Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 9:05 PM
38 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,599 Year: 3,636/19,786 Month: 631/1,087 Week: 221/212 Day: 36/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Is Evolution Science?
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 55 (49804)
08-10-2003 8:26 PM


"Creation versus evolution.

God versus science.

Faith versus materialism.

Is one right and the other wrong? Must one be choosen over the other, or is it possible to combine faith and science?"

Opening to the Site...
Totally Wrong.
It names Evolution instead of an unproven theory, a SCIENCE. This is an outrage to me, may seem I am over exagerating but this is an incredible annoyance to me. You make it seem like all creationists have is faith... When Science is used to prove Creation every day. I mean look at the Picture of the Week. This is getting Stupid... Might as well just change the website to bashcreation.com " There's no way they can be right so let's bash em'"

------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 08-10-2003 9:27 PM joshua221 has responded
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 08-10-2003 10:17 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2003 2:11 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 55 (49811)
08-10-2003 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
08-10-2003 8:26 PM


Perhaps when you offer substantive examples rather than rhetoric such as "When Science is used to prove Creation every day." then there might be cause to reconsider those things which you find annoying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 8:26 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 10:00 PM wj has not yet responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 3 of 55 (49815)
08-10-2003 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by wj
08-10-2003 9:27 PM


Turned to a debate...
Exactly my problem with, the home on this site... No factual evidence for evolution, yet it says directly that evolution is a science! How??!? No substantial evidence here, he just says it... Science is OBSERVABLE. Evolution isn't!

You want an example for a young earth?

Check it out:

Human Population Dynamics
"If humanity is really about 2.5 million years old (as claimed by Dr. Louis Leakey), creationist calculate from conservative population estimates (2.4 children per family, average generation and life span of forty-three years) that the world population would have grown from a single family to 10 to the 2700th power of people over one million years. The present world population is about 2x10 to the 9th power, an infinitesimal part of the 10 to the 2700th power."

Radio Carbon in Atmosphere
"It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere. Since the amount of C14 is now increasing in the atmosphere, it may be assumed that the quantity of C14 was even lower in the past than at the present. This condition would lead to abnormally low C14/C12 ratios for the older fossils. Such a fossil would be interpreted as being much older than it really is. ... Creationists argue that since C14 has not yet reached its equilibrium rate, the age of the atmosphere must be less than 20,000 years old."

-www.bible.ca By Anti-Creationist, William D. Stansfield
Just a tiny bit of info. This isn't about a debate which you turned the topic into, I merely am posting a complaint about the Home of this site!

Look here... How do you Explain the wood in the 110 million year old limestone? (Dating Really is effiecient isn't it?) Or the carbonized stick in the 110 million yr old limstone? Rocks known to have formed in historical times should not yield dates of millions of years.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

------------------
The Greatest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. -DC Talk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 08-10-2003 9:27 PM wj has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2003 2:13 AM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2003 4:16 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 55 (49818)
08-10-2003 10:13 PM


Thread moved here from the Miscellaneous Topics forum.
    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 5 of 55 (49819)
08-10-2003 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
08-10-2003 8:26 PM


The home page was intended to be a balanced characterization of the Creation versus Evolution debate. I appreciate all the help I can get, so perhaps you could provide a draft of an improved version? If it's good enough I'll use it.

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 8:26 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

    
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 55 (49841)
08-11-2003 12:40 AM


Creation versus evolution. (fine)
God versus science. (change science to man)

Faith versus materialism. (Ok I guess, I'm edgy about the faith part, you need faith to believe anything yet creation is singled out.)

Is one right and the other wrong? Must one be choosen over the other, or is it possible to combine faith and science?" (change science to something else...ie. theory, idea, man, evolution. Evolution is not observable, Not Science.)

my version of this part.


Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mammuthus, posted 08-11-2003 8:03 AM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 08-11-2003 10:12 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 55 (49849)
08-11-2003 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
08-10-2003 8:26 PM


It names Evolution instead of an unproven theory

You can't have an unproven theory. (I use "proven" in the scientific sense of "established to be tentatively accurate via significant evidence.")

