Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

Scientific Evidence of Creationism


  • Please log in to reply
1541 replies to this topic

#1321    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:48 AM

I don't have any problem with evolution. I like playing DA, 'tis all. I mean, if you believe something with all your heart, then I think being challenged about that belief strengthens it in some ways.

Challenge me on why I think Charles Simic is the greatest poet in the world, and I'll go on and on  just like Cop did.

Although, I would like to know why evolution is still called a theory.


"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1322    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 14,771 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 18 September 2008 - 07:15 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

Although, I would like to know why evolution is still called a theory.


Because, like yourself, no scientist is omniscient.

While there is a large amount of strong evidence supporting Evolution (the Theory) all scientists know that any Theory is open to falsification - if evidence can be found to falsify it.

Science is agnostic in this sense - it does not believe in anything, but allows evidence to point to what is probable.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#1323    SQLserver

SQLserver

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity"

Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:23 AM

Quote

Although, I would like to know why evolution is still called a theory.

Because a theory is the BEST possible thing something can be in science.
A Theory is a VERY VERY GOOD THING. It means it is supported by empirical evidence, widely accepted, tested, experimented on, and researched thousands of times. It means that we've observed or can describe the driving mechanism, and experiment on it.

In comparison, ID/Creationism are nowhere NEAR theory status!

Edited by sqlserver, 18 September 2008 - 09:24 AM.


#1324    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 18 September 2008 - 09:26 AM

Leonardo on Sep 18 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Because, like yourself, no scientist is omniscient.

While there is a large amount of strong evidence supporting Evolution (the Theory) all scientists know that any Theory is open to falsification - if evidence can be found to falsify it.

Science is agnostic in this sense - it does not believe in anything, but allows evidence to point to what is probable.

Good Point & well put Leo.


Probably explains why we keep seeing religion (christianity more so) jumping back & forth on this issue. One minute you see them standing their ground on creationism next you hear they're on the fence almost ready to jump off but not quite because suddenly some new discovery by science at one point came out saying, 'hey we may have got it all wrong...(then)...no, wait...'. lol!


#1325    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,402 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:03 AM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

Although, I would like to know why evolution is still called a theory.


A theory is

IrishAidan on Sep 16 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.


Like evolution or the Big Bang theory.

A hypothesis is

IrishAidan on Sep 16 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

suggested explanation for a phenomenon (an event that is observable),or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena.


Like ID.

IrishAidan on Sep 16 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.


refs.

Evolution is a theory, because it can be tested, it can make predictions, and it can be empirically verified.

That is about as solid an idea as you can get in science.

In the other evolution thread you said

IrishAidan on Sep 16 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

you don't want to get into a battle of wits and education with me


Actually, yeah I do, because your schoolboy errors (including using the phrase "a hypothesis like the big bang theory") don't lead me to believe you actually know what you're talking about.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 18 September 2008 - 10:14 AM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#1326    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,528 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:00 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 10:27 PM, said:

I don't recall saying I was omniscient. I do recall, however, posting a quote from a known evolutionist in which he said no major evolutionary changes have been noted in the fossil record. That quote, however, was from the 1970s. So, considering that I am not a biologist, I would have no reason to have a continual education in the field. I surmise this find is relatively recent?

Would you mind posting a refrence for your "known evolutionist"?  Without proper citation, it is just your opinion.

Quote

Furthermore, I fail to see how this is a major evolutionary find. Is there actual proof that our ear bones were once the third and fourth jaw bone of a reptile, or is it another theory?

"Proof" is a mathematical concept.  Proof of the deductive sort is not commonly used in the sciences; although, probabilistic proofs are fairly common.  Also, a theory is not just a wild idea.  It is a summary of a body of knowledge and has withstood serious scrutiny.  Be careful of your definitions:  writers should use words with more care.

Quote

Also, micro-evolution can be observed. Macro-evolution cannot. It can be theorized, but not observed firsthand like micro-evolution. So, that's why I'm asking if there has been any major changes noted in the fossil record. Link me up to a site, if you know one, where I can see the charts of fossils they have found. Thanks. And I am really interested in seeing such a site.

