|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is Not Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024