Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 130 of 144 (469525)
06-05-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dave101
06-05-2008 10:33 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Please remember I am speaking in the realm of science not religion (which is what evolution really is, a belief in something that has no physical proof to it).
Evolution is the change in gene frequency across populations over time.
If evolution is NOT real, then all populations have the EXACT same genes ALL the time.
Since many Europeans CAN digest lactose while Asian can not - it is readily apparent that there ARE GENES present in European populations which are NOT present in Asian ones.
You can believe that at one time Adam and Eve could drink milk, or you can believe that the gene didn't arise until after the domestication of the cow - Either way, we are talking about a CHANGE in GENE FREQUENCY.
So, if you'd like to offer evidence that there has never been a change in gene frequency in any population at any time in the history of the world - I'm ready to hear it.
Otherwise, you're going to have to concede that evolution is A FACT.
I am new at this so if I am off be kind and point me the right way.
This is the short version of steps...
Step one... you have an idea....
Step two... you hypothesize that the idea may hold merit (you think it might have merit and need to do further brainstorming on it)
Step three... After much thought and preliminary study on the subject you come up with what you think is a good THEORY...
This word THEORY is very important because if you cannot prove the theory then you never get to make it into a FACT...
You are right in that you are WRONG.
The scientific method goes as follows:
Step 1: General observation - "Huh, that's weird...(bunnies change color)"
Step 2: Hypothesis: "Bunnies change color to match the snow"
Step 3: Data collection: "Where are there bunnies? When do they change color? What colors do they change? Do they all change color?" Etc.
Step 4: Refined Hypothesis: "Bunnies that live where the seasons change change color along with the seasons."
Step 5: The Refining Question: "How do bunnies change color?"
Step 6: MORE Data collection - generally in the form of experiments. Take a control bunny and a test bunny - alter diet. Change in color? Take a control bunny and a test bunny, place them in different color rooms. Change in color? Take a control bunny and a test bunny. Change temperature. Change in color? Change percentage of light/dark. Change number of bunnies. Change *anything else you can think of*
Step 7: Analyze results. When I change variable 1-10 nothing happens. When I change percentage of light, bunnies change color.
Step 8: MORE experiments - Can I duplicate my work? Can I reverse my work? Can I make the bunnies change faster? Slower? Can I make it change halfway?
Step 9: Analyze these results. Are they consistent with your hypothesis?
Step 10: Make a prediction about future evidence. "If we look at wild bunnies, the time they change should vary depending on latitude due to light exposure".
Step 11: Test your prediction. Is it correct?
Step 12: Publish a paper detailing ALL your experiments and your conclusions.
Step 13: Answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION that EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST asks about your work.
Step 14: Watch as other scientists replicate your experiments, trying to prove you wrong.
Step 15: Wait.
Step 16: Now that your work has been tested up and down, left and right, in and out for years and years - has anyone found any mistakes? No?
Step 17: Gather a consensus of scientists to agree on the "Theory of Bunny Color Change as a result of Light/Dark percentage".
"Theory", in the scientific context, represents a systematic explanation of a collection of observable data.
The THEORY of GRAVITY explains HOW OBJECTS BEHAVE as a result of their mass.
The GERM THEORY explains HOW "GERMS" reproduce and cause sickness.
The THEORY of EVOLUTION explains HOW GENE FREQUENCIES CHANGE in populations over time.
NONE of that detracts from the FACT that Gravity, Germs and Evolution exist.
"Well, I believe this is true and I have ((Oh, lets say 2 billion people)) convinced that my theory is true, even though I have no real proof other than what looks good on paper so I now say it's a fact...
Theories don't become facts. They are two different things.
Facts are data. Theories explain WHY and HOW the data fits with other data.
EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY...
the THEORY of evolution is a theory. the FACT of EVOLUTION is a FACT.
The THEORY of gravity is a theory. The FACT of Gravity is a FACT.
The THEORY of germs is a theory. The FACT of Germs is a fact.
Remember it has only been a few hundred years since science was convinced that the earth was flat and you would be burned at the stake for claiming it was round
Actually, it was the church, not scientists who burned people at the stake. And, we've not only known the Earth was round for thousands of years, Eratosthenes measured the size of the Earth in 205bc.
Given the very definition of religion, it must be that evolution is nothing more than that.
What definition? This one? "An exclusive system of belief predicated on supernatural forces."
Since the POPE believes in God and Evolution, and Christianity is an EXCLUSIVE religion, then either the Pope is NOT Christians or Evolution is NOT a religion.
it takes a tremendous amount of faith to think that we came from an exploding rock...
This has nothing to do with evolution.
This proof is important because too many frauds have tried and caused great problems for science. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Lucy....
Piltdown man: Hoax.
Nebraska Man: Popular magazine published the claims of ONE man. That's not science, that's one nut job making a claim. The scientific community NEVER took the claims seriously.
Lucy: NOT fraudulent at all.
So, "too many" in this case is ONE.
One person who, at the VERY START presented a false skull. One person who's claim was exposed BY THE REAL EVIDENCE and by the SCIENTISTS WHO COLLECTED the real evidence.
