Questions for Evolutionists

[Bread_of_Life]

artsylady

But there are all of those anomalies. They have no where to place these other peices of evidence. They don't fit. They are significant because it shows that there is something wrong in man's theories about evolution.

Which anomalies are these? Of course, there will always be things that are yet to be explained within evolutionary theory, or things yet to be discovered - but I do not know of any anomalies with the general theory of common ancestry, or natural selection.

To most of us, observing something means watching it happen.

That is because "most of us" do not understand the scientific criteria of observability. We do not, as I have said now many times, have to observe the phenomenon itself occuring. Rather, an theory must be based on evidence that is observable, and experiments that are repeatable.

Notice the word "evidence" there - you don't actually have to observe a phenomenon itself.

And those evidences can tell us different theories, although mainstream science chooses to look at only one of the possibilities.

It beggars belief that, having now been told the difference between a hypothesis and a theory so many times in so many different threads that you should still use the words interchangeably.

Evidence about past events will lead us, or may lead us, to different hypotheses. However, only true hypotheses will make predictions that come true about future evidence - false hypotheses will usually make false predictions.

A hypothesis becomes a theory when it's predictions come true. It's really that simple.

ID doesn't contradict natural selection.

So, you're saying that ID is not a scientific theory because it contradicts another scientific theory?

No. ID contradicts evolution by natural selection, not natural selection itself.

And no, I am not saying ID is not a scientific theory because it contradicts another - I am saying it is not a scientific theory because it solely relies on the disproof of another theory - because it cannot produce positive evidence for it's own hypothesis.

The theory that the earth is round replaced the theory that it was flat.

Firstly, you're wrong in that there was never a theory that the earth was flat, there was an unsupported hypothesis.

Secondly, you're wrong that the round earth hypothesis automatically replaced the flat earth hypothesis. Proving that the earth is not flat does not prove that it is round. It could be a cube, or cylindrical, or any variety of other 3D shapes.

The round earth hypothesis had to make predictions that were tested in order to be established as a theory, which is now is. A very solid theory at that.

All I'm trying to say is that ID is no less scientific than the dinos to birds theory because neither one of them is truly observable. All we observe is the evidence.

It's just that you're wrong. There is nothing unscientific about only being able to observe the evidence - there is something unscientific about not making a single testable prediction, being impossible to falsify, and relying solely on the disproof of the previous theory.

What testable prediction does the theory that dinos were killed off by meteors make?

This is essentially irrelevant. I'm not arguing that the dinosaurs killed by meteor theory is scientific (although it is, I'd be happy to argue this on a seperate thread) - I am arguing that ID is not scientific, which it isn't.

From this response, attempting to change the subject by diverting attention to a totally different theory, I take it you are conceding that ID doesn't in fact make any testable predictions, and therefore is not scientific or falsifiable, or positively evidenced?

Yes, against the other theories that so far haven't come with the answers according to the definition of science.

Even if natural selection were proven to be totally incorrect - this would leave us with a lack of a theory - it would not default us to intelligent design. ID is unscientifically promoting a two model paradigm, where natural selection is on one side, and it on the only other side, and therefore disproof of one means proof of the other. It is thus neglecting the null hypothesis - having no hypothesis or theory at all.

Please don't say I'm not responding but I'm getting tired of posting the definition of falsifiable,

We both agree on what falsifiable means - I don't know why you keep posting it.

Well, I say those same fossils speak of a flood. The same parameters, same evidence, but your call yours science and mine unscientific.

Only problems are that

a) the idea of a catastrophic worldwide flood makes predictions, most of which have been proven untrue.

b) a catastrophic worldwide flood has never been able to explain the evidence as was in the first place - such as the antiquity of fossils.

No, I don't agree, nor do some evolutionists. That's my point. If it was so obvious there wouldn't be varying theories on what happened to the dinos.

I didn't ask you if you agreed that dinosaurs were killed off by a meteor. I asked you if you agreed that that theory was falsifiable. Scientists may not all agree on the meteor theory - but they do all agree that the theory is falsifiable. Also, I don't know of any modern scientist who disagrees that the meteor had something to do with it.

I think one was a triceratops.

