Evolution & Creationism Debate at Museum

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

It scares me to know that ours is the only first-world nation in which the majority of people still deny evolution as fact.

Um, fact? I've never heard of a scientific fact. What's that?

I've heard of a scientific hypothesis, a scientific model, a scientific theory, and a scientific law, but never a scientific fact.

I believe you meant to say "a priori commitment to the theory of evolution."

That is more accurate, just like I have an "a priori commitment to creationism."

Origins as a whole is not empirical science, you cannot test evolution or creation as a whole, only parts. It is instead a historical science, in which models are developed and tests are run on various elements. You cannot "prove" anything with this, only guess at what might have happened with a degree of probability.

[11_Panama_]

I said this in a different thread. It pertained to this subject, so I'm going to say it again (not verbatim) . Our science is studies of the natural world, not the supernatural, and that's what God is. Creation would fall into that category. Not saying science couldn't study it.. just saying today's science isn't able yet.

By the way, my understanding about Evolution is that it's a theory, it has not been proven also.

[Yanoda]

By the way, my understanding about Evolution is that it's a theory, it has not been proven also.

Scientific Theory and theory in non-scientific terms are different.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
&
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

In essence, evolution has been observed, repeatedly tested and widely accepted as a valid explanation on how life works and the vast amount of species in our world (both living and extinct), and how to combat bacteria & viruses in the medical field (remember how bacteria get resistant from antibiotics, this is a process of evolution).

Cheers

[[NH]Shadow]

By the way, my understanding about Evolution is that it's a theory, it has not been proven also.

Scientific Theory and theory in non-scientific terms are different.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
&
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

In essence, evolution has been observed, repeatedly tested and widely accepted as a valid explanation on how life works and the vast amount of species in our world (both living and extinct), and how to combat bacteria & viruses in the medical field (remember how bacteria get resistant from antibiotics, this is a process of evolution).

Cheers

But seriously: Evolution is a theory. To "prove" a theory, you need evidence, which in this case would need to be "the missing link". Not just one "missing link", but a myriad of links between classes of animal life (mammals, amphibians, primates...). Beside the missing link, there are other areas of evidence that need to be proved, which I'll go into later, if I feel the occasion to make another post on this thread. Also; you can't prove that God doesn't exist. There's no scientific evidence against God's existence, but there's a heck of a lot of evidence for it. For example: The giraffe. An animal with a 10-foot long neck has to have a super-powerful heart to propel blood to its brain. But, when the giraffe bends over (to drink), the blood from its heart, aided by gravity, would shoot into its brain, killing it. So, it "evolved" (or was created with) a blood filter in front of its brain, acting like a sponge, and preventing the sudden blood flow from killing the giraffe instantly. This is just one of a myriad of examples.

[Duel of Fates]

Thank God I made that New Year resolution.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

I said this in a different thread. It pertained to this subject, so I'm going to say it again (not verbatim) . Our science is studies of the natural world, not the supernatural, and that's what God is. Creation would fall into that category. Not saying science couldn't study it.. just saying today's science isn't able yet.

By the way, my understanding about Evolution is that it's a theory, it has not been proven also.

That is the theory of naturalism if I understand it correctly, and it claims to only study the material.

That is all well and good, but the problem is then how do you explain where nonmaterial things came from (laws of the universe, logic, thought, etc)? Those are also outside the realm of science, so you can't study those either (metaphysically speaking).

Both creationism and evolution have scientific components that can be tested, and both have been constructed in such a manner as to fit the evidence available. In cases where they don't work, the theory is changed, not discarded.

However, evolution has major problems, first off, no one has ever demonstrated a mutation that adds information. Ever. That is kind of critical when the whole theory rests upon the assumption that life evolved via that very mechanism. Bacterial resistance and other changes are all the result of the loss of information (i.e. loss of receptors for a certain compound that kills them, etc).

Creationists will be the first to agree that microevolution occurs. It has indeed been demonstrated to happen all the time, however, again, this never, ever involves the addition of information. Actually, this is another problem: where did information come from? It is also nonmaterial, can material things produce nonmaterial things? No one has ever demonstrated a process that generates information from noninformation.

Therefore, speaking philosophically, both views are historical theories with scientifically testable components, but in the end it comes down to personal beliefs. You have to take a leap of faith for either view.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

But seriously: Evolution is a theory. To "prove" a theory, you need evidence, which in this case would need to be "the missing link". Not just one "missing link", but a myriad of links between classes of animal life (mammals, amphibians, primates...). Beside the missing link, there are other areas of evidence that need to be proved, which I'll go into later, if I feel the occasion to make another post on this thread. Also; you can't prove that God doesn't exist. There's no scientific evidence against God's existence, but there's a heck of a lot of evidence for it. For example: The giraffe. An animal with a 10-foot long neck has to have a super-powerful heart to propel blood to its brain. But, when the giraffe bends over (to drink), the blood from its heart, aided by gravity, would shoot into its brain, killing it. So, it "evolved" (or was created with) a blood filter in front of its brain, acting like a sponge, and preventing the sudden blood flow from killing the giraffe instantly. This is just one of a myriad of examples.

There is no need to prove a negative - if you make a claim, (i.e. "God [my version of god] exists.") and you then purport we shape public policy on the idea, you need evidence. And, by the way, the existence of a giraffe does not constitute evidence - Check here

[Hobo]

Kens response video was pretty stupid, I can't imagine bill having a hard time with him. whenever people argue for creationism I just want to close my ears and scream.

[(SWGO)DesertEagle]

Kens response video was pretty stupid, I can't imagine bill having a hard time with him. whenever people argue for creationism I just want to close my ears and scream.

What your problem with creationism? Not being antagonistic, just curious.

In anticipation of the answer, please list one practical scientific advance that depends on evolution (i.e. could not have occured if a creationist had been doing the research). I hear all the time about how "creationists will ruin science," but no one ever bothers explaining how.

There is no need to prove a negative - if you make a claim, (i.e. "God [my version of god] exists.") and you then purport we shape public policy on the idea, you need evidence. And, by the way, the existence of a giraffe does not constitute evidence - Check here

There is plenty of evidence for creation, it's the same evidence used for evolution in many cases, just interpreted differently. Please don't mischaracterize creationism as a position with no support. There are plenty of reputable scientists who not only believe it but do research in it (check out http://www.icr.org/). For example, there is the hot field of Flood geology. Did you know that you can more easily explain the current composition and condition of the earth via Noah's Flood? That is our explanation of why the earth appears so old: giant flood = jumble up fossils (that's why birds often appear above larger animals, they managed to escape the flood for longer) + leach out radioisotopes.

By the way, large parts of the earth have been determined to have been under water at one time or another, which makes sense.

Now here are some problems for an old earth, which evolution requires: explain how you can have carbon-14 in a several million year old diamond? Also, explain how rocks from the recent Mt. St. Helens eruption date to several million years old? The answer the scientific community gives is that the methods were incorrectly applied, except for the small problem that the analysis was performed by an independant lab that didn't know the motive behind the research. Interesting how it magically must be invalid because it contradicts current opinion.

Oh, here's the kicker: explain polystrate fossils (i.e. trees that were fossilized and extend thru layers of strata dating millions of years apart).

It's not an old earth, it's flawed assumptions.

[Sketchup]

If evolutionary theory was entirely free from error, then there would be unequally developed humans. By necessity, a belief in evolution requires belief in Social Darwinism. Congratulations, you are now a proponent of imperialism, racial cleansing, and a variety of other lovely policies. Just another reason why mainstream liberalism is paradoxical at best.