Creation vs. Evolution

[lamont]

It is curious though that gravity can be tested and observed, "real time". Macro-evolution (the subject of our discussion) cannot be tested and has not been observed.

Nobody observed the Cygnus Loop Supernova Remnant explode 15,000 years ago, either, but we can infer that it did. We know that it was about 15,000 years ago based on observations and extrapolating backwards in time based on supernova remnants like the Crab Nebula that we do know exactly when they went off (1054 AD).

What has been observed is speciation and you leap to the conclusion that is "proof" of changes in class, family, etc. even though it has not been observed. You point to the fossil record, events that happened long ago and were not observed, as your "evidence" that macro-evolution occured.

Evolution doesn't predict that we would actually see changes in class or family along the timescales that we've been studying genetics (1800s) or human history (10,000 years), therefore the lack of empirical evidence does not imply falsification because the theory does not predict the existance of evidence of those kinds of leaps. If you can show that evolution does predict that we should observe those kinds of leaps and we do not observe those kinds of leaps, then you would falsify it. Good Luck.

I'd say the evidence is just as likely to indicate intelligent design of a plethora of life; some with eyes, some blind, some with wings, some with fins, flippers, legs, lungs, etc. Oh, but that would not be scientific because it relies on the supernatural while evolution relies on chance.

No its not scientific because it isn't falsifiable and at best it is just a philosophical argument. Creationism is useless to predict anything. The laws of genetics, however, can predict what kinds of flu shots to hand out every year. It can also be extrapolated backwards to explain the development of different families and classes and is self-consistent with results external to the theory like the age of the Earth.

 

[mislav]

Perhaps your friend has realized there is more to life and that he's not the result of a fortunate series of events that "just happened". Good for him.

My friend has had a few tragedies in his life which affected him greatly. I won't go into the details here, but his conversion did have very obvious causes.

I believe that evolutionists embrace the belief there is no God, so there is ultimately nothing except death then ...

We can always resort to reincarnation, GM.

 

[wreckchick]

It is curious though that gravity can be tested and observed, "real time". Macro-evolution (the subject of our discussion) cannot be tested and has not been observed.

What has been observed is speciation and you leap to the conclusion that is "proof" of changes in class, family, etc. even though it has not been observed. You point to the fossil record, events that happened long ago and were not observed, as your "evidence" that macro-evolution occured.

I'd say the evidence is just as likely to indicate intelligent design of a plethora of life; some with eyes, some blind, some with wings, some with fins, flippers, legs, lungs, etc. Oh, but that would not be scientific because it relies on the supernatural while evolution relies on chance.

By the way, how intelligent is it to create a bunch of critters with no chance of long-term survival?

Still waiting for one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to back up your point of view.

R

 

[radinator]

lamont, you can't forget that GM can't see macro-evolution because he's only dealing with < 10,000 years of earth history to draw from.

Isn't this like the police showing up at a murder scene and not considering anything that happened before the police showed up? Damn the evidence! They don't even acknowledge the scene existed before they arrived.

"Sure, there's a body there, but it must have happened after we arrived and were looking the other way."

That reasoning just doesn't make sense.

 

[radinator]

How convenient. You did not see it happen but you know it did happen. Sounds like faith to me. Evolution should should have left a fossil trail of failed experiments that weren't quite workable, but it did not. Fortunately SJG rode to the rescue with an explanation for that problem. I think he called it "Puncuated Equilibrium" or some such non-sense.

There are plenty of failed experiments. Neanerthal Man, dinosaurs, the sabre-toothed tiger, the dodo bird, the passenger pigeon, the mastadon, ... (the list goes on and on). They're all dead now. Genetic dead ends. The experiment faild as far as they are concerned.

 

[radinator]

Let me add that both "camps" are full of qualified scientists so the debate will continue and there will likely be no agreement.

I've noticed that the experts of the creationist camp tend to be lawyers or electrical engineers arguing biology, cosmology, genetics, and the like. Not exactly my definition of qualified, or scientist.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

There are plenty of failed experiments. Neanerthal Man, dinosaurs, the sabre-toothed tiger, the dodo bird, the passenger pigeon, the mastadon, ... (the list goes on and on). They're all dead now. Genetic dead ends. The experiment faild as far as they are concerned.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Dodo bird extinct at the hand of man. Passenger pigeon extinct at the hand of man.

You obviously missed the point of my post. A "dead end/failure" is not a lifeform that became extinct; it's a lifeform that never went beyond the prototype. You know, the thing that had not quite a leg/fin/wing; it just flopped around helpless until it was killed or died. Or, is evolution so clever, as some claim (Dawkins) that never happened?

 

[Green_Manelishi]

By the way, how intelligent is it to create a bunch of critters with no chance of long-term survival?

Still waiting for one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to back up your point of view.

R

They did, but human arrogance and pride (which still exists) decided it would be good to do whatever he wanted, despite God's admonition. And death entered the world.

Hopefully the following will answer your questions about peer review. If not, pray you are correct about your world view and origins. Forever is a long time.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science

http://www.rae.org/crepub.html

 

[Diver Dennis]

.........................

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Isn't this like the police showing up at a murder scene and not considering anything that happened before the police showed up? Damn the evidence! They don't even acknowledge the scene existed before they arrived.

"Sure, there's a body there, but it must have happened after we arrived and were looking the other way."

That reasoning just doesn't make sense.

No, your theory would be more like the police assuming that I robbed a bank because I have money and they know banks have money. Noone saw me rob the bank but I must have robbed it.