[_ Old Earth _] Does Evolution have any actuall evidence?

[Darth Rave]

I think there is a lot of confusion going on as to what evolution is exactly. I think a lot of us mix it up with adaptation and the survival of the fittest. So I would like to heard what some of your definitions are of evolution. Please keep as brief as possible.

 

[experimental-robot]

Oh and the sciences that invented computers and the sciences that invented evolution are not the same thing.

of course they are, you think people who study evolution use a different set of scientific laws and principals?

the same scientific laws and practices that build microchips, batteries, electronics etc are the same scientific principals used to support evolution

most people just call it science

unfortunately science isn't mentioned in the bible so it is ignored by the ignorant yet taken advantage of by the same people when it suits them

 

[Darth Rave]

The design of computers has nothing to do with how you think evolution works. That is like saying that because humans invented cars the big bang must have happened. If anything your argument would have the opposite effect. It shows that something as complex as a computer must have had an intellect behind its design, how much more so would the human mind (which is much more powerful that any modern computer) have need a designer. The way a computer works and the way evolution is supposed to work are two entirely different things. Again the main difference I can see is that it can be proven how a computer works, not evolution.

And please stop making personal attacks we can keep this civil if we try.

 

[experimental-robot]

The design of computers has nothing to do with how you think evolution works. That is like saying that because humans invented cars the big bang must have happened. If anything your argument would have the opposite effect. It shows that something as complex as a computer must have had an intellect behind its design, how much more so would the human mind (which is much more powerful that any modern computer) have need a designer. The way a computer works and the way evolution is supposed to work are two entirely different things. Again the main difference I can see is that it can be proven how a computer works, not evolution.

And please stop making personal attacks we can keep this civil if we try.

the intellectual designer of a computer uses science to make it
perhaps computers is an unclear example
science such as chemistry biology, physics, mathematics, all these are the same principals used when making everything from a jet engine to a vaccine to a mud pie
its science
there not a different set of scientific rules for evolution than the rest of science, when one says the science behind evolution is flawed then the science behind everything is flawed, which means the medicine you take, the car you drive, is also based on flawed science

its all the same stuff
which was my point

 

[aiki]

experimental-robot:

Your remarks in your last post seem to assume that what is called "science" is always truly scientific. You know that this isn't so, right? You've heard the term "junk science"?

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Darth Rave]

My point is that it is not the same science. For in all the other examples that you gave things can be empirically proven. What you are refereing to is theoretical science. Science that we have no way of proving. While the underling methodologies used my be simular they are not the same. Now I am not saying that I or any one else can prove creation either. What I am saying is that I belive that there is just as valid evidence for intelligent design as there is for evolution. As a Christian I have all the proof for believing the Bible that I need in my personal excperiances.

 

[experimental-robot]

My point is that it is not the same science. For in all the other examples that you gave things can be empirically proven. What you are refereing to is theoretical science. Science that we have no way of proving. While the underling methodologies used my be simular they are not the same. Now I am not saying that I or any one else can prove creation either. What I am saying is that I belive that there is just as valid evidence for intelligent design as there is for evolution. As a Christian I have all the proof for believing the Bible that I need in my personal excperiances.

there is no scientific evidence for creationism or ID
there are mountains, libraries, whole institutions full of scientific evidence that proves evolution occurs.
it is the same science whether you understand it or not
creationism and ID are not scienctific theories, and have nothing to do with science
go to any evolutionary biology, geology, dept at any university and you can see for yourself

 

[experimental-robot]

experimental-robot:

Your remarks in your last post seem to assume that what is called "science" is always truly scientific. You know that this isn't so, right? You've heard the term "junk science"?

In Christ, Aiki.

i have heard the term junk science
oil companies like to throw that term around debating global warming
it is usally baseless
if you can prove a piece of scientific evidence is false by scientific means then of course its wrong
trying to prove the creation of earth based on the bible isn't science but mythology

 

[aiki]

experimental-robot:

Hey, there!

if you can prove a piece of scientific evidence is false by scientific means then of course its wrong

Are you aware of the several hoaxes produced by evolutionist scientists in an effort to bolster their beloved theory? Check out the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... apemen.asp

trying to prove the creation of earth based on the bible isn't science but mythology

Thank you for your opinion. Trying to prove the theory of Evolution when it's life-from-primordial-ooze beginning is, according to science, virtually impossible is no less mythological -- in my opinion. :wink: By the way, Creation scientists don't use the Bible to prove that the Earth was created. To do this they use the same facts the evolutionists use, but they interpret them differently. The Bible serves as a Creation scientist's guide to interpretation rather than as proof of Creation itself.

In Christ, Aiki.

 

[Asimov]

Australopithecines.

not a hoax.

homo habilis

not a hoax (controversial, but not a hoax)

Neandertal man.

not a hoax

 

[Darth Rave]

there is no scientific evidence for creationism or ID

Yes there is. Try this site

there are mountains, libraries, whole institutions full of scientific evidence that proves evolution occurs.

IT does not prove that evolution occurred. Evolution is a theory. I was a biology major and I know that the difference between theory and fact is proof. Here is the definition of theory. While it does say that theories can incorporate fact it does not say that they are. I also find it interesting that definition #5 calls theories beliefs. (That sounds familiar to me.)

it is the same science whether you understand it or not

Oh, I understand it just fine. But you are incorrect. The principles of science cannot be applied to evolution the same way it can be to computers. The main difference, as I have stated before is empirical proof. As you can see the definition calls for observation. This is some thing that cannot be achieved with evolution because it need millions of years to work. Also I find it interesting That latter in the definition it calls theoretical the antonym(opposite) of empirical. So I guess you could say the two different kinds of science I am talking about are theoretical science and empirical science.

creationism and ID are not scienctific theories, and have nothing to do with science

Actually according to the definitions I linked to above they could easily be called theories. Here is a rather good site to explain some of the science behind those theories.

go to any evolutionary biology, geology, dept at any university and you can see for yourself

See what for myself. The lack of teaching of a theory that has just as much value as the one that is toted as being fact even though no such evidence exists. I have been there and I have seen that.

 

[Darth Rave]

Australopithecines.

not a hoax.

homo habilis

not a hoax (controversial, but not a hoax)

Neandertal man.

not a hoax

Nope, your right, they aren't necessarily hoaxes. They just aren't evidence of evolution. I suggest you go back and read the article again.

 

[Drew]

I would like to offer some thoughts in regard to intelligent design and whether or not it is "scientific".

First, intelligent design (in my view) is NOT to be equated with 6 day creationism. Second, there is a form of ID that is entirely consistent with evolution - there is no need to assume that the two are inconsistent. The assumption that they are mutually exclusive is reflected throughout various threads on this board.

It is entirely conceivable that an intelligent agent (let's assume this to be God) "designed" the foundational laws of nature and / or set the initial conditions of our universe in a manner that would then allow evolution and the development of intelligent life to take place. Based on my reading, the experts (whether or not they believe in a "god") all agree that the initial conditions of our universe had to assume very special values in order for any life at all to come to be. Now, I am fully aware that even if this is so, there need not be an intelligent agent who "set" the universe's initial conditions. Nevertheless, it at least leaves the possibility of ID as a legitimate explanation.

My point is that it is very much an open question as to what is the best explanation for the very special initial conditions of the universe. A lot more could be said about how one might choose which option seems more plausible.

It is also important to realize that something can be true without being subject to empirical verification. To give an extreme example - the existence of other universes, totally cut off from ours, is a legitimate possibility. The fact that we can never gather evidence about this hypothesis in no way diminishes its possibility.

 

[Quath]

Based on my reading, the experts (whether or not they believe in a "god") all agree that the initial conditions of our universe had to assume very special values in order for any life at all to come to be.

I would like to add the caveat of "life as we know it." With other settings other types of life may be possible.

It is also important to realize that something can be true without being subject to empirical verification. To give an extreme example - the existence of other universes, totally cut off from ours, is a legitimate possibility. The fact that we can never gather evidence about this hypothesis in no way diminishes its possibility.

Yeah, science is neutral on the unprovable. I could suggest that there are invisible pink unicorns that live all around us. They have no mass, teleport at will and influence things only when people are not looking for them. So this is an unprovable assertion and science has nothing to say on it.

So the other universes could become more provable if the mathematical model of the universe leads us that way. For example, I have seen one theory that suggests that universes could be created in certain regions of a black hole. So each black hole of ours could create a universe which had black holes that create new universes, etc. There are many problems with this theory, but if it had turned out to be a good theory, it could give evidence for alternative universes.

Quath

 

[Darth Rave]

It is also important to realize that something can be true without being subject to empirical verification. To give an extreme example - the existence of other universes, totally cut off from ours, is a legitimate possibility. The fact that we can never gather evidence about this hypothesis in no way diminishes its possibility.

Very true. This is in fact the very thing I have been asserting. The fact that I can not prove creation and you can not prove evolution makes them equal as scientific theories. Beyond that I have my relationship with God to prove to me that He exists. Therefore I must belive in what He tells me is that Truth.

 

[Darth Rave]

Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?[/url]
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati,
B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.]To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that made the computer in the first place. Lerner’s anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyse a computer’s workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup.

I found this very interesting to the example given by experimental-robot.

 

[Drew]

Greetings Quath:

I was somewhat imprecise in what I wrote. I believe that the view of most experts is that very special initial conditions are needed for there even to be any kind of life at all. This is because it is very reasonable to believe that even the most exotic of life forms will require a universe that allows matters to build up into structures of some kind. And the problem is that unless things are set "just right" we get a universe that collapse back on itself or results in a diffuse cloud of particles that cannot possibly come together to build up structure.

As for the pink unicorns, methinks thou dost protest too much. This example seems (repeat seems) to be used to cast ridicule when in fact the notion of a reality not reachable by science is not a ridiculous notion whatsoever. The pink unicorn example is bad, among other reasons, precisely because we already have a "simpler" model of the way the world works that does not require the postulation of pink unicorns. Your use of this example suggests to me that you think ID is as silly as postulating pink unicorns, and I think the facts do not warrant such a comparison.

Of course, strictly speaking, you are correct - science could not disprove the existence of such unicorns.

Oh and by the way, if you want to suggest that God is an unnecessary explanatory construct as a pink unicorn, we can go down that road (which we have started to go down recently on another thread).

 

[Quath]

I was somewhat imprecise in what I wrote. I believe that the view of most experts is that very special initial conditions are needed for there even to be any kind of life at all. This is because it is very reasonable to believe that even the most exotic of life forms will require a universe that allows matters to build up into structures of some kind. And the problem is that unless things are set "just right" we get a universe that collapse back on itself or results in a diffuse cloud of particles that cannot possibly come together to build up structure.

I agree there are many types of universe I would expect for life to be impossible. However, I think there are many more forms of life possible than we comprehend at this point. For example, the storms on Jupiter could be considered alive if things changed a little. Or maybe the planets and stars are moving in such a way that our solar system is like an atom in a bigger entity. Part of the problem is in finding out if our universe is infinite in space or not. If it is, then anything concievable must happen. That gives a lot of leeway for weird types of life to exist.

Basically, I made the statement because I have heard how people have argued for the probability of human life existing on Earth. But what really needs to be looked at is probabity of life of any form on any planet. So I was just watching tou to keep us from being prejudice that we are the only life worth existing.

As for the pink unicorns, methinks thou dost protest too much. This example seems (repeat seems) to be used to cast ridicule when in fact the notion of a reality not reachable by science is not a ridiculous notion whatsoever. The pink unicorn example is bad, among other reasons, precisely because we already have a "simpler" model of the way the world works that does not require the postulation of pink unicorns. Your use of this example suggests to me that you think ID is as silly as postulating pink unicorns, and I think the facts do not warrant such a comparison.

That is Occam's Razor. However, this is just a method for making a good guess at reality or something. It does not guarantee you will get the truth. The pink unicorn is just a good example for saying that something unmeasurable is not in the realm of science.

Oh and by the way, if you want to suggest that God is an unnecessary explanatory construct as a pink unicorn, we can go down that road (which we have started to go down recently on another thread).

I could try to show why I see God as an extra step that should be removed by Occam's Razor. (Doesn't mean that God is not real, but this line of reasoning is usually a good one to follow).

I see Creation and Big Bang as something similar. Time plays a problem, but I will assume that outside our universe there is no time. So something exists without a cause. The time problem is that people see time starting and assume the universe is unlike God in being "eternal." However, they appear to be the same to me. So there are two senarios:

1. God exists and creates the universe. How fast? Since there is no time yet, this is a bad question, but it would be "instanteanous."

2. The universe justs exist "instanteanous".

So God would be an extra step.

But look at this another way. One theory of the origin of the universe is that a quantum fluctuation of nothingness created everything.

What if God were unintelligent and randomly created stuff? He could be called "quantum fluctuation." In this case, the two possibilities merge. However, God is more of a "law of nature" than some designer.

So maybe that is the easier thing to look at. Is Creationism the same as the Big Bang if God is not intelligent?

Quath

 

[Heidi]

[quote="Darth Rave":66ed1]My point is that it is not the same science. For in all the other examples that you gave things can be empirically proven. What you are refereing to is theoretical science. Science that we have no way of proving. While the underling methodologies used my be simular they are not the same. Now I am not saying that I or any one else can prove creation either. What I am saying is that I belive that there is just as valid evidence for intelligent design as there is for evolution. As a Christian I have all the proof for believing the Bible that I need in my personal excperiances.

there is no scientific evidence for creationism or ID
there are mountains, libraries, whole institutions full of scientific evidence that proves evolution occurs.
it is the same science whether you understand it or not
creationism and ID are not scienctific theories, and have nothing to do with science
go to any evolutionary biology, geology, dept at any university and you can see for yourself[/quote:66ed1]

Sorry, but you have just lised some of the evidence that God created the wordl; mountains, valleys, flowers, animals, & humans.

Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

But man has decided that he knows better than God. So he invents all sorts of strange theories to explain how things were created. Evolution? Hogwash. Man is closer to annihilating himself than ever before. TV's & movies are filled with infantile impulses having to do with genatalia. Man has no more evolved into a different & superior species than apes have. We are now being reduced to animal instincts more than we ever have. Even our "inventions" are based on greed, lust, and power. And the pride in these inventions has taken such grandiosity to be close to delusional.

 

[Quath]

But man has decided that he knows better than God. So he invents all sorts of strange theories to explain how things were created. Evolution? Hogwash. Man is closer to annihilating himself than ever before. TV's & movies are filled with infantile impulses having to do with genatalia. Man has no more evolved into a different & superior species than apes have. We are now being reduced to animal instincts more than we ever have. Even our "inventions" are based on greed, lust, and power. And the pride in these inventions has taken such grandiosity to be close to delusional.

People used this type of thinking to support the immovable Earth theory. They were wrong. How do you explain that? Did people just not understand the Bible back then? Does the Bible say things that are not literally true?

Quath