Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Human wisdom didn't create flight, but it can now explain how it's done.
and
Effects are often greater than the cause. Note the biblical analogy of the mustard seed. Water won't freeze if it's pure, but one tiny dust particle makes it freeze instantly.
and
Effects are often greater than the cause. Note the biblical analogy of the mustard seed. Water won't freeze if it's pure, but one tiny dust particle makes it freeze instantly.
SG: Water won't freeze if it's pure, but one tiny dust particle makes it freeze instantly.
Woody: I assume you are talking about snow flakes. The real cause is the ambient temperature and the relative humidity of the air. One snow flake or even all snow flakes combined are less than the humidity that is available. No process is 100% efficient. Dust particles provide a medium to help accelerate the process, but in the absense of humidity and subfreezing temperature, there is no effect.
SG: Note the biblical analogy of the mustard seed.
Woody: The seed came from a tree, hence a chicken and egg argument. Creationist say the chicken came first (cause) . Evolutionists say the egg came first (effect).
SG: Human wisdom didn't create flight, but it can now explain how it's done.
Woody: I assume you mean flight as in aircraft. Human intelligence can figure out a lot of things and then witness the effect of it. Human intelligence can analyze cause and effect when the data is available.
Woody: I assume you are talking about snow flakes. The real cause is the ambient temperature and the relative humidity of the air. One snow flake or even all snow flakes combined are less than the humidity that is available. No process is 100% efficient. Dust particles provide a medium to help accelerate the process, but in the absense of humidity and subfreezing temperature, there is no effect.
SG: Note the biblical analogy of the mustard seed.
Woody: The seed came from a tree, hence a chicken and egg argument. Creationist say the chicken came first (cause) . Evolutionists say the egg came first (effect).
SG: Human wisdom didn't create flight, but it can now explain how it's done.
Woody: I assume you mean flight as in aircraft. Human intelligence can figure out a lot of things and then witness the effect of it. Human intelligence can analyze cause and effect when the data is available.
note, off topic:Yorda said:
Plants do have sexes, and mushrooms aren't plants. Female pot plants, for instance, are the ones that produce buds. The males only produce flowers.
Obviously Christian scientists will find a way to deem creation to be the most rational explanation of the universe, because otherwise they would have to give up their precious beliefs, and any doubt along these lines is forbidden (and even the work of satan). Christians are only logical to a certain point. They can't deny the power of the scientific method to find things out, it's the driving force behind modern civilization. They seem to want to cloak their beliefs in a scientific aura to give them some credibility, to adapt to the modern age, but it's going to take more than that.
I think you mean, can I suggest a scientific study which uses the scientific method to discover a fact about evolution? Because, I am not a scientist, and I don't need to use the scientific method to relate scientific findings. All modern peer-reviewed studies of a scientific nature use the scientific method:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
It would be unnecessarily tedious to list specific instances of these studies, there are thousands of them, but I could suggest how it might go.
1. Observation of species of finch found on one island and no other.
2. Hypothesis, finches are born with a variety of traits, some of which are more beneficial in certain conditions, and these animals survive better to pass on their traits to offspring. The result is, the birds gradually adapt to the particular conditions of an island, rather than being designed for that island.
3. Predictions: Finches adapted to one island's conditions will change to suit another if moved there.
4. Genetic testing of finches in an island group prove that they all descended from a few ancestors, despite having evolved radically different beak styles to suit their own island's conditions.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
It would be unnecessarily tedious to list specific instances of these studies, there are thousands of them, but I could suggest how it might go.
1. Observation of species of finch found on one island and no other.
2. Hypothesis, finches are born with a variety of traits, some of which are more beneficial in certain conditions, and these animals survive better to pass on their traits to offspring. The result is, the birds gradually adapt to the particular conditions of an island, rather than being designed for that island.
3. Predictions: Finches adapted to one island's conditions will change to suit another if moved there.
4. Genetic testing of finches in an island group prove that they all descended from a few ancestors, despite having evolved radically different beak styles to suit their own island's conditions.
S/G said:
So How was this demonstrated? The before condition and the after condition are needed. As I said before, even creationists will agree speciation can occur.
Now I have a question for you: Why hasn't speciation occured within the canines, given they have been around for millions of years? We have coyotes, wolves and foxes in america, australian dingo in australia, various types of mutts and pure bred dogs around the world. Why don't they speciate, given the time they've had to do it?
I'm waiting for an answer.
So How was this demonstrated? The before condition and the after condition are needed. As I said before, even creationists will agree speciation can occur.
Now I have a question for you: Why hasn't speciation occured within the canines, given they have been around for millions of years? We have coyotes, wolves and foxes in america, australian dingo in australia, various types of mutts and pure bred dogs around the world. Why don't they speciate, given the time they've had to do it?
I'm waiting for an answer.
