evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

Sylas's reply provided the necessary details, but I thought your post was a perfect illustration of how Creationist misinformation in books and pamphlets and at websites misleads sincere Christians on a range of topics having nothing directly to do with evolution. I assume you didn't just decide on your own that evolutionists first decide on the age they want, then they adjust their equations over and over to get the desired result. I assume you read this someplace from a source you assumed would not mislead you.Guess what? They misled you.Why? Did they not know themselves? Did they know what they were writing was wrong?And why did you believe it? Do you really think that scientists, a fairly large and varied group these days, routinely falsifies their research results? And even if you do accept this ridiculous proposition, don't you understand that since scientific results would be only a matter of opinion and not of evidence that the scientific community would quickly fragment into subgroups divided along subjectively drawn divisions,and that since this hasn't happened your original premise must be wrong? This type of thinking is a suborder of conspiracy theorizing, where the world is the way it is because of the plots of sinister groups working behind the scenes. In this case you could only say what you did about scientists manipulating those equations if you believed there's a huge conspiracy of scientists who agree beforehand on the results they want, then conspire, over and over and over again in paper after paper after paper for year after year after year to keep the conspiracy a secret. Wow!Accusations of data maniputation is an example of the most egregious type of Creationist misinformation because it is just blantantly wrong. Other examples of the same thing are that the fossils in the geologic column are jumbled up just like you would expect in a flood, that evolution says you can get a cat from a dog, that the likelihood of life forming naturally has only one chance out of 10 raised to the power of 1 followed by a hundred zeroes, that evolutionary and geological ideas derive from a desire to oppose religion, and so forth. These kinds of things are just made up out of whole cloth.The next level of misinformation is more pernicious because though it is false, it takes its starting point from something true. Examples of this are that the slight depth of moon dust means the moon is young, that the declining magnetic field strength of the earth means the earth is young since extrapolating backwards for more than a few thousand years yields an impossible field strength, that the decreasing diameter of the sun means the solar system is young because if you extrapolate back millions of years the sun would have been larger than the diameter of the earth's orbit which is impossible, that if the earth were really billions of years old the oceans would be far saltier, and so forth.And so a word to Christians perusing Creationist materials: be careful out there!I know that all the above is terrible self-serving coming from an evolutionist, implying as it does that the sources of Creationist material are purposefully misleading. All I can say is that you should try to become sure of your information by checking it against other sources, including non-Creationist sources, and to try to understand your argument before you make it. If evolution is really false it will only be demonstrated by evidence that is real, not made up.--Percy [Added a title. --Percy][This message has been edited by Percy, 02-21-2004]

I will admit that i didnt express the variables correctly but it is also the first time that i see a negative lambda sign in there. In every textbook ive check out its a negative k. But the real problem is that youre accusing me of not knowing of what i talking about when apparently youre the one that has nly taken a basic calculus course.Just like with the population growth model the decay model has to have its constant adjusted every certain time. Graphically if the constant is left unchanged the curve will not reach the values you want so you adjust them by taking different points on the graph to change your initial population which will eventually produce a change in the constant. you make this change again when the values obtained are starting to look illogical. More on this when i have more time

Unlike population growth models, radiometric decay rates are invariant and constant across almost all conditions present on earth. We apply the label "constant" to the decay rate for a reason. As our equipment and skills grow in capability we might add more digits after the decimal point, but no more than that.As I stated in my earlier post, you're saying that scientists decide the date they want and then manipulate the equations to get the answer they want. You might think you're casting this accusation at some anonymous, distant group, but you're not. The targets of your accusation are in dialogue with you on this board, so this is very personal. It would be much appreciated if you would support your accusation.--Percy

Another perfect post Sylas,but maybe heading a long way off topic here?

Ofcourse, Creation Scientists would disagree with you about that. I don't see how both can be falsified easily with past tense being such an issue. Afterall isn't that why such debates as these exist? Because we cannot know for sure what exactly is totally correct = absolute certainty. That time machine would be useful, or even showing us how evolution is happening. A lot would rather argue with newbie yecs though, than to show us how evolution is actually happening and then surely you would win the debate. Could you show a newbie yec kid how evolution happens in layman's terms? If you can then I think a lot of them would listen. Or maybe it cannot be explained easily to a layman. Have we seen a new species emerge ever? - I'm talking about, say - a mammal. Hence, the can of worms is open.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-21-2004]

This is one way that creationists avoid what is there. They play goal post moving. First we can have no evolution at all, then we have sub speices evolution, then when a new species is shown it has to be of a particular type, then it has to be new genera and so on.There are two aspects to the arguement. As I noted it wouldn't matter if the ToE was very wrong. A YEC, flood based, no evolution idea is wrong. It isn't an iffy thing. Falsification is much more reasonable to call "proved" than the truth of something. First that needs to be understood and put aside.Even in your post you go off into asking for "proof" of evolution. That isn't the first point. The first point is that those creation so-called "scientists" are simply wrong in very many ways. It seems it is necessary to follow the actual history and repeat it.First you have to understand that the current idea is wrong then you are left wondering what is right. That happened a couple of centuries ago for scientists. Maybe each individual who has been lied to for most of their life has to recapitulate that path. Then they are ready to wonder what did happen.Then we can start explaining why the ToE is a pretty darn good explanation for what we do see.Explaining it to a newbie YEC isn't likely to work if they still think that the earth is 6,000 years old, flood happened etc. That will be enough to blind them to it.Once someone is past all that stuff it is still a bit hard to get into ones head. A couple of reasons for this:
1) While the basic idea is simple it is hard to understand the emergent phenomenon that can come from simple things. It takes a bit of time for that to sink in and some experiences that are hard to give here.
2) While the basic idea is simple the deep workings are dammed complex. This means you can go on forever explaining the details.

Sometimes as I read the posts of other thinkers and as I write my own, I become quite philosophical. So I will attempt to do so again. Here is my philosophy. Lets take an Apple. Any good scientist will be able to tell you the source of the creation of the apple in biocentric terms. Any Biblical Literalist may search the scripture and conclude only that God created the apple. If we take the intelligence necessary to assemble the apple, we either arrive at spontaneous evolutionary process apart from God, or we conclude that truly in the beginning, God had plans for that apple which would exist 15 billion some odd years later. Thus, again, the question becomes a philosophical and a spiritual one. Did the Universe evolve in the divine dance of life, energy and matter? Or did God create it?

But this isn't the topic of this thread. This thread is explicitly about "creationism" and, in this context, the word is meant to mean those who can not accept the majority believers view which is what, I think, you have described.Since we don't know (in the same way we "know" other things) the nature of the deep origin of the universe it is something of a philosophical question -- for now.

I have responded to this assertion in another thread in a more appropriate forum. See: Message 1.Best wishes -- Sylas.

Yes. I gave an example of speciation of mice on the island of Madeira in another forum. See: Message 35, and Message 40 (same thread); plus associated links. There is increasing recognition by creationists that they require enormous amounts of speciation (far more rapid evolution than required by evolutionary biology) to allow for the diversity of animal life since the flood. See Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists, in which Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis actually cites observed speciation as evidence for creationism. (Obligatory sheesh: Sheesh)Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-21-2004]

Hi Sylas, no obligatory sheesh needed. I have just read about the mice and will read more in your thread. I've been quite busy and so I can't read every thread, nevertheless this is the first I have heard about these mice.
Also, Ned, I do speak from a somewhat neutral position. Or how I observe it from a Layman's point of view. If you say it is complex to explain that partially answers my question because already I can see that there is going to be a natural gap between a newbie yec and an evolutionist. In all honesty, from my learning of Natural Selection I can see that gap is real. Well, I know one particular Creation Scientist who was an evolutionist for many years and then came to be Creationist. You'll have to understand that from a somewhat neutral position I'd have to disagree with your statement. A Scientist is a Scientist, I see no reason to doubt a Creation Scientist if he is a Scientist like all of the others.
Okay, I did go off and ask for proof of evolution, guilty. I think I get you. You are saying there's a difference between falsification and absolute certainty? I'd have to agree that is a very good explanation. Neutrally - I'd say it seems to be the best Theory of what happened or is happening. BUT - I don't think comments about it being an absolute certainty would be true. Certainly, I don't think the statement I conjured up is correct, or " evolution wins ". Surely you would need it to be a certainty for such a statement.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-22-2004]

The "sheesh" is obligatory when reading Carl Wieland's paper. It was not a reference to you; my apologies for failing to make that clear.Cheers -- Sylas

Ah forget it, no apology needed. BTW Apparently the mice are somewhat explained as when in your link the Creationist says speciation is infact assigned a place in the Creationist model. I'm guessing you would disagree with him about that?
Am I off topic?

quote:

---

Well, I know one particular Creation Scientist who was an evolutionist for many years and then came to be Creationist. You'll have to understand that from a somewhat neutral position I'd have to disagree with your statement. A Scientist is a Scientist, I see no reason to doubt a Creation Scientist if he is a Scientist like all of the others.

---

Well, how are we to judge if someone is a scientist, or even a competant scientist?Is he a scientist "like all the others"?Or, has he given up science for religion, yet is trying to maintain a veneer of rationality?

I don't think I've communicated it yet. What I am saying is that it is easier to be more certain that something is false than that it is true.While we may get to the point were we are awfully darn sure something is true there is still room for some doubt, however ridiculously small. However, when something is falsified it is easier to be very nearly absolutely certain that it is false.Or in other words it is harder to be almost sure something is true than it is to be almost sure it is false.(The above is all my view, it's not something I've seen discussed anywhere in any detail. There may be something askew with the reasoning.)