Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Anti-evolution contains true science and facts?? Where??

---
Also, in regard to your comment on why we find evolution so "offensive" it's because we believe in true science and facts, instead of a hopeful faith in evolution.
---

If you require "truth" and "facts" from science in order for it to be believed by your standards, and if evolution does NOT meet this criteria, can you please give us a few examples of "true" science? Perhaps even ones that are relevant to the origin of species?

Is gravity a "fact" with "true science"? Cuz that's a theory, too...

Gravity

1. Drop an apple from your hand.

2. Observe it falling in real time

It is a FACT that it fell and an hypothesis is based on that fact.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

---
Also, in regard to your comment on why we find evolution so "offensive" it's because we believe in true science and facts, instead of a hopeful faith in evolution.
---

If you require "truth" and "facts" from science in order for it to be believed by your standards, and if evolution does NOT meet this criteria, can you please give us a few examples of "true" science? Perhaps even ones that are relevant to the origin of species?

Is gravity a "fact" with "true science"? Cuz that's a theory, too...

My dear, gravity is not a "hypothesis"

---
It is a FACT that it fell and an hypothesis is based on that fact.
---

My dear, gravity is not a "hypothesis", it is a *theory*. The *theory* of gravity. Surely you know the scientific definition of a theory.

What happens if you're on the space shuttle and you drop the apple from your hand? Because it does not necessarily "fall", therefore has the "hypothesis of gravity" now been disproven? The theory of gravity, in and of itself, covers a LOT of other things other than apples falling - it also relates to time, mass, weight, etc.

But getting back to the point, you're saying that "true science" needs "facts". OK. An apple falling down is a replicable *fact*. Without getting too quantum on this, ok, sure, let's say it is. Therefore gravity is a "true science". OK.

There is a "fact" that DNA can mutate by various means. Therefore, evolution is a "true science". Yes? Is that the conclusion you're begging me to draw?

Read again

To reiterate, a hypothesis was based on the the fact that gravity has been proven to occur by direct real time observation, i.e. empirical evidence. (Gravity itself is NOT the hypothesis.)

Since you are obviously not aware of it, this process is referred to as the 'Scientific Method.'

(The following is from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html)

The Scientific Method
a. Make observations.
b. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
“By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
c. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
d. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Also, your attempt to be condesending is tiresome ("my dear" in subject line and continual useage of it). Please stick to an unemotional exchange.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

---
It is a FACT that it fell and an hypothesis is based on that fact.
---

My dear, gravity is not a "hypothesis", it is a *theory*. The *theory* of gravity. Surely you know the scientific definition of a theory.

What happens if you're on the space shuttle and you drop the apple from your hand? Because it does not necessarily "fall", therefore has the "hypothesis of gravity" now been disproven? The theory of gravity, in and of itself, covers a LOT of other things other than apples falling - it also relates to time, mass, weight, etc.

But getting back to the point, you're saying that "true science" needs "facts". OK. An apple falling down is a replicable *fact*. Without getting too quantum on this, ok, sure, let's say it is. Therefore gravity is a "true science". OK.

There is a "fact" that DNA can mutate by various means. Therefore, evolution is a "true science". Yes? Is that the conclusion you're begging me to draw?

It's called variation and adaptation

In regard to your comment:

"There is a "fact" that DNA can mutate by various means. Therefore, evolution is a "true science". Yes? Is that the conclusion you're begging me to draw?"


It is a fact that organisms vary and it is a fact that there is NO empirical evidence that proves continued unlimited variation (which is the very definition of the theory of evolution):

“In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
“The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Eugene V Koonin, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, in Biology Direct 2007, 2:21.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

You believe in evolution! Congratulations!

You deleted my previous response to this because I used the words "my dear", or because the message itself was ****ing to you?

You believe in evolution, Julie, you just described it. You just need to remove the line in the sand you make up regarding no "continued unlimited" variation.

There is no such limit.

Can you show us examples of how variation is NOT unlimited (outside of the organism *surviving*, of course)? What are the mechanisms that prohibit it from being unlimited? It's up to you to prove (or even SHOW) there's even one mechanism there, otherwise the variation just keeps on going and going - as evolution predicts and shows!

