Jump to content


Photo

Our Science


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

#1 evolution_false

evolution_false

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Location: At the keyboard

Posted 14 June 2005 - 04:02 PM

This is in a Creationist's view, but i think it will help both the evolutionists and creationists understand each other a bit more.

Our science alone cannot end the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists, for either of us can be questioned without us being able to answer scientifically. In the Bible, it said that God Himself set the "physical rules" and sustains them. So obviously, our science can only explain things within the boundaries of the "physical rules". God sometimes works outside the boundaries of the "physical rules" (known to us as miracles), and those are the things in which our science cannot explain. In Biblical Creation, God worked outside the physical boundaries, and thus we Creationists cannot explain the Creationism through science.

This i belive is a reason why we do not give up our beliefs, because to us Creationism can never truly be proven false scientifically. But since we have very little scientifical proofs, evolutionists cannot accept Creationism.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 June 2005 - 07:11 PM

This is in a Creationist's view, but i think it will help both the evolutionists and creationists understand each other a bit more.

Our science alone cannot end the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists, for either of us can be questioned without us being able to answer scientifically. In the Bible, it said that God Himself set the "physical rules" and sustains them. So obviously, our science can only explain things within the boundaries of the "physical rules". God sometimes works outside the boundaries of the "physical rules" (known to us as miracles), and those are the things in which our science cannot explain. In Biblical Creation, God worked outside the physical boundaries, and thus we Creationists cannot explain the Creationism through science.

This i belive is a reason why we do not give up our beliefs, because to us Creationism can never truly be proven false scientifically. But since we have very little scientifical proofs, evolutionists cannot accept Creationism.

View Post


In principle I agree with your sentiments.

If you can separate your faith from science I see no problems at all.

Where the problems manifest, is in the claims creation sciences make, i.e. science is wrong when it comes to matters of origins (human, plant, animal, and universe).

Science is indifferent to religion (any religion), sadly this principle is not reciprocated by creationists.

#3 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 15 June 2005 - 08:32 AM

This i belive is a reason why we do not give up our beliefs, because to us Creationism can never truly be proven false scientifically. But since we have very little scientifical proofs, evolutionists cannot accept Creationism.

View Post


Like Chance said, I agree with your sentiments. However, I would disagree with the paragraph above. Creationism can be, and has been falsified by science. However, this does not mean creationism is false in a philosophical or theological sense. The area where science can not go is the realm of philosophy and theology, the realms where miracles, divine providence, and supernatural acts can be considered. Creationism can never be shown to be false within philosophy and theology, with that I will agree.

#4 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:20 AM

Like Chance said, I agree with your sentiments.  However, I would disagree with the paragraph above.  Creationism can be, and has been falsified by science.  However, this does not mean creationism is false in a philosophical or theological sense.  The area where science can not go is the realm of philosophy and theology, the realms where miracles, divine providence, and supernatural acts can be considered.  Creationism can never be shown to be false within philosophy and theology, with that I will agree.

View Post

:) True but evolution can never be made false either.[also]It to goes into philosophical and theological realms.And both are a matter of Faith.

#5 Mariner Fan

Mariner Fan

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Great Northwest

Posted 15 June 2005 - 12:22 PM

:) True but evolution can never be made false either.[also]It to goes into philosophical and theological realms.And both are a matter of Faith.

View Post


It can be made false. All you need to do is find a half bird-half mammal fossil species. According to the theory of evolution this should impossible. You could also falsify evolution by showing patterns of ERV insertion that violate the nested hierarchy produced from the fossil record. There are many ways to falsify the theory of evolution. There are no ways to falsify the actions of a deity who can do anything at anytime, including (as one thread talks about) a universe with every appearance of age.

[Evolution] to goes into philosophical and theological realms.And both are a matter of Faith.


This is what many creationists claim but I have yet been shown where those philosophical and theological realms are involved. And how can something be a matter of faith when it is considered tentative and built upon physical evidence? Faith, to me, is the opposite; something that is believed in the absence of physical evidence and considered to be absolute truth.

