Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
My view on the scientificity of the ToE by Common descent is that it is science, just as the YEC view is science. Though they both fall under their own frameworks of interperetation, the Old earther falls under uniformitarianism, and the Young earther falls under catastrophism. Both are scientific, and both attempt an explination for todays diversity in life and geologic stata and composition through a process of one sort or another. Following these concepts we must percieve that there is now no absolute or truth to either one to any degree higher than the other accept by interperetation.

---

If creation 'science' is scientific, please provide testable hypothese, positive evidence, and potential falsifications.So far, this hasn't been done, despite numerous requests.If it's real science, then it should be easy to find lots of this sort of thing on the major Creationist websites such as AiG and ICR.Science never makes a claim to absolute truth.Creation 'science' is based upon the Bible, and spends much of it's time attempting to refute another theory instead of developing it's own.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE] "[2] Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence.
[2a]It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence."I think this is a good point. Creationists have a tough mountain to climb. First, they have to deal with the claim that they are not performing science. Then they have to deal with the claim that religion cannot be taught in school. THEN they have to deal with the evidence. [/B][/QUOTE]If they were doing real science, then the evidence is what they would be dealing with FIRST, not last.If they were doing real science, they would be dealing with evidence and using the methods of science, not religion.The scientific method is not difficult to understand. They could use it if they had a mind to. But they rarely use it, because, when all of the scientific window-dressing is stripped away, their objective is not to do science. Their objective is to pass religion off as science and to get it taught in public school science classrooms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
If that is the limit of your criticisms to what was posted, I am surprised that you would remain as a proponent of evolutionary thought.

---

Yes, we feeble-brained evolutionists can only keep fifteen criticisms going in one thread, stupid and dull-witted as we are.Of course, all you do, hyper-brilliant Creationist that you are, is post thirty-five criticisms and somehow can't manage to respond substantively at all to the fifteen criticisms the mentally-deficient, bumbling evolutionists somehow manage to raise.What a piece of work you are, Jet.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: This gets tiring. Let's suppose that all the quotes and links you provide are true and are not taken out of context (as they mostly are), why would science cling to such an absurd explanation? How do you think science (or scientists) approach a problem? Why does biology cling to such a flawed notion (according to you)? Let's further suppose that evolution is completely wrong. Do you think that that would then 'prove' special creation? If you can, provide a reasoned argument without stealing out of context quotes from other websites. I get real tired of people misusing and misrepresenting the views of others in order to make a point. Do you have any of your own arguments? Arguments that you've researched and can provide us with data? Data is convincing, out-of-context quotes from webpages much less convincing. So, where's the beef?

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

I find it wonderfully ironic that you should be asking Jet to do this.At the Yahoo club, Jet required all of us to have done actual, hands-on research on a subject before he would consider us qualified to comment upon it.He says he does such research, but can't give us any details because he is doing super-secret science that nobody is ever allowed to see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i agree with everything Jet is saying and thats what ive been trying to explain to all of you evolutionists and nonbelievers.

---

The only problem is Jet hasn't actually said much of anything that has any basis in reality, and when challenged to support his assertions with evidence, he refuses.If you want to ally yourself with somebody like that for the sole reason that you agree with him, that's just too bad.I will say that this is another reason why Creation 'science' isn't science. They allow any crackpot ideas as long as they toe the scriptural line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b]If creation 'science' is scientific, please provide testable hypothese, positive evidence, and potential falsifications.

​

So far, this hasn't been done, despite numerous requests.
--yes and evolution has failed to provide a beginning for itself.[/QUOTE]

​

Um, evolution began when the first life appeared. Besides, the ToE deals with what happens to life. How life began, or when it began is not a part of the theory.

​

quote:

---

If it's real science, then it should be easy to find lots of this sort of thing on the major Creationist websites such as AiG and ICR.
--maybe they dont feel like putting up weak theories and wait until they can get a good amount of evidence.

---

​

Then they have been waiting for "a good amount of evidence" for around forty years.

​

quote:

---

Science never makes a claim to absolute truth.
--it does offer a very good explanation but even that explanation is weak at best.

