations. What you've displayed, on the other hand, is more of a misinformation-based knowledge of the subject, perhaps science in general. This most likely isn't your fault, but where you are getting your information on. That's why I suggest listening to what a person who knows and accepts the subject at hand is explaining, rather than a second-hand explanation (such as through a pastors opinion on the matter, whom likely isn't educated in that matter).


UxoriousMagnus

Evolutionists say that breeding a dog a certain way to make changes in it's specie is an example of evolution.

So what happens when we breed the dog back to it's original state from whence we began? Did we just devolve it?

Who is to say...that we didn't evolve a certain distance and then devolve right back to the original state?


There isn't such a thing as "devolving". There are many instances where a gene pool (species) had something (such as eye sight) and then "lost" it, due to a changing environment. This usually takes several thousands, to millions of years for such an adaptation, however, its an adaptation none-the-less.

It may appear as though they are loosing something, when they are actually being better suited for their changing environment. There is no need for them to have eyesight in the darkness. It will likely have to develop another sense that would let them find food, shelter, or escape from predators. This also takes several thousands (and more) years.

If a species cannot adapt quickly enough, then they will likely die off from starvation, predation, or other environmental factors (eg: lack of shelter).

It's not so much about getting something new, or taking something away that equals Evolution. It matters only that organisms adapt over time through variation from reproduction.


UxoriousMagnus
well....the fossils tell us that didn't happen in either direction.


Could you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you mean.




CovertAgenda
Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith.
Faith that scientific method has been applied appropriately and correctly, and faith in the teachings and findings of others.


You are mixing the definition of faith. You're trying to justify a religious faith in science, versus a faith that describes "my faith my families abilities". They are two separate things.

We use the latter definition of faith everyday. I have faith that when I turn my door handle, the door will open. In this sense, nearly everything requires an implication of faith.

However, Science is not religiously faithful, because it's not an ideology. It requires that evidence be observed and tested in order for a hypothesis to be accepted. Whenever new evidence arises that contradicts the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is formed in order to accommodate the new evidence and provide us with a more accurate evaluation of whatever phenomenon. Science relies entirely on "seeing is believing" in order for it to work. It is the exact opposite of a religious-based faith, for that reason alone.



CovertAgendaI do not FULLY believe ANYTHING unless i can verify personally.


That's the greatest thing about Science! You CAN test everything yourself! It's how a hypothesis becomes a theory. Multiple confirmation through separate studies and researches that provide prove of the accuracy of a claim. So long as you have the right equipment (which is often not expensive at all, Perhaps even free!), you can conduct those same experiments and provide proof or falsification to any given scientific claim.


CovertAgenda
to fully believe that the planets revolve around the sun, i would have to take my telescope out every night, plot and map the planets (or whatever those main moving points of light are) (aka Copernicus ~1510-1515) develop some interesting hypotheses, and confirm heliocentricity.


That would be unnecessary if you can understand the concepts behind those observations

Science is never meant to be absolutely finite. Anyone who claims that has a misrepresentation of what science is. Science isn't the answer for everything, nor is it even the answer for anything. Science's only goal is to attempt to explain naturally occurring phenomena, nothing more. Our explanations may change, because we can't know everything, but the natural phenomena doesn't.

You can't go in thinking that "I want answers" when referring to science. It simply doesn't work like that. We have our best explanation from our current observations, and that is it. It is why science is so exciting! There is always something new to learn and always a way to further our explanations.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Ghost147
 



Why is the Theory of Evolution a theory at all? Because it went through the process of the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method
- Make observations.
- Propose a hypothesis.
- Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
- If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.


I find it interesting that you claim the Scientific Method is involved in the theory of Evolution. I guess it depends on which type of evolution you are talking about, because there are six types of evolution.

THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF EVOLUTION ARE DESCRIBED:

Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.



As I stated in the first post, there are different definitions within a given word. When someone says "The Theory of Evolution" they are directly referencing Biological Evolution. Just as if I were to say "The Theory of Relativity" (or The Theory Of Gravity), I specifically refer to Gravity (as in being pulled towards some invisible force due to it's mass), not the other definitions of Gravity such as "heaviness or weight. ". As in "the Gravity of this situation"

There is not two different types of Gravity, though. It's simply how the English language works. Albeit unnecessarily confusing.

Alas, there is only one "Theory of Evolution", and that is based on the observations that biology intrinsically evolves. The theory for the evolution of the cosmos is within the realms of Cosmology, for example.



OptimusSubprime
Now certainly, and admittedly, the same thing can be said about Creationism. By the way, I am a Christian and a "young Earth creationist". I believe that everything was created in the exact manner that is depicted and described in the Bible, or more specifically, the Book of Genesis (with some elaboration found elsewhere throughout the Bible). Having said all of that, my wish is to not "convert" one who subscribes to the theory of Evolution. No, my wish is for only the evolutionist to admit that their belief system is just as unprovable as mine is, and that evolution takes just as much faith as mine does.


The way you describe biological evolution is indeed exactly how creationism works (in the form of an explanation that is). However, that isn't how The Theory Of Evolution (Biological Evolution) works. I suggest you read through my latest post before this one, it addresses some of the issues you have with the theory in more detail.

There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist"; as in implying an "ism", and an "ism" describes an ideology; which science is not (I can explain if you wish). There are Evolutionary Biologists, however; and also individuals who accept the theory. That's beside the fact, though. No person who accepts The Theory Of Evolution (unless they are also misinterpreting the facts about it) will ever say that it is unprovable, due to the fact that it has indeed been proven (well, the Phenomenon that is).

Once again, I suggest you read through my latest post (before this one) for more information.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join