'Stick to the topic' ---no, 'give us evidence', wait, all in good time,
I'll get there.
OOOO goody, another post with no evidence to worry about. Science can rest easy again. I could stop here, but where's the fun in that?
You do realize that continually saying that you have evidence but never providing any is a kind of falsehood, and that this behavior is like being in the gunfight at the OK corral with a popgun, a popgun with the string broken and you have lost the cork, and where you don't even have the flag that pops out to say "bang" ... right?
There is also no justification for it, not just because this is how rational opinions are formed -- conclusions based on evidence -- but because there is a thread actually dedicated to providing evidence for creationism,
Discussing the evidence that support creationism, where the whole idea is to present at least
ONE SCRAP of evidence, and which is so far completely absent.
The topic here is also "should creationism be taught in schools?" and providing evidence that creationism was anything more than pure hokum would be on topic. In making on-topic arguments based on evidence, actually providing the evidence is always on topic. If the evidence is off topic so is the argument that claims it exists.
Finally, I note that in your 44 posts to date that you have not provided one piece of evidence for creationism. That's not a record to place any
faith in.
Beliefs opposing science have no place in science class, precisely. Beliefs based on scientific evidence but opposing the accepted paradigm -that's what should be allowed to be taught.
What distinguishes beliefs from facts and theories is evidence -- and their not so curious lack where belief is concerned. Thus failure to demonstrate
ANY evidence for your position leaves it your belief and nothing more. There are many concepts discussed in science classes where competing theories are involved, but in no cases are those theories based on a lack of evidence.
If you think you have a concept worthy of being considered a scientific theory that is not being considered, then you need to provide that theory and present the evidence that supports it. Until that point you do not have a competing theory no matter how much you think it is "opposing the accepted paradigm" -- it's just opinion based on belief.
The basic paradigm of science is that (1) a theory explains existing evidence (b) a theory makes predictions that can test the validity of the theory and (3) that when a theory is contradicted by new evidence or by the results of testing, that it is invalidated and must be reformulated or replaced with a new theory.
Do you think this paradigm should be changed so that astrology can be taught as science?
Which I've already acknowledged to be true. Nobody plans on doing away with scientifically verifiable fact but the evolutionary interpretations should be countered by the ID interpretations and that's the point you seem to keep missing.
You keep flipping between creationism and IDology. Do you realize that they are essentially contradictory philosophies and that you can't only use parts of one that conform to the other and logically ignore the rest? This is the same as assuming that evidence lies. Assuming that some concept somewhere in ID qualifies on a scientific basis, this in no way says that
creationism is validated enough to teach in science class.
The difference between valid concepts and invalid ones is testing. The concept that mutations are caused by random events (radiation, copy changes, etc) has been tested and validated. The concept that mutations are directed towards some end is invalidated, thus confirming that the mutation is random and not due to some cause or hidden purpose.
If you have a different concept -- whether creationist or IDologist -- present it and provide the evidence that demonstrates it is a
scientific concept and not just a belief.
There is one reality, not two or three or 6 billion, and this is the basic assumption of science - that we can understand reality by understanding the evidence, and that the evidence truly represents reality. One can make any number of fanciful "interpretations" of the evidence, but that does not mean that a single one of them relates to reality, and thus provides understanding of the evidence. We determine the valid understanding of the evidence by testing, and what concepts have not been tested can be called hypothesis or belief.
Having just any old "interpretation" you can think up is not enough to qualify as science. The earth is flat is a valid "interpretation" of the evidence. The concept that planets control our lives is a valid "interpretation" of the evidence.
Microevolution -not it's non-verifiable extrapolation called macroevolution.There's the problem.
No, the problem is understanding what you are talking about. I'll wager that any description you provide of what you think is "macroevolution" will not be correct compared to it's usage in evolutionary biology. Please see
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and feel free to contribute what you think "macroevolution" is and isn't.
I'm sure you are well aware of the definition of macroevolution as opposed to micro-evolution. It's what they teach kids in science class and it is a belief not a fact -remember, scientific evidence required and none forthcoming.
Actually, I am
not aware of what you think the definition of macroevolution is, which is why I have now, for at least the second time, asked you to provide it on
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?.
You cannot prove something unless you can repeat it experimentally.
This is ignorant shinola that has nothing to do with science. Even with repeated experiments you don't PROVE anything in science. In ANY science. Nor do you
PROVE evidence.
Evolution of the macro variety is assumed, not proven. Why aren't fish today developing little legs and attempting to get out of the water or do something new and interesting.If new organs take millions of years to develop, why does everything have fully developed organs and nothing in the process of developing. This should be an ongoing thing -not something you cannot see now, at all, anywhere.