---

​

Exactly how is it weak? Please be very specific.

​

[QUOTE]Creation 'science' is based upon the Bible, and spends much of it's time attempting to refute another theory instead of developing it's own.
--that is a function of science. we are in search of the truth after all.
[/b]

---

Huh? I don't quite understand your response.If Creationists want to put forth science, as they claim they do, then they should be developing their own theories, not spending all of their time trying to discredit others.You see, even if Creationists managed to refute all of Biology, Geology, Cosmology, etc., this in no way would do a single bit to support the veracity creation stories in the Bible. To do that, they need positive evidence.There ain't none that I've seen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The point that I was trying to make on this is that evolutionists are positive that they can totally smear Creationists when it comes to evidence. So why do they also resort to ad hominem and also claim that Creation science deserves quotations around the "science"? I can write "evolution" all I want, but it doesn't really prove a point.

​

Many of you insult Jet for his arrogant and insulting nature, but I find that almost every evolutionist on this board has been extremely arrogant and extremely insulting on many occasions (although, I will admit, the evolutionists do generally have a bit more substance in their posts).

---

The short answer to your question is we resort to such behavior sometimes because we are human and we make mistakes and we become frustrated.The reason I put quotes around the word "science" when used in the phrase 'Creation "science"' is because Creation "science" is science in name only, not in practice or product, and it is important to always make this distinction. Creationists have given themselves this description, even though they do not follow any of the tenets or methods of real scientific inquiry.If you like, I could stop putting quotes around the word and say "so-called" Creation science, instead.Somehow, I don't think you would like that any better.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b] i think the bulk of evolution is assumptions[/QUOTE]

​

How so? Please be specific and detailed in your response.

​

[QUOTE] and theyre a few number of facts and evidence but not enough to prove it undeniably, at least to the extent of gravity.
[/b]

---

We have never observed gravity. We have seen the effects of gravity, but we have never seen it.OTOH, we have directly observed evolution, both in the lab and in the field.Evolution is much better understood than gravity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
JM: You missed my point entirely. Since you claim to be alive and a real person, then you are a living breathing example of evolution.

​

Au Contraire (sp?) Since he claims to be alive and a real person, he is a child of God and His Creation.

​

"A change in genetic material through time is all evolution is."

​

Whoops! I've been an evolutionist all along!

​

"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."

​

Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth.

​

"What I want you to do is to define this barrier scientifically. Define this barrier scientifically. Give us a way to test this."

​

I believe that creationists have been pointing to hybridization as a classification.

​

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

​

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."

​

Sorry for stepping in Penguin.

---

Please define "kind".What I want to know is how do I tell one "kind" from another? What are the criterion?You can't refer to the bible, remember, if you want to be scientific. You have to remain within the evidence.If you cannot answer the question, then you have no business using the word "kind" in a scientific discussion, because it has no scientific meaning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
JM: ROTFL!! Is this explanation real or are you joking? You're just yanking my chain aren't you? Do creationists have a real explanation for the barrier to genetic evolution or not? If you are serious, please re-read the explanation and try to figure out why, in explaining every possible scenario, it explains nothing. For example, according to this explanation an ant and an elephant may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind. Similarly a bacteria and a human may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind!! Isn't this what creationists have been dissing evolution about for a long time and now they reach the same conclusion???????? Too funny, I know it's a joke.
---you didnt understand what he was getting at. i think he was trying to point that species can not breed outside of their species and that would mean an evolved creature would have tough time finding a mate.

---

How do you explain this, then:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century.
Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile
offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from
which it had evolved."------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B] Thanks for admitting that ad hominem attacks are a mistake.[/QUOTE]Of course, we would all like to be perfectly sanguine and Zen-like at all times, but patience wears thin, and it's a bit easier to get pointy when it's words on a screen rather than speaking face to face.Of course, there are also times when what you might call being "mean" is what I might call hard-edged, pressing debate, but I also freely admit that I wasn't debating when I called Jet a "weenie".

