Jump to content


Photo

75 Theses.


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 29 November 2017 - 11:43 AM

I found this list some years ago when I was first investigating our origins. Many said to me, "The theory of evolution is proven. The evidence is staggering and undeniable. Go see for yourself." So I did. After seeing that most respected scientists had taken the theory under their wing, I wished to know if there were equally qualified scientists who opposed, and found that there are many more than I ever expected. Unfortunately, opposing scientists and their research were and are discarded as "pseudoscience" which is a term I don't fully understand.

I learned that so much more than evidence is involved in this theory and how it is dispersed to the public. I believe that it is unethical to teach it in schools as truth, and if it is taught as a theory then all the opposing evidence must also be presented. This is what my concience says.

If anyone finds any of the below statements to be unsound, untrue, or unscientific, please elaborate.


Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.

There is life on Earth now.

At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.

Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.

Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.

Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.

Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.

The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.

If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.

If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.

For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.

Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.

Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.

Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.

“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.

The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.

If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.

There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.

The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.

There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.

The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.

Growth and reproduction require cell division.

Cell division is a complex process.

There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.

According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.

Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.

There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.

Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.

Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.

Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.

Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.

Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.

Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.

There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.

According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.

The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.

There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.

According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.

There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.

There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.

If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.

Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.

Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.

Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).

No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.

Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.

Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.

Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.

Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.

There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.

Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.

Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.

Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.

The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.

Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.

There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2

Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.

Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.

There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.

There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.

There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.

There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.

Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.

The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.

The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.

All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.

Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.

Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.

“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.

When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.

“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.

Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

#2 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:55 PM

I found this list some years ago when I was first investigating our origins. Many said to me, "The theory of evolution is proven. The evidence is staggering and undeniable. Go see for yourself." So I did. After seeing that most respected scientists had taken the theory under their wing, I wished to know if there were equally qualified scientists who opposed, and found that there are many more than I ever expected. Unfortunately, opposing scientists and their research were and are discarded as "pseudoscience" which is a term I don't fully understand.
I learned that so much more than evidence is involved in this theory and how it is dispersed to the public. I believe that it is unethical to teach it in schools as truth, and if it is taught as a theory then all the opposing evidence must also be presented. This is what my concience says.
If anyone finds any of the below statements to be unsound, untrue, or unscientific, please elaborate.
Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
There is life on Earth now.
At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
Growth and reproduction require cell division.
Cell division is a complex process.
There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

"Many said to me, "The theory of evolution is proven. The evidence is staggering and undeniable. Go see for yourself." So I did."


That is my story as well, EXACTLY...

AND GUESS WHAT...?

I found out just how naked the emperor is... I couldn't believe it...

And now I have decided to help expose Darwin's fairytale..

If the Accidentalists weren't so dogmatic, and arrogant, And were just honest and said that Evolution is their belief not because it is part of science, but because they agree with it philosophically, I would have just shrugged and not given it much thought.. And They wouldn't have had to deal with an Army of soldiers that THEY created, which include thousands of people like myself and the people who founded this website who are dedicated to exposing their lies for the world to see...

But no.. They had to rub their fairytale in everyones face telling us that we must believe that the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is true or else... Well..Evolutionary guru Richard Dawkins sums up their attitude perfectly...


"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."


Yup.. This is the kind of intellectual fascist that we have to deal with..

#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 November 2017 - 07:19 PM

I found this list some years ago when I was first investigating our origins. Many said to me, "The theory of evolution is proven. The evidence is staggering and undeniable. Go see for yourself." So I did. After seeing that most respected scientists had taken the theory under their wing, I wished to know if there were equally qualified scientists who opposed, and found that there are many more than I ever expected. Unfortunately, opposing scientists and their research were and are discarded as "pseudoscience" which is a term I don't fully understand.

I learned that so much more than evidence is involved in this theory and how it is dispersed to the public. I believe that it is unethical to teach it in schools as truth, and if it is taught as a theory then all the opposing evidence must also be presented. This is what my concience says....

 

Perception is all that there is and indeed it takes a lot of mental acrobatics to interpret it in a way that lets you conclude that particles to people evolution is a rock solid fact. Once you analyse it and test it, the best it can be is a imaginary explanatory model. But there is so many things that actually contradict even the possibility that the odds for it to be a fact are rather small. 

 

So after all belief in Evolution has faith like features and it's a false faith by that. 