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2005 - 02:10 PM

:) True but evolution can never be made false either.[also]It to goes into philosophical and theological realms.And both are a matter of Faith.

View Post


You are incorrect, find an out of sequence fossil.

#7 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:37 AM

It can be made false.  All you need to do is find a half bird-half mammal fossil species.  According to the theory of evolution this should impossible.  You could also falsify evolution by showing patterns of ERV insertion that violate the nested hierarchy produced from the fossil record.  There are many ways to falsify the theory of evolution.  There are no ways to falsify the actions of a deity who can do anything at anytime, including (as one thread talks about) a universe with every appearance of age.
This is what many creationists claim but I have yet been shown where those philosophical and theological realms are involved.  And how can something be a matter of faith when it is considered tentative and built upon physical evidence?  Faith, to me, is the opposite; something that is believed in the absence of physical evidence and considered to be absolute truth.

View Post

First point-no it is bad for neo-darwinism not punctuated equilibrium.
Second point-really look hereGod evolution religious articleand again hereagain philosophy and THEOLOGYand who can forget the NCSE giving 'pamplets' to churches for the pbs evolution series

#8 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 16 June 2005 - 10:49 AM

You are incorrect, find an out of sequence fossil.

View Post

That would not,this is what they might say the,'times for fossilization are rare'

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 June 2005 - 01:44 PM

That would not,this is what they might say the,'times for fossilization are rare'

View Post


Rarity, has nothing to do with it, if you find a human skull in the Jurassic of Dinosaur in the Devonian – that is what an out of sequence fossil is.

#10 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:21 AM

Rarity, has nothing to do with it, if you find a human skull in the Jurassic of Dinosaur in the Devonian – that is what an out of sequence fossil is.

View Post

well let me re-phrase That would not,this is what they might say the,'times for fossilization are rare'[i am not talking about the whole column only sections and if there was a human skull the would say we evolved faster

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 01:56 PM

well let me re-phrase That would not,this is what they might say the,'times for fossilization are rare'[i am not talking about the whole column only sections and if there was a human skull the would say we evolved faster

View Post

That still would not help, the speed of evolution can’t work miracles like evolving a human from an ameboma. So if a human skull was found in the Jurassic, that would be a monumental problem for evolution, but I am confident that will never happen (for any organism) because life cant make those sort of jumps.

#12 shepherdmoon

shepherdmoon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Virginia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 02:04 PM

That still would not help, the speed of evolution can’t work miracles like evolving a human from an ameboma. So if a human skull was found in the Jurassic, that would be a monumental problem for evolution, but I am confident that will never happen (for any organism) because life cant make those sort of jumps.

View Post

well you are only saying NDT,andthat speed would make the PE's[punctuated equilibrium]very happy. :)

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 June 2005 - 02:20 PM

well you are only saying NDT,andthat speed would make the PE's[punctuated equilibrium]very happy. :)

View Post


NDT?

Depends upon how you define punctuated equilibrium. As a record in the fossil strata one might be lead to that conclusion, but you need a theory to back up PE as well as just interpret the observations. E.g.

You might define PE as ‘weak punctuated equilibrium’ in which case you are stating that life is more or less stable then undergoes ‘rapid’ changes then stabilises again, in which case it compatible with evolution.

But if you defining PE as life just ‘pining into existence’ at point X, then you will need a mechanism to explain that.

#14 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 20 June 2005 - 08:01 PM

There are no ways to falsify the actions of a deity who can do anything at anytime, including (as one thread talks about) a universe with every appearance of age.


True; but the Bible doesn't teach that such a deity exists. God may not be a "tame lion" (as C. S. Lewis put it in the Chronicles of Narnia), but that doesn't mean that He can go against his nature. To say that God could do anything at anytime would mean that He could go against his own promises, which would mean that we would have no reason to trust Him.

#15 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:18 PM

Will science alone be able to end EvC?


Yes, science will end this debate eventually. The process has already started.