Right, you think. Have you ever seen these drawings? Could you link me into a peer reviewed paper about them?

No, there was another one.

"Another one" huh? Well, you'll be able to link me into "another" peer reviewed paper on it then?

If the stories suited evolutionary theory, you'd call it anthropology.

Actually, not so, and I can prove this. The people of Indonesia have long had what were thought to be myths are "little people" who lived on the island, making strange noises and such. Fairly modern accounts of these little people have surfaced fairly recently in history, but were always believed to be myth by the scientific community.

Only when fossils of these little people were found dated as recently as 10,000 years ago were the myths taken seriously. Evidence is what makes anthropology, not rumour or myth. Indeed, myths of dragons wern't taken very seriously until we discovered the Kimodo Dragon.

I'll have to find this but not sure how much time I have today.

Remember to link me into a peer reviewed paper. By the way, I can't think how many times I've asked you and others for peer reviewed papers to justify your claims - and you know how many I've gotten back? Zero. Not in a single instance of asking tens, maybe hundreds of Christians for peer reviewed papers to back up outlandish claims have I ever recieved a single one that actually backed the claim.

How do you test the theory that fishes gills turned to lungs?

Firstly, who says this is a theory?

Secondly, the interesting question is "how did gills turn into lungs", because the theory of common ancestry is absolutely testable. In other words, we know that we are related to fish - the question is how? This question is what is a matter of hypothesis.

[fenwar]

I don't know why you come to a Christian site and then get fed up when we defend creationism.

[Joy in the Journey]

I'd like to add at this juncture that "Christian=\=Creationist", although it doesn't seem like I've done very well at persuading anyone here...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it would be the other way around mate

"Creationist =\= Christian"

Not all Creationists are Christians- however, all Christians are Creationists. To be a Christian, one must believe in the Bible and that it's words are true. If someone does not believe the words of Genesis ( ie. they do not believe in Creation ), then they are simply not a Christian. So, actually "Christian = Creationist " is very true.

God bless,

Tim

[Joy in the Journey]

Hi Tim,

Not only do I disagree with your statement I am offended. You are in no position to judge who is or is not "Christian". That burden rest solely on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You have stated as fact, your OPINION. Well here is my OPINION: Anyone who makes outrageous and false claims, such as knowing things that only God knows, is simply not a Christian.

Now if you'd like to start another thread to discuss your proof that anyone who doesn't believe the bible to be completely literal is not a Christian, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are offended because the Word of God is offensive to those who do not believe it. I make no apology for speaking a fact. If you feel judged, then you need to examine your heart. You aren't "kind of" a Christian- either you are or you are not. The Bible says that Jesus created the Earth- if YOU want to say He did not, then you are calling God a liar. That, my friend is dangerous ground to tred on.

Be blessed as you seek Him,

Tim

[Joy in the Journey]

Id just like to say that it depends on the way you use the word "creationists"

If you mean that there is a creator, then yes, Christian=creationist.

If you are talking about a young earth, literal genesis account, then christian=\=creationist.

This is the no true scotsman fallacy.

Ian

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never once stated anything about the age of the Earth in my statement. I simply stated that if you are a Christian, then you must- by definition believe that God created the Earth as He said He did. Therefore Christian = Creationist. There's no way around it

Be blessed,

Tim

[Joy in the Journey]

Sorry, I wasnt grammatically exact. I said "you" in a generic sense, not you personally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No worries mate

The bible is more or less irrelevant to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That I would disagree with, because the Bible is How God has reveled Himself to us- it is of utmost importance.

This really deserves another thread though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will start one sometime tonight

Be blessed,

Tim

[fenwar]

I'd like to add at this juncture that "Christian=\=Creationist", although it doesn't seem like I've done very well at persuading anyone here...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it would be the other way around mate

"Creationist =\= Christian"

Not all Creationists are Christians- however, all Christians are Creationists. To be a Christian, one must believe in the Bible and that it's words are true. If someone does not believe the words of Genesis ( ie. they do not believe in Creation ), then they are simply not a Christian. So, actually "Christian = Creationist " is very true.

God bless,

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apologies for causing confusion with this. I mean "Creationist" in the context of the "Creation vs Evolution" debate. In other words Young Earth/Genesis as literal history.