 

The belief in it is essentially footed in "consensus science" that's why they like to point out that "all scientists say" or "only religious nut jobs don't believe it". That's an appeal to ad populum, appeal to authority and using ridicule to push an argument through. One can use that in a conversation, but when scientists argue like that, my alarm bells are ringing. I immediately ask now, whether they think they just made a scientific argument. It seems they weren't trained in the philosophy of science or have forgotten what they learned even in Logic 101. 



#4 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 29 November 2017 - 07:47 PM

The belief in it is essentially footed in "consensus science" that's why they like to point out that "all scientists say" or "only religious nut jobs don't believe it". That's an appeal to ad populum, appeal to authority and using ridicule to push an argument through.

Indeed. You never hear "Scientists agree that the earth revolves around the sun," or "It is the consensus of the scientific community that a water molecule contains one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms." It's only ever used when the theory in question is opposed by scientists with legitimate research and evidence to the contrary, and most especially if it doesn't fit the agenda. I think Michael Crichton did a great job summing it up.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

  • Blitzking likes this

#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 29 November 2017 - 08:45 PM

If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.

Keep in mind that “possible” and “feasible” are two different things. It’s technically possible to reproduce stellar formation under the same conditions, but actually creating them is difficult to say the least.
 

The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.

If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

Incorrect on both counts. Evolution depends on the observed properties of life, not any particular explanation of how those properties came to be. A particular theory of life’s origin can be wrong without having any real effect on the observations of life that have been made.

Think of it this way: Plenty of chemistry got done before we had any idea how matter originated or even fundamentally worked, because it was based on the observed properties of matter. A lot of those early theories of origin and composition were also extremely wrong, but that didn’t change what had been observed.
 

“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.

So was Neptune. The observed motion of Uranus was different than the predicted motion, but was later found to be consistent with the existence of another planet causing the unexpected deviation. Lo and behold, another planet was found exactly where it was calculated to be.
 

When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.

But which part of the theory? In the case of Neptune, the part that concerned planetary motion was mostly correct. It was just that there were more objects in play than we suspected. In the case of dark matter/energy, the standard model with the addition of some new types of stuff we haven’t directly observed neatly explains an awful lot of things.

Modifying a theory by adding a new element that brings the theory in line with observation and also proposes new observations that can confirm that addition is an entirely legitimate science move.
 

“We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.

Unsatisfying but potentially correct. Given what you’ve said above about how scientific explanation works, what else do you expect to hear from a scientific explanation? A thing exists, it had to come from somewhere, and a scientific explanation can only suppose that it came from some natural process.
 

Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

Which experimentally verified laws did you have in mind?

#6 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 29 November 2017 - 09:20 PM

Indeed. You never hear "Scientists agree that the earth revolves around the sun," or "It is the consensus of the scientific community that a water molecule contains one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.”

You would if there were people fool enough to deny those theories. Take a look around for the thread where a guy went to bat for flat earth theory. People argued with him for pages, but were unable to penetrate his shield of bad posting and obstinance, until he finally got banned. The point being that even in a case with relatively straightforward facts, it’s not always possible to convince someone. When you get in to more complex topics, it can get harder and harder to make a case based solely on evidence, so at a certain point you almost have to appeal to someone else’s expertise.
 

It's only ever used when the theory in question is opposed by scientists with legitimate research and evidence to the contrary, and most especially if it doesn't fit the agenda.

Legitimate according to who? The ability to differentiate between evidence that’s legitimate or not requires a certain amount of expertise in and of itself. I trust most people to meaningfully evaluate climate data about as far as I can throw them, and their ability to determine when someone else has correctly evaluated that data only slightly further.

Have you considered that it might be the single digit percentage of scientists opposing conclusions that happen to go against powerful moneyed interests or deeply held religious beliefs that have the agenda?
 

I think Michael Crichton did a great job summing it up.

When asking about the practice of science, I find it’s best to consult with actual scientists rather than science fiction writers.

#7 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 29 November 2017 - 09:46 PM

Keep in mind that “possible” and “feasible” are two different things. It’s technically possible to reproduce stellar formation under the same conditions, but actually creating them is difficult to say the least.


I understand the dillema, but in this case I would think based on all of the many failed experiments that creating life in a lab is outside even feasibility.

Think of it this way: Plenty of chemistry got done before we had any idea how matter originated or even fundamentally worked, because it was based on the observed properties of matter. A lot of those early theories of origin and composition were also extremely wrong, but that didn’t change what had been observed.


