Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Laws are the basis of science. Without them, you have no reference. Today's science isn't as interested in "why" as much as they are prestige and $. Why is the question that formed the Laws.

You clearly have a poor grasp of even the most basic ideas about scientific research, so it would behoove you to stop making statements that just display your ignorance. It also appears that you are paranoid and think all of science is one big conspiracy theory. Do you think the moon landing was a hoax, too?

"“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Let's go back to Brontosaurus and scientific textbooks which were teaching it in schools in the 1970s. Why are you surprised...it seems to be the norm.

This was addressed a few posts back. Science textbooks are horribly incomplete and outdated. It's really unfortunate. I'm not sure what the goal of this conspiracy theory would be, anyhow.
 
The Laws are the basis of science. Without them, you have no reference. Today's science isn't as interested in "why" as much as they are prestige and $. Why is the question that formed the Laws.

So let me get this straight - I'm a scientist by profession, and yet you somehow know more about science then I?

Somehow I doubt it.

Why is not the question that formed laws; rather, it was the exact opposite. The laws of orbital motion (the laws) were discovered long before we understood gravity (the why). The laws of gravitation are wrong, but none-the-less, the "why" is still unknown (potential why's are space-time curvature and gravitons). Mendels "laws" of heredity (1880's) didn't have a "why" assigned to them until we understood genes (1980's). The "why" of entropy remains a mustery, etc, etc, etc.

Laws are descriptions of what we see, there is no "whys" involved. This is high-school level science were talking about here; maybe you need to go back and review.

As for the money thing, well, all I can say is that if I were interested in money research is the last place I would have gone. I just took on a new research position in November; I chose it over a commercial position which would have paid 2x. No one does research for money; its the poorest paying thing you can do with a PhD, and the job security sucks. You do research for one reason only - a love of discovery. If you don't love it, it just isn't worth doing.

Let's go back to Brontosaurus and scientific textbooks which were teaching it in schools in the 1970s. Why are you surprised...it seems to be the norm.

So let me get this straight - you think that correcting its error's is a weakness of science? Actually, I shouldn't be surprised - many religions couldn't survive without a good dose of denial - guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd consider that a virtue.

But, at the end of the day, the above is the very difference between science and religion. Religion assumes it has the answer, and goes to any length to undermine its beliefs. Science assumes that parts, if not all, of what we know is wrong, and has well-established mechanisms to identify and correct those errors.

Denial - it isn't just a river in Africa....

Bryan
 
I could reply "ditto". Every one of my arguments was met with some sort of foolishness followed by a link to a website. I thought I'd join in. Can any of you articulate a response without linking a website?

In science, one needs to provide supporting evidence for claims. Without that, it's just an opinion.
 
Science isn't about extrapolation, its about facts. And the fact is that evolution is about how life changes - period, end of story, don't pass go; don't collect $200. Evolution was originally defined, BY DARWIN, as a theory which explains the diversity of life (hence why the book is "origin of species", not "origin of life"). Both he, and all successive evolutionary scientists, have maintained that distinction.

The study of evolution and the study of abiogenesis are radically different. And you can have one without the other - if our ideas about abiogenesis are wrong, it doesn't change that life evolves. The converse is also true - should evolution be shown to be false, it changes nothing that we know of abiogenesis.

All the wishing of you, and the other creationists, doesn't change that.

The whole point of evolution, or darwinism, is to prove there is no creator, or that nature itself is the creator. If you have no creator, the abiogenesis was also a natural process. Tell me where I'm wrong.
 
The whole point of evolution, or darwinism, is to prove there is no creator, or that nature itself is the creator. If you have no creator, the abiogenesis was also a natural process. Tell me where I'm wrong.

All of it. You are wrong about all of it. The point of the theory evolution (there is no such thing as "Darwinism") is to learn about the world around us. Abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated topics. Get over it.
 
You clearly have a poor grasp of even the most basic ideas about scientific research, so it would behoove you to stop making statements that just display your ignorance. It also appears that you are paranoid and think all of science is one big conspiracy theory. Do you think the moon landing was a hoax, too?

"“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Well at least you know some scripture. I've never claimed to be anything other than a layman. When I attended Physics in College, the laws of science were forefront to learning about our universe. You can crack a kids text book today and one of the first lessons would be Newton's Law. I happen to agree that they're not perfect but they're a base. While were on the subject, even the time isn't a constant, so the very constant used to define some of these laws isn't what it is defined as.
 
The whole point of evolution, or darwinism, is to prove there is no creator, or that nature itself is the creator.

If you believe that then you are truly ignorant. Ignorant of what science is, what evolution is, and ignorant of Darwin's personal beliefs.

If you have no creator, the abiogenesis was also a natural process. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Everywhere. Lets say we prove the abiogensis and evolutionary processes are 100% true, with no room for doubt. What does this tell us about the existence of a creator - nothing. In fact is says nothing about a creator what-so-ever.

Even in the above case, you still have at least two possibilities:
1) the creator did it, in the way science described
2) there is no creator and this all happened naturally

Which is exactly the point myself and many others have been trying to make this whole thread - science has nothing to say about non-physical entities. You can no more prove/disprove the existence of god using science than you can use a microscope to count angels dancing on pin-heads.

Its such a simple concept, and yet so many creationists cannot get it...

Bryan
 
In science, one needs to provide supporting evidence for claims. Without that, it's just an opinion.

So the support for the claim of an atheist is an atheistic website. Didn't you ridicule someone earlier about circular reasoning? Tell me something, there's an obvious rift between atheistic science and religion. You and I exemplify that. What motivates each side to tell the truth? What is the "why" behind two competing websites that claim to have the truth. What I see in evolution is the same thing you see in religion. It is a bunch of smoke and mirrors which are designed to confuse the average man.
 
So the support for the claim of an atheist is an atheistic website.

huh?

Didn't you ridicule someone earlier about circular reasoning?

Yep

Tell me something, there's an obvious rift between atheistic science and religion. You and I exemplify that. What motivates each side to tell the truth? What is the "why" behind two competing websites that claim to have the truth.

One has facts, the other has none. I'll go with the one that has facts and research.

What I see in evolution is the same thing you see in religion. It is a bunch of smoke and mirrors which are designed to confuse the average man.

Do you actually care to understand it? Try "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. He does a good job explaining how it works. I really can't fathom the level of paranoia that must be required to come to the conclusion that science is a big conspiracy. It's totally baseless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom