[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[Grazer]

No evidence. If so, let me know and I can experiment and create that species.

Is that even science which you can't experiment?

Are you familiar with how theories are formed in science?

 

[felix]

Are you familiar with how theories are formed in science?

Of course yes. Based on assumptions.

As long as the assumptions are not do-able, the theory survives.

 

[Grazer]

Below is taken from an email I received from a scientist;

-- one never "proves" anything in science in the sense of 100% mathematical certainty. But one can get to a standard that might be described as "beyond a reasonable doubt". And other conclusions of science might be less certain than that. I think that is one of the hardest things for non-scientists to appreciate -- the spectrum of certainty of different scientific results. Some things are really beyond any reasonable doubt (like the vast age of the Earth, and common ancestry among species, and smoking causing cancer), others are pretty clear at maybe the 99% level but still maybe a little room for doubt (like global warming and HIV as the cause of AIDS), and others are more in the "best guess" category where the degree of certainty might be more like 50% (like some theories about the early stages of the development of life). So that word "theory" simply means somebody's proposed explanation for how something happens, how different things in nature fit together, etc. An equivalent word would be "hypothesis". Usually it would have its origin in some puzzle in nature where there is a gap in understanding, or some observed set of facts that hasn't been explained, or somebody looking at two separate things and looking for a connection. So a scientist would come up with a proposed explanation (maybe after a lot of work and false starts), and if it seems like it could be right it could be called a theory. Theories get tested (by, among other things, making new observations of nature and seeing if they are consistent with the theory) and maybe they seem to work and move closer to certainty (as has been the case with evolution as new genetic evidence has been studied, or the Big Bang theory with advances in astronomy), or maybe further study reveals that it is wrong (like the now-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism), or maybe it is not totally overthrown but just needs to be adjusted (like evolutionary theory today isn't really the same as in Darwin's day since it needed adjustments to account for genetics).

 

[lordkalvan]

No evidence. If so, let me know and I can experiment and create that species.

Is that even science which you can't experiment?

So no different explanation then, just continued denial.

Can you better and more consiliently explain the fossil record, developmental embryology, homologies, atavisms, morphology, genetic evidence, biogeography and the nested hierarchy than does evolutionary theory, or will ou just online to exercise your handwaving skills?

 

[felix]

Below is taken from an email I received from a scientist;

-- one never "proves" anything in science in the sense of 100% mathematical certainty. But one can get to a standard that might be described as "beyond a reasonable doubt". And other conclusions of science might be less certain than that. I think that is one of the hardest things for non-scientists to appreciate -- the spectrum of certainty of different scientific results. Some things are really beyond any reasonable doubt (like the vast age of the Earth, and common ancestry among species, and smoking causing cancer), others are pretty clear at maybe the 99% level but still maybe a little room for doubt (like global warming and HIV as the cause of AIDS), and others are more in the "best guess" category where the degree of certainty might be more like 50% (like some theories about the early stages of the development of life). So that word "theory" simply means somebody's proposed explanation for how something happens, how different things in nature fit together, etc. An equivalent word would be "hypothesis". Usually it would have its origin in some puzzle in nature where there is a gap in understanding, or some observed set of facts that hasn't been explained, or somebody looking at two separate things and looking for a connection. So a scientist would come up with a proposed explanation (maybe after a lot of work and false starts), and if it seems like it could be right it could be called a theory. Theories get tested (by, among other things, making new observations of nature and seeing if they are consistent with the theory) and maybe they seem to work and move closer to certainty (as has been the case with evolution as new genetic evidence has been studied, or the Big Bang theory with advances in astronomy), or maybe further study reveals that it is wrong (like the now-discredited theory that vaccines cause autism), or maybe it is not totally overthrown but just needs to be adjusted (like evolutionary theory today isn't really the same as in Darwin's day since it needed adjustments to account for genetics).

Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If you can't experiment and reproduce the "same result" in repetitive experiments when the same parameters are applied, then it's not science, but fraud.
Since the experiment itself cannot be conducted, but claiming to be true, it's "absolute fraud".

So no different explanation then, just continued denial.

Can you better and more consiliently explain the fossil record, developmental embryology, homologies, atavisms, morphology, genetic evidence, biogeography and the nested hierarchy than does evolutionary theory, or will ou just online to exercise your handwaving skills?

