Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 271 of 382 (500752)
03-02-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:02 AM


Re: Why do you assume that?
This is a science forum.
Provide evidence and proof for your assertions. Just saying something doesn't make it so.
BTW. The term creation science is an oxymoron.
Keep moving people, no science here to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:02 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:12 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 272 of 382 (500754)
03-02-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:02 AM


Re: Why do you assume that?
Hi Kelly and welcome to the forum.
Theodoric is not making an assumption. Unless I miss my guess, he is already pretty familiar with how creation "science" works.
The truth is that creation "science" and Biblical creationism are so inseparable as to be almost indistinguishable. The advocates of creation "science" are always religious, usually fundamentalists. This can be easily demonstrated by noting the differing conclusions that different creation "scientists" reach. Their conclusions are always in agreement with their religious views. We never see the creation "science" of Christians disagreeing with the Bible for instance. Similarly, Muslim creation "science" tends to have an uncanny level of agreement with the Koran. They can't all be accurately following the evidence where it leads and indeed they are not; they are following their holy books.
Creation "scientists" are guilty of putting the cart before the horse when it comes to evidence. They already know the answer they want, then they go looking for it. That is not how science works. It is how religion works though.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Wretched typo.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:02 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:31 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 273 of 382 (500755)
03-02-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Theodoric
03-02-2009 11:04 AM


Excuse me
But I believe that this is a forum for debate between both evolution and creation sciences. You are the one making unproven statements claiming that evolution is a science and creation is not. The jury is still out on that matter. You may not understand that, but don't lecture me, thank you. In reality, both the creation and evolution (macro) models are more of a philosophy. Neither theory can be considered a true science since we cannot repeat how life began. All we can do is describe models--or theories and then test the evidence to see which model the results better support. Remember that creationists are not in conflict over the issue of microevolution, which is observable, testable and predictable.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 11:04 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AdminNosy, posted 03-02-2009 11:29 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 11:36 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2009 12:16 PM Kelly has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 274 of 382 (500757)
03-02-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:12 AM


A suggestion
You are being a little strong in your wording.
You actually know very little about the topic under discussion. In fact, you have a very wrong idea about the nature of science. It would be wise to be less arrogant and learn something from some of the people here who know a lot more than you do about these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:36 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 275 of 382 (500758)
03-02-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 11:12 AM


That's funny
Hi Granny Magda,
Thankyou for the welcome.
I have a funny feeling that most people really do not understand just what Creation Science really is. There is such a thing as Biblical Creationism. That is not what I am refering to. I am not so sure though, that even biblical creationists are putting the cart before the horse any more than evolutionists are.
In truth, neither creation or evolution (in the vertical sense) that is, "macroevolution," which is a transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism--can be observed even if it is true.
Macroevolution is an assumption made, and then the scientists set out to prove their theory. This is really no different than what a creationist does, whether he is using the Bible as his guide or whether he is simply detecting and looking for evidence of design in our world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 11:12 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 11:58 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 276 of 382 (500759)
03-02-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by AdminNosy
03-02-2009 11:29 AM


So sorry if my wording seems strong
But I am passionate about this topic and actually know quite a bit about what Creation Science really is. I am only interested in setting people's misunderstanding about what it is and what it isn't, straight. If this is threatening to you and you don't think your forum members can deal with me, then I won't post here. It's up to you.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by AdminNosy, posted 03-02-2009 11:29 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 11:38 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 277 of 382 (500760)
03-02-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Excuse me
Now you are just making ridiculous statements.
You are the one making unproven statements claiming that evolution is a science and creation is not.
Again, I ask you to back up your assertions. Show us how evolution is not science.
Neither theory can be considered a true science since we cannot repeat how life began.
Before you make wild ass statements(that have been thoroughly debunked here many times), maybe you should actually understand what TOE says. The Theory of Evolution says absolutely nothing about the creation of life. It is a completely separate matter.
1. All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
2. All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).
3. All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.
4. The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
Here are some other links that might help you.
Logical Fallacies
A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
If you want to discuss micro/macro. Please point out why you assume there is some big difference between them.
Again, this is a science thread. You need to provide some sort of evidence for your assertions.
Here are a couple links that might get you up to speed.
Edited by Theodoric, : added signature

