Science: For Young Earth Creationists

reply to post by blueyezblkdragon

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.

I agree with you. A debate is often misunderstood by an audience, meaning that most of the audience probably isn't aware that the two sides debating are not trying to change the other's mind, because the informed and zealous evolutionist and the informed and zealous creationist have already made their minds up. The idea of the debate is to convince an uninformed audience member of which side is correct. Most of the time it certainly reminds one of two children fighting. Having said all of that, I think the arguments start because of titles like the one of this thread. The OP presumes that a young Earth Creationist can't possibly understand or comprehend science, although most of the science involved in defining the theory of evolution is better described as pseudoscience, the fact remains that the self righteous, pseudo-intellectual evolutionist feels that he/she must take time out of their very important existence to "school" the young Earth creationist of science. It's absurd and offensive.

OptimusSubprime

I agree with you. A debate is often misunderstood by an audience, meaning that most of the audience probably isn't aware that the two sides debating are not trying to change the other's mind, because the informed and zealous evolutionist and the informed and zealous creationist have already made their minds up. The idea of the debate is to convince an uninformed audience member of which side is correct.

Quite right, the very reason I made this thread.

OptimusSubprimeI think the arguments start because of titles like the one of this thread. The OP presumes that a young Earth Creationist can't possibly understand or comprehend science

It's not a presumption at all. I've been debating with Young Earth Creationists for several years now; quite extensively during those times, too. I have yet to meet a Young Earth Creationist who understands the basic fundamental principles behind Science in general, let alone anything about Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

This is not an insult to their intelligence, however. I fully understand why they don't understand, or are not willing to understand. It is exclusively due to the misinterpreted information they are getting their sources from. I do not go to a seminar about mathematics being taught by a speaker who has no knowledge of mathematics, for instance. If I want to learn about mathematics, I go to someone who is educated on the matter. If you only get your knowledge of math from that speaker who knows nothing of math, then of course your concept of mathematics is immensely flawed, to say the least.

This same scenario could be implied to a Young Earth Creationist's way of how they learned anything scientific. From a source that isn't well educated in scientific matters; Or worse, says that they are, even though they aren't.

This issue is so prevalent - if not practically intrinsic - that not a single poster within this thread, who also believes in Young Earth Creationism, has demonstrated an accurate presentation and understanding of the Scientific Method, or Evolution, or The Theory of Evolution, or Cosmology, or Gravity. Nothing.

Why? Because of where they learned their information. It is likely not because they cannot comprehend it. I'm sure that everyone here is more than intelligent enough to understand these concepts. The issue lies with their willingness to learn information; information that doesn't nessesarily conflict with their ideologies; but even a simple definition (as you, yourself, continue to demonstrate).

This is the true issue that surrounds this problem.

OptimusSubprime
although most of the science involved in defining the theory of evolution is better described as pseudoscience,

There is no science involved in defining the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is only one thing. Even after my description why this is not how you misinterpreted it, you seem to have ignored the facts entirely.

To make it as simple as possible; lets say the word "Evolution", is the word "Fruit". Let's say the phrase The Theory Of Evolution is the word Apple. Clearly, an apple is a fruit, but all fruits aren't apples. This is the same differentiation that The Theory of Evolution has to the word Evolution.

OptimusSubprime
the fact remains that the self righteous, pseudo-intellectual evolutionist feels that he/she must take time out of their very important existence to "school" the young Earth creationist of science. It's absurd and offensive.

There's nothing self righteous about saying that someone is misinterpreting something, when they are in fact misinterpreting something. What's self righteous is when a person who isn't educated one a matter, says to an educated person (in the matter) is incorrect, then is proven wrong about their accusation, then doesn't accept their incorrect accusation. Which is also what you have demonstrated.

I'm not claiming to be any more intelligent or intellectual than anyone else. However, I do feel that I am more educated on this specific subject than the individuals who have commented here so far. Is that insulting? No. It's simply fact.

If, conversely, I was having an argument with any given creationist here about scripture, and I was proven wrong about whatever I was claiming, then I would accept that you probably know more about scripture than I do. Am I insulted that you know more about Scripture than I do? No. You have invested more time on the subject, there for you likely know more about it than I do. Why would that be insulting? It is simple fact.

blueyezblkdragon
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.