It is fairly evident from this quote that you do
NOT understand what macroevolution - as used in evolutionary biology - actually involves. Please go to
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and post what you
think macroevolution is.
In the interim I'll point out the evidence of
Foraminifera:
Foraminifera - Wikipedia
quote:
The Foraminifera, ("Hole Bearers") or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.
Scientific classificationDomain: Eukaryota
(unranked): Rhizaria
Phylum: Foraminifera
Orders:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida - extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Robertinida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
- Xenophyophorea
- Reticulomyxa
Geology Dept article 3
quote:
"There's a nifty passage in Darwin in which he describes the fossil record as a library. The library has only a few books, and each book has only a few chapters. The chapters have only a few words, and the words are missing letters.
"Well, in this case, we've got a relatively complete library. The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word."
As he spoke, Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.
"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."
Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed. "We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," Arnold added.
Adherents of Darwin's theory of gradualism, in which new species slowly branch off from original stock, should be delighted by what the FSU researchers have found. The foram record clearly reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends" -- varieties that lead nowhere -- and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Moreover, transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendants.
We are not talking about a single species, but the origin of new species and then additional branching into
more new species, the formation of
genus and
family - if not
order - levels of the taxonomic tree of relationships between the different species of forams.
This is macroevolution - according to evolutionary biology - the formation of branches in the taxonomic classifications. This is but a small sample of the evidence that the tree of life is due to evolution.
You clearly haven't been looking very hard or else you refuse to see what is very plain to a lot of people.
Or clearly there is no such evidence in spite of all the people claiming that there is some - even a
scintilla - of evidence contradicting evolution -- evolution as known, defined and used in evolutionary biology, and not some false representation used by creationists to create a false argument (the straw man logical fallacy).
Meanwhile the evidence of
Discussing the evidence that support creationism and all your posts to date is that there is no evidence
FOR creationism. So far the best evidence
FOR creationism involves creationists habitually lying about evolution and evidence, a position that
even if it were true would not be evidence
FOR creationism - of any kind.
Even AiG notes that speciation has been observed.
Again, that is nothing to do with the controversy.I'm sure you must know that.
So the "controversy" is between those who know what macroevolution is and those who don't? So the "controversy" is between knowledge and ignorance? So the "controversy" is between fact and falsehood?
When children are indoctrinated into the concept of macroevolution and millions of years as fact -they are being misled. The evidence does not show that. It is purely the present paradigm's interpretation of the facts and that means your religion is being taught; your faith-based opinion of what the facts apparently show if you first believe in macroevolution and spontaneous generation.
If they are misled then it should be an easy matter to show actual
bonafide evidence of this fact, evidence that contradicts and invalidates the concept of macroevolution and that contradicts and invalidates the geological and physical understanding of the ages of the earth, life and the universe actually and factually showing billions of years.
Once again having an "interpretation" that things are different does not make it so, you need evidence.
The reality we know is that variation and natural selection are real ...
Which is evolution.
... -the rest is interpretation from extrapolation.
No, it is understanding of reality validated by the evidence. All the evidence conforms to this understanding of life on earth and the age of the earth and the age of the universe. There is no evidence that say this cannot be so.
There
IS fairly simple evidence that any concept involving a young earth is false - evidence it does not take a rocket scientist to understand - again see
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to debate this evidence.
Well luckily that's not what I'm doing.
Then you will go to
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to debate this evidence that invalidates a young earth or no longer assert that the earth is young.
... and when they see facts that don't fit, they make a new story to make them fit -because after all evolution is a fact so whatever we find must fit that somehow...
Evidence is not contradicted by facts, more evidence, so the
fact that evolution occurs cannot be invalidated. This is as true as the
fact that gravity occurs cannot be invalidated, while the theory of gravity can change - has changed substantially as we improve our understanding of reality. This is so in all science.
The theory of evolution can change with new facts that "don't fit," true, but that is what
actually makes it science, and thus actually qualifies it for discussion in actual science classes.
Yes, fossils are real but how they got there is what evolutionists misunderstand -they must, they believe in millions of years after all...and spontaneous generation, of course.
And yet "spontaneous generation" - as used in evolutionary biology - is a falsified concept no longer considered in evolutionary biology, and there is
NO other explanation for all the fossils in all the patterns of geological distribution in space and their order in time in which they are found. An explanation that does not fit all the evidence, and indeed ignores whole swaths of it, is not an "alternative explanation" based on a "different interpretation" of the evidence, it is one that ignores reality.