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:49 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 278 of 382 (500762)
03-02-2009 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:36 AM


Re: So sorry if my wording seems strong
So you can not back up any of your statements so you are going to run away?
Show us any evidence to back your statements. Any!!
Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:36 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 279 of 382 (500763)
03-02-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Theodoric
03-02-2009 11:36 AM


You misunderstand
I am not talking about origins, either. Both the creation model and the macroevolutionary model presuppose how origins might have begun, but neither scientific study is actually studying origins.
Creation Science is not a study of God or of how life began. These scientists are not setting out to prove that God did it--anymore than evolutionists are trying to prove that God didn't do it. Both sciences are studying the evidence of the earth looking for proof and support of their hypothesis.
Science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 11:36 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 11:59 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 280 of 382 (500764)
03-02-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:31 AM


Re: That's funny
Kelly,
Let's try and calm down a bit shall we? (That goes for all of us Theo)
I understand your position Kelly and I hope I have at least some insight into why it is so important to you. Nonetheless, I still disagree and you will find that many others on this site will disagree as well.
In truth, this thread is not really about the merits of creation science or creationism in general. It is off topic and our admin team try to keep discussions tied to a specific topic. We find this more productive. Perhaps you might find the Is It Science? more suitable for this kind of discussion. Or you can propose a topic at Proposed New Topics.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:31 AM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 12:00 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 281 of 382 (500765)
03-02-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:49 AM


Re: You misunderstand
I am not talking about origins, either.
Yes you are.
Neither theory can be considered a true science since we cannot repeat how life began.
macroevolutionary model presuppose how origins might have begun
What? How does TOE posit anything about how life began?
Do you know anything about micro vs. macro evolution? Or is this just a creationist talking point you picked up?
Again I will ask one more time. Please provide evidence for your comments and assertions. I know you won't. I would like to say it has been nice debating you, but since you provide no evidence to back up your statements it isn't really a debate; is it. So I won't bother responding to you again.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:49 AM Kelly has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 282 of 382 (500766)
03-02-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Granny Magda
03-02-2009 11:58 AM