I'm not sure we have a clue how matter originated. Observation of chemical reactions can in no way point to the origin of the chemicals in any case.

Given what you’ve said above about how scientific explanation works, what else do you expect to hear from a scientific explanation? A thing exists, it had to come from somewhere, and a scientific explanation can only suppose that it came from some natural process.


Why must it suppose such? It had to come from somewhere. It wouldn't be detrimental to science at all to assume a supernatural cause, especially when all concieved natural causes are inconcievable. Assuming a supernatural origin has never held back observation, experimentation, or the furtherment of science. Religion, maybe. But not belief in a supernatural origin. It makes no difference to observable and repeatable endeavors.

Which experimentally verified laws did you have mind?


I didn't compose these theses, Popoi. A bunch of scientists did, who I believe are not aligned with any religion. I suspect the law of probability and also entropy, but you could ask them.

http://scienceagains...info/v12i6f.htm

#8 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 November 2017 - 10:10 PM

Indeed. You never hear "Scientists agree that the earth revolves around the sun," or "It is the consensus of the scientific community that a water molecule contains one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.”

You would if there were people fool enough to deny those theories. Take a look around for the thread where a guy went to bat for flat earth theory. People argued with him for pages, but were unable to penetrate his shield of bad posting and obstinance, until he finally got banned. The point being that even in a case with relatively straightforward facts, it’s not always possible to convince someone. When you get in to more complex topics, it can get harder and harder to make a case based solely on evidence, so at a certain point you almost have to appeal to someone else’s expertise. 

It's only ever used when the theory in question is opposed by scientists with legitimate research and evidence to the contrary, and most especially if it doesn't fit the agenda.

Legitimate according to who? The ability to differentiate between evidence that’s legitimate or not requires a certain amount of expertise in and of itself. I trust most people to meaningfully evaluate climate data about as far as I can throw them, and their ability to determine when someone else has correctly evaluated that data only slightly further.Have you considered that it might be the single digit percentage of scientists opposing conclusions that happen to go against powerful moneyed interests or deeply held religious beliefs that have the agenda? 

I think Michael Crichton did a great job summing it up.

When asking about the practice of science, I find it’s best to consult with actual scientists rather than science fiction writers.


"When asking about the practice of science, I find it’s best to consult with actual scientists rather than science fiction writers."

WOW..

Quite ironic reading this post coming from someone who places their eternal destiny on the writings of one of the best known science fiction writers the world has ever known AND who was also NEVER a Scientist...

This website was invented for the sole purpose of showing the world that he was also a well known writer of Fairytales..

Charlie (The Ape) Darwin... (Naturalist)


"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education)

#9 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 29 November 2017 - 10:11 PM

You would if there were people fool enough to deny those theories. Take a look around for the thread where a guy went to bat for flat earth theory. People argued with him for pages, but were unable to penetrate his shield of bad posting and obstinance, until he finally got banned. The point being that even in a case with relatively straightforward facts, it’s not always possible to convince someone. When you get in to more complex topics, it can get harder and harder to make a case based solely on evidence, so at a certain point you almost have to appeal to someone else’s expertise.


I understand denialism exists, however a flat-earther is one who ignores obvious evidence that even a child can understand. People against evolution are not ignoring any evidence, they are examining it very carefully and offering rebuttals that are very sound scientifically.

Have you considered that it might be the single digit percentage of scientists opposing conclusions that happen to go against powerful moneyed interests or deeply held religious beliefs that have the agenda?


Not really. Majority is where the power is. I see what you mean, though. Big Tobacco would have the world's only scientists trying to refute that smoking is bad. But billions of dollars are on the line. Where's the money for the people here? They aren't shills for any corporation big or small.

When asking about the practice of science, I find it’s best to consult with actual scientists rather than science fiction writers.


Please do. Don't be surprised if your answer is biased. Michael Crichton was a very smart individual, and he wasn't talking about the practice of science, but the politics of it. That's fair game for anyone.

#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 November 2017 - 01:01 AM

If anyone finds any of the below statements to be unsound, untrue, or unscientific, please elaborate.

...... Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.

The American public schools system has nothing at all to do with science excluding supernatural explanations.  The scientific method is incapable of testing for supernatural causes. 

 

Can you give me one scientific experiment for supernatural causation?  I've been asking for decades and no one has ever proposed such an experiment.  One problem is that supernatural events involve the suspension of natural laws.

