Is evolution or creation science?

[Isaiah 6:8]

I have argued long and hard with people that belive in evolution. Many say that it is science fact. Just as it is a fact that one plus one equals two. On the flip side I have seen people that are creationists, also state the same thing that creation is science fact.

I am going to go out on a limb here and state that both are not science fact but based on faith and emotion.

I will say that it is fare more likely to have a creationist admit this over an evolutionist. You see creationists do have faith in a god of some sort that created everything. This is obviously a statement of faith.

Evolutionists, by and in large state the opposite. That chance and the laws of science and physics created everything. Some I have seen try to only debate biological evolution and not cosmological, and that is fine. the debate ranges all over the place and yet it does not matter what branch you are talking about the principle is the same.

There are many facts, and yet no proof, no hard evidence exists for either view point. Let me explain.

In June of 1991 Jaycee Lee Dugard was kidnapped on the way to her school bus stop. The police started the investigation but choose not to focus one facts of the case and choose instead to follower there own idea's of who kidnapped her. They instead of finding the real kidnapper, instead focused on trying to prove that her stepfather was the culprit. They believed he had killed her and buried her, and yet they really did not look at all the evidence, nor expand there search outside of the city as they assumed that they had their facts straight.

As it turns out, they had missed the truth. You see they had put there theory first and interpreted the facts through the lens of there own ideas. 18 years later, Jaycee was found alive, being the prisoner of a sexual predator for 18 years and having two children with him.

This all could have been avoided if they had stopped to develop there theory from the facts, not trying to fit the facts to there theory.

That sums up what I have seen. I have yet to see any facts presented from any side of the debate that was not twisted to fit the theory. You see science does not allow for personal theories. When it comes down to it, you must take what the facts state, not what you want them to.

So far I have yet to see a single fact presented by any party that is not presented without bias. They all tell you the facts, then tell you what it means, from there own point of view.

So if there is no science fact. If the facts are twisted and explained to fit the theory, not forming the theory, as it should be, then it by definition can not be science. If not science then what do you have? Mere belief, or faith in what you are stating is right.

So do I believe in science? Yes. I use a computer don't I? I enjoy my cellphone, my modern medicines cars and planes and other such products of science. As for how we got here, and how the plants and animals came to be the way they came, well I admittedly have a belief that God created everything as he spoke in Genesis. The more I learn about the universe, about the planet, about the wild places and deep oceans, the more it enforces my belief that God made all this beauty. However, I will not say my belief is scientific. I just see that the facts can fit my belief. I am not stating that they prove it.

On the flip side I look at evolution, and I find that there is always a twist to how it is presented, and how it is presented as science fact, when in reality there is no proof that it is fact. This makes be think that people have a belief system all there own, and yes, the facts seems to support there beliefs as well. But again it is just that. Belief.

[nChrist]

The theory of evolution is still a theory because there is no evidence that man evolved from a monkey - plain and simple. AND, it's a recent theory - as opposed to the thousands of years that God's account has been with us. Frankly, it takes much more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does to believe in God's creation account.

[nebula]

So far I have yet to see a single fact presented by any party that is not presented without bias. They all tell you the facts, then tell you what it means, from there own point of view.

While it is easy for your and I to see bias in the evolutionists' interpretation of the facts, I have yet to hear one of them acknowledge an awareness of this.

[Guest]

'1321841545' post=1742570]

.... Can you give us any examples of how evolution isn't science, or how the facts are twisted to support evolution? If you want, we can go over some of the evidence used to support evolution too.

One last thing, and perhaps one of the more salient points I should hammer home on, is what is science? If we are going to ask the question of whether or not evolution or creation is science, it might be a good idea to have a working understanding of what science is. Well I got to go, maybe later I'll do a separate post on what science is.....

At It's Best

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Science Is Incomplete

Other key ideas such as the reduction of all life processes to biochemical reactions as well as the incorporation of psychology into a broader neurscience are also addressed. Research in current philosophy of biology is dominated by investigations about the foundations of evolutionary theory.

Knowledge

Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:5-6

And Dear One, You Can Strip All That Ugly Evolutionary Mythos Right Out Of Hard (Or Soft) Core Science

And Post The Remaining Little Bits And Pieces Of Man's Understandings

Without Diminishing The Facts Of Creation

One Iota

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1

[Isaiah 6:8]

For now, D-9

Full reply later!

[nChrist]

The theory of evolution is still a theory because there is no evidence that man evolved from a monkey - plain and simple. AND, it's a recent theory - as opposed to the thousands of years that God's account has been with us. Frankly, it takes much more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does to believe in God's creation account.