I respect your stance on this issue, but when it comes to my faith in Christianity, I am absolute. I'm sure most Christians would agree that an evolutionists philosophical beliefs about the origins and meaning of life really isn't welcome at all, and this given the history especially of America and the western countries that didn't start off with neo-Darwinian principles, quite the opposite. Many science magazines and scientists who don't hold dogmatically to the evolutionary view of the world will tell you that if evolutionary interpretations of real science didn't exist, it would hardly be noticed, and this is assuming that the science itself is legitimate and not some kind of fraud like the piltdown man.

It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very important but have in fact been promoted to a position of ineffectuality. - G.H. Harper

reply to post by Ghost147



A)

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.

My definition with regards to the domain of this conversation was stated in the second line. I never said science was religiously faithful, although on reading this again i pose the question that if the following definitions may be used:

re·li·gious (rĭ-lĭj′əs)
adj.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

faith·ful (fāth′fəl)
adj.
1. Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal.
2. Engaging in sex only with one's spouse or only with one's partner in a sexual relationship.
3. Having or full of faith.
4. Worthy of trust or belief; reliable.
5. Consistent with truth or actuality: a faithful reproduction of the portrait.

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.

Looks to me you will have to be (3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.) and (1. Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal. 5. Consistent with truth or actuality)
In order to follow the scientific method?
Im not disagreeing with what u say, just how far do we need to waffle?

B)

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.

Yes and I more or less state that in the following paragraph concluding with:

Of course I take faith in other peoples work because it seems to fit with my own meagre observations.

C)

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.

I do. And i still require my faith in the science presented.
Did I say science was finite? Did I say science is the answer for everything?
Should we go in asking that we want more questions? That would certainly help with funding.
Why cant 'answers' be 'our best explanation from our current observations', who said the answers are going to be true or correct?

Only a closed mind, waffle for waffles sake, and blind faith is dangerous.

reply to post by BlackManINC

Biblically , its just a variation within a kind.

Since we're entering into a scientific discussion here, please define "kind".

What hasn't been observed is macro-evolution, which means the changing of one kind of species into another.

If you're claiming that there are no observed instances of speciation, you're simply incorrect.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

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.

Do yourself a favor and stop watching Hovind videos or reading Chick tracts or wherever it was that you got this "information", because it's a complete farce. The first four have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, the last two are the same process viewed on two different scales. Creationists insist on trying to draw a line between macro and micro evolution where one does not exist. You admit yourself that genetic variations within a species exist, and speciation has been observed.

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.

Only the strawman version of evolution you've invented for yourself, or had invented for you by Hovind and his ilk, is unprovable. Fortunately, the observable phenomenon of evolution and the overarching theory that seeks to explain it bear little to no resemblance to your strawman.

reply to post by Ghost147

I'm not claiming to be any more intelligent or intellectual than anyone else. However, I do feel that I am more educated on this specific subject than the individuals who have commented here so far. Is that insulting? No. It's simply fact.

You are not claiming...., and yet you feel..., then its a fact.... wow... have you read what you waffle?

Is that your scientific method?

A fact (derived from the Latin factum,) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Mate, verify it.

Only a closed mind, waffle for waffles sake, segue trolling,and blind faith is dangerous.

reply to post by Ghost147


I would think that if you wanted to educate people about science then putting your thread in the religion section was a simple error on your part .I wont bother educating you on the differences between the sections on ATS .You may want to get a Mod to move your thread to the proper section .

So like you ,I am only expressing my opinion on evidence we have gathered . I didn't get my information from a pastor .Did you get yours from the equivalent in science ?

You may in the end have confused Theory , and Theology .On is associated with science and the other with religion .Unless you consider science a religion in which case I would have to agree and think that you may have the correct forum .peace

edit to add link to just a few questions on the subject www.youtube.com...=169 Very short vid ..

BlackManINC
I'm sure most Christians would agree that an evolutionists philosophical beliefs about the origins and meaning of life really isn't welcome at all,

Considering that I have already demonstrated that Evolution has no say or do with the origins of life and especially the meaning of life, those Christians you speak of would have a misinterpreted definition of Evolution. I have also demonstrated how there is nothing philosophical about Evolution at all. Thus why it is not an "ism" or ideology. Simply a branch of science.

Please refer to my former posts for more details.

BlackManINC
this given the history especially of America and the western countries that didn't start off with neo-Darwinian principles, quite the opposite.

Nor does any form of science. Fortunately, since nothing scientific has anything to do with how we should act Morally, or what laws we should implement, or anything philosophical, it doesn't inflict with the general stance of any religion, when referencing these points.