Which is what evolutionists do all the time.
There is a big difference between ignorance (not knowing the facts) and stupidity (incapable of understanding the facts). I am not aware of anyone here, including myself, calling creationists stupid. Ignorance can be cured - learn.
If you have a problem with accepting the validity of some evidence then that is a different matter:
I think that people that hold on to falsified beliefs in spite of evidence that contradicts it are compromisers
Well luckily that's not what I'm doing.
The question is -- how would you know? What is your basis for establishing that your beliefs are not falsified? By testing with real evidence - such as the age of the earth?
Precisely, which is why evolutionists do what they do -they made up an interpretation (Darwin et al) and called it real and now they cannot let it go because they BELIEVE it!
So now evolutionists are making up a belief that they have tested concepts with evidence?
But not evolution -billions of intermediates missing -no problem, come up with a theory that doesn't require them -like punctuated equilibria. There we are. It's true no matter what we find. Not falsifiable? Not a theory. That's evolution for you.
How do you
know there are "billions of intermediates missing" if they are missing? How do you explain the evidence, like that of the forams above - "transitional forms between species are readily apparent" - that demonstrate multitudes of transitions. Ignoring this evidence that contradicts the claim that there are no intermediate forms, and this is only the tip of the iceberg of evidence of intermediate forms -- every fossil is intermediate between those that came before and those that come after. Every organism is intermediate between its parent and its offspring. Hardly missing.
There is no evidence that contradicts evolution.
There is evidence that contradicts a young earth.
There is evidence that contradicts a young universe.
There is evidence that contradicts a global flood.
Those are all called mantras. Learn at school and beyond, believe and repeat.
No, they are opportunities for you to provide evidence that they are false statements. You can also visit
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) to discuss some of this evidence that contradicts a young earth, that contradicts a young universe and that demonstrates that a global flood is not possible in the time covered by that evidence.
Inability - or unwillingness - to deal with such evidence would be denying evidence that contradicts belief.
Oh really, so red blood cells in dinosaur bones suggesting that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago; drawings of dinosaurs (dragons) by men; historical accounts of creatures called dragons that looked like the dinosaurs put together by paleontologists actually mean that the drawers and story tellers were all on drugs or otherwise deluded, describing mythical creatures that died out tens of millions of years before man apparently evolved.There are so many things that evolutionists refuse to see because they don't fit the story -this is just one very small example of tunnel vision.
Finding evidence of soft tissues (not red blood cells, another creationist falsehood) in dinosaurs is not really different than finding other organic bits mixed in with fossils, it's all a matter of how the fossil was preserved, a process that we do not control.
Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia
quote:
In the March 2005 issue of Science, Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and colleagues announced the recovery of soft tissue from the marrow cavity of a fossilized leg bone, from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus. ... In addition, microstructures resembling blood cells were found inside the matrix and vessels. The structures bear resemblance to ostrich blood cells and vessels. Whether an unknown process, distinct from normal fossilization, preserved the material, or the material is original, the researchers do not know, and they are careful not to make any claims about preservation.[49]
Nor is mythology evidence of dinosaurs, nor does the existence of dinosaurs - or any species thought to be extinct - alive today invalidate evolution -- ever see a bird? Myths can also be stories made up ("interpretations") to explain the existence of fossil bones of creatures that did not exist around the people that discovered them, stories that fit with their understanding of the reality at the time. There have been (shock) no fossil finds of flying dragons or cyclops or gryphons. One the other hand we do have evidence of pleseosaurs, mastodons and protoceratops ... found in the areas where these myths originated. Of course if one had been alive the myth would be entirely different.
Because things "don't fit" creationist concepts of what evolution involves is of no concern to anyone looking for reality. If you think any of these are valid enough to actually discuss -- complete with evidence for your assertions -- then feel free to start a thread, it should be amusing if nothing else.
BUT ... even IF you could show there is ONE fact that does not fit with the evolutionary biology theory of evolution, this does NOT for ONE MOMENT demonstrate that creationism is a valid alternative.
For creationism to be valid it must stand on its own, and explain ALL the evidence.
So far creationism is defined by (1) god-did-it and (2) it isn't evolution ... defined by creationism as something that doesn't occur.
That's a pretty vacuous concept to teach in science class -- normally science involves all the evidence
FOR a concept ... evidence that is
still missing in any of your posts (or of any other creationists).
And I'm still waiting for a response to
Message 160 ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : last line
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
.
™ Version 4.2