A "theory" in science is almost the exact opposite of how it is used in everyday language. In science, a theory is a theory because it is well supported by the facts; a "theory" is one of the highest honors an idea in science can get. For example, the idea that atoms exist and are the basic building blocks of everything is just a theory - atomic theory. The idea that certain illnesses are caused by bacteria is just a theory - germ theory. Heck, gravity is a theory too, but I doubt you'll risk not heeding the predictions of gravity because it is still a theory.

P.S. How long an idea or story has been around is a poor way of determining its validity; Hinduism is considered the oldest extant religion in the world for example, doesn't mean it is more valid than Judaism.

Negative, gravity is not a theory. Haven't you heard about the Law of Gravity? Negative on Hinduism also. Knowledge of and Faith in Almighty God goes back to Adam.

[Jeunet]

Negative, gravity is not a theory.

You are mistaking the word "theory" as used in common language, and the meaning of "Theory of X" as used in Science. Some things in nature are a fact, like the existence of gravity for instance. The laws of gravity stipulate the exact behavior of gravity as we can observe and measure them. The Theory of Gravity is the entire body of science and information we have regarding gravity to help us understand better the "why".

Same thing as evolution. It is a fact, no matter what you say. It is overwhelmingly demonstrated by countless evidences and measurements. The Theory of Evolution is the entire body of science and information we have regarding evolution to help us understand better the "why".

Whereas we know for sure that all biological life evolved to species, we are not entirely sure how everything works in the process, what are all the parameters, etc. The Theory of Evolution therefore change over time to get more and more accurate as we get more and more information. But the process itself of evolution is an indisputable fact.

[Guest]

.... If God does use evolution than that too declares the glory of God. God designed life to adapt to environmental changes - as various parts of the world are different environments and even the environments themselves change, life needs to adapt to it so God built in a self-adapting mechanism so life can not only survive but thrive anywhere on the planet. Such an insertion of genius into the created order glorifies God's handy-work just as God designed the planets to revolve around the Sun in accordance to the laws of nature. Indeed, even God's ordained ordinary providence is something to behold!...

A god May Have?

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

But Not The God Of This Cosmos

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

But Not The Living And The True, The Almighty, The Resurrected God

And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. Revelation 1:16-18

For The LORD Your God Is The Creator

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

And The Simple Truth Is

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 110:160

His Word Is True

____________

_________

______

___

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

Jesus Did Not Use The Evolutionary Mythos Nor Did He Use Science Nor Did He Use The Minds Of Little Mortal Men

To Create Life, The Universe, The Laws Found Within Matter And Energy And Time

To Create The Mathematics, The Arts, The Love Of Men For Women

Nor Did He Use Myths To Offer His Salvation, His Redemption

To Offer Freedom From Sin To Whosoever Will

Freedom From Death

By Faith In Him

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

Love, Joe

[nChrist]

We can agree to disagree. For the moment, I'll just say that it's ridiculous to say that man evolved from monkeys. Any so-called science indicating that man evolved from monkeys is junk science riddled with hoaxes. I repeat that it takes much more faith to believe that man evolved from monkeys than it does to believe God's account of His own Creation - plain and simple.

[Isaiah 6:8]

There are a few things I want to touch base on. First, there is no super synthesized evolutionary theory that combines all the different scientific theories that have the word "evolution" in it. The word "evolution" has been a standard dictionary word longer than any modernish scientific theory, the online Merriam Webster dictionary dates the word to 1622, over 200 years before Darwin and even further removed from other evolutions. Cosmic evolution is a different field than stellar evolution, and both are in a way different field than biological evolution, and all of those are separate from abiogenesis sometimes dubbed chemical evolution. FYI, if there is no indicator of which field and it just says "evolution", the default is biological evolution.

I addressed this. As all of the different issues, biological, cosmology etc. have the same issue. they have facts but no smoking gun. If you want you can apply what I have said to only biological evolution.

This might surprise you, but most evolutionists are theists, so by default most evolutionists believe that God is ultimately behind any process. It is only when you get into academia do evolutionists tend to be agnostic/atheistic, and even then it is a pretty even split overall - albeit there's a negative correlation between how prestigious the group is and percentage of theists.

Please you have said this many times before, but yet have not offered any proof. Matter of fact until I came onto worthy I never met a single theist that was an evolutionist. I met some that never thought about it, and once they did rejected evolution outright, or god outright. You see to make this statement you need two things which you have yet to provide. Factual data and the differences between those that accept evolution with out really thinking about it and those who have really as you have studied it. You see for those who have really studied and understand it, I think you will find those to be far more rare then you would hope.

As far as biological evolution is concerned, it is both a fact and a theory: There is the fact of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution. Similar to how there is the law of gravity, and there is also the theory of gravity.