Of course I am a creationist in the sense that I believe God created the world. I just don't think this rules out evolution.

With regards to how we understand the Bible - I do believe Genesis to be true. Where we (presumably) disagree is on what meaning we think the author was actually trying to convey when he wrote it.

I hope that makes sense...

Sorry again for diverting the thread...

Fenwar

[Bread_of_Life]

A creationist is not just someone who believes God created the earth - it's someone who believes the Genesis account of creation to be literally true as a history of the earth. That is what a creationist is.

Not all Christians are creationists - although all Christians believe that God created. That's because many Christians are sensible enough of scientific evidence to understand that Genesis cannot possibly be literally true in its account.

[artsylady]

Well then, tell me what it is and I will be able to reply to you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

I save you the trouble and went to Talk Origins for you.

QUOTE

You've arbitrarily thrown in a new parameter.  Now it must have 'natural processes"

All science rests on natural processes, or mechanisms. I would have thought that was obvious. Science comes down to the principle that everything can be explained and follows laws.

Is archaology science?

Rightyo- you want to see evidence that a major change has happened. What kind of parameters do you want for this? Does it have to have happened in a lab on large organisms (ie are bacteria + viruses accepted)? Will the production of a new species satisfy you? (such that the ancestor and the new species cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring)

Creation Scientists use the fact that the new species cannot interbreed as proof as well.

And besides, the computer program was designed by an intelligent designer.

No, the computer program is evidence that the processes work in principle. The computer program was designed, yes. The simulated life in it was not, that designed itself. As I say, abiogenesis is another topic entirely.

Does your computer program account for deleterious mutations that occur? Does it account for the fact that the mutations that happen are a result of a loss of information? I've only ever seen one genetic mutation which they say is gaining new information, when it's not. So I think your program should account for these things.

QUOTE

No, I'm saying there should be many many more transitionals.  If there are millions of fossils already discoverd and we now have billions of species, there should be more true transitionals out there.

Even the ones that they say are true transitionals.  Fish, for instance.  Have you taken a look at them?  They look just like, well, uh, fish.

All fossils are transitional. All life is at some stage between where it was and where it will be. Fish look like fish? Wow. "Fish" covers an immense amount of different species, if you look more closely there are quite large differences.

So humans are transitional? How can we be? We are transitional between, lets say, apes and what?

I agree that there are differences between fish. However, where are the fish with stumps? Where are the fish that are between gills and lungs? Those are the types of 'true transitionals' that should number in the millions and just don't exist at all.

QUOTE

So you're not an athiest?  Sorry, I just assumed.

I don't know why you come to a Christian site and then get fed up when we defend creationism.  What's your angle?

I am an atheist, though my understanding of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with this. I pointed it out because many think that evolution=atheist, which is false.

I agree that evolutionist does not equal athiest. However, evolutionists who come to Christian boards for the sole purpose of debating Christians are usually athiests. If you fit the profile correctly, you're also an ex-believer. Is that right?

You people have been very nice, I am more used to speaking to Christians who repeatedly tell me I'm going to hell and I'm an evil communist (seriously, people who always type evilutionist).

I'm sorry to hear that. Christians who don't have love, don't have Christ. Or, they're struggling with other personal hurts and issues and won't give those issues over to God.

Sometimes I have my own struggles when I feel I'm being met with extreme deep set bias but God's not finished with me yet either.

[artsylady]

Which anomalies are these? Of course, there will always be things that are yet to be explained within evolutionary theory, or things yet to be discovered - but I do not know of any anomalies with the general theory of common ancestry, or natural selection.

I started a thread on it if you'd like to take a look.

The thing about these anomalies, or many of the ones I saw, is that if you use the creation model, they would not be anomalies at all.

To most of us, observing something means watching it happen.

That is because "most of us" do not understand the scientific criteria of observability. We do not, as I have said now many times, have to observe the phenomenon itself occuring. Rather, an theory must be based on evidence that is observable, and experiments that are repeatable.

AND experiments that are repeatable or observable. Is it both or just one.

Notice the word "evidence" there - you don't actually have to observe a phenomenon itself.

I think you could pretty much substitute the word, "observable" to simply "evidence" then, right?