Creation vs. Evolution

[adza]

Ahh, so you just made it up....thanks for clearing that up. I will hold that opinion in the highest regard.

Really Soggy - where are you comming from? You asked me a question - I gave my opinion. That's all it was supposed to be. I gave a couple of reasons on why they might.

Are you high!? Evolution isn't science? Seriously, what drugs are you taking? Could you explain that statement? It's really incredibly riduculous. I think you just entered the "completely delusional and irrational" category in my mind.

Sure - I'll explain this statement. A light twin engine aircraft crashes in the mountains. Investigators come to the scene later, and examine the wreckage. From the evidence that remains (that which they can view) - they come to a educated conclusion on why the plane has crashed.

Do they know for sure - no. Are they right? Maybe. Who can tell for sure. (Recently here in Aus - they released their statement on one in the Alps as human error. Shortly later - new evidence emerged, and they found their initial statement had flaws, and changed their concluson). They do the best they can with what they have been given.

Do they use science to try and find the reason - Yes.

Do they say that 'The plane crashed because of pilot error, and that's a fact' - No. They say it's the best conclusion they have.

Do they say that 'Our finding that the plane crashed because of pilot error (or whatever you want to put in here) is science. Certainly not.

They use science to try and determine the cause - but the finding that they have they do not call science - they call this a conclusion. (Theory / model - whatever you will). But certainly not science.

The study of evolution in my opinion is no different. Scientists can not observe life forming from goo, or have never seen macro evolution. From what I'm aware mutataion (or micro evolution, or whatever you want to call it) has occurred - but never turned one kind of animal into another.

Therefore evolution looks at what remains - and uses current science to determine their conclusion. However - it doesn't stop there.

People go on to call evolution 'science' - and fact. It's not fact. It's an observation - and idea. A best guess at what they have to work with. (Still reading back through previous posts, the word FACT has been used many times to describe evolution).

This shows me that evolution isn't just a theory - it's a religion. People have decided to take it on as their belief. That's fine - you're entitled to. But to call other peoples belief superstition, and yours fact is simply arrogance.

I hope I don't sound too blunt here - i'm simply trying to give you the explination that you requested. I'm not wanting to personally attack anyone.

Evolution is a theory, based on scientific observation. You can say otherwise, but you will be flat out, 100% wrong.

I agree 100% Evolution is a theory (not fact) - based on scientific observation. It's not science. It's based (I would add partly) on science.

It is a theory that has had many opponents over the years, but none that have any validity.

Another absolute statement that can't be made. Someone can not say theirs no gold in china, unless they've been able to observe every inch. Someone can say however that their is gold in china only by seeing one ring on someones finger.

Likewise - the statement that "none has any validity " would require one to have studied every statement. Why do you make statements like this? Is it because you have evidence? Or is it your belief. (Religion if you will).

You can believe what you want to believe "because the bible says so" but saying that evolutionary theory is not science is ignorant.

You really are off the deep end...

Not at the moment I'm not. (Haven't been diving in a number of weeks ).

I can see that evolution is beyond a theory with many people on this thread, because of how passionate they hold their view. Most people who take it solely as a theory wouldn't fight as hard as what a few on this thread have to prove to 'stuiped creationists' that they're wrong - unless it goes beyond a theory for them - and becomes a belief.

I really need to get some work done. Catch you later...

 

[Thalassamania]

I have my thoughts - but it is a generalisation.

Why would evolutionist scientists bother? I mean - they already believe what they know is fact. They simply aren't interested.

It may also be because that there has been that much noise from creationinsts (yes - even some falsifying evidence) - that they don't believe their is a real signal in amongst it - and simply put all in the same basket.

Others are probably a pride issue. (I've had x years at this university, have all these innitials, and been an expert in my field for the last 20 years. No one's going to point out to me that I've been wrong my whole life). Let's face it - the older we get, the more stubborn and arrigant we can get.

It had nothing to do with pride, or initials, or stubbornness or arrogance. We can’t ignore it because these half-witted luddites are attempting to get this crap served up to our children in school as an example of good science. That does our children, our society, our country and our world a singular disservice. It is bad enough to dish up false "facts" (but the history classes do that all the time). Dishing up bad methodology as an exemplar of acceptable science, ranks somewhere between intellectual castration and intellectual suicide.

 

[Warthaug]

And i would think the same to be true expecting one with a PhD in Evolutionary Biology to discuss Creationism at the same level as one with a PhD in Theology. Theoretically, it doesn't make sense in either direction.

If creationists argued purely from a theological point of view, then your point would be valid.

Problem is that many creationists do not do this. Common creationist tactics include attacking science (and often the scientists responsible for those discoveries), warping science to support their views, and most irritating to me, "invent" scientific controversies where none exist.

