Evolution......?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Take creation at face value. Do the predictions the hypothesis makes stand up?
The answer is either a straight ‘no’, or a ‘no’ dodged by ad hoc rationalisations."
--Not sure why you come to conclusions before the debate has even come near a conclusive value.

​

---

In what sense can a question be considered a conclusion ?The answer presented is one based upon experience of asking the
question I would guess (from my own experience anyhow).Produce a list of predictions about life on earth founded in a
YEC biblical accuracy framework ... then you can complain about
failure to discuss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In what sense can a question be considered a conclusion ?

​

The answer presented is one based upon experience of asking the
question I would guess (from my own experience anyhow).

​

Produce a list of predictions about life on earth founded in a
YEC biblical accuracy framework ... then you can complain about
failure to discuss."
--It is quite evident by his post, I'm not sure what you missed. He had stated that 'take creation at face value. Do the predictions the hypothesis makes stand up? The answer is either a straight ‘no’, or a ‘no’ dodged by ad hoc rationalisations. And so he made his own conclusion before having a critique of his post, and so as I said this 'debate has [not] even come near a conclusive value.

---

Then perhaps it would be worth presenting some predictions founded
in a creationist framework, and evidence which bears the
predictions out, rather than simply state that the author has
already made up their mind ... dodging the challenge isn't
debating either

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Then perhaps it would be worth presenting some predictions founded
in a creationist framework, and evidence which bears the
predictions out, rather than simply state that the author has
already made up their mind ... dodging the challenge isn't
debating either"
--What would you accept as evidence? I have an idea, you show me something that is explainable and is evidence for a uniformitarian scale, and show me why it is only explainable by this reasoning. We can take it form there.

---

That's just evading a direct question ... yet again!!All that is being asked is this ::IF the biblical creation account is precise, what would you
expect to see in the modern world.THEN do we see that in the modern world ?It's hardly rocket science What would I accept as evidence ? Show me a prediction founded
in YECism, show me evidence which can be interpreted as support
for that prediction ... if I(or others) can't refute it I'll
accept it.As for a uniformitarian scale ... hmm ... I don't really see
why that's a problem.If the processes (across all the sciences) we see today have always
operated (and if God created the universe this is likely) then
we can interpret the past based upon what we know of the present.IF you are talking about gradualism, then I think you should read
around. No one is claiming that everything in the geologic
record was laid down gradually over millions of years .... but
much of it was.Whe geologists study (geologists please say if I'm worng) I would
guess that they have knowledge of processes which are capable
of creating various different formations, and of how long those
processes take to operate."They [geologists] know from recent history that volcanoes can make abrupt changes to landscapes, and that a river flood can dump yards of mud in the space of days. So,
it is obvious that some rocks formed more quickly than others. Lyell himself said so in 1830 in his Principles of Geology."
(http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/uniform.html)

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Travel faster than the speed of light is no more inherently false than evolution.

---

Yeah ... and what about tachyons anyhow ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:

It's my opinion that there's another explanation to life and diversity on this planet. But no one's looking for a scientific alternative, because no one sees a reason to. Evolution is taken with a blind faith.

---

I've read this initial post again, and think that the most interesting
point is the above.Maybe we WILL have an Einstein of 'Life Diversity' theory at some
stage, who turns science on its head with new visions.The main thing here is to distinguish between genuine science, aimed
at explanation, and political meanderings aimed at pushing
some group or other's agenda.YEC is, in my opinion, not motivated by a search for explanation,
and niether is ID.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

This is completely false. Are you saying that a scientific theory, however convincing it may be, should have no differing views?

---

No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely.

---

The existence of the theory is sufficient for this. Anyone
trained in research is taught the value of critical evaluation
rather than surface meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big B:

These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper. ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think. Should we all just go along with evolution and say, "whatever." Not thinking outside the box, especially with something that is considered theory, is a very dangerous path to go down. I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition. Make no mistakes about it, no scientist is a completely unbiased observer. Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for. In the lack of true unbiasness the only other solution is having multiple biased views, not relying on a single biased view.

---

Bias is a natural result of the sum totality of an individual's
experiences ... that's why we need peer review.Creationists are more prone to such bias, because they have
a narrow starting point to which they stick dogmatically.Show an evolutionist sufficient evidence and they will change
their mind do so to a YEC and they will change their interpretation.