[_ Old Earth _] Why do Creationists misrepresent ToE?

[Jayls5]

99% of what Physicists think, say & do revolves around "theory" & never facts.

Thank you for introducing me to a world of baseless assertions.

 

[Dunzo]

THEORIES UNITE THE FACTS YOU DULLARD! In the scientific sense, a theory is not a guess! It's an explanation for an observed phenomena usually very well supported by evidence.

 

[Guest]

±

±

 

[Jayls5]

THEORIES UNITE THE FACTS YOU DULLARD! In the scientific sense, a theory is not a guess! It's an explanation for an observed phenomena usually very well supported by evidence.

If you plan to insult me, it helps to be correct.......pagans you people will never change, I am going to have fun dissecting you two.

Before you dissect my one sentence post talking about how you don't support your positions, perhaps you'd like to support your position.

 

[Ignatz]

Evolution to my understanding is a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resources.

johnmuise, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised you couldn't answer the question in your own words, as you claimed to have read many books on both sides of the issue, but really, aren't you a bit embarrassed to look back at some of your glib responses and giant owl pictures posted as a response to legitimate questions/statements when its clear that you don't even know what it is that you are disagreeing with? You seem proud of the fact that you were able to remove the teaching of evolution from your local school, but you don't even know what that theory says. Your opinion on the matter is utterly worthless.

Assuming the unlikely possibility that you even understood your own response above, why do you disagree with it?: Why is evolution by natural selection impossible?

You MUST have a response to this, after all, you disagree with ToE, right? Why?

 

[Dunzo]

THEORIES UNITE THE FACTS YOU DULLARD! In the scientific sense, a theory is not a guess! It's an explanation for an observed phenomena usually very well supported by evidence.

If you plan to insult me, it helps to be correct.......pagans you people will never change, I am going to have fun dissecting you two.

If you plan to call me out for being incorrect, perhaps it would be wise to show HOW I'm incorrect.

 

[Ignatz]

99% of what Physicists think, say & do revolves around "theory" & never facts.

There seems to be lots of confusion about what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. It does not mean "guess", as it does when used in everyday conversation.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations/events based on proven hypotheses and verified many times by different groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory, They can only create a hypothesis.

Generally, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events, and both are used to advance technology.

Here's an example of a theory from j. Wilson:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method. :D

 

[Dunzo]

Although the designer itself definitely isn't falsifiable, surely the "design" itself is? One would simply have to find evidence of organisms that clearly aren't designed (for example, say... all of them).

 

[Ignatz]

Although the designer itself definitely isn't falsifiable, surely the "design" itself is? One would simply have to find evidence of organisms that clearly aren't designed (for example, say... all of them).

More or less, but I would word it differently. Rather, I would say "We find evidence that shows things evolve gradually over time, and that these changes are the result of natural processes. We do not find evidence that they were created instantaneously in their current forms."

 

[John]

Evolution to my understanding is a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resources.

johnmuise, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised you couldn't answer the question in your own words, as you claimed to have read many books on both sides of the issue, but really, aren't you a bit embarrassed to look back at some of your glib responses and giant owl pictures posted as a response to legitimate questions/statements when its clear that you don't even know what it is that you are disagreeing with? You seem proud of the fact that you were able to remove the teaching of evolution from your local school, but you don't even know what that theory says. Your opinion on the matter is utterly worthless.

Assuming the unlikely possibility that you even understood your own response above, why do you disagree with it?: Why is evolution by natural selection impossible?

You MUST have a response to this, after all, you disagree with ToE, right? Why?

I only ever agreed with Micro,while NS may happen to ensure survival of a species or what ever, it will NOT change a species over any amounts of time into a different animal. its not a hard consep to grasp.

 

[Dunzo]

So what do you say to the fact that all available evidence disagrees with you?

 

[Deep Thought]

It's amusing how over years, Creationists have had to adapt (even evolve if you like) their views.
Initially, Creationists denied evolution of any sort - macro or micro. Then when faced with overwhelming evidence that they couldn't back out of, they changed their tune and accepted "micro-evolution", which is a term they hate using, preferring the more general term adaptation.

Their next stage will be to begrudgingly accept macro-evolution and then argue over abiogenesis.

 

[Ignatz]

Evolution to my understanding is a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage.