If they want to have a theological discussion, then fine. I'm more then happy to leave it to them. But if they are going to attack science, distort science, and out-and-out lie about science, then they cannot be suppressed when the scientists fire back.

Bryan

 

[Thalassamania]

And i would think the same to be true expecting one with a PhD in Evolutionary Biology to discuss Creationism at the same level as one with a PhD in Theology. Theoretically, it doesn't make sense in either direction.

Not quite, theology is one of the few fields where all of the original source material can be mastered in a relatively short time, that is hardly the case with any field, sub-field, specialty, or division of science. There's likely more published studies on the role of the left foot in the locomotion of the Red Frog than all the books of the old and new testaments combined.<G>

This brings to mind what Sam Harris said: Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the Earth is flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago &#8211; while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate &#8211; or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress &#8230; there is much to recommend the latter view.

How long would it talk to learn everything that this well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century knew? I don't suspect it would take very long. How much study would be required to match his "knowledge" of God? Considerably less.

I shared my house with a Jesuit for two years, it was a good supply of fine wine (he was working on a Masters in Viticulture and Enology at Davis) and stimulating, if pointless, conversation. Perhaps I have too little respect for studies in divinity, but it does seem to me to be a rather finite field.

 

[Hank49]

How long would it talk to learn everything that this well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century knew? I don't suspect it would take very long. How much study would be required to match his "knowledge" of God? Considerably less.

I shared my house with a Jesuit for two years, it was a good supply of fine wine (he was working on a Masters in Viticulture and Enology at Davis) and stimulating, if pointless, conversation. Perhaps I have too little respect for studies in divinity, but it does seem to me to be a rather finite field.

That's a very interesting question. On the other hand, how long would it take the well educated 14th century man to learn everything we now know about science (the average person) and technology? Within a month he'd probably have emailing wired....a couple more, driving a car...my point being, what has the average person today really gained besides the knowledge of lots of electronic gadgetry?

 

[Thalassamania]

That's a very interesting question. On the other hand, how long would it take the well educated 14th century man to learn everything we now know about science (the average person) and technology? Within a month he'd probably have emailing wired....a couple more, driving a car...my point being, what has the average person today really gained besides the knowledge of lots of electronic gadgetry?

Interesting question that has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

 

[agilis]

Adza, are you intentionally dense, or do you really not understand what the word 'theory" means? Except in a casual, informal sense, it does not mean an hypothesis, or a speculative guess. The kind of distinction you are making between the words 'theory' and 'fact' is completely invalid, because, strictly speaking, they are interconnected. A standard definition of theory is "the general principles of a body of fact, an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another". (Webster)
A scientific theory is constructed from observed, verifiable facts. When related facts are developed into a unifying concept, you have a theory, like the theory of gravity, comprised of many related facts.

The frequently distorted use of the word 'theory' in demotic casual conversation causes many misunderstandings. It also allows the militantly ignorant to make stupid comments like "Aha! it's only a theory!" A scientific theory is based on rock solid verified facts. An explanation not based on facts is mere hypothesis. Claro?

 

[adurso]

BS, MS, PhD:
Bull S**t, More S**t, Pile it Higher and Deeper?

You got it! I lack common sense and my military and law enforcement years confirm it! As my wife asks:"If you are a Doctor, why can't you write a prescription?"

 

[Thalassamania]

Sure - I'll explain this statement. A light twin engine aircraft crashes in the mountains. Investigators come to the scene later, and examine the wreckage. From the evidence that remains (that which they can view) - they come to a educated conclusion on why the plane has crashed.

Do they know for sure - no. Are they right? Maybe. Who can tell for sure. (Recently here in Aus - they released their statement on one in the Alps as human error. Shortly later - new evidence emerged, and they found their initial statement had flaws, and changed their concluson). They do the best they can with what they have been given.

Do they use science to try and find the reason - Yes.

Do they say that 'The plane crashed because of pilot error, and that's a fact' - No. They say it's the best conclusion they have.

Do they say that 'Our finding that the plane crashed because of pilot error (or whatever you want to put in here) is science. Certainly not.

They use science to try and determine the cause - but the finding that they have they do not call science - they call this a conclusion. (Theory / model - whatever you will). But certainly not science.

The study of evolution in my opinion is no different. Scientists can not observe life forming from goo, or have never seen macro evolution. From what I'm aware mutataion (or micro evolution, or whatever you want to call it) has occurred - but never turned one kind of animal into another.

You're missing the point of your own example. The observed (plane wreckage / fossil record and other evidence) is the evidence of the phenomena, plane crash / evolution. The reason for the crash / process of evolution can be argued about and deduced from available evidence. If you don't like the idea that there was a mechanical failure, despite the broken cable, and prefer to think that hand of God smote the airplane, people are going to think you’re a little nuts.

 

[Jamdiver]

Nice avatar Thalassamania .

Bob would be proud....