Jump to content


Photo

"theory" Of Gravity


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

#21 Qi Chin

Qi Chin

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Berlin

Posted 04 February 2011 - 04:03 PM

No. The quote said if evolution is the backbone of biology, then biology is a unproven theory. That means biology is a science that stands on its own and evolution is not part of biology.


Except that's not what the real world is telling us. Evolution is indeed part of biology, and much of biology is based on evolution. What else did you think the theory of evolution was doing?

Then why did they need to backpedal and come up with convergent evolution? Randomness could never produce the same design in two completely different lines of descent, but a common designer could and would.

View Post


It could. That's because it's not complete randomness, and it's not the exact same design. Bats and birds both have wings, but the way their wings are formed are different. Mutation does not mean X-Men-level changes. The idea of convergent evolution was brought up because evidence shows that such a thing occurs.

#22 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 04 February 2011 - 04:52 PM

How about this: How else would you explain all the similarities between different lifeforms without referring to a supernatural creator? The theory of evolution and common descent is currently the best explanation for these similarities.


By referring to supernatural events that happened over magical amounts of time, with libraries of fantastical stories claiming to be the absolute truth, that does not make it more scientific than a Deity.

Common descent is not only the most viable conclusion in explaining similarities in life. Similarities in languages also lead to the conclusion of common descent. Similarities in culture also lead to a conclusion of common descent, if there is no better alternative explanation. There is a very small amount of stuff that is actually observable (we can't even observe atoms, yet we have theories about Quarks).


It's only the most viable conclusion to those that choose for it to be. Adaptation and natural selection are not the problem, it's one solitary common ancestor. Of course people are going to live differently in different environments, and languages are going to modify as populations seperate. But none of this leads to humans becoming not-humans.

There has to be enough evidence to point to ideas. It's not like scientists looked at whales, threw darts at a board of pictures, and declared "Whales come from wolf-like animals!" There must be enough evidence linking wolves and whales, because really, without evidence, that's quite a jump in thinking to make.

View Post


Of course it's not just a roll of the dice to determine what they want to evolve into the other, but it's all based on the presupposition that evolution is true. They observe skeletons of ancient animals, assume that huge changes can occur, and place those skeletons that look similar in a line next to each other. This documentation method triggers the visual phenomena of persistance of vision, and people think it's possible all of a sudden. When in fact, such biological changes have never been observed and therefor are supernatural occurances of magical adaptations, instead of the adaptation that we witness happening today.

Posted Image
Nasal Drift in Early Whales Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. The nostrils migrated upward toward the top of their head, as ancient whales spent more time immersed in the water. Blowholes help to distinguish modern forms of whales. While toothed whales generally have one hole, baleens are split into two. Fig 1. Pakicetus Fig 2. Rodhocetus nostrils were higher on the skull, intermediate between its ancestors and modern whales. Fig 3. A modern gray whale can emerge from the water, inhale and resubmerge without stopping or tilting its snout to breathe.
http://pandasthumb.o...-evolution.html


But look at how huge that change is from figure 2 to figure 3. There is no way I can call myself intellectually honest and believe that this is how it happened.

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 February 2011 - 07:33 PM

Except that's not what the real world is telling us. Evolution is indeed part of biology, and much of biology is based on evolution. What else did you think the theory of evolution was doing?


Biology is and always will be a science without ToE. In fact, the more we learn about biology the more it confirms that evolution isn't a part of it.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=66600



Thanks.

#24 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,760 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 February 2011 - 08:58 PM

There has to be enough evidence to point to ideas. It's not like scientists looked at whales, threw darts at a board of pictures, and declared "Whales come from wolf-like animals!" There must be enough evidence linking wolves and whales, because really, without evidence, that's quite a jump in thinking to make.

View Post

Perhaps I can use a sentence I constructed to make a point about communication systems here to help out our understanding.

“Write the right spelling of the word rite on the right side of your paper.” If you say the sentence out loud all rit’s (phonetic representation) used in the sentence sound the same. You are able to detect the correct meaning from the code when you see it on paper. If you delivered the sentence orally there will be some confusion as to meaning of the sentence. Why ? Because when the sentence is spoken audibly the third rit will be ambiguous. Your listener will ask you which rit you mean? There are 3 other rits in the sentence that sound the same but evoke different meaning. Based on clues in the sentence we are able to assign correct meaning to all rits but the third rit. As it turns out when you see the sentence in visual code there would be no problem but the communication value of the sentence would be null.