In essence, evolution is the idea that allele frequencies (genes in a given population) change over time do to mutation and natural selection, and this is a fact. Some creationists figured this out, and that gave rise to the idea of microevolution is real science and okay, but macroevolution isn't (never mind that the terms are borrowed from science and used differently, but that's another story). Some of you older creationist may recall when speciation was considered a myth by creationists, but then it gave way to the idea of speciation within "kinds", that whole thing came about because of the fact of evolution.

There is also the other side of the fact of evolution: In addition to directly observing allele frequency changes and speciation, the evidence is considered so great that life evolves that it is considered a fact. The theory of evolution is the framework by which scientists attempt to understand these facts, mainly the mechanisms by which life evolves - various ways in which mutation and natural selection work together and with life to evolve it. Indeed, evolution was more or less a fact before Darwin's debut. What Darwin proposed was not that evolution occurs, but how it occurs, [mutation] with natural selection.

Yes there is a fact that there there multiple verities of some animals, such as dogs and cats. We can trace the development of said verities. However, this is not evolution from dino's to birds. A dog is a dog is a dog. Matter of fact the reason there are so many breeds are due to human intervention, not due to random chance as evolution dictates. Yes there are many species of animals, but we have never seen them ever evolve from one species to another. This is not a fact. You see, playing games with wording does not make something fact. I will not debate wording, we have gone around that merry go round before.

You see I have seen many say something to the general extient of "You admit animals change withing a species, that confirms evolutin, the next step is to not belive that genesis was used but dino's turned into birds." I have seen you state this in so many, many words over the year or so I have known you. You see this is where we disagree, we belive that God said that dogs would have dogs, cats would have cats etc.

Okay, how to word this... in science the goal is to minimize bias whenever possible - it is, in essence, impossible to weed out all biases. Science doesn't require that all biases are gone, although that would be ideal, however it requires us to follow the evidence (notice I didn't say "facts"). In addition, facts are great, but all facts must be interpreted. It is a fact that objects fall to the ground, now it is an interpretation of the fact that allows us to say that gravity is responsible for this. It is true there is a great deal of evidence supporting this interpretation, but nevertheless it is still an interpretation of the fact that gravity is responsible for apples falling from trees.

Yes, but how hard is bias fought? You see a little bias repeated over and over again can put you far off the real path.

One common test between two competing theories is to look at which one can best explain the data. For example, regarding Earth vs. Sun centered universe, one fact regarding the issue is something called "retrograde motion" that is observed for the planets. Basically, if you plot a planet, say Mars or Jupiter, over a period of months you'll notice that it will continue along the path going one way, and for a period of time it will go backwards to where it was coming from for a while, then go back to its normal path. Geocentricists interpreted it as moving along epicycles, and mathematically it worked okay, while heliocentrists explained it in part as the observed path of planets going around the Sun at different rates in addition to (less) epicycles, neither of them were perfect. Can you tell me which one doesn't have facts explained to fit the theory? In reality, facts are interpreted to explain the fact within the framework of a theory/model/hypothesis/etc. all the time. When a new fact comes up, the first thing scientists do is see if it can work in the existing model used as is or with a little tweaking.

Here is the thing, many of the key scientists knew the math did not work. This is why they even looked into other possible solutions such as a sun centered universe. Oh and eventually they did get the math to make a sun centered universe work, once the effect of gravity was understood they were able to calculate the orbits based on an elliptical orbit vs a circular orbit.

Can you give us any examples of how evolution isn't science, or how the facts are twisted to support evolution? If you want, we can go over some of the evidence used to support evolution too.

I am not going to go to deep into this, as you have tried to simply played word games, trying to move the line of what evidence is and proof is. So beyond word games, for example.

ERV"S. people claim this is rock hard evidance for evolution, others claim it is rock hard evidence against it.

You can review this thread here for more.

Also another thing is this. Ignoring evidence that may disprove your theory, is another way to bias results. I have seen many facts that would fly in the face of evolution, and yet they are ignored.

Such as at the rate the sun is burning through its fuel, if you back track that, even one million years ago the earth would be in the center of the sun. I could go on but that is not the point of my thread.

One last thing, and perhaps one of the more salient points I should hammer home on, is what is science? If we are going to ask the question of whether or not evolution or creation is science, it might be a good idea to have a working understanding of what science is. Well I got to go, maybe later I'll do a separate post on what science is.

For now, D-9

I know what science is. I base science off of the scientific method which I have posted here.

As for an FYI, I am not an "official" scientist, however I so have a working understanding of many of the fields of science. I understand faith as well. I have seen many mix the two.

So again, I do not belive that either of them qualify as "science' but faith, that is supported by the facts you choose to support it with.