Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Refused
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Refused wrote:

"Science" has a 0-10% credibility rate. Why? It's constantly changing it's opinions. There are few REAL FACTS with science because it's constantly changing, and that's obvious to see.


So...you would say that something that doesn't change it's opinion is more credible?

Why? That doesn't make sense. The only way you can never change your opinion, without being patently delusional, is by knowing everything.

Quote:

Science is bullshit.


Yeah, no kidding. Your computer is running on magic and pixie dust, after all.

Quote:

Also, there have actually been fossils where there was a dinosaur print AND a human print inside of it. That's pretty strong evidence supporting creationism.


That's actually not true.


Did you vote for Kerry?

My point is, when something is constantly changing, how do you prove it's true? The scientific community is constantly changing it's opinions based on "new findings" or anything else like that.

How is it not true? I'm curious.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Refused wrote:

Did you vote for Kerry?


Yep.

Quote:

My point is, when something is constantly changing, how do you prove it's true? The scientific community is constantly changing it's opinions based on "new findings" or anything else like that.


Oh, well that's where you've got things confused.

Nothing is ever proven in science. There is no absolute certainty about anything. That's why it works.

If you feel the need to be absolutely certain about things, then science isn't for you. In fact, life in general isn't for you; you can never be totally certain about anything (other than your own existence) without being delusional.

Quote:

How is it not true? I'm curious.


...it's not true in that it is a statement that contradicts reality.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
Quote:
Yes Virginia...evolution IS scientific fact
it is no longer theory as right wing nut cases would have you believe


You're kidding? I could have sworn that the scientific community called it the Theory of evolution, not the Law of evolution...


You see...this is where the Religious Wingnuts are pretty savvy ...
they know that Science never says that something is completely irrefutable and that almost everything is called "Theory"
Quantum theory
The Germ theory
The Theory of Relativity
Atomic theory
They've turned refuting scientific fact into a cottage industry

....BUT!!! they take their kids to the Docs when they get sick
or when they need gene therapy for a congenital problem that rely's HEAVILY on the THEORY of evolution
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A theory is an exercise in logic. Using Exton's example of Swans, a theory is something that gives us an assessment of the facts as we know them.

We have observed that all swans are white. Through testing, we have confirmed that all swans are white. Our Theory then is that all swans are white.

The Theory describes the facts. However, it offers no scientific mechanism as to why the facts are as they are.

Evolutionists state that because we have observed similar organisms in different time periods throughout history, and the concept of survival of the fittest is real, that evolution from protocells must have taken place. However, they have never observed this evolution. How then, can we determine what causes something if we have never witnessed it, and cannot replicate it in experiment?
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:

Evolutionists state that because we have observed similar organisms in different time periods throughout history, and the concept of survival of the fittest is real, that evolution from protocells must have taken place. However, they have never observed this evolution. How then, can we determine what causes something if we have never witnessed it, and cannot replicate it in experiment?


...how much do you know about biology?
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
As I was taught, non-living cell components gradually grouped together into protocells. These cells evolved into living cells. Over billions of years, these cells gradually evolved into the organisms of today.

My point being, that while we can point to evidence of natural selection, we cannot know that non-living components yield living organisms as sophisticated as humans at least without having observed it happening or without having tested it in experiment.

As it stands, we have developed a theory based on observational evidence dating back millions of years, and have filled in the blanks with the most scientifically logical hypothesis possible. However, just because something is not contradictory to fact does not make it completely true. If X is true, y is not necessarily false.
Back to top
Refused
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Refused wrote:

Did you vote for Kerry?


Yep.

Quote:

My point is, when something is constantly changing, how do you prove it's true? The scientific community is constantly changing it's opinions based on "new findings" or anything else like that.


Oh, well that's where you've got things confused.

Nothing is ever proven in science. There is no absolute certainty about anything. That's why it works.

If you feel the need to be absolutely certain about things, then science isn't for you. In fact, life in general isn't for you; you can never be totally certain about anything (other than your own existence) without being delusional.

Quote:

How is it not true? I'm curious.


...it's not true in that it is a statement that contradicts reality.


Well, you voted for John Kerry and that seems to be why you are okay with uncertainty.

Well, then I guess you're saying that evolution isn't proven.

Why are people out trying to prove something if they can't prove it without a shadow of a doubt?
Back to top
Dar
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
because they can find evidence that seems more truthful than a fictional book written by people a few thousand years ago.

thats pretty much what it comes down to, evidence that one can see and at least get an idea, rather than some religious text saying a man popped up and started creating things left and right.
Back to top
Refused
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Have you ever read The Weight Of The Evidence?

or

how about And God Created Darwin?


the problem with a lot of atheists is that they only know their side of the scientific argument. I am not necessarily saying you guys haven't done your research, I am just making an observation, a certainty, a fact.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Refused wrote:

Well, you voted for John Kerry and that seems to be why you are okay with uncertainty.


Well, no, it's my acceptance of uncertainty that leads me to be comfortable with kerry.