BlackManINC
Many science magazines and scientists who don't hold dogmatically to the evolutionary view of the world will tell you that if evolutionary interpretations of real science didn't exist, it would hardly be noticed, and this is assuming that the science itself is legitimate and not some kind of fraud like the piltdown man.

Once again, Evolution does not instate a philosophical interpretation of anything. It simply is a process of why we reproduce with variation, nothing more. There for any scientists or scientific magazines who hold this idea of Evolution, would also be misinterpreting what the Theory of Evolution describes.

Your continued misrepresentation of what Evolution actually is simply establishes your bias and refusal to accept, not the theory itself, but even the definition of it.

I have no issues with why you do not accept Evolution, you reasons are your own. However, you continuously spout misrepresented points about the subject, even though they have repeatedly been shown to not actually exist (the accusations you make). This is simply an incomprehensible reason for the action of accepting ignorance.

Could you please explain to me why you continuously feel this is necessary? While also explaining why you continuously dismiss and ignore the real definition of evolution.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that it exists. My goal is to simply show what the subjects means and describes.

CovertAgenda
My definition with regards to the domain of this conversation was stated in the second line. I never said science was religiously faithfu

Actually, you did.

When you state that "Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith." it implies that you are saying that Science is a religion because it requires religious faith.

If all it takes is non-religious faith to make a religion, then everything would be considered religious. Of course, we all know that this is not the case. It takes religious faith to make something religious (among other things).

Clearly, with this new quote above, you do not believe this. In which case, it would mean that science is, in fact, not religious.

CovertAgenda
Looks to me you will have to be (3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.) and (1. Adhering firmly and devotedly, as to a person, cause, or idea; loyal. 5. Consistent with truth or actuality)
In order to follow the scientific method?

No, that is not how things work. I could say the same thing about breathing. I have to be devoted to consciously open my lungs and take in oxygen. I have to be devoted to the cause and idea that I need to do this action in order to live, and adhere firmly to that action. This does not make the action of breathing a religion.

Once again, what you are presenting is a form of misunderstanding. You do indeed need to follow the rules in order for a hypothesis to be considered valid. Just as you need to keep under the speed limit to be considered driving legally. These actions both require to be followed if you are to respectfully conduct a scientific experiment, or to drive legally. This "devotion" is not a religious one. Nor is the "Duty". Nor is adhering firmly to those instated rules.

Once again, you're misinterpreting the definitions.

CovertAgenda
Yes and I more or less state that in the following paragraph concluding with:

Of course I take faith in other peoples work because it seems to fit with my own meagre observations.

I understand that you do so out of non-religious faith. I was simply explaining how you yourself could conduct those experiments yourself, there for making it faithless entirely.

CovertAgenda
I do. And i still require my faith in the science presented.

Very true! A non-religious faith. However, if you ever do not trust them (the scientists), you can always confirm what they claim yourself. Thus, making the faith both non-existent and also non-religious in the first place.

CovertAgenda
Should we go in asking that we want more questions? That would certainly help with funding.
Why cant 'answers' be 'our best explanation from our current observations', who said the answers are going to be true or correct?

Absolutely! However, simply asking questions does not negate funding. Much more has to occur in order for funding to be made available.

The answers are never true or correct, simply our best attempt at explanation. Although, we instate a continuous examination of a claim/phenomena/hypothesis in order to ensure accuracy.

CovertAgenda

I'm not claiming to be any more intelligent or intellectual than anyone else. However, I do feel that I am more educated on this specific subject than the individuals who have commented here so far. Is that insulting? No. It's simply fact.

You are not claiming...., and yet you feel..., then its a fact.... wow... have you read what you waffle?

As I explained immensely in my OP, knowledge does not equal intelligence. Simply because I know more about a topic does not make me more intelligent than you. It does mean I'm more informed, however. Just as you likely know a subject more than me. You may have more information on that subject, but that does not equal your intelligence.

So no, I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than anyone else here. It has become evident that I am more knowledgeable about this particular subject. Thus a fact that I know more about this subject. Not a fact that I am more intelligent.

I apologize for your confusion, I will attempt to make my wording more clear in my following comments.

CovertAgenda
Is that your scientific method?

A fact (derived from the Latin factum,) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Mate, verify it.

If you were to look at my previous posts, it has already been verified. I have clearly demonstrated a strong grasp of the information pertaining to Evolution, the Theory of Evolution, and the Scientific Method. You can verify this further for yourself, by examining the content within my posts and searching for the information from any scientific book or source that has also been proven as reputable. Or, I suppose, you could simply have "faith" in me

the2ofusr1

I would think that if you wanted to educate people about science then putting your thread in the religion section was a simple error on your part .