What we are trying to show you is that the evidence that “proves” evolution is ambiguous. It can also be used to prove something was created based on the point of view of the observer. Now back to the sentence. If I had chosen one of the other rit’s in the aural sentence to spell, I would have been wrong based on the understanding of the visual version of the sentence (code).

The evidence allegedly for evolution does not prove a point of view about it correct. The evidence to support evolution is therefore an opinion, one of the lowest qualities of evidence.

To relate this to the post; Because the theory of gravity has all kinds of empirical (that’s the highest quality) evidence to support it, to say since both of them are considered by evo science as theories, evolution should be considered a fact also is a dubious if not eroneous conclusion. Such a conclusion is not logically warranted. I would say that evo is more aptly an hypothesis than a theory scientifically. But that's another story.

#25 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:26 PM

Hmmm....

Gravity is real, and it does not need the theory that goes with it, because it is an observable/testable part of life.

Evolution is not real, and it does in fact need a theory because it is not observable/testable. It cannot stand alone, and be observed like gravity. We must have Atheist/Evolutionist preach about it so that they can convert people into believing it just like a religion.

If you have absolute proof of Macro-evolution then please do show it via pictures/experiments that did in fact create a new type of creature, and not just a different breed of that same creature.

#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,760 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:30 PM

That's a good point Scott

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 February 2011 - 12:41 AM

A law, by definition, is a mathematical relationship in science (that includes math itself). Since maths can only really be used in maths and physics, and not so well in biology and chemistry, not to mention all sorts of other fields of science, having a law in biology would be unusual indeed.

Though really, the comparison is not to validate evolution, but to make sure people don't make the mistake of using the wrong definition of the word "theory."

View Post


You do know that physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics and biology is applied chemistry... From this everything in life can be related to a mathematical concept of some form.

This equivocation is consistantly used by evolutionists to validate evolution. If I had a dollar everytime I heard, "if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in gravity", (or something like that), I'd be much richer!! :)

Just because evolutionists say "Evolution did it" doesn't necessary gives a logical and intellectually honest answer. Nor does it explain HOW it occured, (the mechanism). Without the mechanism evolution is just as supernatural as creationism.

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 February 2011 - 12:43 AM

The idea of convergent evolution was made up because evidence shows changes that existed outside of the original evolutionary "theory's" grasp, hence it needed to be revised despite none of what was said was observed

View Post


I fixed it for you :) :lol:

#29 Qi Chin

Qi Chin

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Berlin

Posted 05 February 2011 - 07:24 AM

By referring to supernatural events that happened over magical amounts of time, with libraries of fantastical stories claiming to be the absolute truth, that does not make it more scientific than a Deity.


That does not answer my question.

When in fact, such biological changes have never been observed and therefor are supernatural occurances of magical adaptations, instead of the adaptation that we witness happening today.


Wait, what definitions of "supernatural" and "magical" are you using here?

But look at how huge that change is from figure 2 to figure 3.  There is no way I can call myself intellectually honest and believe that this is how it happened.

View Post


I could. That's just three images, not years of study into that particular subject.


Hmmm....

Gravity is real, and it does not need the theory that goes with it, because it is an observable/testable part of life.

Evolution is not real, and it does in fact need a theory because it is not observable/testable.  It cannot stand alone, and be observed like gravity.  We must have Atheist/Evolutionist preach about it so that they can convert people into believing it just like a religion.

View Post


If there was no theory of gravity, then we wouldn't be able to explain gravity. I thought I had said this already. Without the theory of gravity, we'd only be able to say "Thing fall, durr." We wouldn't know how things fall, or why things fall. Same with the theory of evolution. Without it, we'd just say "Living things change, durr." Evolution explains the mechanisms by which living things change.


What we are trying to show you is that the evidence that “proves” evolution is ambiguous. It can also be used  to prove something was created based on the point of view of the observer.


Only if you already believe in a creator. Creation requires a creator.

To relate this to the post; Because the theory of gravity has all kinds of empirical (that’s the highest quality) evidence to support it,  to say since both of them are considered by evo science as theories,  evolution should be considered a fact also is a dubious if not eroneous conclusion. Such a  conclusion is not logically warranted. I would say that evo is more aptly an hypothesis than a theory scientifically. But that's another story.

View Post


Both are theories in science, not just "evo science," whatever that may be.

#30 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 05 February 2011 - 07:40 AM

Without it, we'd just say "Living things change, durr."

View Post

That sounds about right. :lol:

I have learned much, much more about Natural Selection and Adaptation since reading literature from YECs.