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resources.

johnmuise, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised you couldn't answer the question in your own words, as you claimed to have read many books on both sides of the issue, but really, aren't you a bit embarrassed to look back at some of your glib responses and giant owl pictures posted as a response to legitimate questions/statements when its clear that you don't even know what it is that you are disagreeing with? You seem proud of the fact that you were able to remove the teaching of evolution from your local school, but you don't even know what that theory says. Your opinion on the matter is utterly worthless.

Assuming the unlikely possibility that you even understood your own response above, why do you disagree with it?: Why is evolution by natural selection impossible?

You MUST have a response to this, after all, you disagree with ToE, right? Why?

I only ever agreed with Micro,while NS may happen to ensure survival of a species or what ever, it will NOT change a species over any amounts of time into a different animal. its not a hard consep to grasp.

Evolution is evolution.
Enough micro-evolutionary change in a group of organisms will eventually render that organism incapable of breeding with it's parent group, throw in geographic isolation, as in the case of natural disasters continental drift or migration, or whatever you like, and that group will continue to micro-evolve along a different path than the parent group. eventually the 2 groups will not be able to produce viable offspring, (like donkey's and horses, for example. They produce Mules, which are sterile and cannot reproduce.) given even more time, the 2 groups will not be able to produce any offspring at all, (as in the case of bats and mice, or mice and rats, or whatever you like) macro evolution has occurred.
It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Since you have conceded that micro-evolution happens, you necessarily concede that macro-evolution happens. Evolution is evolution. Micro and Macro-evolution are exactly the same thing, operating under the same principals over different time-scales.

strictly speaking, you ARE an evolutionist.

 

[Ignatz]

I meant "Principles", not "Principals". :

 

[John]

So what do you say to the fact that all available evidence disagrees with you?

every scarp of evidance is flawed and under so much controversy

 

[John]

Since you have conceded that micro-evolution happens, you necessarily concede that macro-evolution happens. Evolution is evolution. Micro and Macro-evolution are exactly the same thing, operating under the same principals over different time-scales.

strictly speaking, you ARE an evolutionist

Thats complete bull$hit, its called adaptation, not evolution. good day sir, i am tired of running in circles with fools, its giving me a freaking head ache :crazyeyes:

 

[Dunzo]

So what do you say to the fact that all available evidence disagrees with you?

every scarp of evidance is flawed and under so much controversy

You do realize that's millions upon millions of pieces of evidence? The "controversy" is perpuated by religious fundamentals who are so insecure as to think that science is a threat to religion.

Since you have conceded that micro-evolution happens, you necessarily concede that macro-evolution happens. Evolution is evolution. Micro and Macro-evolution are exactly the same thing, operating under the same principals over different time-scales.

strictly speaking, you ARE an evolutionist

Thats complete bull$hit, its called adaptation, not evolution. good day sir, i am tired of running in circles with fools, its giving me a freaking head ache :crazyeyes:

I'm pretty sure you've given us no reason at all to accept only micro-evolution and reject macro-evolution. I still haven't seen good enough reasons to doubt any evidence for macro-evolution.
Anyway, if you're gone, it's a big ol' atheist/evolutionist circle jerk again! Woooo!

 

[John]

Anyway, if you're gone, it's a big ol' atheist/evolutionist circle jerk again! Woooo!

:-D

 

[Dunzo]

Do you wanna join in, now that you're an evolutionist and all?

 

[John]

No, i still have moral values and a strong head on my shoulders to be taken in by the atheistic/ evolution world mind raping tactical B$ propaganda. :wink:

I think Serj Tankian put it best:

Making two possibilities a reality,
Predicting the future of things we all know,
Fighting off the diseased programming
Of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries.

Science fails to recognize the single most
Potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
Is faith, faith, faith, faith.

Science has failed our world
Science has failed our Mother Earth.

Science fails to recognize the single most
Potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
Is faith, faith, faith, faith.

Spirit-moves-through-all-things

Song meanings: (randm quotes)
its about how science is screwing us over and that theyre eventually gonna kill us all with their stupid clones and shit, and they need answers to problems when all you really need is faith in god

I always thought science was just the most accepted religon at this time. It has all the makings of religon, different sects, belief, saints/prophets, and holy books that they base everything on.

This song is about how faith is more important than science. Science is good for prediction and experimentation, but the song means that science is nothing compared to faith; MUCH more can be accomplished if you have it.