Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why creation "science" isn't science
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 62 of 365 (2514)
01-19-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by LudvanB
01-19-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant". They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same. If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand.
Case example of scientists who apparently weren't careful enough with their research. Those guys who came up with "cold fusion". Boy, were they shot down.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 8:58 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 365 (2516)
01-19-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 9:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Case example of scientists who apparently weren't careful enough with their research. Those guys who came up with "cold fussion". Boy, were they shot down.
Moose

Indeed...they were shot down by other scientists. Science is a self correcting thing. How many time have we seen Creationists put in question the fundamental beliefs in the Bible of other Creationists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 9:36 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-20-2002 12:04 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 365 (2522)
01-20-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by LudvanB
01-19-2002 8:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:

They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same.
[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-19-2002]

Oh really? Now that I think about it you're right. Scientists LOVE to have their theories disproved!
May I add that rarely (or never) does the existence of evolution come into question among scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 8:58 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by lbhandli, posted 01-20-2002 10:47 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 365 (2523)
01-20-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by LudvanB
01-19-2002 10:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:

Science is a self correcting thing. How many time have we seen Creationists put in question the fundamental beliefs in the Bible of other Creationists?

Hypocritical statement. Scientists never question whether or not evolution occured, they only question HOW it occured.
If you can show me that I'm wrong I will be very suprised.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 10:09 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 01-20-2002 1:13 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 1:34 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 365 (2525)
01-20-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cobra_snake
01-20-2002 12:04 PM



Cobra_snake writes:
Hypocritical statement. Scientists never question whether or not evolution occurred, they only question HOW it occurred.
I think by and large you are correct. For most scientists in the biological sciences evolution is the central unifying framework. Most would agree with Dobzhansky (famous geneticist) when he said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
I think scientists are discovering that though evolution is a simple concept to understand, it's a damn difficult one to work with. Life is complex and messy, and evolution is part of the whole mess. This is not to deprecate evolution, but as much as scientists are learning, the deeper they look the deeper many mysteries become.
Evolution in the modern world appears to proceed at a snails pace, if it proceeds at all. Our own evolution remains a deep mystery. The adolescence of pre-humans appears to have been much shorter than our own, so they could squeeze more generations into a given time period, but given the relative stability in the fossil record of possibly ancestral species like Australopithecus afarensis the introduction of a new hominid species must have occurred rather suddenly (geologically speaking, where "suddenly" still means thousands of years). What exactly happened? We don't know. Even our speculations fall short, and given the paucity of evidence we may never know.
But getting back to your original comment about scientists never questioning the fact of evolution, I think it's important to recognize that most Creationists also accept the fact of evolution. Where scientists and many Creationists differ on this particular point is in the scope of evolution. Creationists understand and accept evolution in the form of variable expression over time of characteristics already present in a population's gene pool, but they deny the possibility of such change moving beyond kind boundaries. This fact moves the debate from a question of whether evolution has occurred to one of how much evolution has occurred.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-20-2002 12:04 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 67 of 365 (2526)
01-20-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cobra_snake
01-20-2002 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Hypocritical statement. Scientists never question whether or not evolution occured, they only question HOW it occured.
If you can show me that I'm wrong I will be very suprised.

Well, "never" is a long time, so on principle I will disagree. Besides, evolution is tested virtually every day. The point is that it works virtually everytime. It is so well established that, yes, it is treated as a "fact" and is no longer questioned. However, if some contradicting evidence arose, I assure you that the questions would blossom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-20-2002 12:04 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-20-2002 3:56 PM edge has replied
 Message 73 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2002 6:53 PM edge has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 365 (2527)
01-20-2002 3:53 PM


You are right Percipient. I too acknowledge the ability for a species to change slightly over time.
However, the question of whether or not there is a change in allelic frequency is unimportant. This is because it is easy to see why that part of the theory of evolution is true. But just because it is stupid to deny a certain concept of evolution does not mean at all that evolution on a whole is the best theory. For example, it would be ridiculous for me to deny natural selection, but it is perfectly intelligent for me to deny that natural selection (put together with other concepts of biology) does not cause whole-scale evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by lbhandli, posted 01-20-2002 10:49 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 365 (2528)
01-20-2002 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by edge
01-20-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Besides, evolution is tested virtually every day. The point is that it works virtually everytime.
I respectfully disagree with you. I think certain concepts of evolution are being challenged on a daily basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 1:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 4:10 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 70 of 365 (2530)
01-20-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Cobra_snake
01-20-2002 3:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I respectfully disagree with you. I think certain concepts of evolution are being challenged on a daily basis.
I thought that you said scientists never question evolution. What is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Cobra_snake, posted 01-20-2002 3:56 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2002 6:57 PM edge has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 365 (2536)
01-20-2002 5:10 PM


My point is that CERTAIN CONCEPTS of evolution are being questioned, instead of evolution as a whole.

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 365 (2540)
01-20-2002 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by LudvanB
01-19-2002 8:58 PM


"And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant"
--As I have explained throughout this forum, i am very much agreed with this concept.
"They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same."
--Right.
"If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand."
--Ditto
"When do creation "scientists" ever put the corner stone of their whole theory on the beginings of the world to the test?"
--When entering the debate of origins you automatically step out of the realm of science, science cannot answer these questions to our understanding of the universe. When dealing with the concept of the origins of the universe, the singularity, life and the various others it is outside the realm of science, such is why it is not included in creation science.
"When do they ever ask the important all question "IS the Bible the INNERANT word of God"?"
--I believe this debate is taking way in another forum, though I do believe that to our knowledge and understanding of the various aspects of the scientific method, the bible is innerant. Keep in mind the bible provides the model, we provide the mechenism.
----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LudvanB, posted 01-19-2002 8:58 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by lbhandli, posted 01-20-2002 10:52 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 365 (2541)
01-20-2002 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by edge
01-20-2002 1:34 PM


"However, if some contradicting evidence arose, I assure you that the questions would blossom"
--I would wish that they would, just a word of caution, if you wan't to get someone to question whether the basic fundementals of evolution have ever occured or not, don't ask the smithsonian, and other wealthy evolutionary organizations.
----------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 1:34 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 7:23 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 01-20-2002 7:48 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 365 (2542)
01-20-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by edge
01-20-2002 4:10 PM


"I thought that you said scientists never question evolution. What is your point?"
--The challenges are presented frequently, though it is seldom you get a response, and when you do, it is even more seldom that it is not filled with bias or a chuckle.
----------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 4:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by edge, posted 01-20-2002 7:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 75 of 365 (2549)
01-20-2002 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by TrueCreation
01-20-2002 6:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I thought that you said scientists never question evolution. What is your point?"
--The challenges are presented frequently, though it is seldom you get a response, and when you do, it is even more seldom that it is not filled with bias or a chuckle.
That means your evidence is inadequate. It also means that we've heard this on before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time. I'm not sure what you mean here in relation to you last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2002 6:57 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 3:03 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 76 of 365 (2550)
01-20-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by TrueCreation
01-20-2002 6:53 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"However, if some contradicting evidence arose, I assure you that the questions would blossom"
--I would wish that they would, just a word of caution, if you wan't to get someone to question whether the basic fundementals of evolution have ever occured or not, don't ask the smithsonian, and other wealthy evolutionary organizations.[/QUOTE]
You really think that some scientist wouldn't love to make a name in replacing the evolutionary paradigm? Your problem is that there is history here. Your side has obviously lost credibility. Follow the lead of Darwin and come back with overwhelming evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by TrueCreation, posted 01-20-2002 6:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2002 3:06 AM edge 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