Creation vs. Evolution Debate

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

So are you saying the theory of macro-evolution is unscientific?

Oz

I was responding to your comment: "Darwinian evolution cannot be tested by these scientific methods.".

 

[OzSpen]

I was responding to your comment: "Darwinian evolution cannot be tested by these scientific methods.".

So is the theory of macro-evolution scientific?

 

[Jim Parker]

So is the theory of macro-evolution scientific?

First, by the word "scientific," I understand a reference to a process which is used to verify the accuracy of an hypothesis by means of repeated experimentation, under controlled conditions, which invariably produces the same result.

Using that definition of "scientific" I must conclude that macro-evolution cannot be deemed to be scientific because it is not possible to carry out the required experimentation to demonstrate its validity. I'm quite sure that those who work in fields which employ the macro-TOE in their work would be dismayed to hear me say such a thing and would number me with the nit-wits. (oh well...)

Using a different definition of the word "scientific" may easily result in their methods of inquiry being deemed scientific. But my understanding of the word requires me to put the theory of macro-evolution outside the meaning of "scientific."

Aleikhem Sholem

jim

 

[OzSpen]

First, by the word "scientific," I understand a reference to a process which is used to verify the accuracy of an hypothesis by means of repeated experimentation, under controlled conditions, which invariably produces the same result.

Using that definition of "scientific" I must conclude that macro-evolution cannot be deemed to be scientific because it is not possible to carry out the required experimentation to demonstrate its validity. I'm quite sure that those who work in fields which employ the macro-TOE in their work would be dismayed to hear me say such a thing and would number me with the nit-wits. (oh well...)

Using a different definition of the word "scientific" may easily result in their methods of inquiry being deemed scientific. But my understanding of the word requires me to put the theory of macro-evolution outside the meaning of "scientific."

Aleikhem Sholem

jim

Jim,

We could look at palaeontology, which is the science that investigates fossils.

This pursues another definition of science, which is 'a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws' (dictionary.com 2017. s v science).

In this understanding of science we can ask: Does palaeontology demonstrate transition forms from, say, monkeys to human beings, from Pakicetus to modern whales. This is a suggested example from 'Understanding Evolution':

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

We could look at palaeontology, which is the science that investigates fossils.

This pursues another definition of science, which is 'a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws' (dictionary.com 2017. s v science).

In this understanding of science we can ask: Does palaeontology demonstrate transition forms from, say, monkeys to human beings, from Pakicetus to modern whales. This is a suggested example from 'Understanding Evolution':

Oz

Somehow, I am unconvinced.............

jim

 

[OzSpen]

Somehow, I am unconvinced.............

jim

Jim,

Makes two of us. But that is how some inventive scientists try to justify transition forms. Of course, there is the famous archaeopteryx:

(Archaeopteryx, courtesy Live Science)

Paleontologists consider this to be a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds. They claim it has a blend of avian and reptilian features. Some view it as the earliest known bird - discovered in 1860 in Germany.

My view is that it takes a lot of imagination to go from dinosaurs--->archaeopteryx --->modern birds.

You can view an artist's reconstruction of how archaeopteryx may have looked at
creation.com.

For a refutation of the evolutionary view of archaeopteryx, see Archaeopteryx by Dr Carl Wieland.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

Makes two of us. But that is how some inventive scientists try to justify transition forms. Of course, there is the famous archaeopteryx:

(Archaeopteryx, courtesy Live Science)

Paleontologists consider this to be a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds. They claim it has a blend of avian and reptilian features. Some view it as the earliest known bird - discovered in 1860 in Germany.

My view is that it takes a lot of imagination to go from dinosaurs--->archaeopteryx --->modern birds.

Here's an artist's reconstruction of how archaeopteryx may have looked:

(courtesy creation.com)

For a refutation of the evolutionary view of archaeopteryx, see Archaeopteryx by Dr Carl Wieland.

Oz

Fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found.
http://images.nationalgeographic.co...cent-feathers-full-skeleton_49798_600x450.jpg
http://images.nationalgeographic.co...ssil-feather-dinosaur-color_12398_600x450.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1163760/thumbs/o-ARCHAEOPTERYX-facebook.jpg


jim

 

[jasonc]

Fossils? I simply go to our nearest nursing home ,golf course ,and they are living fossils.

 

[OzSpen]

Fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found.
http://images.nationalgeographic.co...cent-feathers-full-skeleton_49798_600x450.jpg
http://images.nationalgeographic.co...ssil-feather-dinosaur-color_12398_600x450.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1163760/thumbs/o-ARCHAEOPTERYX-facebook.jpg


jim

Are those transition forms?

 

[Jim Parker]

Are those transition forms?

Got me.
I'm not convinced that everything that looks like a transition form has anything to do with alleged transition.
But, it's not a field in which I have expertise.

jim