 

 

For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.

It took all of human history up to about 100 years ago to produce powered flight.  Flight is so much simpler than the chemistry of life....

 

 

“Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.

You correctly point out that abiogenesis concerns the origin of life.  Evolution can not take place until life exists.... but it makes no difference how that life came to be. 

 

Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life, not its origin.  When creationists try to explain the variety of life we observe coming from Noah's Ark in only a few thousand years, they propose evolution on a scale thousands of times faster than anything proposed in science. 

 

The real difference is the extent to which evolution can take place.

 

BTW, with respect to the origin of life, it is my position that all proposals are speculative from a scientific standpoint.   I don't discuss this much because my position regarding macro/micro evolution is in violation of Rule #6.  Also, my knowledge of biology is spotty, at best.

 

The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.

I taught high school biology for five years.  In the textbook I used, the section on evolution was over 100 pages.  The origin of life was covered in two inches.

 

The American public school system teaches mainstream science.

 

 

Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.

Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.

Not all methods rely on initial concentrations and in many cases, there are other means to determine the original mixture.

 

Radiometric dating of rocks on Earth goes as high as 4.4 billion years.

 

 

“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.

The evidence of an ancient universe (billions, not thousands of years old) stands independent of the origin of the universe.



#11 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 30 November 2017 - 08:05 AM

The American public schools system has nothing at all to do with science excluding supernatural explanations. The scientific method is incapable of testing for supernatural causes.

Can you give me one scientific experiment for supernatural causation? I've been asking for decades and no one has ever proposed such an experiment. One problem is that supernatural events involve the suspension of natural laws.


The scientific method can't test anything in the ToE anymore than supernatural causation, but it doesn't stop you from saying it's true.

No I cannot give an experiment that tests the supernatural, but I don't see how supernatural events suspend natural laws.

You correctly point out that abiogenesis concerns the origin of life. Evolution can not take place until life exists.... but it makes no difference how that life came to be.

Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life, not its origin. When creationists try to explain the variety of life we observe coming from Noah's Ark in only a few thousand years, they propose evolution on a scale thousands of times faster than anything proposed in science.


It makes a difference to me and many others, I think. ToE explains the diversity of life, yes? Then in must explain how it became diverse, and that rests on abiogenesis and most especially cell division. If it is unknown how the first cell divided, then the theory itself rests on an unknown, untestable, unrepeatable premise.

As for the flood, don't ask me.

It took all of human history up to about 100 years ago to produce powered flight. Flight is so much simpler than the chemistry of life....


Powered flight, yes. But engines had not been around for that long before it happened. We know flight is possible because birds and insects do it on every habitable place on earth. We can observe it. We had something to go on. What we don't see is life springing up from non-life.

I taught high school biology for five years. In the textbook I used, the section on evolution was over 100 pages. The origin of life was covered in two inches.

The American public school system teaches mainstream science.


Two inches on something that may as well be supernatural. Main stream science is one thing; teaching an untestable theory as fact is another.

The evidence of an ancient universe (billions, not thousands of years old) stands independent of the origin of the universe.


Okay. Evidence of age stands independent of origins. So main stream science can say old universe, but they shouldn't be able to say anything about origins.

#12 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 November 2017 - 07:55 PM

“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.

 

I didn't read through your list, but someone else commented on this one and I had to comment myself because this is simply false.

 

Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for 'missing' mass in galactic rotation, as well as other cosmological structuring that requires much more mass than what is visibly seen. Moreover we can 'map out' where mass is without visually seeing it, and we can tell that there is much more mass in galaxies than can be accounted for with visible matter, and we know whatever this dark matter is it's mostly found in a near sphere surrounding galaxies like a halo. We can rule out black holes and dark stars/planets (MACHOs), and through galaxy collisions we can see that dark matter does not interact via electromagnetism - IOW they are not baryonic matter aka normal atoms that make up planets and stars.

 

Dark Energy was first proposed as a mathematical term (lambda) which was necessary in order to maintain a steady state universe in Einstein's equations. Einstein was big into the steady state model, but the equations showed that the universe cannot be in a steady state and must either be contracting or expanding. Einstein called it his "greatest blunder". In the 1920's observations showed that the universe is expanding, and that this expansion is accelerating, and this was codified in Hubble's Law at the end of the decade. In the early 1930's a Catholic Priest who had worked on Hubble's Law, Georges Lemaitre, proposed that if we turn back time Hubble's Law suggests that the universe started off what we today would call a singularity, and from that proposed a model which became known as the big bang.

