Jump to content


Photo

Does Evolution Measure Up To The Methods Of Science?


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

#41 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 November 2011 - 07:55 AM

Quote by Ron:
So what you’re saying is “the inclusion of the word evolution is necessary in order for the definition of science to be substantive”? Or, is it that “evolution” must be included in order for “evolution” to be scientific?


Genetic entropy is scientific and it corroborates with the predictions of creation. Yet, when it is observed the term "Evolution" is attached to it. Not only do they not demonstrate the origins of these genes to start with, but the loss of something beneficial contradicts the hypothesis.

Here is an excellent new example:


http://crev.info/con...-vitamin_c_loss




Enjoy.

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 November 2011 - 04:02 AM

Quote by Ron:
So what you’re saying is “the inclusion of the word evolution is necessary in order for the definition of science to be substantive”? Or, is it that evolution must be included in order for “evolution” to be scientific?

Genetic entropy is scientific and it corroborates with the predictions of creation. Yet, when it is observed the term "Evolution" is attached to it. Not only do they not demonstrate the origins of these genes to start with, but the loss of something beneficial contradicts the hypothesis.


Yes indeed… If you continually insert the magic words “evolution” and “nature” into the mix, you then can then say “look what evolution did”, or “look how nature did this or that”. You can stack up some skulls that are ‘claimed’ to be thousands or millions of years separated, with absolutely no connection (gradual transitional evidences) between them other than supposition, and then say “abracadabra” (while pulling the word ‘evolution’ out of your sleeve and insert it into the mix), and say wah-lah; Ladies and Gentlemen look what evolution did!!!

You then teach this in the grade schools, high schools and collages for generations as if it were fact, until people start seeing it in their sleep. Continually conditioning them that your ideal is a fact, until they fall into the trap.

Which puts me in mind of a quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

But here’s the thing… When you force the evolutionists into a corner, and make them face the facts, many will still not look square into those facts (unflinchingly) and see or admit the massive amounts of presuppositions and gap fillers propping up their world-view (and yes, I dare say it “FAITH”). This is even worse for the materialists, because they have absolutely nothing else; this is the only straw they have to grasp at! They will fervently and dogmatically defend their faith statements regardless of the truth that tears it down.

For example: There are absolutely NO gradual transitional evidences that an ape-like creature ‘evolved’ into a man or an ape. There are absolutely NO gradual transitional evidences that slime ‘evolved’ into an aquatic creature (fish etc…) to a land creature (dinosaur, mammal, bird etc..); AND in the ‘claimed case’ of the whale slime ‘evolved’ into an aquatic creature (fish etc…) to a wolf-like creature and then back to an aquatic creature (whale).

They will nothing more than bits and pieces of bone fragment, and construct an entire people group using nothing more than imagination and artists renderings as “evidence”. Or they’ll take a partial skeleton scattered over a large area, and again construct an entire people group using nothing more than imagination and artists renderings as “evidence”.

#43 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 05 November 2011 - 06:46 AM

Yes indeed… If you continually insert the magic words “evolution” and “nature” into the mix, you then can then say “look what evolution did”, or “look how nature did this or that”. You can stack up some skulls that are ‘claimed’ to be thousands or millions of years separated, with absolutely no connection (gradual transitional evidences) between them other than supposition, and then say “abracadabra” (while pulling the word ‘evolution’ out of your sleeve and insert it into the mix), and say wah-lah; Ladies and Gentlemen look what evolution did!!!

The bolded statement Ron made is so key. When you compare a line of skulls to chemistry it is not real science. In chemistry, there are known rates (put in tables) of reactions. These are experimentally determined, and not subject to the subjective opinion of the chemist. You don't have one chemist saying the reaction time of reaction A at k (rate constant at a given temperature) is 5 seconds, and another saying it "could be" or "might have been" 4 seconds. It is experimentally determined, and put in a table.

You don't have one chemist saying that reation B is -5 kcal/mol (exothermic/spontaneous), and one chemist saying rxn B "may be" +5 kcal/mol (endothermic/requires energy). It is tabled and is confirmable. It has been determined as constant of chemistry. That reaction is not a "theory." It is repeatable, and is used as a constant for determining OTHER REACTIONS in which it is involved.

Lining up a stack of skulls that have been "analyzed" and debated by "experts" can not be considered a CONSTANT which is experimentally determined. It is simply a supposition that's "interwoven" into past supositions of evolution.

You then teach this in the grade schools, high schools and collages for generations as if it were fact, until people start seeing it in their sleep. Continually conditioning them that your ideal is a fact, until they fall into the trap.


Evolution simply rides on the back of the observed processes of present biology, and asserts it's assumptions over and over and over. That is until another influential biologist, paleontologist, geophysicist writes a paper, falsifying a past widespread assertion. Then an adjustment is made, and the media spreads that assertion.

Which puts me in mind of a quote:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

But here’s the thing… When you force the evolutionists into a corner, and make them face the facts, many will still not look square into those facts (unflinchingly) and see or admit the massive amounts of presuppositions and gap fillers propping up their world-view (and yes, I dare say it “FAITH”). This is even worse for the materialists, because they have absolutely nothing else; this is the only straw they have to grasp at! They will fervently and dogmatically defend their faith statements regardless of the truth that tears it down.

For example: There are absolutely NO gradual transitional evidences that an ape-like creature ‘evolved’ into a man or an ape. There are absolutely NO gradual transitional evidences that slime ‘evolved’ into an aquatic creature (fish etc…) to a land creature (dinosaur, mammal, bird etc..); AND in the ‘claimed case’ of the whale slime ‘evolved’ into an aquatic creature (fish etc…) to a wolf-like creature and then back to an aquatic creature (whale).

They will nothing more than bits and pieces of bone fragment, and construct an entire people group using nothing more than imagination and artists renderings as “evidence”. Or they’ll take a partial skeleton scattered over a large area, and again construct an entire people group using nothing more than imagination and artists renderings as “evidence”.

Fill in the blank constants. Not a strong foundation at all. This proves nothing at all. How can you confirm predictions of your science with this rot? In chemistry, you can predict how much energy will be required, or released, and put it to an thermodynamic equation, by subtracting the energies in the formation of bonds in a given reaction, from the energies of the breaking of bonds in the reaction. It is all based on previous experimental constants that have been repeatedly confirmed.

This is science that is in present time, and how it works. No one can falsify what is confirmed repeatedly by experimentation. The past constants are used to predict and explain what is then built on top of it. Evolution tries to do the same thing, but it's so-called evidences are subject to subjective analysis, not tried and true experimentation which can be put into equations.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users