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 February 2011 - 08:07 AM

1. That does not answer my question.

2. I could. That's just three images, not years of study into that particular subject.
If there was no theory of gravity, then we wouldn't be able to explain gravity. I thought I had said this already.

3. Without the theory of gravity, we'd only be able to say "Thing fall, durr." We wouldn't know how things fall, or why things fall. Same with the theory of evolution. Without it, we'd just say "Living things change, durr."

4. Evolution explains the mechanisms by which living things change.

5. Only if you already believe in a creator. Creation requires a creator.
Both are theories in science, not just "evo science," whatever that may be.

View Post


1. Seek is trying to show you that evolution is just as "supernatural" as creationism and is not scientific as it is based on stories, rather than directly from EMPIRICAL evidence. So please stop saying evolution is scientific when its been shown to you that stories are not scientific.

2. You could could you? You do realise that in order to do so you'd need to show a line of progresion through the fossil record... Consisting of multiple transitional forms showing each stage of development from the so-called macro-evolutionary mutations. NO scientist has been able to do so, hence in my opinion your chances are slim.

3. Gravity is a Law, it was shown in the OP... Hence you cannot use it as an analogy for evolution... (Which you admitted to before)

4. So what "mechanisms" are these... Can they be attributed to a mathematical formula just like gravity? Or are they whimsical in nature and thus are subject to interpretation rather than factual analysis.

5. Wrong! Neither are theories in science, as science is upheld via EMPIRICAL validity. Neither "theory" is empirically validated hence they cannot be actual theories.

#32 Qi Chin

Qi Chin

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 23
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Berlin

Posted 05 February 2011 - 11:24 AM

1. Seek is trying to show you that evolution is just as "supernatural" as creationism and is not scientific as it is based on stories, rather than directly from EMPIRICAL evidence. So please stop saying evolution is scientific when its been shown to you that stories are not scientific.


The empirical evidence is astounding similarities in all life forms, including fossilized ones.

However, my question was how one would explain these similarities without the use of a creator.

2. You could could you? You do realise that in order to do so you'd need to show a line of progresion through the fossil record... Consisting of multiple transitional forms showing each stage of development from the so-called macro-evolutionary mutations. NO scientist has been able to do so, hence in my opinion your chances are slim.


There are no "stages of development," as everything is transitional. It's like a conveyor belt carrying loads of samples past us, every new one being a bit different than the previous one, and we reach down from time to time and pick one up to study it. You don't need every single step, you only need enough steps and enough similarities between forms in order to induce an ancestry.

3. Gravity is a Law, it was shown in the OP... Hence you cannot use it as an analogy for evolution... (Which you admitted to before)


Well, then we can use any other theory, say, the theory of atoms, or cell theory. Or just say "theory of general relativity" instead of "theory of gravity."

4. So what "mechanisms" are these... Can they be attributed to a mathematical formula just like gravity? Or are they whimsical in nature and thus are subject to interpretation rather than factual analysis.


Mutation (Observed)
Passing on of genetic information to offspring (observed)
Survival of organisms in their environment (observed)
Ecological niches (observed)

That's what I meant with mechanisms, the basic things that lead to life changing over time by adapting to its environment.

5. Wrong! Neither are theories in science, as science is upheld via EMPIRICAL validity. Neither "theory" is empirically validated hence they cannot be actual theories.

View Post


The talk was about the theory of gravity (or theory of general relativity, if you will) and the theory of evolution.

#33 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 February 2011 - 05:10 PM

Why do evolutionists make the claim,

"gravity is just a theory" and then use this to attempt to show that the "theory" of evolution is just as solid as gravity?

Firstly I'd like to address the so-called similarities that enables such a comparison

Secondly I'll ask.... Isn't gravity a LAW? and thus is not able to be used in such a comparison anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_...sal_gravitation

http://www.jimloy.co...ics/gravity.htm

http://physics.about...s/a/gravity.htm
Furthermore the LAW can be summerised into a mathematical equation, (thus showing the mechanism and how it works), can evolution be summerised into a mathematical equation? If not then aren't they comparing apples to oranges?

View Post


Newton's law of universal gravitation only works under certain conditions, specifically it doesn't work when dealing with very large masses(i.e. the Sun). Gravity is best explained using the Theory of General Relativity.