 

So you had it backwards; the big bang model was derived from our observation of dark energy's effect (Hubble's Law), not the other way around.



#13 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 30 November 2017 - 10:33 PM

“Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.


I didn't read through your list, but someone else commented on this one and I had to comment myself because this is simply false.

Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for 'missing' mass in galactic rotation, as well as other cosmological structuring that requires much more mass than what is visibly seen. Moreover we can 'map out' where mass is without visually seeing it, and we can tell that there is much more mass in galaxies than can be accounted for with visible matter, and we know whatever this dark matter is it's mostly found in a near sphere surrounding galaxies like a halo. We can rule out black holes and dark stars/planets (MACHOs), and through galaxy collisions we can see that dark matter does not interact via electromagnetism - IOW they are not baryonic matter aka normal atoms that make up planets and stars.

Dark Energy was first proposed as a mathematical term (lambda) which was necessary in order to maintain a steady state universe in Einstein's equations. Einstein was big into the steady state model, but the equations showed that the universe cannot be in a steady state and must either be contracting or expanding. Einstein called it his "greatest blunder". In the 1920's observations showed that the universe is expanding, and that this expansion is accelerating, and this was codified in Hubble's Law at the end of the decade. In the early 1930's a Catholic Priest who had worked on Hubble's Law, Georges Lemaitre, proposed that if we turn back time Hubble's Law suggests that the universe started off what we today would call a singularity, and from that proposed a model which became known as the big bang.

So you had it backwards; the big bang model was derived from our observation of dark energy's effect (Hubble's Law), not the other way around.
"Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory."


"Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for 'missing' mass in galactic rotation, as well as other cosmological structuring that requires much more mass than what is visibly seen"


I have bad news for you Goku.. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME EXACT THING!!!!! Watch out for the deceptive SEMANTICS... They dont play well in Peoria...



"In the early 1930's a Catholic Priest who had worked on Hubble's Law, Georges Lemaitre, proposed that if we turn back time Hubble's Law suggests that the universe started off what we today would call a singularity, and from that proposed a model which became known as the big bang."


I am curious why you would need to mention that Lemaitre (who was an astronomer and a professor of physics BTW) was a "Catholic Priest" INSTEAD..??? I am not sure that I fully understand Atheists obsession with religion.. What on Earth does that fact that old George was an adherent to what many Christians consider to be the "Wxxre Of Babylon"
have to do with ANYTHING?? Shouldn't you have mentioned his height, weight, and hair color while you are at it?

You amuse me sometimes Goku..


"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."

(Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology")

#14 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 30 November 2017 - 11:58 PM

It may be a moot point in any case. BMR is too uniform. Dark matter was postulated to be the cause of the clumpiness. Dark matter is not known to exist. Black holes might not, and if they do they have no event horizon or firewalls as was previously thought.

It probably isn't dark matter, but modified gravity.

So even if the big bang model was derived from the observation of dark energy's effect, or dark matter was postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don't match predictions of the big bang, meh. Same difference, as Blitz pointed out.

#15 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 01 December 2017 - 07:07 AM

I understand the dillema, but in this case I would think based on all of the many failed experiments that creating life in a lab is outside even feasibility.

Based on your use of "outside even feasibility" it seems like you don't actually understand the dilemma.
 

I'm not sure we have a clue how matter originated. Observation of chemical reactions can in no way point to the origin of the chemicals in any case.

Of course it can. Knowing how elements are transformed and what they're made of can point us in the direction of possible origins.

My point though was that plenty of chemistry can proceed without having a full understanding of the origin of matter, just like plenty of biology (including evolution) can proceed without having a full understanding of the origin of life.
 

Why must it suppose such?

That's the only way scientific explanations can work.
 

It had to come from somewhere. It wouldn't be detrimental to science at all to assume a supernatural cause, especially when all concieved natural causes are inconcievable. Assuming a supernatural origin has never held back observation, experimentation, or the furtherment of science. Religion, maybe. But not belief in a supernatural origin. It makes no difference to observable and repeatable endeavors.

You can still get some work done basically considering the origin of life a black box and assuming that nature proceeded consistently from there, but that's not an explanation, that's giving up on finding one and moving on to a different problem.