You're SOOOO close, Julie! Just one more step and you'll be an evolutionist! Welcome to the real world!

===

And oh, by the way - read the CONCLUSION of the paper you quoted:

"A Biological Big Bang (BBB) model is proposed for the major transitions in life's evolution. According to this model, each transition is a BBB such that new classes of biological entities emerge at the end of a rapid phase of evolution (inflation) that is characterized by extensive exchange of genetic information which takes distinct forms for different BBBs. The major types of new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of the preceding generation. This process is envisaged as being qualitatively different from tree-pattern cladogenesis."

“The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Eugene V Koonin, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, in Biology Direct 2007, 2:21.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

Nice quote mine, Julie.

Re: You believe in evolution! Congratulations!

First, in regard to your comment:

"Can you show us examples of how variation is NOT unlimited (outside of the organism *surviving*, of course)? What are the mechanisms that prohibit it from being unlimited? It's up to you to prove (or even SHOW) there's even one mechanism there, otherwise the variation just keeps on going and going - as evolution predicts and shows!"

Since evolutionists claim that common descent is a fact, demand that it is taught as fact, and are now even demanding that the word 'theory' be tossed out, the burden of proof is on you.

A wonderful way you could help your fellow evolutionists out is to use the criteria established by evolutionists (see http://whoisyourcreator.com/scientific_criteria.html ) and assess one piece of empirical evidence you find compelling that might prove common descent, then we could enter into an actual debate.

Second, the comment at the end of your post about 'quote mining' is interesting. Please site exactly what sentence(s) that the article proves common descent is true (by using empirical evidence).

Darn. You missed.

===
Since evolutionists claim that common descent is a fact, demand that it is taught as fact, and are now even demanding that the word 'theory' be tossed out, the burden of proof is on you.
===

Occam's Razor: "All things being equal, the simplest solution is the best".

Do you think it's simpler to have NO limit to how much an organism can change and adapt, or is it simpler to have RULES (none of which have been demonstrated or observed) that limit an organism's ability to adapt to an environment, based on some definition of a Biblical "kind"?

Can you show me the reference to the word "theory" being argued to be "tossed out" with reference to evolution? I'm not familiar with this, and I'm skeptical of your reason for bringing that up. Theories are more powerful than facts - you're aware of the scientific definition of a theory, right?

Additionally, how is one supposed to prove the ABSENCE of something? Shall I bring up the Celestial Teapot argument?

Unless you can give me A PAPER or A SINGLE REFERENCE to these "limits" you speak of, one HAS to assume there are none, you should concede your argument, and that now you're just simply grasping at straws and trying to set up strawmen.

===
Please site exactly what sentence(s) that the article proves common descent is true (by using empirical evidence).
===

The article doesn't attempt to PROVE common descent. It ASSUMES it, based on previous research by others in the field.

If you're looking for PROOF of common descent, you won't find it - science is not in the business of PROVING things. That's mathematics. If you're looking for VERY good arguments, LOTS of evidence that points toward common descent and very good SIMPLE explanations based on observations and PREDICTIONS that become evident and are found to be true time and time again, then simply read the scientific papers that are in the field. Start with Origin of Species.

Again, we are NOT interested in a philosophical debate

Since you don't feel confident to debate your theory by using actual empirical evidence, you might find this forum more your liking:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science

In regard to your comment:
"If you're looking for PROOF of common descent, you won't find it - science is not in the business of PROVING things. That's mathematics. If you're looking for VERY good arguments, LOTS of evidence that points toward common descent and very good SIMPLE explanations based on observations and PREDICTIONS that become evident and are found to be true time and time again, then simply read the scientific papers that are in the field. Start with Origin of Species."

This forum is for engaging in scientific debates using empirical evidence that have indeed been "proven to be true." *

Since you claim that NOTHING has been proven and that all research is based on mathematics and good arguments, it would be impossible for you to engage in such scientific debates, so your further postings will be deleted.

*I reserve the right to waiver when I see fit as seen on the 'Gospel' posting.