Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Assumptions of ToE
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 32 (529287)
10-08-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
10-08-2009 5:52 PM


Assumptions
I think where science and creationism separate is the following:
Science works from data to conclusions, and in the process tests any necessary assumptions to see that they are supported.
Creationism has its conclusions provided a priori, and must make the data fit those conclusions--whether it will nor not. In doing so, creationists attack any assumptions made by scientists if those assumptions lead to the "wrong" answers.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 5:52 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 6:45 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 32 (530429)
10-13-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
10-13-2009 12:43 PM


Assumptions?
I would find that the up and down variation we see in species would be good evidence that such changes cannot accumulate.
To claim this you have to ignore a huge amount of evidence for transitionals, as well as laboratory experiments that show speciation.
That evidence shows speciation happened and that it is not just an assumption. That evidence also shows that the claim of no speciation, based on the biblical "kinds," is false.
No adequate mechanism has been ever proposed by creationists to show that speciation cannot take place after a certain number of changes have occurred. That there is such an (unknown) mechanism is an (unsupported) assumption based on religious belief rather than scientific evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 10-13-2009 12:43 PM slevesque 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