I don't buy that doing so doesn't hold back furtherment of science. "We don't know where this came from and we never will" has been said about plenty of things where it didn't ultimately hold up.
 

I didn't compose these theses, Popoi. A bunch of scientists did, who I believe are not aligned with any religion. I suspect the law of probability and also entropy, but you could ask them.

Please don't waste everyone's time by posting a bunch of points you didn't write and aren't prepared to discuss.
 

I understand denialism exists, however a flat-earther is one who ignores obvious evidence that even a child can understand. People against evolution are not ignoring any evidence, they are examining it very carefully and offering rebuttals that are very sound scientifically.

Enoch would have said (and I think did say) that's exactly what he was doing. Obviously everyone thinks the objections they're offering are very sound, but that doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.
 

Not really. Majority is where the power is.

Not always. The vast majority of scientists agreeing that climate change is real and largely caused by humans hasn't translated in to policy change because the people responsible for that policy are disproportionately listening to the dissenters.
 

I see what you mean, though. Big Tobacco would have the world's only scientists trying to refute that smoking is bad. But billions of dollars are on the line. Where's the money for the people here? They aren't shills for any corporation big or small.

That's why I included deeply held religious belief in that list. Not that there aren't grifters making money off trying to manufacture a controversy, but for most people denying evolution is about protecting their religious belief.
 

Please do. Don't be surprised if your answer is biased. Michael Crichton was a very smart individual, and he wasn't talking about the practice of science, but the politics of it. That's fair game for anyone.

I didn't say he wasn't smart, but that doesn't inherently gift him with an understanding of how science is done.

If you'd like to see an actual scientist's opinion on the subject: https://medium.com/s...an-618f93c4513b

#16 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 December 2017 - 12:30 PM

I understand the dillema, but in this case I would think based on all of the many failed experiments that creating life in a lab is outside even feasibility.

Based on your use of "outside even feasibility" it seems like you don't actually understand the dilemma. 

I'm not sure we have a clue how matter originated. Observation of chemical reactions can in no way point to the origin of the chemicals in any case.

Of course it can. Knowing how elements are transformed and what they're made of can point us in the direction of possible origins.My point though was that plenty of chemistry can proceed without having a full understanding of the origin of matter, just like plenty of biology (including evolution) can proceed without having a full understanding of the origin of life. 

Why must it suppose such?

That's the only way scientific explanations can work. 

It had to come from somewhere. It wouldn't be detrimental to science at all to assume a supernatural cause, especially when all concieved natural causes are inconcievable. Assuming a supernatural origin has never held back observation, experimentation, or the furtherment of science. Religion, maybe. But not belief in a supernatural origin. It makes no difference to observable and repeatable endeavors.

You can still get some work done basically considering the origin of life a black box and assuming that nature proceeded consistently from there, but that's not an explanation, that's giving up on finding one and moving on to a different problem.I don't buy that doing so doesn't hold back furtherment of science. "We don't know where this came from and we never will" has been said about plenty of things where it didn't ultimately hold up. 

I didn't compose these theses, Popoi. A bunch of scientists did, who I believe are not aligned with any religion. I suspect the law of probability and also entropy, but you could ask them.

Please don't waste everyone's time by posting a bunch of points you didn't write and aren't prepared to discuss. 

I understand denialism exists, however a flat-earther is one who ignores obvious evidence that even a child can understand. People against evolution are not ignoring any evidence, they are examining it very carefully and offering rebuttals that are very sound scientifically.

Enoch would have said (and I think did say) that's exactly what he was doing. Obviously everyone thinks the objections they're offering are very sound, but that doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about. 

Not really. Majority is where the power is.

Not always. The vast majority of scientists agreeing that climate change is real and largely caused by humans hasn't translated in to policy change because the people responsible for that policy are disproportionately listening to the dissenters. 

I see what you mean, though. Big Tobacco would have the world's only scientists trying to refute that smoking is bad. But billions of dollars are on the line. Where's the money for the people here? They aren't shills for any corporation big or small.

That's why I included deeply held religious belief in that list. Not that there aren't grifters making money off trying to manufacture a controversy, but for most people denying evolution is about protecting their religious belief. 

Please do. Don't be surprised if your answer is biased. Michael Crichton was a very smart individual, and he wasn't talking about the practice of science, but the politics of it. That's fair game for anyone.

