Evolution vs. Creation

[james2mart]

Killbot, the most rewritten type of textbook is the science textbook (obviously). This is because science always changes. Science always finds out that it was wrong about something. Next in line is evolution, so brace yourself.

[killbot1000]

Killbot, the most rewritten type of textbook is the science textbook (obviously). This is because science always changes. Science always finds out that it was wrong about something. Next in line is evolution, so brace yourself.

 

 

Evolution may be wrong, im not disputing that at all, all im saying is that if evolution is wrong, doesnt make creationism right, again, the argument is invalid, A makes B, but that doesnt necessarily mean that C made A and B, the argument had nothing to do with evolution.

 

Im not gonna fall apart if evolution turns out to be false, thats the beauty of science, you can form another hypothesis and test it, its wonderful, with religion, you are given an answer, and regardless of the evidence, are supposed to follow it blindly, gah...

 

 

Also, whats wrong with being wrong, as long as you are trying to find the real answer, thats what science is all about, and I see nothing wrong with that

[james2mart]

What will you do if science PROVES creation?

[gwprod12]

Science cannot "prove" anything. However, if Science came up with a framework of evidence that supported creationism, and I could duplicate those experiments and locate the same evidence myself, I would be compelled by it.

 

EDIT: Real Science isnt about making dogmatic statements and following them blindly.

[wildcat69410]

Science cannot "prove" anything. However, if Science came up with a framework of evidence that supported creationism, and I could duplicate those experiments and locate the same evidence myself, I would be compelled by it.

 

Science cannot prove anything? That's rediculous! By using scientific procedures and experiments, I can "prove" that there is a strong force that pulls everything towards the center of the Earth, and that that force is called Gravity. Science can "prove" lots of things, unfortunately one of those things aren't evolution.

 

You mentioned that if you could duplicate those experiments and locate the same evidence, you could be compelled by a theory. What experiments could you duplicate, heck what experiments have we staged that have proved, or even indicated the presence of macro-evolution. I'm not talking about Darwin and the beaks of a few Finches, I'm asking what experiments have scientists created that have shown macro-evolution. Even on a small scale, scientists have tried many times.

 

For example, the New York Times ran a front page story about how scientists had bred fruit flies to avoid poison, and then bred flies that didn't avoid it. They were trying to prove that the smart survive, a way to prove natural selection and surivival of the fittest. However, surprisingly, the fruitflies bred to be attracted to poison actually survived much longer than the flies bred to avoid it. The Times said, "Cleverness may pay in survival costs..." Let's face it, it's pretty obvious, the stupid are the ones that have always survived in life. They're the ones that get the good jobs, the fast cars, live long succesful lives. In fact, it is the stupid that live on the fast track of life. Pshh! Every experiment science has tried to use to prove evolution has failed miserably.

 

You say we follow a belief blindly, yet you are the one that believes in evolution, without being able to prove it empirically or via experiments, the very things you require of Creationists to provide. So who's following something blindly now?

[gwprod12]

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

 

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biolo...h&Philo.pdf

 

(for a few references that actually explain that science doesnt deal in "proof"; "proof" is a concept for lay people and mathematicians. In short, proof can only exist in a universe that is completely defined by the logician. In the real universe, there will always be some possibility that something is not factually accurate, or some circumstance that would cause it to be so false [falsifiability])

 

As for no evidence of Evolution, please read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ and not http://www.answersingenesis.com/

 

I would settle for 3 peer-reviewed articles on evidence of creationism. How's that?

[wildcat69410]

As for no evidence of Evolution, please read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ and not http://www.answersingenesis.com/

 

Evidence based upon theories and brief connections is there, my point was that you mentioned experiments specifically, but yet there have been none. Evidence based upon a series of possibilities that does not at all explain how something happened, just because a person looks at the end results does not mean that that theory is correct.

 

I didn't deny that there was some evidence for evolution, but there is no experiments even proving a section of it. All you have is a theory that is barely supported by scientific fact, and is rended by gaping holes at other points. I will admit, there is some pretty good evidence in the site you linked to, but the evidence against evolution is rather staggering as well. For example...