1. Evolution: This theory is already started to be disproven. I can state two examples. I don't know when these experiments occured but when scientists looked at the fruit fly and saw genetic mutations such as the 4 wings on some of them rather than two, they noticed they can't fly or use their mutation to any advantage. Also, people state that when bacteria and viruses develop a mutation so that they are resistent to drugs, they consider that a evolutionary advantage. Not so. These two examples eventually get phased out when these creatures reproduce. The "resistant" virus or bacteria is just a genetic mutation from the original design (note I use the term "original design") and eventually die out.

Also, on certain one-celled organisms (I forgot which ones) there is a tail with a motor
at the end to assist in mobility. If these organisms evolved from a primorial soup, how can something as complex as a motor be created from random evolution from "soup"? It can't. Someone had to create and design that motor.

For creationism, there are 2 type of designers to consider.

1. Supernatural Creation: Most people who believe in creationism state that God created all life on Earth. But God can't be proven or replicated in a laboratory (just like evolution). What exactly is God? The supernatural can't be shown in a lab because everything has a rational and scientific explanation. The supernatural and mystical doesn't exist.

2. Scientific Creation: This is the one we can prove. Scientists now are starting to create life by scratch in labs. It shows that new life can't evolve randomly but must be manipulated by people with scientific knowledge (the genetic engineers and scientists.) Right now, scientists are just starting to clone animals and people, more proof that science is what creates new life. Then the question arises: Who created all life on Earth. The anwser: scientists from another planet created all life on Earth, including us.

#16 john_many_jars

john_many_jars

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 31
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • champaign il

Posted 21 June 2005 - 03:04 PM

There are a liberal amount of absolutes in your post Raelian1.

For instance, your first point 1) relies on your belief that you know how evolution (a highly inefficient and ill-conditioned) process will evaluate a particular species. I don't know if I like feel comfortable with you as the final arbiter of what is good or bad for a particular species as well as someone who can always predict the result of a chaotic cycle.

As science teaches, we cannot judge but only observe. Processes once thought wholy detrimental, like forest fires, have very complex, subtle, and difficult to predict effects.

In the short term, chaotic problem solvers may (and do, quite often) evaluate less than optimal solution candidates. In the long term, they may not ever converge to anything desirable by you, me, or anyone else. In the case of evolution, it is foolhardy to assume that 1) anyone has any idea what evolution is trying to accomplish and 2) anyone has any idea which direction it should head. Evolution is merely a mechanism, a means, and not an end.



For your second point 1), please read Rene Descartes and then tell me what existence is. To assume that you or I know a complete definition of existence is a bit premature. For instance, hunger exists. But what about hunger makes it exist? Point to hunger.

And your point 2) only proves that life can be created in a lab by intelligent scientists.

#17 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:14 PM

Raelian1:

You list supernatural creation and creation by scientists as two possibilities as to what created life. You say that scientists from other planets must have created the life on earth. Unless these scientists possess infinite intelligence (which means that they are supernatural, as nature is finite) who or what created them?

#18 Raelian1

Raelian1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 21 June 2005 - 08:08 PM

Raelian1:

You list supernatural creation and creation by scientists as two possibilities as to what created life. You say that scientists from other planets must have created the life on earth. Unless these scientists possess infinite intelligence (which means that they are supernatural, as nature is finite) who or what created them?

View Post


These scientists are not supernatural, nor do they have infinite intelligence. They are people just like us. They were created by other scientists from another planet and these people were also created by other scientists from another planet and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. If we don't destroy ourselves, we too will be creating life on other planets including intelligent humans just like us.

#19 Faith and Reason

Faith and Reason

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Interests:Birdwatching, violin, piano, philosophy, languages
  • Age: 14
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota

Posted 21 June 2005 - 08:10 PM

These scientists are not supernatural, nor do they have infinite intelligence. They are people just like us. They were created by other scientists from another planet and these people were also created by other scientists from another planet and so on, ad infinitum. This is an infinite process. If we don't destroy ourselves, we too will be creating life on other planets including intelligent humans just like us.

View Post


But you can't have an infinite number of finite things, or else the things wouldn't be finite.

#20 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:22 PM

Please ignore posts from raelian.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users