I didn't say he wasn't smart, but that doesn't inherently gift him with an understanding of how science is done.If you'd like to see an actual scientist's opinion on the subject: https://medium.com/s...an-618f93c4513b


"but for most people denying evolution is about protecting their religious belief."

Interesting... All this time I thought it was just because we didnt believe in fairytales like frogs turning into princes.. Who knew?

So, according to your logic, we deny the existence of Zeus and Thor just so we can "protect our religious belief" LOL

Who said that accidental apes didnt have a sense of humor!

#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 December 2017 - 01:12 PM

 

 

but for most people denying evolution is about protecting their religious belief

 

Which is perfectly acceptable if that belief is true because if God really did create the world as the bible indicates, creating life according to kind then it follows that evolution must be denied, but to be honest there is nothing in evolution theory so strong or powerful that it is particularly difficult to deny. Sure, if there was some formula we had to overcome such as E=MC2 then maybe it would be difficult, but then that type of science isn't argued by majority consensus because the proof is in the pudding, whereas evolution is just a pudding.  :rotfl3: 

 

However just attributing motives where there is no telepathic ability, is hardly scientific. We could also say; "evolution and holding so firmly to it and waffling on only about the subject of science and appealing forever to the science, as to justify evolution by association with all things testably provably factual science, is just about giving atheist belief veracity."

 

In reality there is simply no rational reason to believe mud came alive then later led to giraffes, fleas, bees and cheese, the aforementioned all being related to trees:gotcha: 

 

Give me a reason to believe it? Conjectural excuses for it's forever absence just aren't convincing I'm afraid. Then juxtapose that to what we see in nature, Bombardier beetles and anemone-dart eating slugs, numerous types of viable aerodynamics, and a whole host of biomimetics (plagiarising the designs in nature), the miracles of abscission, photosynthesis, ontogeny and metamorphosis, sentience and consciousness and the conscience and so forth. Whether you like it or not there are plenty of scientific facts, and direct ones, that give us reasons to believe, after all is an eyeball's lens in place on purpose or is it not? obvious reality shows the miraculous all around us, and favours creation, you can appeal to evolution and science but conjectural waffle won't remove the creation from all around us we can directly witness for ourselves.



#18 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 01 December 2017 - 01:55 PM

Which is perfectly acceptable if that belief is true because if God really did create the world as the bible indicates, creating life according to kind then it follows that evolution must be denied, but to be honest there is nothing in evolution theory so strong or powerful that it is particularly difficult to deny.

Acceptable to who? It's possible that the people denying evolution to protect their religion happen to be right, but the question is whether they're correct in their evaluation of the scientific evidence, and whether that evaluation was made honestly as far as whether they'd accept the result if they didn't think it went their way.

Sure, if there was some formula we had to overcome such as E=MC2 then maybe it would be difficult, but then that type of science isn't argued by majority consensus because the proof is in the pudding, whereas evolution is just a pudding.

I'm pretty sure relativity was another thing Enoch denied during his tenure here. There are also some people in this very thread casting doubt parts of astrophysics that are pretty well worked out mathematically. You may consider it more difficult to deny relativity than evolution, but I hear through faith all things are possible.

However just attributing motives where there is no telepathic ability, is hardly scientific. We could also say; "evolution and holding so firmly to it and waffling on only about the subject of science and appealing forever to the science, as to justify evolution by association with all things testably provably factual science, is just about giving atheist belief veracity."

You could, but that puts you back in the awkward position of claiming that the vast majority of experts who disagree with you must be biased. When most people who are educated on a subject disagree with you, it seems like it might be time to consider whether you're as smart or unbiased as you think you are.

Give me a reason to believe it? Conjectural excuses for it's forever absence just aren't convincing I'm afraid.

Really? You seem fine with "we just don't know yet" where it concerns missing evidence for a flood.

#19 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 December 2017 - 02:02 PM

"Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory."



"Dark Matter was hypothesized to account for 'missing' mass in galactic rotation, as well as other cosmological structuring that requires much more mass than what is visibly seen"


I have bad news for you Goku.. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME EXACT THING!!!!! Watch out for the deceptive SEMANTICS... They dont play well in Peoria...

 

What is the same exact thing? I honestly do not know what you are talking about; I have two guesses in my head but I don't know if either one is close to being right.

