|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | ||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"So then you believe that if indeed there was a flood 4450 years ago,it could have been a completely natural phenomenon that happened say like an earth quake happens? You believe that it is possible that the alledged Flood was not a punishement send by God?"
--Indeed. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
but wouldn't that belief be indirect contradiction with the Bible?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Okay cobra: You wanted a evolution explained in our own words. Please note that I reject utterly your spurious attempt to link evolution with abiogenesis and cosmogenesis. These latter have no place in evolutionary theory, and efforts to include them is a vain try at erecting a strawman. You have been told repeatedly, in many ways by many posters that Darwinian evolution deals ONLY with biology. Biology is where my theory remains.
First off, there are some very basic statements that, for evolution to be true, must be true. All provide potential pathways for falsification. All lend themselves to development of testable hypotheses. All have (scientifically) predictive value: 1. If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth. 2. As a consequence, there is competition to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny. 3. Organisms show variation in characteristics or traits that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits. 4. Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce. 5. Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation. 6. To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce. Next, you need to understand (and remember) that natural selection leading to evolution is simply the differential reproduction of genotypes. There are two basic assumptions for natural selection to work: 1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity. 2. There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait. Graphically:
Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). Without getting too deep into it, selection can only act on the phenotype. A gene can be present, but not expressed (e.g. a recessive allele). Only homozygous recessives will show the trait and be selected for or against. In addition, selection acts on the whole organism (a conspicuously-colored moth, for ex, can have all sorts of wonderful genes, but if a bird nails that moth, its entire genotype is gone). And finally, selection doesn’t have to cause changes. It also can maintain the status quo. Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are: 1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa. And that’s my description of evolution. If you are unable to approach this level of discussion on Creationism, then you truly do NOT have a theory beyond goddidit.BTW: There are a couple of interesting corollaries to my definition. Basically, the above means that there is no requirement that evolution proceed in a linear fashion. Nor is it necessary that evolution produce either greater complexity, greater perfection or greater information (LOL) for evolution to be true. This is a creationist fallacy. As an example, it is quite common to have an organism’s DNA contain multiple non-significant (unexpressed) or recessive alleles. Because these alleles serve no immediately useful function for an organism’s individual survival/reproductive success, natural selection simply ignores them. Meaning that if environmental conditions change there are generally individuals in a given population whose traits all of a sudden become important to their survival. This is one of the primary ways bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics: the resistance was already present in the population. All the antibiotics have done is eliminate all the members WHO DID NOT ALREADY HAVE THE TRAIT, increasing the overall frequency of alleles which are resistant within the population. Another marvelous outgrowth of evolution by natural selection is that often different combinations of genes or even macrostructures that are useful for one thing are found to be ultimately useful for something else, as well. These traits are then co-opted by natural selection to other uses. Evolution as I’ve described it only requires a single step at a time AND each step needn’t (in fact shouldn’t) be considered in light of any subsequent step — only in comparison to its predecessor. New genes (hence new traits) do not arise because they are needed, and no organism ever made a living as a transitional — all were sufficiently well adapted for their particular niche and lifestyle to reproduce. Otherwise they would have quickly become extinct.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"but wouldn't that belief be indirect contradiction with the Bible?"
--Not at all, how would it be a contrediction? ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
Because the Bible is quite clear on this. God said to Noah that mankind was filled with wickedness and that HE would destroy the world by drowning it in a flood. Now if you are saying that it is possibel that the flood may actually have had nothing to do with God whatsoever(i.e. it was not send by God at all),then you believe that it is possible for the Bible to be false?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Because the Bible is quite clear on this. God said to Noah that mankind was filled with wickedness and that HE would destroy the world by drowning it in a flood. Now if you are saying that it is possibel that the flood may actually have had nothing to do with God whatsoever(i.e. it was not send by God at all),then you believe that it is possible for the Bible to be false?"
--This is not what I said, I am saying that the origin of the cause of the flood is God's doing, such as God making the earth so that it would come to the catastrophic event in this time. God said he is bringing floodwaters to destroy the earth, that means he did it, but he was using water to do it, thus he is the cause of the flood waters, and the flood waters is the cause of the scientific naturalism implications that it caused. This is surelly complementary. I believe that the bible is true, but I know that it is falsifi'able'. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
I see. But why did you say that is was possible for the flood to be completely independant of God's will earlier?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I see. But why did you say that is was possible for the flood to be completely independant of God's will earlier?"
--I do make the implication and realization that it is fully possible for it to all have been purly a miracle, but as I discussed earlier, the evidence does not seem to cooperate with this, and personally, I think it very logical for God to make it evident that he placed judgement on the people of the day for their wickedness for our reminder. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
I think you misunderstood what i said. I asked you earlier if you believed that it was possible for this aledged flood whom you say is supported by so many scientific evidence to be a purely natural phenomenon with no relation whatsoever to an outside will(i.e. God) as a causal effect and your reply was "INDEED". Then,when i point out that this would mean you believe it is possible for the Bible to be false,you said "NO IT DOESN'T" So i'm a little confused here...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I think you misunderstood what i said. I asked you earlier if you believed that it was possible for this aledged flood whom you say is supported by so many scientific evidence to be a purely natural phenomenon with no relation whatsoever to an outside will(i.e. God) as a causal effect and your reply was "INDEED". Then,when i point out that this would mean you believe it is possible for the Bible to be false,you said "NO IT DOESN'T" So i'm a little confused here..."
--I believe the bible is falsifi'able' not false. I just make the realization that God is an infinite God and he can do what he wants and could have done all of this to make it look like it is today all through pure miracles, but my argument is that the evidence says the contrary and on a personal level, I think it is near inconceivable, also then it would be outside the realm of science and would not be discussed. I say that God did not direct the Flood exactly, he directed its happening, ie the origin of its happening, preasure in the earths core or something of that nature he planned to happen when he created the world, or a meteor to hit the earth and cause this effect. -------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
Ok so then you dont believe that the flood could have been a completely natural phenomenon that occured purely by chance,like an earthquake. thanks for clearing that up
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Ok so then you dont believe that the flood could have been a completely natural phenomenon that occured purely by chance,like an earthquake. thanks for clearing that up."
--Yes I do believe it was 'purely' natural phenomena, but with the way you are reasoning, I would have to include the origin of life into the relevance of the possibility of evolution, thus pulling it back to a 'back to the drawing board' position. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
the way i am reasoning is i give absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the why because there simply is no way to know about the why. My sole interest is the how. And if you cant demonstrate to me the existance of God,you cant use IT with me as a cause for your flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"the way i am reasoning is i give absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the why because there simply is no way to know about the why. My sole interest is the how. And if you cant demonstrate to me the existance of God,you cant use IT with me as a cause for your flood."
--Ok good, then lets discuss it this way, which is what we are discussing, the 'How' and I am fully open to this discussion. But I thought you just said your not considering the 'why' and then you wan't me to demonstrate the cause, the cause being the why. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
I meant that for you...as far as i'm concerned,the Noachian world wide flood never happened so it cant have any cause. And this
will be my position until someone presents me with undeniable proof that it did...and by that i mean proof than can only be explained by a world wide flood
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024