Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8998 total)
61 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,626 Year: 11,374/23,288 Month: 626/1,763 Week: 265/328 Day: 10/46 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   what is a scientific theory of creation
Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 10 of 58 (4218)
02-12-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
02-12-2002 8:58 AM

Originally posted by redstang281:
I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.

The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.

Pedantic (again) but ... 'Belief of Creation' exists no one doubts that. Ultimately knowledge of whether or not God created all
that is will either be gained when we die, or we will disappear without trace and so no longer care .. that I agree with.

All science fitting with the Biblical account of creation is another
matter. If the biblical account of creation is your hypothesis, then
it is testable (to a degree).

I think it's a bit of a cop out, though, to say it's faith so I
don't have to prove it.

Why do you have faith in the biblical account of creation ?

Why is that account any more/less believable than evolution in terms
of the origin of species ?


Originally posted by redstang281:

Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.

Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses

The basic (abridged) hypothesis behind evolutionary theory is that
the diversity of life on Earth developed over time via redistribution
of allelle frequencies in individual populations in response to
changes in the environment. Genetic mutations played a part in
this process.

This hypothesis leads to predictions about what would be expected
to be seen in the world at large.

These predictions can be compared with observations to be validated.

If these predications are contradicted, then that part of the
theory to which they related is falsified.


Originally posted by redstang281:

2) confirming evidence

The majority of confirming evidence, whilst compelling for 'us'
is dismissed as rubbish by most creationists.

It leads into discussions over the age of the earth, gets sidetracked
into probabalistic debates over the likelyhood of abiogenesis, and suggestions that a consistent ordering of fossils within rock strata
could have occurred due to a global flood.


Originally posted by redstang281:

3) potential falsifications

See above.


Originally posted by redstang281:

Here's some important quotes:

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared
to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester,
UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,
1980, p.138

If observations are bent to fit evolutionary theory, these are picked up by peer review. I do NOT believe that an observation can be bent
into anything. If an evolutionary concept can explain observations
is that bending ?

Check out creationist refutations of evidence FOR evolution if
you would like to see some fascinating tricks of hypothesis.


Originally posted by redstang281:

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special
creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but
neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'
(L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of
Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.

In what way is evolution the backbone of biology ?

It is one facet of enquiry into the biological world. It does NOT
inform studies of physiology, genetics, eco-systems, biochemistry, etc. Quite the reverse in fact.

Failure to prove evolution has little to do with evidence, and much
to do with politics, power, and religion.


Originally posted by redstang281:

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written.'
(Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of
spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396

Faith is about beleiving in something without any evidence.
If we as evolutionists were not concerned with evidence, why would
quote so much of it, and attempt to explain it ?

Even the quote you provide says 'Has not yet been written', not that
it is in any sense impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 02-12-2002 8:58 AM redstang281 has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 30 of 58 (4923)
02-18-2002 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 11:00 PM

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I believe what TrueCreation is asking is, do you want a flood model theory, a biological theory, a young-earth theory, etc. The concept of Creation science is too large to create an all-encompassing theory."
--Exactly, this is what I am wondering, thanx cobra.


"I meant scientific theory. What you proposed was a scenario that you claimed could be. However, it was rather quickly dispatched by gene. You need to provide a scientific theory that has not been falsified, has testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications."
--You mean my two theories on impact craters? That is still under way, I do think my culdra theory is quite lacking, but my other one, as I stated before I posted them, I would more readilly cling to.

What is being asked for is a Theory of Creation Science.

If that decomposes into a number of theories (i.e. CS is a FIELD)
then give us the component theories.

Perhaps I could give you a start.

Provide evidence for::

A young earth (I have opened a How Old is the Earth? thread for this).

The mechanism by which a flood could create a consistent global
burrial record (including why some remains are fossilised and
others aren't)

That (for me) would be a start.

I would like to see a theory/premise/assertion followed by
the logical outcome if that assertion were true, followed by
the empirical evidence that shows that the assertion holds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 11:00 PM TrueCreation 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