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-19-2002]

[QUOTE]Besides, even if you could prove that all Creation scientists were inbred heathen retards, it would do nothing to help evolutionary theory.[/B][/QUOTE]It sure would explain alot, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

---

OK, show how your explanation is more logical and more plausible than current explanations by Geologists.ALso, did you look ONLY at the physical evidence and come up with your model (which would be scientific), or did you look at the Bible story first, and then figure out a model trying to incorporate as much of natural phenomena as you could in order to make the Bible true (which wouldn't be scientific)?It doesn't matter, really, even if you can explain where all the water comes from in a way that makes sense and doesn't require magic (althought I don't think you can). You have an enormous amount of evidence which strongly tends to refute the flood having happened.Also, how do you explain why there are no flowering grasses, no flowering trees, and, in fact, no flowering plants, mammoth or miniscule, in the top layers of the Geologic strata?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thanks for such a good response to TC, Ludvan. some of these evolutionists are getting unbearable. Ill give my two cents on it and here it comes. In science everything is assumed to be probable and thus theyre are a dozens of explanations of life and of death. We dont really know for absolute what causes them but science does give us a very good approximation. Science also only provides a limited description of the past in that it doesnt measure actual time. Christianity doesn't explain anything either because if you didnt have to overcome obstacles to be saved then there really wouldnt be much point to living here on earth. maybe you dont have to have faith in Jesus to get into heaven but we need to believe that we need to have total faith so that we can accomplish something here on earth. Thats the basic drive behind all relgions, motivate your people. Christianity is right in my eyes because its based on love rather than some of the other religions that are based on hate and control. We dont believe for the sake of believing, we believe because we love and we know that we need to be loved and share love.

​

plz try to make sense of this.

---

mmm, I still think that you believe because you were taught to believe from a very young age.The largest determinant of an individual's religious persuasion is where they live. That's why you don't find a lot of Hindus in your neighborhood, and why there aren't a lot of Christians in Tibet, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"OK, show how your explanation is more logical and more plausible than current explanations by Geologists."
--This is opinionated. to have it 'more' logical or 'more' plausible.[/QUOTE]

​

Well...right.

​

What's wrong with that?

​

Why should I be attracted to a LESS plausible or a LESS logical explanation for a given phenomena?

​

Why should the explanation that has LESS evidenciary and logical support be given as much or more credence that the explanation that has more evidence to support it and is logically-sound?

​

Science isn't, as Larry has said, a post modern relativistic exercise where one can consider all explanations equal.

​

quote:

---

"ALso, did you look ONLY at the physical evidence and come up with your model (which would be scientific), or did you look at the Bible story first, and then figure out a model trying to incorporate as much of natural phenomena as you could in order to make the Bible true (which wouldn't be scientific)?"
--I would highly prefer the former.

---

​

But which one did you actually DO?

​

quote:

---

"It doesn't matter, really, even if you can explain where all the water comes from in a way that makes sense and doesn't require magic (althought I don't think you can). You have an enormous amount of evidence which strongly tends to refute the flood having happened."
--What evidence would that be? (besides your examples in the next comment, is it geology?)

---

​

There is strong evidence that several civilizations existed long before, during, and after the time the flood was supposed to have occurred, yet there are not records of such an event and there is no evidence that the civilizations were disturbed or eliminated.

​

Here are more problems:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

​

[QUOTE]"Also, how do you explain why there are no flowering grasses, no flowering trees, and, in fact, no flowering plants, mammoth or miniscule, in the top layers of the Geologic strata?"
--Mammoths are not tough to explain, being such massive mammals, though flowering plants, I seem to be tending to be drawn toward the argument of seasonal growth, however. I would need to do research on flowering plants though (I am currently researching enough topics I think).
[/b]

---

Uh, TC, flowering trees don't die and rot every winter. They stay standing. Seasonal growth is not an issue for flowering trees. Grass dies, but it doesn't completely disintigrate in the winter, either.This is a huge hole in your argument, TC. In fact, one might call it devastating.Remember, if you want to do science, you must consider ALL the evidence, not only that which supports your desired result.