I already explained all and you don't listen. Fossil record doesn't say anything about evolution. It's all "assumed", based on "assumptions". The basic assumption and the story of Evolution is simple: A princess kissed a frog and the frog became a prince. Because, people no longer believe in fantasy, just add a bit of "non-experiment-able" terms like "millions of years" and "thousands of generations" and it is perfect recipe for people who don't "reason and think" to believe it as a truth (simply because, they accept what can be non experiment-able).

 

[lordkalvan]

Science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. If you can't experiment and reproduce the "same result" in repetitive experiments when the same parameters are applied, then it's not science, but fraud.

Nonsense. Are you seriously arguing that observations of evidence that past events leave behind them tells us nothing substantive about those events? If ths is the case, perhaps you can explain why you think fossils are the petrified remains of once living organisms?

Since the experiment itself cannot be conducted, but claiming to be true, it's "absolute fraud".

On the contrary, we can repeat analyses of DNA as repeatedly as we lie, just like we can carbon-date organic remains as ften as we like.

I already explained all and you don't listen. Fossil record doesn't say anything about evolution. It's all "assumed", based on "assumptions". The basic assumption and the story of Evolution is simple: A princess kissed a frog and the frog became a prince. Because, people no longer believe in fantasy, just add a bit of "non-experiment-able" terms like "millions of years" and "thousands of generations" and it is perfect recipe for people who don't "reason and think" to believe it as a truth (simply because, they accept what can be non experiment-able).

You have explained nothing. You simply deny evolution and the evidence the fossil record provides for it. You have no better, equally consilient account for the lines of evidence referred to than is provided by evolutionary theory. If you believe that we cannot repeatedly verify the great age of Earth by multiple, independent methods, you are simply denying that which you do not like.

 

[felix]

Nonsense. Are you seriously arguing that observations of evidence that past events leave behind them tells us nothing substantive about those events? If ths is the case, perhaps you can explain why you think fossils are the petrified remains of once living organisms?

What you say is not only nonsense but absolute lie based on false assumptions. They do leave behind something and the rest is assumed. Do you know what assumptions are acceptable? "Anything except God".

On the contrary, we can repeat analyses of DNA as repeatedly as we lie, just like we can carbon-date organic remains as ften as we like.

You have explained nothing. You simply deny evolution and the evidence the fossil record provides for it. You have no better, equally consilient account for the lines of evidence referred to than is provided by evolutionary theory. If you believe that we cannot repeatedly verify the great age of Earth by multiple, independent methods, you are simply denying that which you do not like.

DNA analyze does not say anything about evolution. It simply shows the variation between different species and within species. The rest of the story is assumed.

There is no fossil record that says anything about evolution. A fossil record can only say that there was a dead creature being fossilized having certain amount of C14 to Carbon ratio. The rest of the story is all your assumption.

Hence, it is a pity that you believe on something that is called science, that cannot even be experimented with. It simply shows how desperate you are to have evolution to be true.

 

[Grazer]

If you take each section in isolation, no it doesn't show anything but that's not how science works. It builds a picture, especially when dealing with the past much like the way the study of history works

 

[felix]

If you take each section in isolation, no it doesn't show anything but that's not how science works. It builds a picture, especially when dealing with the past much like the way the study of history works

Anything that cannot be experimented with is NOT science. You can go and tell a "non experiment-able" fancy story to a 5th grader and may be he will believe but not to anyone who is "rational".

You can also tell a non-experiment-able "magic" to stone age people and may be they too will believe. In today's scientific era, un-experiment-able stuff claimed to be true must first be wiped of from true science. These pseudo science is taking over "true" science and evolutionist are a heretic to science.

 

[Grazer]

Anything that cannot be experimented with is NOT science. You can go and tell a "non experiment-able" fancy story to a 5th grader and may be he will believe but not to anyone who is "rational".

You can also tell a non-experiment-able "magic" to stone age people and may be they too will believe. In today's scientific era, un-experiment-able stuff claimed to be true must first be wiped of from true science. These pseudo science is taking over "true" science and evolutionist are a heretic to science.

Think I'll listen to the likes of Francis Collins on what is and isn't true science thanks

Or this guy; http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response

 

[felix]

Think I'll listen to the likes of Francis Collins on what is and isn't true science thanks

Or this guy; http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response

Science is not defined by anything it is the experiment-able, testable knowledge. Just like a bunch of idiots raising their hands to change the meaning of spouse in Australian parliment, it cannot be simply changed to suite their needs.

Anything that cannot be tested is a fantasy story and not science. You can still write a frog-princess story in a science text book and call it science, but that does not become science. In today's rational world, anyone who believes something as science, yet that cannot be tested are just "idiots" and have no brains, because, they don't "think". Their brain is equal to a cave man, believing in anything that is told.