That's a problem for you?
How many fraudulent Christians faith healers have been exposed by other Christians? More than one?
My faith is centered around something tangible, Around something that makes sense, my faith is centered around the fact that we as humans are in trouble. We have messed up everything that God gave us and have done so to the point that we no longer want to believe that He exist event though the heavens declare His handiwork.
You need to go look up the word "tangible". You are using it incorrectly.
What If... there is a 1 in a million chance that God exists and the Bibie is true... Would you be willing to chance eternity in a lake of fire and separation from your creator just because you don't want Him to be real? What if it were a 1 in a billion chance? One in a trillion?
Continue your thought out. What if there is a 1 in a million change that Yahweh God of the Jews is real? And a 1 in a million chance that Thor is real? And a 1 in a million chance that Vishnu is real? And a 1 in a million change that Zeus is real?
Or put another way, what if there was a 999,999/1,000,000 chance that SOME OTHER DEITY is real and you are worshiping the wrong one - thus dooming yourself to eternal damnation for making the wrong choice?
look at all the things on this planet that could NOT have evolved... (human eye with its rods and cones, etc)
Better tell that to all the other animals which have eyes - many of which are MUCH simpler than ours.
while it only takes 3 (YES THREE) strands of mutated DNA to cause DEATH.
Do you look EXACTLY like your father? No? Then your DNA differs from his. Does HE look exactly like HIS father? No? Then HIS DNA differs from your grandfathers.
Grandfather - 1 change - father - 2 change - you - 3rd change always equals death.... therefore you can never have kids.
Right?
The fact that while there are lots of paintings and drawings and even clay and wax representations of transitional fossils, there are not actually any in real life.
All fossils are transitional.
(my degree is in science, I am not the smartest but I can look beyond the hoopla and see a THEORY, not a FACT.)
Where did you get a degree in "science" that didn't include the definition of scientific theory? Printyourdiploma.com?
So my answer to your question "What proof would make a creationist (a true Creationist) turn......? There is none. ...It's not our faults really, we have been indoctrinated in this religion for so long now that we don't think to question it...
Has it occurred to you that the reason that you are a Christian is that your mother told you to be one?
Do you recognize the fact that if you had been born in Tokyo, you would likely be Shinto or Buddhist. If you were born in India you would likely be Hindu.
You are disregarding ALL of science based on the fact that your mother told you to believe in Jesus.
Is that really a solid foundation for your argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 10:33 PM Dave101 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:17 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 138 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:20 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 132 of 144 (469527)
06-05-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dave101
06-05-2008 11:09 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
I would challenge you to show me any Science textbook that has withstood time and all attackers as has God's Word.
Which God's Word? Thor's? Zeus'?
Or do you mean Yahweh God of the Jews? Are YOU a follower of his word? Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do you have a beard? Do you wear clothing of two different threads? Do you wear tassles on your robe? Have you EVER touched a football?
You want to pick nits, let's pick nits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:09 PM Dave101 has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 136 of 144 (469533)
06-05-2008 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dave101
06-05-2008 11:11 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Perhaps there will be one or two that agree at least in part???
Certainly there will be several other posters who get all their information from the exact same website from which you crib yours.
They will posts EXACTLY what you've posted and perhaps one of the 20 or so other PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times)
Something like: "Why are there still monkeys?" Or "Where did the first male and female come from and how did they find each other?"
Frankly, you can do us ALL a favor and go READ some of the other threads. ALL of the crap you've posted has been dealt with OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again.
Here's another tip: When cribbing off a Creationist website, you may want to check your sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:11 PM Dave101 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:23 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 141 of 144 (469547)
06-05-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dave101
06-05-2008 11:20 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
Whoever said that Catholicism and Christianity were the same thing?
Catholics.
Are you going to deny the single largest Christian constituency?
Seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:20 PM Dave101 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by obvious Child, posted 06-05-2008 11:48 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 143 of 144 (469552)
06-05-2008 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Dave101
06-05-2008 11:23 PM


Re: Why would we want to?
BTW I haven't yet been to a creationist website.
So, you came up with "Nebraska Man" on your own?
I have a degree in Archaeology. I studied biological anthropology. Even I had never heard of Nebraska Man until I started hearing Creationists spout about it.
It's a NON-event for science. It ONLY gets brought up when people find find out about it on Creationist websites.
You decided that Lucy was a fraud on your own? Based on what?
I don't want to get too confrontational here, but you're lying. You know you are lying, I know you are lying.
OBVIOUSLY you've been to Creationist websites, otherwise you wouldn't be trotting out tired old Creationist arguments.
If you had started off with "why are there still monkeys?" or "Darwin was a racist" I could buy that you came up with that crap on your own. But "Lucy is a fraud because she has no feet". No, that's straight out of Aig or DI.
Here's a tip: When you find yourself lying to try and win an argument, it's a good sign that you are on the wrong side of that argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Dave101, posted 06-05-2008 11:23 PM Dave101 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024