Jump to content


Photo

Science @ Work


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

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 December 2009 - 08:31 AM

I thought this would be a great video to segue into a discussion ranking evolution as a working science assuming it is one:

[godtube]7d83a17ea033cedfc94b[/godtube]

Isn't that a great example of science actually at work? Now the question is this; where does evolution fall on the scientific scale of being able to be put to work. Please be careful to recognize an ad hoc hypothesis before posting answers, evolutionists. Also, please remember that micro-evolution is not the point of contention but the assumption that evolution accounts for all life from a single source is.

This thread is meant to tie the hands of creationists. We're all going to assume that evolution resides on a scientific scale, whether it does or not. Now the question is where does it fall? Would it be above or below physics? Would it be above or below meteorology? Let the video be your guide. The loop-the-loop car stunt is a perfect example of testing and verifying knowledge regarding physics. Now translate that into the predictive power of evolution...

#2 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 29 December 2009 - 11:50 AM

I thought this would be a great video to segue into a discussion ranking evolution as a working science assuming it is one:

[godtube]7d83a17ea033cedfc94b[/godtube]

Isn't that a great example of science actually at work? Now the question is this; where does evolution fall on the scientific scale of being able to be put to work. Please be careful to recognize an ad hoc hypothesis before posting answers, evolutionists. Also, please remember that micro-evolution is not the point of contention but the assumption that evolution accounts for all life from a single source is.

This thread is meant to tie the hands of creationists. We're all going to assume that evolution resides on a scientific scale, whether it does or not. Now the question is where does it fall? Would it be above or below physics? Would it be above or below meteorology? Let the video be your guide. The loop-the-loop car stunt is a perfect example of testing and verifying knowledge regarding physics. Now translate that into the predictive power of evolution...

View Post



I first need to say that this is an awesome video!!!!!!!!!!!

As far as your OP that is another matter. (not that it isn't a good question, but I have an issue with it in general)

Are you looking for predictive evidence to show a common ancestor? Or are you looking for evidence that shows scientists using evolution to get things done?

As far as on a given scale on ow predictive a science is I think the ability to predict things is based on how well we understand the science. Such as with physics, we know enough about it to figure out how fast a car needs to travel to safely go around a loop, but do we know enough about meteorology to know that a butterfly taking off in the Sudan couldn't possibly be responsible to the tornado in Kansas?

Sorry about the questions first! But at least I started to answer what I thought the OP was B)

#3 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 December 2009 - 03:10 PM

On a scale of predictive power one would have to put evolution below classical physics (the predictions of quantum physics deal with probabilities). The long-term processes of natural history such as geology and evolution lend themselves less readily to experiment and we don't yet have other "Earths" to observe as compared to the study of stars or galaxies.

The hands of the evolutionist are somewhat tied as we can't be seen to equivocate on the meaning of evolution. Linked is an interview with a biologist discussing the applications of evolution. He describes observing the distribution of extant species from a common ancestor as a factor in conservation as well as topics such as forensics and evolutionary-based strategies for using antibiotics or treating HIV (that you may consider micro-evolution).

http://www.actionbio.../pigliucci.html

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 01 January 2010 - 02:09 PM

The hands of the evolutionist are somewhat tied as we can't be seen to equivocate on the meaning of evolution.

View Post


That's because equivocation, like macro, is not science. The evolutionists hands are only tied by their not being allowed to equivocate, not on the empirical scientific method. Therefore, it matters not that if an individual is allowed to equivocate, or pontificate in the muddy mire of speculation elsewhere.

#5 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 January 2010 - 07:42 PM

Ron, I agree that equivocating over terms is not fruitful for discussion. I would politely disagree with your comment that macro-evolution does not conform to the empirical method. The hypothesis that observed speciation can account for all biological diversity is upheld when tested against patterns of phylogenetic data (including telling sequences of homologous pseudogenes) and successfully predicts the chronological order of fossil distribution. [I am assuming an “old Earth” and the possibility of abiogenesis.]

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 13 February 2010 - 12:14 PM

Ron, I agree that equivocating over terms is not fruitful for discussion.  I would politely disagree with your comment that macro-evolution does not conform to the empirical method.  The hypothesis that observed speciation can account for all biological diversity is upheld when tested against patterns of phylogenetic data (including telling sequences of homologous pseudogenes) and successfully predicts the chronological order of fossil distribution. [I am assuming an “old Earth” and the possibility of abiogenesis.]

View Post

Which, is obviously based then, solely on faith...

#7 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 February 2010 - 03:04 PM

Which, is obviously based then, solely on faith...

View Post


How is my argument for macroevolution "obviously based solely on faith"? It is reasoned from evidence. I assume the radiometrically dated age of the Earth as there is no significant disagreement amongst the specialists and the possibility of abiogenesis as I am not aware of anything prohibiting the natural emergence of an autocatalytic molecular process.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users