 

[lordkalvan]

What you say is not only nonsense but absolute lie based on false assumptions. They do leave behind something and the rest is assumed. Do you know what assumptions are acceptable? "Anything except God".

I notice you do not answer the points to which you are supposedly replying, but instead prefer to accuse me of lying. It may be news to you, but many evolutionary scientists are Christians, including Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, so your assertion that an understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory requires the assumption 'anything but God' is demonstrably false.

DNA analyze does not say anything about evolution. It simply shows the variation between different species and within species. The rest of the story is assumed.

Do you think DNA analysis can tell us anything about relatedness amongst human beings? What about amongst the various species of horses? Monkeys? Bats? Or is it all nonsense?

There is no fossil record that says anything about evolution. A fossil record can only say that there was a dead creature being fossilized having certain amount of C14 to Carbon ratio.

Carbon dating does not give us dating information much beyond 60-70,000 years. That aside, your claim remains unsupported. The fossil record tells us that once living species are extinct and that other species that did not then exist have since appeared in the fossil record. In many cases there are demonstrable relationships amongst extinct and living species, such as theropod dinosaurs and birds. Perhaps you can explain these observations in terms of your preferred alternative to evolutionary theory? So far, no matter how often you have been asked to provide such an explanation, you have avoided doing so.

The rest of the story is all your assumption.

Nope, simply reasoned conclusions from available evidence, something noticeably absent from your arguments to date.

Hence, it is a pity that you believe on something that is called science, that cannot even be experimented with. It simply shows how desperate you are to have evolution to be true.

We can, however, repeatedly verify the great age of Earth by multiple independent methods. You seem unwilling or unable to address this point at all.

FYI, it bothers me not at all whether evolution is true or supplanted by an alternative, better explanation of the evidence we see. However, so far you - and every other creationist who has tried - have failed to either falsify evolution or to provide an account for the diversity of life on Earth that better explains it than does evolutionary theory.

 

[Grazer]

Science is not defined by anything it is the experiment-able, testable knowledge. Just like a bunch of idiots raising their hands to change the meaning of spouse in Australian parliment, it cannot be simply changed to suite their needs.

Anything that cannot be tested is a fantasy story and not science. You can still write a frog-princess story in a science text book and call it science, but that does not become science. In today's rational world, anyone who believes something as science, yet that cannot be tested are just "idiots" and have no brains, because, they don't "think". Their brain is equal to a cave man, believing in anything that is told.

Wow. Issues much? Why don't you take a deep breath and relax a bit. Shouting and branding people idiots does nothing for your case. Simply put, you've got nothing to rival evolution as an explanation for the evidence and observations we have and no, God does not count as a rival explanation because God and evolution are not rivals.

 

[Grazer]

Lets start with what we do know;

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44862

 

[felix]

I notice you do not answer the points to which you are supposedly replying, but instead prefer to accuse me of lying. It may be news to you, but many evolutionary scientists are Christians, including Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, so your assertion that an understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory requires the assumption 'anything but God' is demonstrably false.

Do you think DNA analysis can tell us anything about relatedness amongst human beings? What about amongst the various species of horses? Monkeys? Bats? Or is it all nonsense?

Carbon dating does not give us dating information much beyond 60-70,000 years. That aside, your claim remains unsupported. The fossil record tells us that once living species are extinct and that other species that did not then exist have since appeared in the fossil record. In many cases there are demonstrable relationships amongst extinct and living species, such as theropod dinosaurs and birds. Perhaps you can explain these observations in terms of your preferred alternative to evolutionary theory? So far, no matter how often you have been asked to provide such an explanation, you have avoided doing so.

Nope, simply reasoned conclusions from available evidence, something noticeably absent from your arguments to date.

We can, however, repeatedly verify the great age of Earth by multiple independent methods. You seem unwilling or unable to address this point at all.

FYI, it bothers me not at all whether evolution is true or supplanted by an alternative, better explanation of the evidence we see. However, so far you - and every other creationist who has tried - have failed to either falsify evolution or to provide an account for the diversity of life on Earth that better explains it than does evolutionary theory.

