|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Scientific Method For Beginners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
quote:See post above. quote:hmm...Not sure what you are saying here. I am sure you have some sort of stance on the existance of the universe, the origin of life, even if it is exclusion of some stances such as biblical creation. Everybody does as far as I know. In fact most peole post on here because they have a stance, they may not have worked out all the details, but they still have a stance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
to Dr Adequate
Yikes!! Is this some sort of scare tactic to stop me from posting or trying to make me crawl up into a corner and cry? Please explain how I am lying. Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say so hopefully my latest posts will help. Your reply confuses me as it seems to be more of a hate post then anything helpful. Yes, you have been posting on this forum for a long time however this doesn't mean that you are somehow automatically superior to me on the topic of Creation vs Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that Dr. Adequate was objecting to your "Evolutionists need to deny God" claim. Try telling that to Kenneth Miller, or Francis Collins or Simon Conway Morris.
Anybody who actually follows the debate (instead of Creationist propaganda) knows that it isn't true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
On the comment about evolutionists denying God:
Ok maybe that comment was a bit excessive. It is true of some evolutionists but I guess not all. Edited by Arphy, : Just added the top line to show what i was responding to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Ok maybe that comment was a bit excessive. the pride of the Christian really does have no bound... "a bit excessive" !!! It was an outright falsehood, whether deliberate or not. And you wonder why you generate such hostility in others. And when you talk about denying God, are you talking about just Yahweh, or were you including Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and Thor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Arphy writes: Are there really any creationists on this forum who believe that God directly creates each and every species? Please show me, as I have not seen or heard of any. While I think they would substitute the word "kinds" for "species," this type of creationist is very common here. You don't find too many creationists who argue that speciation is impossible, but most do argue that "kindiation" is impossible, and that God directly created each and every kind. This appears to be what you believe. Putting this in the context of the scientific method, presumably we all believe in speciation because that is what the evidence suggests. The belief of some of us in "kind" boundaries that define the limits of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Arphy.
Arphy writes: If this were the case then nobody would be on here, as a change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection is a vital part of creation theory. The two are not opposed. Tell that to the creationist camp: the evolutionists have known this for years. You are correct that creationists accept natural selection.You are not correct that creationists accept mutation. One of the primary thrusts of creationist "research" has been the attempt to discredit the notion of beneficial mutations. You may personally accept mutation as a part of your personal views, but this is not representative of the creationist/IDist community at large. -----
Arphy writes: In commen language when you mention the debate creation vs Evolution to someone the thought is (or should be if they have some knowledge of the history of the debate): Old universe and old earth where life originated as a simple single celled organism which through various processes proceeded to give us the diversity of life that we have today VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood. And, when most people see the name "Arphy," I imagine it conjures up the image of a little dog that says, "Arf! Arf!" However, your avatar is a cat. You should conform to the common perception and change your avatar to a dog. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
quote:What???, I think you have misunderstood the position of creationists and IDers. In fact creationists do accept mutations just not the notion of information increasing beneficial mutations, there is a difference between the two. Just because my nickname is Arphy doesn't refute my argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
quote:The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
quote:how so? quote:As I said before, it may not apply to all evolutionists, but to some, so no, it is not outright falsehood. Maybe I should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e." to have avoided the confusion. However, you can not honestly say that no evolutionist on this forum has ever said something that was a bit hyperbolic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.
And your evidence for this is ????? And would this belief follow from the religious notion of a "fall?" Or is this something you believe that is widely agreed-upon in scientific circles? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Arphy,
The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems. Curiously, reality is completely unaffected by what you think and say, and it continues to evolve and proceed according the the natural laws of the universe. Interestingly, if you view things differently, does that mean that you accept lies about the evidence as a valid argument, or do you test the validity of an argument by how completely it explains all the evidence? Do you believe the evidence lies?
Message 53What???, I think you have misunderstood the position of creationists and IDers. In fact creationists do accept mutations just not the notion of information increasing beneficial mutations, there is a difference between the two. Fascinatingly, what creationists accept or don't accept also has no effect on reality. Reality is not a democracy or a Chinese menu (one from column A and two from column B) where you can pick and choose what you accept as true.
Message 45This is a pretty standard definition of evolution on this forum (and in a sense I agree that the word can have that meaning), however this forum is not called: change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection vs Creation. If this were the case then nobody would be on here, as a change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection is a vital part of creation theory. The two are not opposed. True enough. I have said for some time that creationists do not really have an issue with evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - rather what they have an issue with is the issue of speciation and the formation of family trees of descent from common ancestors, and the theoretical extension of this to a universal ancient common ancestor ... or to some specific number of original forms.
Old universe and old earth ... Which is what the evidence shows. Again, we can talk about different interpretations of evidence, true ones and false ones ... if you want to pursue this topic see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. Intriguingly, the evidence of an old earth is more pervasive and self-confirming and accessible to the common person, than the evidence of an oblate spheroid earth and a heliocentric solar system.
... where life originated as a simple single celled organism which through various processes proceeded to give us the diversity of life that we have today ... Yes, it was Darwin's insight that the process of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - AND the process of speciation - the division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations - were sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it: from history, pre-history, archeology, paleontology, and from the genetic record; confirmed by geology and astronomy where such comparisons are possible.
... VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood. Which, sadly, fails to explain all the evidence, and which is incoherent at making any kind of predictions for what we keep finding based on predictions based on evolution. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:A clear, concise description, except for one word of point 4. I assume you are trying to explain this to a non-scientist, but I think you have oversimplified it so much that it has become misleading. Here is how I would re-word point 4: "(4) If reality corresponds with the predictions of the hypothesis, then we are obliged to regard it as verified until and unless we find contrary evidence, at which point we would go back to step (1). Otherwise, we must accept it as a solid theory and can then use it to help us understand and interact with the world." We can build evidence to verify or validate a theory, but this only means that the theory has not been falsified. It has not (and never can be) proven. This is a crucial foundational concept in the philosophy of science. As wikipedia says about the scientific method, "Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) [a conjecture]. It can only falsify [a conjecture]."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
... VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood. Which, sadly, fails to explain all the evidence, and which is incoherent at making any kind of predictions for what we keep finding based on predictions based on evolution. And the global flood myth is consistently contradicted by the evidence. The huge number of tell-tale signs of such a flood some 4,350 years ago that have been found to be absent was enough to convince early creationist geologists seeking to document the flood that it was a myth nearly 200 years ago. Since then the case for a global flood in historic times has faded into incredulity to everyone but biblical literalists, who continue to make up the most fantastic tales to support their belief system. The fact that those tales ("what if" stories) make no sense, are internally contradictory, and are contradicted as well by immense amounts of scientific data makes no difference. Belief in a recent global flood is not altered by any amount of evidence. That's why its not science. That's why creationism and creation "science" are inherently anti-science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The problem is that it isn't even true of most evolutionists. So it is worse than hyperbole. It's just one more piece of dishonest creationist propaganda. Come to that, so is the "mutations don't create information" argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024