-Fossil Record

-Cambrian Explosion

-Unusual Animal Traits/Characterisitcs (Angler Fish, Chicken Egg, Incubator Bird, Woodpecker)

 

Also, would you settle for a series of peer reviewed articles for Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design, as accused by multiple Darwinists, is just Creationism with a new coat of paint.

 

Look at this article: Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed

 

It mentions plenty about multiple articles that have been Peer-Reviewed by different professors and experts in their field. Quite a bit of your peer-review for "creationism with a new coat of paint".

[gwprod12]

I would count something that had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Except, the journal in question retracted it.

 

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

 

 

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.

 

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/fringe.html

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004...er_9_7_2004.asp

 

This one is down right now for me anyways: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

 

 

PS. The article on macroevolution is about 100 pages long. You should actually read it before claiming it's false.

 

I actually think Intelligent Design might be something worth looking into. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for it. The defining principle is: "Evolution seems unlikely" & which, I think is true & "therefore, an intelligence must have created life on earth". This statement becomes a logical connundrum, quite simply. If life on earth was designed by alien beings, who designed the alien beings? Different alien beings? Inevitably you will recurse down to the point where life had to originate somewhere. Since Intelligent Design states that life must have been designed, the penultimate non-supernatural intelligent designing alien being must have been designed by something supernatural (or at the very least, existing outside of our universe/reality). Therefore, Intelligent Design IS Creationism, just of a different variety.

[wildcat69410]

I would count something that had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Except, the journal in question retracted it.

 

If you read closely, you'll see it was only retracted because it wasn't reviewed by an associate editor, as if those guys have the scientific experience to actually understand what the paper was talking about. It was only retracted because it was controversial, if you noticed, the site I linked to said the scientists who peer-reviewed it found nothing wrong in its scientific logic, although they did disagree with it. It was still peer-reviewed, just because a scientific journal didn't have the balls to post it doesn't mean it doesn't count.

 

And don't deny the scientific community doesn't pressurize scientific journals not to post factual information about ID. Take a look at This Article. It talks about Richard von Sternberg, a holder of two PhD's in biology, and one of the scientists who peer-reviewed the article I mentioned. He has been personally attacked by people after this article was published, and has been ridiculed and has had his career nearly destroyed by people angered at his review of the article. He made a professional opinion, and right now he is being persecuted as a scientist because of it, and may lose his job at the Smithsonian Institute because of it. He did nothing wrong, but the scientific community doesn't want people to hear of his findings, so they run his career into the ground.

 

I actually think Intelligent Design might be something worth looking into. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for it. The defining principle is: "Evolution seems unlikely" & which, I think is true & "therefore, an intelligence must have created life on earth". This statement becomes a logical connundrum, quite simply. If life on earth was designed by alien beings, who designed the alien beings? Different alien beings? Inevitably you will recurse down to the point where life had to originate somewhere. Since Intelligent Design states that life must have been designed, the penultimate non-supernatural intelligent designing alien being must have been designed by something supernatural (or at the very least, existing outside of our universe/reality). Therefore, Intelligent Design IS Creationism, just of a different variety.

 

P.S. The evidence supporting ID is quite strong, you should look at some before you claim there is none.

 

People like Michael Behe and others have formed computational mathematical formulas that have proved it, and they have pointed out biological structures that have no evolutionary predecessor. That is the key in Darwin's theory, and yet there are micro-biological organisms that have no way of evolving. Look into some of that, and then you'll see why Intelligent Design simply isn't a defining principal of "Evolution Seems Unlikely".

[gwprod12]

Three anonymous peer-reviewers hand-picked by a creationist going outside of the normal review process. Maybe you're right, that the publisher didnt like the article, so revoked it. Which means that the paper is biased and therefore has no credibility whatsoever. Either way, it's bunk.

 

You gave me one peer-reviewed article that was retracted by the publisher either because it was reviewed incorrectly or because the publisher is a biased pro-evolutionist who didnt like what he saw.

 

Even counting that article as one, one isnt three.