What do you mean by "macro-evolution"?  Is it the development of a new species - that has been observed.  Is it development of a new genus?  Family?  Order?  Where do you draw the line?  Without specifics, your statement is gibberish.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#1327    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,528 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:12 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 17 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

So, basically, you evolutionists are scurrying to find other evidence to support the theory instead of relying on the one thing that would, without doubt, convince fair-minded people?

Just seems funny to me that the fossils in which would vindicate you all are missing....... Maybe 'cause it didn't happen like that, no? Maybe it's a myth? Maybe God is mind [edit] us all... Who knows.

Ignor the fossils.  Use DNA analysis.  Group organisms by similarity of their genes.  Then check to see if this grouping differs from the fossil record.  Would strong correlation suggest that evolution is correct?  If not, why not?

If you want an example of intermediate fossil forms, you might try the evolution of the horse.  Its descent is well known and crosses species and genus lines.  By your non-definition, the formation of a new genus should constitute "macro-evolution."
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#1328    AlexG

AlexG

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined:20 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 18 September 2008 - 01:15 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 01:04 AM, said:

LOL.

If you KNOW evolution occurred (macro-evolution), then why, by God, do you scientifical folks stills calls evolutions a theorys?


Because the word Theory in science does not mean a wild *** guess with no evidence.

Quote

I mean, Suh, we unscientifical folks gettins confused easy when it comes to this stuff.


Yes.

Reading something they can understand, that seems to make sense, that presents itself as technically competent, non-scientists are easily gulled by fake science. --Henry H. Bauer

The X-Files is NOT a documentary.

Four million years of evolution was not enough.

#1329    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,402 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 18 September 2008 - 02:32 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

I don't have any problem with evolution.


No, you just think that God or aliens are an equally valid explantion.

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

I like playing DA, 'tis all.


Nothing more tedious than someone who doesn't actually believe in what they're fighting for.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#1330    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,528 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:49 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 12:48 AM, said:

Although, I would like to know why evolution is still called a theory.

Any ethical scientist will admit that few models exactly fit all the data.  In biometrics we have it easy:  we can put a number on the quality of our study; it's "i" - the probability of rejecting a true statement.  Non-scientists, especially politicians, see this and erroneously conclude that we don't know what we're talking about.  Such is the case with global warming.

In biometrics, a hypothesis is a target we shoot at, a question postulated for the sake of discussion and testing.  We might not even believe it's right, but we use it to search for Truth.  A hypothesis differs from speculation in that it has to be worded in such a way that it can be tested ("Falsified"), while speculation does not have that restriction.  Once a hypothesis has been tested and passes the test with a level sufficient to satisfy the particular discipline, it becomes a theory.  If a theory can exactly account for every accurate observation (few can), it is considered a law.

The reason it is called the "theory" of evolution is mostly history.  That is the name under which it was first published and people got into the habit of calling it a theory.  The other reason is that new observations are continually being made, requiring refinements (corollaries, principles, etc.); also, evolution requires vast amounts of time (we think) and we know of know way to prove that the required time has actually elapsed.  We ASSUME that there has been enough time for evolution to work:  that is called the Doctrine of Uniformity.  It is unproven in the deductive sense, and as far as anybody knows, unproveable.

So that is the real issue:  has the earth been around long enough for evolution to produce the abundance of life that we see?  If the answer is:  "Yes,"  evolution is proven.  If the answer is:  "No," we might have to invoke God to accomplish it.  If the answer is:  "I don't know," then the issue remains unresolved.

Actually, even Young Earth Creationism does not require God, because there might exist a still-undiscovered natural mechanism with the capability of producing life in all its myriad forms within a short span of time.  This is the reason that disproving evolution does not prove God and the reason that those who support ideas like creationism and ID have not been able to establish their ideas as anything more than speculation.

Except for the issue of time, evolution is pretty-much unassailable.  Questions about still-unexplained phenomena only invite testing to produce the explanation.  That has been the history of the "debate" for over 160 years:  creationists ask questions; scientists produce answers.  The theory is solid, but some of its corollaries and principles need a little work.  Disproving a corollary or principle does not usually affect the governing theory (Trying to disprove evolution by proving that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs (or some similar idea) will leave evolution untouched, whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs.).

If you wish to attack evolution, go at it through its soft underbelly:  time.  Prove that the earth cannot possibly be old enough for evolution to have worked.  Once you accomplish that, if you wish to prove creationsim, you must prove that there are no natural mechanisms capable of producing life (Not a likely outcome, as you will be in the position of having to prove a negative.).  Having accomplished that, you will be in position to invoke the supernatural:  now, exactly which god was it that did all this?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#1331    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:47 PM

Quote

Actually, yeah I do, because your schoolboy errors (including using the phrase "a hypothesis like the big bang theory") don't lead me to believe you actually know what you're talking about.


No, you don't. And errors? Check out your posts - they're riddled with them. Although, I don't recall ever saying the Big Bang Theory was a hypothesis. If I did, so be it - but I don't recall it. Why would I, it's called the Big Bang THEORY! Also, the fact you keep bringing up my "Aliens" bit is quite telling. If you couldn't discern that was slapstick, aimed at pointing out how silly it is to rule out all other possibilities, then I don't know what to tell you.

Also, I'm quite aware why Evolution is still called a theory. I asked it because far too many people on here are fond of saying, "We KNOW Evolution happened," et cetera... If we do indeed know for certain, then it would be a scientific fact, would it not?

Common sense is not something you possess a lot of, is it?

Quote

That is about as solid an idea as you can get in science.


Other than fact, you mean.

The whole point I am making is this: Even though there is good evidence to support the theory, don't go around trying to invalidate other arguments by saying, "I KNOW Evolution happened!" It's an unsubstantiated claim - period.

And there is a difference between:

Microevoltuion

and:

Macroevolution

Or:

Microevolution

And:

Macroevolution

But again we have armchair "scientists" claiming they are made up terms, used to discredit evolutionists.

Edited by IrishAidan, 18 September 2008 - 05:02 PM.

"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1332    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,919 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:10 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

Challenge me on why I think Charles Simic is the greatest poet in the world, and I'll go on and on  just like Cop did.

Interesting. You seem to have spelt T S Eliot incorrectly.

* winks *


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#1333    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:11 PM

I have accepted long ago that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but that doesn't make it a fact. Even Richard Dawkins admits evolution isn't a fact. Yet we still have people trolling around the forum claiming that it is. I'll be generous and say there is a 90% chance that evolution, as science claims, happened. But there is still a 10% chance that it didn't occur. Therefore, any other idea, God, Aliens, et cetera... are equally viable options. They may not be viable in the scientific world, but in the philosophical world, which relies on science in certain ways, it most certainly is. A philosopher couldn't run around claiming that humans require more nitrogen than oxygen, because it is a scientific fact that humans require more oxygen. It would be fighting a losing battle. But in this case, because science can't tell us with certainty where we came from, then in philosophy a primate it just as viable an option as God.

Semantics? Maybe.



Tiggs on Sep 18 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

Interesting. You seem to have spelt T S Eliot incorrectly.

* winks *



LOL. Good, but a little old fashion for me.

Edited by IrishAidan, 18 September 2008 - 05:13 PM.

"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~

#1334    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 18,540 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:26 PM

IrishAidan on Sep 18 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

I have accepted long ago that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but that doesn't make it a fact. Even Richard Dawkins admits evolution isn't a fact. Yet we still have people trolling around the forum claiming that it is.


This another one of those flags that you may not know what you claim to know.  See, if you've been trolling around these forums for so long, you HAVE to have seen this addressed.  Several times.  There is no possible way to have missed it.

Like everything else in science, this field consists of two different parts.  The first is the fact.  Evolution is a physical phenomena.  That is fact.  It exists, as in it can be seen, it can be measured, it can be photographed, replicated, and even induced.  Just like gravity is a physical phenomena that can be measured, seen (its effects, anyway), replicated, etc...  That the phenomena itself exists is beyond question, and no one, not even creationists, deny that it occurs.  To do so would be the ultimate act of denial, parallel only to the Flat Earthers, who refuse to look through telescopes because it would invalidate their beliefs.

The theories of evolution explains the fact of evolution.  There are many different theories to evolution, all of which explain a specific facet of the factual phenomena.  These theories are not, by definition, facts.  Theories explain facts.  And theories are powerful.  They are powerful not because they are necessarily correct, but because they have yet to be falsified.

Quote

I'll be generous and say there is a 90% chance that evolution, as science claims, happened. But there is still a 10% chance that it didn't occur. Therefore, any other idea, God, Aliens, et cetera... are equally viable options.


Actually, no, they are not.  Even if evolution where 100% wrong, neither God, nor aliens, nor anything else would be any more valid than it currently is.  The validity of a theory is not reliant on whether something else is correct or incorrect.  A theory stands on its own.

Quote

They may not be viable in the scientific world, but in the philosophical world, which relies on science in certain ways, it most certainly is. A philosopher couldn't run around claiming that humans require more nitrogen than oxygen, because it is a scientific fact that humans require more oxygen. It would be fighting a losing battle. But in this case, because science can't tell us with certainty where we came from, then in philosophy a primate it just as viable an option as God.
Semantics? Maybe.


Semantics definitely.  While philosophy may include science in its speculations, science does not include philosophy in its theories.  If you are talking about the validity of scientific theories, don't suddenly think you can switch the subject to philosophy and still be considered to have a valid point.



#1335    IrishAidan07

IrishAidan07

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, United States

  • If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

Posted 18 September 2008 - 06:42 PM

aquatus1 on Sep 18 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

This another one of those flags that you may not know what you claim to know.  See, if you've been trolling around these forums for so long, you HAVE to have seen this addressed.  Several times.  There is no possible way to have missed it.

Like everything else in science, this field consists of two different parts.  The first is the fact.  Evolution is a physical phenomena.  That is fact.  It exists, as in it can be seen, it can be measured, it can be photographed, replicated, and even induced.  Just like gravity is a physical phenomena that can be measured, seen (its effects, anyway), replicated, etc...  That the phenomena itself exists is beyond question, and no one, not even creationists, deny that it occurs.  To do so would be the ultimate act of denial, parallel only to the Flat Earthers, who refuse to look through telescopes because it would invalidate their beliefs.

The theories of evolution explains the fact of evolution.  There are many different theories to evolution, all of which explain a specific facet of the factual phenomena.  These theories are not, by definition, facts.  Theories explain facts.  And theories are powerful.  They are powerful not because they are necessarily correct, but because they have yet to be falsified.


So you are saying that macroevolution, without doubt, is responsible for human life? Is that what you are saying?

If so, then my comment is addressed to people like you.

And a flag that you can't read as well as you think is this: I never said I have been trolling around the forums for a long time, did I?

Quote

Actually, no, they are not.  Even if evolution where 100% wrong, neither God, nor aliens, nor anything else would be any more valid than it currently is.  The validity of a theory is not reliant on whether something else is correct or incorrect.  A theory stands on its own.


In the scientific world, then no - they are not relevant. But in the philosophical world, they are - as much as macroevolution, considering it is not a fact.


Quote

Semantics definitely.  While philosophy may include science in its speculations, science does not include philosophy in its theories.  If you are talking about the validity of scientific theories, don't suddenly think you can switch the subject to philosophy and still be considered to have a valid point.


I do have a valid point: Macroevolution is not a fact. Therefore, when you claim that it is in some feeble attempt to invalidate philosophical conclusions, you are, in essence, a fool.

You can't prove macroevolution like you can prove microevolution, can you? There is ample evidence, I am sure - but the undeniable fact is simple: You can't be certain. So, my point is this: Come up with a different way to invalidate the I.D. argument. Don't simply say, "I KNOW evolution happened." Because you don't actually know.

HTH.

Edited by IrishAidan, 18 September 2008 - 06:48 PM.

"There is not a Liberal America, a Conservative America, a Red America or Blue America, there is the United States of America." ~ Barack Obama

Posted Image

~~Irish~~




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users