Quote:

Well, then I guess you're saying that evolution isn't proven.


Of course it isn't proven.

Nothing is proven. There isn't a single thing that you can establish with total certainty, aside from your own existence - and even then, you can't convince other people of that.

Quote:

Why are people out trying to prove something if they can't prove it without a shadow of a doubt?


Because absolute certainty does not exist in real life. It wouldn't make any sense to try to prove something beyond any shadow of a doubt - doing so is quite literally impossible.

It's a matter of accepting the nature of reality - accepting that any and all conclusions are purely tentative in nature. They could change at any time.

That's just the way life is. If your conclusions cannot change, then you are - by definition - delusional. Or, you're trying really, really hard to never learn anything.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:

My point being, that while we can point to evidence of natural selection, we cannot know that non-living components yield living organisms as sophisticated as humans at least without having observed it happening or without having tested it in experiment.


If we can establish that natural selection can cause changes in gene ratios over time, then we can establish that it is - at least in principle - entirely possible to go from a cell to a human.
(And if you're wondering, that has, in fact, been established)

If we want to establish that that's actually what happened, we need more evidence. And that's what taxonomy and fossils and lab experiments are for.
(This, too, has been established)

Quote:

As it stands, we have developed a theory based on observational evidence dating back millions of years, and have filled in the blanks with the most scientifically logical hypothesis possible. However, just because something is not contradictory to fact does not make it completely true. If X is true, y is not necessarily false.


So, in other words, your objection is that evolution could, conceiveably, be incorrect?

That's not an objection to a scientific theory: that's a given.
Back to top
emceeMC
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
If we can establish that natural selection can cause changes in gene ratios over time, then we can establish that it is - at least in principle - entirely possible to go from a cell to a human.
(And if you're wondering, that has, in fact, been established)


If by "established" you mean the scientific community has reached a consensus, then yes, it has. However, my objection is that they did not reach this conclusion based on observation of a process in action.

Perhaps I am simply unfamiliar, but have we ever observed the evolution of non-living components into a living cellular organism?

Quote:

If we want to establish that that's actually what happened, we need more evidence. And that's what taxonomy and fossils and lab experiments are for.


Fossils and excavated remains show us a correlation between development of species and time elapsed. I thought correlation is not indicative of causation?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
Quote:
In science, a "theory" is like a "fact". A "law" is a theory. A "hypothesis" is a guess.


Well, you're one for three anyway.

A hypothesis is like a guess.

A Law is something that is proven by experimentation to be true, whereas a theory is arriving at a conclusion based on evidence.

I'm not saying evolution is necessarily totally wrong. However e, since it is unable to be proved by experimentation (or else it would be a Law), and that our only evidence is geological and observational, it is unlikely we understand the full scope of how the human came to be.


A law is just something that has happened over and over again, we assume it will continue to happen over and over again, but we aren't guranteed that it will.

Hello refused.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
Quote:
If we can establish that natural selection can cause changes in gene ratios over time, then we can establish that it is - at least in principle - entirely possible to go from a cell to a human.
(And if you're wondering, that has, in fact, been established)


If by "established" you mean the scientific community has reached a consensus, then yes, it has. However, my objection is that they did not reach this conclusion based on observation of a process in action.


...yeah we have. It's done regularly.

Quote:

Perhaps I am simply unfamiliar, but have we ever observed the evolution of non-living components into a living cellular organism?


Nope.

But perhaps because that's not evolution - that's abiogenesis (sounds like splitting hairs, but it isn't - the difference is important).

A living cell has never been seen forming, but the constituent parts of cells have been observed to form on their own.

Quote:

Quote:

If we want to establish that that's actually what happened, we need more evidence. And that's what taxonomy and fossils and lab experiments are for.


Fossils and excavated remains show us a correlation between development of species and time elapsed. I thought correlation is not indicative of causation?


It sure isn't, on its own.

It's another matter when you have corroberating evidence and a solid mechanism through which the causation happens.
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
emceeMC wrote:
A theory is an exercise in logic. Using Exton's example of Swans, a theory is something that gives us an assessment of the facts as we know them.

We have observed that all swans are white. Through testing, we have confirmed that all swans are white. Our Theory then is that all swans are white.

The Theory describes the facts. However, it offers no scientific mechanism as to why the facts are as they are.

Evolutionists state that because we have observed similar organisms in different time periods throughout history, and the concept of survival of the fittest is real, that evolution from protocells must have taken place. However, they have never observed this evolution. How then, can we determine what causes something if we have never witnessed it, and cannot replicate it in experiment?


No...this is where you're wrong
the "theory" you describe is what we call a hypothesis (an educated guess) then you apply the scientific principles to either prove or disprove your hypothesis
that's where intelligent design and creationism are at the present time...
it's your responsibility if you want it to be taken seriously by science to either prove that it has taken place or thru your experimentation that it doesn't ...
you don't come to the Scientific community and say..."well prove to me that it Doesn't exist" It doesn't work that way...
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites