Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
59 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 881,652 Year: 13,400/23,288 Month: 330/795 Week: 31/95 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
verbiskit
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 310 (87523)
02-19-2004 2:20 PM


I have to do a presentation that convinces people that evolution is the truth and creationism is a lie. Can anyone help me understand them both a little bit more?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 02-19-2004 2:29 PM verbiskit has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Tamara, posted 02-19-2004 2:30 PM verbiskit has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 02-19-2004 2:48 PM verbiskit has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 6:31 PM verbiskit has not yet responded
 Message 71 by HxC4Christ, posted 07-29-2004 4:27 AM verbiskit has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 310 (87530)
02-19-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by verbiskit
02-19-2004 2:20 PM


Why don't you start by asking us questions about what you don't understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by verbiskit, posted 02-19-2004 2:20 PM verbiskit has not yet responded

Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 310 (87531)
02-19-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by verbiskit
02-19-2004 2:20 PM


Kid, science does not deal in truth. It deals with hypotheses and theories.

So I suggest you reframe your quest. You'll be more convincing that way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by verbiskit, posted 02-19-2004 2:20 PM verbiskit has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by JRTjr, posted 08-05-2004 11:17 PM Tamara has not yet responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 310 (87537)
02-19-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by verbiskit
02-19-2004 2:20 PM


As Tamara said, science is not the pursuit for truth. Philosophy deals with this. Science looks for explanations for natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. While science does not deny supernatural mechanisms, it does base its inquiry on the basis that every natural phenomena has a natural mechanism. Scientific theories can then be supported or falsified by what we observe, be that in the fossil record or in the genomes of species. It is the predictions that the Theory of Evolution makes on the relatedness of species that is its strength, creationism does not have a testable hypothesis that even approaches evolution in the realm. Perhaps the best layman site on the internet for evidences of evolution is at www.talkorgins.org.

Perhaps the best question to ask of the other side is this: "Other than the Bible, what evidence is there of special creation." In other words, if the Bible said that life started 3.5 billion years ago and has evolved since from single celled organisms, would bible literalists still have a problem with the theory of evolution? I would think not.

[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-19-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by verbiskit, posted 02-19-2004 2:20 PM verbiskit has not yet responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 310 (87540)
02-19-2004 2:53 PM


quote:
To prove creation you have to prove...that evolution doesn't happen.

--?

quote:
Most creationists also believe in a young earth which is one of the easiest ideas to shoot full of holes.

--Well it certainly and inevitably carries copious potential falsification.

quote:
Evolution is a theory based on the evidence at hand (fossil record, genetic data, age of earth/universe etc). The basic idea is evolution is science, its tested, it stands up to the questions, and its able to adapt to take new input to expand our knowledge. Creation is a theory that is declared by religion, then spends all its time desperately trying to defend itself.
As the famous quote goes "Evolution takes the evidence and makes a conclusion. Creation makes a conclusion then looks for evidence".

--Scientific analysis of a potentially young earth does not have to follow such a flawed scientific methodology. However, this does seem to be the case with most 'research' performed by scientists who advocate a young earth, and most unfortunatelly so. To me it is clear that the current understanding of science, as is manifested in the scientific literature argues well against a young earth by plenty of methods. While it seems more implausible every day in my opinion, if those scientists interested in "young earth research" were to take a more objective approach, without prejudicial requisites for 'scientific' conclusions, they could probably get somewhere.

Nevertheless, I recommend the original author of this thread to not make any definite statements in his presentation. But of course if his only impetus to delve into this issue is to 'convince the audience', he could always get a copy of those Dr. Dino tapes and switch things around a bit. Ultimately, you probably won't know what you are talking about, but have fun trying.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 02-20-2004 5:20 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 02-21-2004 1:57 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Harlequin, posted 02-22-2004 2:47 PM TrueCreation has responded

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 310 (87790)
02-20-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
02-19-2004 2:53 PM


^ ????? What? Ok I'm confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 02-19-2004 2:53 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 14672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 310 (87799)
02-20-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by verbiskit
02-19-2004 2:20 PM


verbiskits big project
I have to do a presentation that convinces people that evolution is the truth and creationism is a lie. Can anyone help me understand them both a little bit more?
I would agree that you have a good chance of convincing people of evolution on earth. If you are attempting to disprove God in any way that He is personal and that He is able to influence events on earth, I think that your effort will NOT succeed. You cannot tell someone who has smelled the coffee and tasted of it that coffee does not exist. Otherwise, I hope that you have a good presentation,verbiskit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by verbiskit, posted 02-19-2004 2:20 PM verbiskit has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 310 (87816)
02-20-2004 8:20 PM


That's a big can of worms verbiskit
Can any one human actually make a statement like:
" Evolution has won, it is an absolute certainty and Creationism is completely false "

They'd have to have a time machine to back up that claim. Also they'd have to define evolution and creationism completely.

Now that would be hard because of things like;

Creationism = God created the world and all animals etc. using evolution.
Creationism = God created everything with no evolution whatsoever and the earth is old.
Creationism = God created everything with no evolution and the earth is young.

Unfortunately it's ford cars.
versus cars, motorcycles, prams, scooters etc.
In other words, Creationism = Philosophy, Religion, Faith, Theology, Science.
Evolution = Science.

Ofcourse, that's why fitting Creationism in the science class is like having a whole load of subjects at once. So as a Creationist I'm doomed.
Does this honesty actually help my cause?

[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-20-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 8:43 PM mike the wiz has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 9 of 310 (87817)
02-20-2004 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
02-20-2004 8:20 PM


yes and no
Evolution has won, it is an absolute certainty and Creationism is completely false "

To answer that line:
yes, no, and yes
That is, as an explaination for the world we see, evolution wins. As an absolute certainty, you'd have to define it in more detail but only some of the details could be nearly absolute a lot are not. They are just so very good that arguing further seems to be a poor investment of time.

Creationism needs to be defined in some detail but over all it is false (maybe only nearly completely though rather than absolutely completely).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 02-20-2004 8:20 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 02-20-2004 9:00 PM NosyNed has responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 310 (87823)
02-20-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
02-20-2004 8:43 PM


Re: yes and no
To answer that line:
yes, no, and yes

I think I get you. Ofcourse absolute certainty is not very useful in science, but basically you feel evolution has won despite this Ned?

Creationism needs to be defined in some detail but over all it is false

Certainly there could be some aspects of it that are true, even to you?
For example, old earth?

What about catastrophism rather than the flood, or are they the same thing?
Concerning evolution, what about the missing links, transitionals etc? - is this a myth when dissected? Can we say with for certain that there are definite transitionals? Ok, I'll admitt there seems to be transitionals you have shown me, but is this a constant throughout nature and can it not also represent diversity of a Creator and/or not evolution absolutely. Maybe I ask too much in one thread eh? To be honest though Ned - I think personally the statement " evolution wins " is premature, if not a can of worms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 8:43 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 9:26 PM mike the wiz has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 11 of 310 (87828)
02-20-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
02-20-2004 9:00 PM


Re: yes and no
Certainly there could be some aspects of it that are true, even to you?
For example, old earth?

That is why I said it has to be defined "in some detail". The "classic" creationist (and that of AIG and ICR) does not accept an old earth. The need for precise detail is partially because every individual creationist has their own story.

The other reason for detail being needed before saying it is all false is that even in the most extreme form there may be some bit that is right. The mainstream (but certainly not all) now seem to have been forced to accept some evolution. To the degree that they do they would be correct.

However, separate from how "absolutely certain" evolution (and physics and geology) is, creationism, in an over all view, (that is the YEC, all creatures created at once, flood based kind) is wrong. It is already falsified. If current scientific consensus is wrong then we will have to find another answer. The creationist one had it's day and is wrong and can not be revived by showing the current ideas wrong. Well, unless that "wrong" is really, really different, taking apart biology, physics and geology, not just biological evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 02-20-2004 9:00 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 02-21-2004 12:11 PM NosyNed has responded

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 4276 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 12 of 310 (87835)
02-20-2004 10:36 PM


Another imortant issue that hasnt been mentioned yet here are dating methods. All these methods are based on differential equation models that have to be adjusted again and again to get the desired age. If no adustment is made the date given will be far smaller than the required for evos but perect for creos.

The fundamental equation is T=Ti(e^kt) Where k is the constant that is constantly changed it comes from dk/dt=kt


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 12:46 AM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Sylas, posted 02-21-2004 5:51 AM Itachi Uchiha has responded
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 02-21-2004 8:37 AM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 13 of 310 (87854)
02-21-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Itachi Uchiha
02-20-2004 10:36 PM


Ok, Jazz why don't you head off to the dates and dating forum and show how those differential equations are used incorrectly? You must be beginning to get the idea that assertions without back up don't count.

You can show the adjustments made over time and how they would produce a 6,000 year old earth when done correctly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-20-2004 10:36 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Phat, posted 02-21-2004 3:55 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 14672
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 310 (87865)
02-21-2004 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
02-21-2004 12:46 AM


EvC Courtroom..where is Judge Judy?
Basically, Ned is correct. We are like a giant courtroom of public evidence. For those of us who are Believers, God definitely exists! We cannot prove this as a fact that is verifiable to the satisfaction of the jury, however. The Atheists will try and write it all off as ancient superstition and the byproduct of man attempting to control man through Dogma. They have satisfied their own belief, yet they too can not convince the jury. The scientists and rational people like you, Ned...you are friends of the jury. The jury really likes you guys, and you keep the whole thing together! Court is NOW in session!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 12:46 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Sylas
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 15 of 310 (87873)
02-21-2004 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Itachi Uchiha
02-20-2004 10:36 PM


The maths of decay.
jazzlover_PR writes:


The fundamental equation is T=Ti(e^kt) Where k is the constant that is constantly changed it comes from dk/dt=kt

You seem to be really confused about elementary maths and calculus. The trick is to recognize that you don't actually know what you are talking about with respect to the mathematical formulae of decay, and express yourself accordingly.

The constant k is does not change at all; that is what constant means. It is called the decay constant, and usually identified with the symbol lambda (λ). Every radioactive substance has a characteristic decay constant, which is fixed. Thus dk/dt = 0 (or dλ/dt = 0).

The formula you have written uses a "T" and also a "t". This is a bit odd. The symbol "t" is a reference to time. Knowing this, the formula you have given is recognizable as an equation more often written as N = Ni(e^-λt). N is the number of atoms at time t, and Ni is the initial number of atoms (at time zero). Note the minus sign.

From basic calculus, we have dN/dt = -λN, or in your notation dT/dt = -kT. Watch the capitals.

The minus sign means that the number of atoms is getting smaller with time, as they decay. The derivative dN/dt is the rate at which atoms are decaying, or the number of atoms lost per unit time. The equation dN/dt = -λN means that the number of atoms that are decaying depends on the number of atoms in the sample, and on the decay constant of the substance.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-20-2004 10:36 PM Itachi Uchiha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 02-21-2004 9:15 AM Sylas has responded
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 02-21-2004 11:48 AM Sylas has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020