If you don't understand why a theory can't be unproven then I suggest you bone up on scientific terminology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 8:26 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 08-11-2003 10:02 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 55 (49850)
08-11-2003 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 10:00 PM


Re: Turned to a debate...
Science is OBSERVABLE. Evolution isn't!

Sure it is. Rrhain has an experiment you can do in your own biology lab (I love when he says that) where bacteria evolve resistance to disease, and then the disease evolves new ways to atack the bacteria. You can watch it happen and observe evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 10:00 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 08-11-2003 5:30 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14751
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 9 of 55 (49864)
08-11-2003 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by joshua221
08-10-2003 10:00 PM


Re: Turned to a debate...
The list of claims attributed to Stansfield are at http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fast.htm From reading the page (and notign that many of the points are common creationist arguments) it is apparent that Stansfield is quoting creationist arguments and that he does NOT endorse them. This appears to be a case of intentional misrepresentation. I also suspect that Stansfield may have given more detailed responses that have been omitted - only one short paragraph is quoted and that seems inadequate.

As to the specific points you quote. The Human Population Dynamics argument is worthless because it relies on a constant exponential growth which is not found in any real population except for cases where resources are unlimited. It's just a demonstration of the principle "Garbage in, garbage out".

As for C14 dating, the relevant points are that
1) Nuclear tests have increased the amount of C14 in the atmosphere (and therefore the amount decaying would be expected to be greater than the production rate)

2) The production rate depends on cosmic ray bombardment and therefore does vary.

3) If the creationist claim were true it should have been shown by calibration studies - but in fact calibration studies using dendrochronology have shown otherwise - for the last 10,000 years we see fluctuations in production rate, not a growth curve. Other studies, while not as accurate as dendrochronology, have extended this for over 40,000 years.

Moving on to the wood in the limestone - well since we only see a bit of wood (or something that looks like wood, in a low-quality black and white photo) what is there to explain ? Someone hammered a bit of wood into a crack in the stone, perhaps ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joshua221, posted 08-10-2003 10:00 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 08-11-2003 4:59 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 08-11-2003 10:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 55 (49874)
08-11-2003 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
08-11-2003 4:16 AM


Re: Turned to a debate...
Paul, I would agree the most likely take is the position that Stansfield's words are severely distorted or out of context. He was a geneticist who wrote or co-authored four books/textbooks on genetics and evolution, including "Science of Evolution" (out of print, but published in 1977), and "The Dictionary of Genetics". His most recent work is a popsci book called "Death of a Rat" written from a very pro-science viewpoint (by all accounts - I admit to not having read it). At least they're not claiming he's a "world's foremost authority" on something, like they usually do with obscure authors. Someone with access to a decent library might be able to find an old copy of "Science of Evolution" to check the quoted material. Otherwise, it's impossible to judge the claim, other than to say it sounds suspicious given Stansfield's other work.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2003 4:16 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2003 9:01 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 11 of 55 (49879)
08-11-2003 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
08-11-2003 2:13 AM


Re: Turned to a debate...
crashfrog responds to

quote:
quote:
Science is OBSERVABLE. Evolution isn't!

Sure it is. Rrhain has an experiment you can do in your own biology lab (I love when he says that)


Ooh...then perhaps I should say it more often. Though, that runs the risk of it becoming a stock phrase and thus losing its effectiveness. Drat these difficult decisions!

quote:
where bacteria evolve resistance to disease, and then the disease evolves new ways to atack the bacteria. You can watch it happen and observe evolution.

And the best thing, it doesn't cost a lot of money.

Take a single E. coli bacterium of the wild, K-type. This type of bacteria is susceptible to a type of virus called T4 phage. So you take this single bacterium and let it reproduce to form a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What should we expect to happen?

That's right, plaques of dead bacteria start to form. The phage is infecting them and, since they are susceptible to T4 phage, they start to die.