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 February 2011 - 05:16 PM

1. The empirical evidence is astounding similarities in all life forms, including fossilized ones.

2. However, my question was how one would explain these similarities without the use of a creator.

3. There are no "stages of development," as everything is transitional. It's like a conveyor belt carrying loads of samples past us, every new one being a bit different than the previous one, and we reach down from time to time and pick one up to study it. You don't need every single step, you only need enough steps and enough similarities between forms in order to induce an ancestry.

4. Well, then we can use any other theory, say, the theory of atoms, or cell theory. Or just say "theory of general relativity" instead of "theory of gravity."

5. Mutation (Observed)
Passing on of genetic information to offspring (observed)
Survival of organisms in their environment (observed)
Ecological niches (observed)

6. That's what I meant with mechanisms, the basic things that lead to life changing over time by adapting to its environment.
The talk was about the theory of gravity (or theory of general relativity, if you will) and the theory of evolution.

View Post


1. How does being similar automatically show evolution? Or are you just jumping the gun, and ASSUME it does.

2. No you said you could show how the three images shown before are not a large jump after all. Can you please do as you said and show how the images are not huge jumps.

3. The stages are meshed into a (as I said before) "line of transition", please don't pick on one word and equivocate on it. I already mentioned your definition as a line of transition. Can you show this? Or is evolution interpreted / assumed from the evidence rather than shown.

4. Cells are observed, so cell theory is out. Atoms are observed too, so that theory is out as well. The theory of relativity can be related to a mathematical formula can you do this for evolution? Will you admit you are attempting to turn apples to oranges.

5. Yet have these proposed "mechanisms" been observed to turn a species into a different species, (evolution). If not then you are just assuming they will and thus they are not observed / empirical evidence of evolution.

6. Life does adapt, however it has never been observed in reality to adapt beyond the limitations of its "kind".. Thus evolution goes against what we observe in reality.

This makes sense as if evolution were to occur then there would never be any extinct species as they would "evolve" to the selection pressures instead of being extinct by them.

#35 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 05 February 2011 - 06:09 PM

That does not answer my question.
Wait, what definitions of "supernatural" and "magical" are you using here?


But it does. I will repost my answer to a way of explaining these events without a creator.
"By referring to supernatural events (macro-evolution) that happened over magical (non-repeatable, non-bservable by natural means) amounts of time, with libraries of fantastical stories claiming to be the absolute truth..."
This explanation however is not more scientific than a creator.

I could. That's just three images, not years of study into that particular subject.


Care to elaborate on why, then?

If there was no theory of gravity, then we wouldn't be able to explain gravity. I thought I had said this already. Without the theory of gravity, we'd only be able to say "Thing fall, durr." We wouldn't know how things fall, or why things fall. Same with the theory of evolution. Without it, we'd just say "Living things change, durr." Evolution explains the mechanisms by which living things change.
Only if you already believe in a creator. Creation requires a creator.
Both are theories in science, not just "evo science," whatever that may be.

View Post


Yes, but almost all of the evidence that evolution uses to explain changes in living things, aside from the contemporary understanding of fossil dating, is ambiguous to both worldviews, and can be applied to support both theories.
Why does all life on earth need to have a common ancestor in order to explain how adaptation and natural selection works, you honestly think that creationists just say that populations of similar life-forms can fill different niches because God said so?

#36 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 05 February 2011 - 10:45 PM

I wanted to edit my post slightly but maybe my phone doesn't have the proper format to use that function.
Anyways, I wanted to clarify that in my question at the end of my post I am referring to educated creationist like the majority of those that engage on this forum, not the creationist troll that you may be used to debating with.

#37 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,760 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:55 PM

I wanted to edit my post slightly but maybe my phone doesn't have the proper format to use that function.
Anyways, I wanted to clarify that in my question at the end of my post I am referring to educated creationist like the majority of those that engage on this forum, not the creationist troll that you may be used to debating with.

View Post


I realize that you probably understand this explanation;

Here’s the corner that Qi Chin has painted himself into. Suppose we say to someone to imagine they don’t exist and then bring that into reality. What would the result be? Well that person would have to cause themselves to cease to exist.

The dilemma and what Qi has not yet understood is that evolution requires a creator. Whether it was Darwin or his antecedents the idea originated in the mind of an intelligent being. We, therefore, cannot take intelligence out of the loop. Why? Because intelligence was used to create the idea and is also being used to perpetuate the idea of evolution. In a sense Qi is denying his own existence. It is an exercise in futility until the light goes on inside his mind. What we are trying to do is convince Qi that a light switch exists and it's in his mind and he can turnit that switch on.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users