 

"In the early 1930's a Catholic Priest who had worked on Hubble's Law, Georges Lemaitre, proposed that if we turn back time Hubble's Law suggests that the universe started off what we today would call a singularity, and from that proposed a model which became known as the big bang."



I am curious why you would need to mention that Lemaitre (who was an astronomer and a professor of physics BTW) was a "Catholic Priest" INSTEAD..??? I am not sure that I fully understand Atheists obsession with religion.. What on Earth does that fact that old George was an adherent to what many Christians consider to be the "Wxxre Of Babylon"
have to do with ANYTHING?? Shouldn't you have mentioned his height, weight, and hair color while you are at it?

You amuse me sometimes Goku..

 

Obviously one of the core underlying themes is that evolution and all that creationists associate with it, which includes big bang, are some kind of atheistic plot. If the first person to postulate what we would recognize as the big bang was a Christian (even if you disagree with the specific sect) that helps neutralize the creationist conspiracy theory.

 

I know all about the Protestant animosity towards Catholicism; apart from the history itself which has a motif of Catholics being worse than savages/pagans (and vice versa), when I was growing up I was told that when the Antichrist comes it will be one of the Popes, and that the Pope's crown had 666 jewels in it which was the mark of the beast. However, I was not aware your hatred of Catholics would give you tunnel vision at the mere mention of them.

 

I also mentioned that he worked on formulating Hubble's Law, which would imply that he is an astronomer/physicist. What's curious is that you took two words from my post, which are irrelevant apart from the above explanation of neutralizing the creationist conspiracy theory, and comment on that rather than anything else.



#20 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 01 December 2017 - 03:16 PM

 Based on your use of "outside even feasibility" it seems like you don't actually understand the dilemma.

 

The dilemma is obvious. Creating powered aircraft was impossible at some point, but quite feasible. They had a lot to work with, you see. Wind, gravity, aerodynamics, thrust, etc. Al those things can be tinkered with, and we saw that birds can do it. It isn't feasible to create life from non-life because there is nothing to go on. It's never been observed. Cloning at one point was impossible, but feasible because we observe that life does indeed come from life, and there are tangible things to work with such as DNA and reproductive systems.

 

 

You can still get some work done basically considering the origin of life a black box and assuming that nature proceeded consistently from there, but that's not an explanation, that's giving up on finding one and moving on to a different problem. I don't buy that doing so doesn't hold back furtherment of science. "We don't know where this came from and we never will" has been said about plenty of things where it didn't ultimately hold up.

 

The furtherment of science is based on many things, and speculation certainly has its place. Speculation is fine, only it's then that the theories proposed have to be put to the test. Observing a phenomenon and saying "this is how it must have happened" is no good unless it is proven through repeatable experiments that it is indeed how it happened. Using this method, we have unraveled many great mysteries. Like gravity. 

 

 

Please don't waste everyone's time by posting a bunch of points you didn't write and aren't prepared to discuss.

 

This one was an oversight on my part. You get a free pass. 

 

 

Enoch would have said (and I think did say) that's exactly what he was doing. Obviously everyone thinks the objections they're offering are very sound, but that doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about.

 

It sounds like the chap was ignoring evidence that wouldn't have been ignored by anyone on either side of the ToE vs Creation debate. If you could provide some specific laws being ignored here, either physical or scientific, that would be helpful.

 

 

That's why I included deeply held religious belief in that list. Not that there aren't grifters making money off trying to manufacture a controversy, but for most people denying evolution is about protecting their religious belief.

 

 

Science should be objective, and shouldn't care at all what anyone else thinks or why they think it. Objections should be welcome, and if the theory being defended is sound, should be able to disprove the opposition with ease, as was done in the case of Enoch. However, so many topics and questions here leave the evolutionists speechless.

 

 

 

Not always. The vast majority of scientists agreeing that climate change is real and largely caused by humans hasn't translated in to policy change because the people responsible for that policy are disproportionately listening to the dissenters.

 

 

If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. "Vast majority of scientists" means absolutely nothing to me, nor should it mean anything to anyone. 

 

Can you guess the percentage of scientists that all agreed that Neanderthal was our ancestor? How about that vast majority of scientists that agreed that Piltdown man was? How about the overwhelming consensus that we had knuckle-walkers in our ancestry? Or the consensus of eugenics and the ensuing tragedy caused by political action based on it?

 

Science is a continual process which is rarely conclusive. I thought people understood that. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users