Similarities between a typewriter, calculator and a computer does not prove a calculator and a typewriter automatically evolved into a computer. No wonder 'computer' will be declared as a evolutionary species in 5000 AD by some idiots just like today. As I already mentioned, I said, "radiometric" including "all radio isotope dating", not just radio carbon, where isotope generation is assumed to be constant throughout ages which is wrong. It is the same conditions for most isotopes which is why, whatever radiometric dating you do, gives you the same crap and false result. You blindly believe the assumptions to be true. If 'A' isotope was generated 50% in 4000 BC, then it is fair to assume that 'B' isotope is also generated at a lower rate (preferably the same rate if the same method is used for generation, e.g, volcano, radiation etc). Unfortunately, this blind assumption is somehow overlooked as truth even those who called themselves rationalist and logical thinkers.

 

[lordkalvan]

Similarities between a typewriter, calculator and a computer does not prove a calculator and a typewriter automatically evolved into a computer.

I note you avoid answering the question asked by invoking an entirely false analogy.

No wonder 'computer' will be declared as a evolutionary species in 5000 AD by some idiots just like today.

What you imagine about people in the future for whom you have contempt is not evidential, nor does it deal with the questions asked of you.

As I already mentioned, I said, "radiometric" including "all radio isotope dating", not just radio carbon, where isotope generation is assumed to be constant throughout ages which is wrong. It is the same conditions for most isotopes which is why, whatever radiometric dating you do, gives you the same crap and false result.

So you keep saying, but just as regularly keep failing to support.

You blindly believe the assumptions to be true. If 'A' isotope was generated 50% in 4000 BC, then it is fair to assume that 'B' isotope is also generated at a lower rate (preferably the same rate if the same method is used for generation, e.g, volcano, radiation etc).

Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence, reasoned or otherwise, to suppose that what you assert about radiometric dating techniques and the understanding that they are based on is even remotely correct.

Unfortunately, this blind assumption is somehow overlooked as truth even those who called themselves rationalist and logical thinkers.

As it's an assumption founded on observation and evidence, it rather falls upon your shoulders to show us how it is wrong, not just how it coulda-shoulda-woulda-oughta be wrong in order to agree with your preferred religious dogma.

 

[felix]

God does not count as a rival explanation because God and evolution are not rivals.

Of course they are. If you believe in evolution, then you don't believe in Christ. Is Christ a mutant evolved into a perfect sacrifice? Why do you require evolution to prove creation of mankind when there is an exception for Christ?

 

[felix]

I note you avoid answering the question asked by invoking an entirely false analogy.

What you imagine about people in the future for whom you have contempt is not evidential, nor does it deal with the questions asked of you.

So you keep saying, but just as regularly keep failing to support.

Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence, reasoned or otherwise, to suppose that what you assert about radiometric dating techniques and the understanding that they are based on is even remotely correct.

As it's an assumption founded on observation and evidence, it rather falls upon your shoulders to show us how it is wrong, not just how it coulda-shoulda-woulda-oughta be wrong in order to agree with your preferred religious dogma.

You repeated say, "the questions asked of you" but I don't think I haven't missed any. So, what is the question that i haven't answered?

Assumptions are not founded on observation and evidence, but something is assumed when there is "lack of evidence".

 

[Grazer]

Of course they are. If you believe in evolution, then you don't believe in Christ. Is Christ a mutant evolved into a perfect sacrifice? Why do you require evolution to prove creation of mankind when there is an exception for Christ?

Because evolution is a mechanism and Christ is an agent. Christ and evolution are no more conflicting explanations than the laws of physics and Frank whittle are conflicting explanations for the jet engine, or the laws of physics and Adrian Newey are conflicting explanations for the Red bull racing F1 car. I've spoken to 11 year olds who can see that.

It's not about what I need, its about what's true. It sounds like you need evolution to be false.

 

[lordkalvan]

You repeated say, "the questions asked of you" but I don't think I haven't missed any. So, what is the question that i haven't answered?

You can start with these:

Do you think DNA analysis can tell us anything about relatedness amongst human beings? What about amongst the various species of horses? Monkeys? Bats? Or is it all nonsense?

The fossil record tells us that once living species are extinct and that other species that did not then exist have since appeared in the fossil record. In many cases there are demonstrable relationships amongst extinct and living species, such as theropod dinosaurs and birds. Perhaps you can explain these observations in terms of your preferred alternative to evolutionary theory?

We can repeatedly verify the great age of Earth by multiple independent methods. How do you explain this?

Assumptions are not founded on observation and evidence, but something is assumed when there is "lack of evidence".

To take one case, the assumptions about radioactive decay rates are, indeed, founded on observation and evidence and the consequences we would see today if they were significantly different in the past. If you want to challenge this assumption, you must provide reasoned evidence to invalidate it, not just simply wave your hands around and declare everything 'wuz diffrunt' 6000 years ago.