Just want evidence.
I am just trying to get him to understand that he needs to back up his assertions with evidence. Not just creationist mumbo-jumbo.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Granny Magda, posted 03-02-2009 11:58 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 283 of 382 (500770)
03-02-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Kelly
03-02-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Excuse me
But I believe that this is a forum for debate between both evolution and creation sciences.
Correction: it's a debate between Evolution and Creation. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious viewpoint and is not derived from teh scientific method. There is no "Theory of Creation," for example.
You are the one making unproven statements claiming that evolution is a science and creation is not.
Incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it is an explanatory model describing the observed variety of life observed on Earth, based on a wide variety of evidence.
Creationism is a religious viewpoint taken from a literal interpretation of the Bible, is not based on the observed evidence, and has nothing to do with scientists.
The jury is still out on that matter.
Incorrect. The Theory of Evolution is regarded by scientists as a whole as an accurate model describing how and why new species appear on Earth. Creationism is a religious belief held by literalist Christians.
You may not understand that, but don't lecture me, thank you.
Judging by your first few posts, you have quite a few misconceptions about what evolution actually is. If correcting your misconceptions comes across as "lecturing," well, your "feelings" are irrelevant to the argument.
In reality, both the creation and evolution (macro) models are more of a philosophy.
Correct only inasmuch as science as a whole is a branch of philosophy. But you seem to be using the word "philosophy" to mean "preconceived worldview." Whicle this is accurate for Creationism, it is not accurate for the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution has literally more supporting evidence than does the Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Evolution is an explanatory model describing how new species and features arise from pre-existing species through random mutation and genetic drift guided by natural selection (this being a simplified description). The theory was first published in Darwin's famous book, as a result of his direct observation of birds over several years. He directly observed the sort of evolution you would call "micro" evolution, where features change over a given population but a new species does not result. He extrapolated that, given a physical separation fo the population, these small changes would occur independantly within the two new populations until the two groups could no longer be called the same species.
In the many years since Darwin first published, we've done an awful lot of research into evolution, and we've uncovered a lot more evidence than a few birds. In fact, we've directly observed, both in the laboratory and in teh wild, new species forming from existing species. That would be what you've referred to as "macro" evolution.
Clearly, the Theory of Evolution is more than a simple "worldview" or "phlosophy." It's an explanation for the directly observed phenomenon of new species arising from pre-existing species.
Scientists don't just pull conclusions and theories from their imaginations, you know.
Neither theory can be considered a true science since we cannot repeat how life began.
"True science" is that which follows the scientific method. Science does not ever claim to have a literal "proof" - that is the realm of pure mathematics. Being "proven" is not a requirement to be considered science. All that is necessary is to follow the scientific method: make observations, establish a hypothesis to explain those observations, test your hypothesis, and modify, discard, or keep your hypothesis according to the results. Rinse and repeat. The scientific method results in theories that represent and explain the evidence currently known as accurately as possible, but are always subject to being changed or discarded pending new evidence. The Theory of Evolution is an example of such a theory - it explains the evidence currently available concerning the diversity of life on Earth to a tested high degree of accuracy.
Creationism does not follow the scientific method. It is derived from the literal reading of a sacred text written before the scientific method was even conceived. There is no evidence supporting Creationism. There is no testable hypothesis. There is no ability to modify, discard, or keep a hypothesis based on observed evidence. There is only dogmatic adherence to words written on a page with absolutely nothing to back them up.
Further, you seem to have confused the Theory of Evolution with abiogenesis. This is a false correlation - the two are compeltely independant. The evidence supporting evolution remains the same whether life first appeared on Earth from abiogenesis, or from aliens, or from a deity (just not in the way described literally in Genesis). The Theory of Evolution makes absolutely no claim whatsoever as to the origin of life - it only concerns the origin of species once life already exists. Abiogenesis is a completely independant and unrelated line of research.
All we can do is describe models--or theories and then test the evidence to see which model the results better support.
We've done so, and found Creationism to be lacking.
Remember that creationists are not in conflict over the issue of microevolution, which is observable, testable and predictable.
As is "macro" evolution. In fact, there is no real distinction between the two amongst scientists - it's a line drawn by Creationists as they move the goalposts. But the fact is that we have directly observed the rise of new species from existing ones, as well as being able to directly observe fossil and genetic evidence that supports the model that new species do not form spontaneously in a poof of divine magic, but rather form from pre-existing species over many generations as populations disperse into new environments or meet new selective pressures.
I think you're a bit behind the times, Kelly. I'd suggest that you not get your information from Creationist websites, but instead read scientific papers from actual biologists who study and work with evolution on a daily basis. The modern Theory of Evolution is the coernerstone that underlies nearly all of biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 11:12 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2009 12:23 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 285 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:29 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 286 by Kelly, posted 03-02-2009 12:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 284 of 382 (500771)
03-02-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rahvin
03-02-2009 12:16 PM


POTM material
I know it is early yet, but great post. As soon as the admins post the march POTM thread this gets a nomination.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2009 12:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 285 of 382 (500772)
03-02-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rahvin
03-02-2009 12:16 PM


Completely false
Creation Science is a study of the same evidence that evolutionists study, using the same scientific methods of making observations, establishing a hypothesis to explain those observations, and then testing said hypothesis. My purpose is to explain that most people do not really know or understand what Creation Science is.
The simple truth is that the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, and all such events took place in the past and cannot now be studied in the laboratory. They are entirely beyond the reach of the scientific method in the proper sense.
This does not mean, however, that the "origin results" the evidence in the world.., cannot be observed and tested. That is, we can define two "models" of origins, and then make comparative predictions as to what our observations should find if evolution is true, and conversely, what we should find if creation is true. The model that enables us to do the best job of predicting things which we then find to be true on observation is the model most likely to be true, even though we cannot prove it to be true by actual scientific repetition.
I recommend reading a book titled "What is Creation Science?" By Morris/Parker
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 03-02-2009 12:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2009 12:43 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 289 by lyx2no, posted 03-02-2009 1:26 PM Kelly has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024