On the contrary, this post is directed specifically to religious individuals (and others who may be confused or curious). This information is rather elementary and would there for do no good in the scientific forum.

It also directly references the common confusions with a specific religious mindset (young earth creationism).

Of course, you are free to report this topic to a moderator yourself if you continue to believe it does not conform to the purpose of this particular forum. I, personally, believe it does. This, as you have stated, is up to the mods digressions, however.

the2ofusr1
So like you ,I am only expressing my opinion on evidence we have gathered . I didn't get my information from a pastor .Did you get yours from the equivalent in science ?

I am sorry, but there is no equivalent person within any Scientific field that would relate to a pastor.

the2ofusr1
You may in the end have confused Theory , and Theology .On is associated with science and the other with religion .Unless you consider science a religion in which case I would have to agree and think that you may have the correct forum .

I assure you I am not. considering that a Scientific Theory has nothing to do with religious ideologies and practices. Ironically, however, the religious folk here seem to believe otherwise, so would it then not be considered the correct placement for such a topic, according to them?

I suppose then, it is up to opinion and education.

reply to post by Ghost147


Ok then carry on ...I was a little confused as to the why and what the thread was created for . My interest in evolution is about the same as politics ..peace

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Ok then carry on ...I was a little confused as to the why and what the thread was created for . My interest in evolution is about the same as politics ..peace

Not a problem. Thanks for the conversations

reply to post by Ghost147


If you could take 5 min. and watch this vid on solar observations and how theory can be misunderstood within the scientific community you may want to re-think your theory of evolution www.youtube.com...
Peace

reply to post by Ghost147


I'd like to pose a serious question (or a couple of them) about Evolution. I wouldn't claim that I'm a young earth creationist because I'm not. Both sides do not offer any sufficiently convincing points to be considered that it actually happened literally. I grew up as a Catholic yet the Genesis story seemed more like a fairy tale to me than an actual "Young Earth Creationism". Having been schooled in a scientific curriculum, I've grown to accept Evolution over time but it also lead me to question its content as a whole. Since I can't really question a fairy tale in a technical manner (it would sound very absurd and ridiculous to me), I leave the Genesis story as is. I don't try to justify it, neither do I preach about it. However, over the years, I've always had this question about Evolution that bugs me to this day, so if I may, I'd like to post that question here.


Does Evolution claim that all living things came from one tiny organism which evolved over hundreds of millennia and separated into different varying creatures?

If Evolution doesn't claim or expound on this yet, then does it implicitly assume this for its mechanics to hold true?

tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Does Evolution claim that all living things came from one tiny organism which evolved over hundreds of millennia and separated into different varying creatures?

Thats a valid question and one I pondered for along time

Evidently there seems two
theory's at the moment I am aware of

Yes, one organism splitting into two
The other theory is a group of organisms suddenly appeared as a soup

Evidently evolving a reproductive system

And I forgot the alien agenda, we were seeded or life came from a meteor or something, whatever it is not an answer to abiogenesis, just places the problem outside of our world.
Mr Dawkins is a big fan of life coming from another planet.


How an evolutionist gets over this hurdle so easily surprises me, they seem to accept organic evolution yet cant explain the start of life.
Effectively a roof on a house that has no walls or foundation

borntowatch

Evidently there seems two
theory's at the moment I am aware of

Yes, one organism splitting into two
The other theory is a group of organisms suddenly appeared as a soup

Evidently you don't bother to read the responses to the same malformed questions and claims you continually on this forum.

So why bother to post at all?

Prezbo369

borntowatch

Evidently there seems two
theory's at the moment I am aware of

Yes, one organism splitting into two
The other theory is a group of organisms suddenly appeared as a soup

Evidently you don't bother to read the responses to the same malformed questions and claims you continually on this forum.

So why bother to post at all?

edit on 3-2-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

is that some sort of code

reply to post by borntowatch


Haha, I appreciate your reply... that question is basically what stopped me from buying into Evolution too much.
Personally, I don't adhere into the "one single organism splitting into two" theory..

Genetics-wise, the whole traits passing on to the offspring, or mixing of traits from different members of the same species works pretty well. It's the cross-species aspect that's a bit disturbing and not really tested to be feasible. So I'm more inclined to believe that each creature was created or came into existence separately unto themselves. And if this is the case, then how Genesis narrated it seems closer to what actually happened. It's still a bed-time story to me, but the general ideas are there. Stories after all are the primitive ways of passing thoughts and ideas by word of mouth until somebody decided to write it down.

Ghost147

BlackManINC
I'm sure most Christians would agree that an evolutionists philosophical beliefs about the origins and meaning of life really isn't welcome at all,

Considering that I have already demonstrated that Evolution has no say or do with the origins of life and especially the meaning of life, those Christians you speak of would have a misinterpreted definition of Evolution. I have also demonstrated how there is nothing philosophical about Evolution at all. Thus why it is not an "ism" or ideology. Simply a branch of science.

Please refer to my former posts for more details.

BlackManINC
this given the history especially of America and the western countries that didn't start off with neo-Darwinian principles, quite the opposite.

Nor does any form of science. Fortunately, since nothing scientific has anything to do with how we should act Morally, or what laws we should implement, or anything philosophical, it doesn't inflict with the general stance of any religion, when referencing these points.

BlackManINC
Many science magazines and scientists who don't hold dogmatically to the evolutionary view of the world will tell you that if evolutionary interpretations of real science didn't exist, it would hardly be noticed, and this is assuming that the science itself is legitimate and not some kind of fraud like the piltdown man.

Once again, Evolution does not instate a philosophical interpretation of anything. It simply is a process of why we reproduce with variation, nothing more. There for any scientists or scientific magazines who hold this idea of Evolution, would also be misinterpreting what the Theory of Evolution describes.

Your continued misrepresentation of what Evolution actually is simply establishes your bias and refusal to accept, not the theory itself, but even the definition of it.

I have no issues with why you do not accept Evolution, you reasons are your own. However, you continuously spout misrepresented points about the subject, even though they have repeatedly been shown to not actually exist (the accusations you make). This is simply an incomprehensible reason for the action of accepting ignorance.

Could you please explain to me why you continuously feel this is necessary? While also explaining why you continuously dismiss and ignore the real definition of evolution.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that it exists. My goal is to simply show what the subjects means and describes.

Why do you think every humanist manifesto, an atheist doctrine permeating the school system, makes it very clear that it is directly based on evolution? Because it attempts to explain how nature got to this point without God or any supernatural creator, and by definition is entirely compatible with the materialist beliefs in old religions where evolution was taught in the form of pantheism. The very idea of a pre-biotic soup, of which the various lab tests I'm sure you are aware of have failed to show is even possible, as well as the big bang theory attempts to explain how the universe came to be without any supernatural implications. Everybody knows that Darwin, from which it is claimed the very theory of evolution came from of which I have shown is not true in the slightest, also attempted to explain away nature without God. Thats why atheists and other scoffers of the Bible always bring up evolution in their arguments against it. Both sides of this issue about origins are biased, but the reason why the creationists almost always win the campus debates is because they tend to appeal to the actual scientific facts unlike the evolutionists who tend to appeal to made up philosophical assumptions that has nothing to do with science, as even some evolutionists have admitted.

iterationzero
reply to post by BlackManINC

 

Biblically , its just a variation within a kind.

Since we're entering into a scientific discussion here, please define "kind".

What hasn't been observed is macro-evolution, which means the changing of one kind of species into another.

If you're claiming that there are no observed instances of speciation, you're simply incorrect.

I don't see how I could make my point any clearer without writing a book. I have seen nothing in that link that shows how speciation can lead to an ape magically transforming into a human, or a frog transforming into a prince. Speciation might cause one type of primate to be unable to reproduce with another species of primate, but that doesn't make it any less an ape. This is the problem creationists have with the tripe that's taught in the schools when it comes down to it.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Ghost147

 

If you could take 5 min. and watch this vid on solar observations and how theory can be misunderstood within the scientific community you may want to re-think your theory of evolution www.youtube.com...
Peace

I'll be able to do that tomorrow, thanks for providing the link!

tomoe723
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Does Evolution claim that all living things came from one tiny organism which evolved over hundreds of millennia and separated into different varying creatures?

Evolution actually doesn't related to the beginning of life at all. Abiogenesis is what pertains to that. So far we don't have any generally accepted hypothesis of Abiogenesis, though.

Abiogenesis, essentially, is when there was once no life, and then life formed. There are quite a lot of different hypothesis that relate to this, but as I said before, none are generally accepted. Technically, Creation is a form of Abiogenesis.

Many Evolutionary Biologists will often say that life could have very well derived from one single primitive organism, but they aren't really relating that to a direct hypothesis within Abiogenesis. Some have even suggested that Plants and Animals are the result of two separate groups of organisms that simply survived the initial beginning of life, and thus why they are both similar and so very different.

In the end, though, Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Evolution only relates to the changes and variation that occurs when life (that already exists) reproduces. That's all!

tomoe723
If Evolution doesn't claim or expound on this yet, then does it implicitly assume this for its mechanics to hold true?

Nope! it wouldn't be very good science if we made assumptions like that. As I showed before, however, it doesn't necessarily matter how life began, in order for evolution to exist.

However, it would require that whenever life did begin (or at least to our earliest fossil records), it was extremely primitive, as all of our earliest fossil records show such primitive life.

BlackManINC

Why do you think every humanist manifesto, an atheist doctrine permeating the school system, makes it very clear that it is directly based on evolution?

First off, I don't. Secondly, there is no such thing as an "atheist doctrine" or a "humanist Manifesto". Lastly when did I ever suggest even a remote relation to what you just said in any of my previous posts?

BlackManINCBecause it attempts to explain how nature got to this point without God or any supernatural creator, and by definition is entirely compatible with the materialist beliefs in old religions where evolution was taught in the form of pantheism.

Actually, most people who accept the Theory of Evolution are also religious people. The existence of Evolution does not disprove a god or anything supernatural. However, it does go against very specific religious ideologies, such as anything that would believe in a young Earth.

Who is to say that a god or anything supernatural wasn't influencing Evolution the entire time? It could very well be possible, despite being speculative.

So, as you can see, that is not my position.

BlackManINC
The very idea of a pre-biotic soup, of which the various lab tests I'm sure you are aware of have failed to show is even possible,

Considering Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence, any test you are referring to in that manner, doesn't actually apply to what evolution really is. So, a test like that failing, would have nothing to do with the functions we see in evolution.

BlackManINC
as well as the big bang theory attempts to explain how the universe came to be without any supernatural implications.

The big bang theory has nothing to do with how the universe was triggered into existence, and doesn't actually disallow a god being the trigger for it. By the way.

Also, what the heck does that have to do with anything anyway? The topic is not on the creation of the universe, or the creation of Life. The topic is solely based on the naturally occuring phenomena of Evolution, which Only pertains to the process of variation through reproduction when life already exists. That is it.

Why do you continue to go back to these topics after it has already been explained multiple times that it has no actual relation? (this is an actual question that I would like you to answer, I'm extremely confused on the matter)

BlackManINC
Everybody knows that Darwin, from which it is claimed the very theory of evolution came from of which I have shown is not true in the slightest, also attempted to explain away nature without God. Thats why atheists and other scoffers of the Bible always bring up evolution in their arguments against it.

In science, it doesn't matter who formulated whatever theory. What only matters is how accurate the theory is. There are plenty of religious scientists out there who have well rounded, verified theories as well. And yet we see those same theories being used in conversation as well, also by atheists.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that science doesn't commit some sort of prejudice simply because of your religious background, color of your skin, gender, or what have you. Ironically, however, a lot of religions do seem to divide different people by their skin and "rank" in sociological standards.

So the whole prejudice card can't really be played here.

BlackManINC

Both sides of this issue about origins are biased, but the reason why the creationists almost always win the campus debates is because they tend to appeal to the actual scientific facts unlike the evolutionists who tend to appeal to made up philosophical assumptions that has nothing to do with science, as even some evolutionists have admitted.

Would you mind providing us with a few examples of this claim? I've never heard of a creationist accomplishing this. (not saying that they haven't, just saying that I haven't witnessed it)

BlackManINC
I have seen nothing in that link that shows how speciation can lead to an ape magically transforming into a human, or a frog transforming into a prince.

You have never seen this, and will never see this, because Evolution never claims this. Speciation doesn't mean "turn one thing into a completely different thing". It is a slow process that eventually leads into further and further distancing between the original ancestor and its branching, evolving, latter species.

I would attempt to explain this to you, but you have only displayed a complete disregard to any new information anyways; and continue to repeat the same questions and accusations that have already been answered within this very topic.

BlackManINC
Speciation might cause one type of primate to be unable to reproduce with another species of primate, but that doesn't make it any less an ape. This is the problem creationists have with the tripe that's taught in the schools when it comes down to it.

They don't accept it because they seem to refuse to learn what speciation really means, as you continue to show us. It seems, that at least in your case, you are "uneducatable".

However, if anyone else reading this would like my to explain how speciation works, and can also lead to the further divergence of species into families/genus' and so on. Feel free to ask. I am (nearly) always willing