But we also see some colonies within the plaques merrily living without a care in the world, surrounded by live, active phage.

How can this be? Remember, all the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor whom we knew to be susceptible.

That's right...the bacteria evolved. In fact, they are now called K4-type because they are resistant to T4 phage.

But wait. Let's continue. Take one of the K4 bacteria and again, let it reproduce to form a lawn. Now, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What should we expect to happen?

That's right: Absolutely nothing. These bacteria are resistant to T4 phage and thus, the phage should have no way to establish itself.

But what do we actually see? Instead, we see plaques starting to form again. How can this be? Remember, all the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that was resistant to T4 phage. So how could any of them be dying?

We now have to figure out which one evolved. A little thought will show that it has to be the phage that evolved, not the bacteria. See, if a bacterium experienced a reversion mutation such that it would be susceptible to T4 phage, it would immediately be infected and killed, leaving it surrounded by K4 bacteria which would immediately take over the space just vacated. In short, K-type bacteria could never take hold.

Instead, it necessarily must be the phage that evolved. And, in fact, we call these phage T4h because they have experienced a "host" shift.

So there you go. Evolution right before your eyes. And it doesn't take that long to do. Many high schools do this experiment.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2003 2:13 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4553 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 12 of 55 (49895)
08-11-2003 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by joshua221
08-11-2003 12:40 AM


So I guess you don't believe in gravity either since it is not exactly observable?..only its effects...and the theory of gravity has quantitatively less support than the theory of evolution...and as others have pointed out, evolution is observable and has been observed...even in high school level experiments...or can you perform an experiment to demonstrat creation ex nihilo for us?

But if you want annoyances why is it evolution versus creation in the first place? It should be abiogenesis versus creation...or better yet, abiogenesis versus religious fundamentalist myths


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 12:40 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14751
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 13 of 55 (49903)
08-11-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Quetzal
08-11-2003 4:59 AM


Re: Turned to a debate...
There is no doubt that Stansfield is repeating creationist arguments to criticise them. The fact is that all the claims quoted ARE arguments that are or have been commonly used by creationists. In the Radiocarbon point the following text is retained "Creationists argue that..." (last sentence). A paragraph labelled "Dr Stansfield's "Answer"" does indeed criticise the arguments.

It is POSSIBLE that Dr. Stansfield's rebuttal was limited to the short paragraph quoted - however, it would be very easy for him to include more (the problems with the arguments are well-known, and many if not all would have been easily answerable even in 1977) - so I strongly suspect that Stansfield offered a more detailed answer, which has been omitted. But if he did not then it is poor writing on his part and not because the arguments have any merit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Quetzal, posted 08-11-2003 4:59 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 14 of 55 (49915)
08-11-2003 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
08-11-2003 2:11 AM


Proven versus Supported Theory
You can't have an unproven theory. (I use "proven" in the scientific sense of "established to be tentatively accurate via significant evidence.")

I know you redefined "proven", but you can't include that definition after every use of the word, and so eventually you will be misunderstood. It seems better to me to correct the misunderstanding at the outset and describe theory as supported by evidence, not proven by it. Just my two cents, as Moose would say.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-11-2003 2:11 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 15 of 55 (49916)
08-11-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by joshua221
08-11-2003 12:40 AM


Hi, Proph!

prophecyexclaimed writes:

God versus science. (change science to man)

God verus man? I think this means you believe that people who accept evolution do not believe in God. This is true for some evolutionists, not true for others. I offer myself as an example of a God-believing evolutionist.

Evolution is not observable, Not Science.

You'll have to make this case in the Is It Science? forum. Even many Creationists do not agree with you. For example, many Creationists accept evolution, but only within kinds, not beyond kinds. Intelligent design Creationists often accept almost all of evolution, including a billions year old fossil record. Michael Behe is an example.

I think you'll find it isn't as easy as you think coming up with an intro consistent with the many different religious viewpoints of both evolutionists and Creationists.

[Clarified last sentence. --Admin]

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-11-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by joshua221, posted 08-11-2003 12:40 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019