Well, Darwin was able to hypothesize without being able to conduct a test, since with birds, there just isn't much time. Later experiments involve fruit flies with short lifespans. I believe I referenced an fruit-fly experiment for you that demonstrated speciation.
Coyotes, wolves, and foxes and dogs are all different species. The various types of dogs haven't speciated, since their domestication is relatively recent.
Coyotes, wolves, and foxes and dogs are all different species. The various types of dogs haven't speciated, since their domestication is relatively recent.
Modern tests of genetics serve the purpose of experimental testing now. They can look for specific markers that show the relationship between species.
There have been studies on darwin's finches. These show that the beak length can vary even from year to year. In drought years, some kinds of beaks do better, and there are more of those birds. In other years, other beaks sizes and shapes do better, and there are more of those, so environmental forces keep a kind of balance. But, if there are consistantly drought or wet years for a long time, only those birds with beaks adapted to those conditions will prosper.
There have been studies on darwin's finches. These show that the beak length can vary even from year to year. In drought years, some kinds of beaks do better, and there are more of those birds. In other years, other beaks sizes and shapes do better, and there are more of those, so environmental forces keep a kind of balance. But, if there are consistantly drought or wet years for a long time, only those birds with beaks adapted to those conditions will prosper.
Last edited:
Why on Earth do you think emotions are somehow "not Darwinian"- whatever that is?
Darwin would suggest that emotions serve a real survival need, we don't see biting flies as beautiful, (usually). Beautiful conditions are those that are human friendly, and suggest bountiful food, and space so we can see when predators are coming.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=269
Well if LEGAL authorities recognize the validity...
Don't think for yourself
If LEGAL authorities recognize the validity.
I'm sorry I can not even continue with this post. The whole premise of the argument is so absurd that I hope no one in this of all forums would be susceptible.
Throckmorton
Registered Senior Member
"Well if LEGAL authorities recognize the validity..."
I was an agnostic until I read that!...Just kidding.
"when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact"
I came in late to this discussion. What evidence is available for the existance of God? I assume since we're talking about "God", as opposed to "god" there is evidence that shows that the God of the Bible is a fact?
I'm very curious about this evidence.
I was an agnostic until I read that!...Just kidding.
"when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact"
I came in late to this discussion. What evidence is available for the existance of God? I assume since we're talking about "God", as opposed to "god" there is evidence that shows that the God of the Bible is a fact?
I'm very curious about this evidence.
Woody: They can't deny the power of the scientific method to find things out, it's the driving force behind modern civilization.
Can you demonstrate evolution using the scientific method?
*************
M*W: Can you use the power of scientific method to prove God?
Also, when do you plan to answer my question about your mistaken identity of Pope JPII's edict about the Inquisition in 1962? I'm still waiting. If it was a mistake, just admit that you were wrong -- or are you too proud?
Can you demonstrate evolution using the scientific method?
*************
M*W: Can you use the power of scientific method to prove God?
Also, when do you plan to answer my question about your mistaken identity of Pope JPII's edict about the Inquisition in 1962? I'm still waiting. If it was a mistake, just admit that you were wrong -- or are you too proud?
MW: Also, when do you plan to answer my question about your mistaken identity of Pope JPII's edict about the Inquisition in 1962? I'm still waiting. If it was a mistake, just admit that you were wrong -- or are you too proud?
Woody: No, I already explained that one MW. I guess you weren't listening. The edict to end the inquisition came from the Council in the 1962 to 1965 time frame. Why are we going over that one again? JPII wasn't there at the time. So my memory isn't perfect -- Is yours? Big Deal! The original point I made was about the duration of the Grand Inquisition -- I thought it ended in 1965 and then you tell me it never ended. OK then, it's even worse than I thought, and you make my point for me.
M*W: Can you use the power of scientific method to prove God?
Woody: You want me to prove religion is science? Yeah right! I never claimed it was science. Do you claim evolution is science? If so prove it. Otherwise it's just another religion without a God.
Woody: No, I already explained that one MW. I guess you weren't listening. The edict to end the inquisition came from the Council in the 1962 to 1965 time frame. Why are we going over that one again? JPII wasn't there at the time. So my memory isn't perfect -- Is yours? Big Deal! The original point I made was about the duration of the Grand Inquisition -- I thought it ended in 1965 and then you tell me it never ended. OK then, it's even worse than I thought, and you make my point for me.
M*W: Can you use the power of scientific method to prove God?
Woody: You want me to prove religion is science? Yeah right! I never claimed it was science. Do you claim evolution is science? If so prove it. Otherwise it's just another religion without a God.
Last edited:
Here's one for you evilutionists:
Has anyone created life from inert ingredients? This should be a really easy task shouldn't it? I mean after all it was just a little electricity hitting the right combination of goo to get it all started wasn't it? Who was it that thought they would find primordial goo all over the ocean bottom, wasn't it Huxley?
If an accident started life with no plan whatsoever, then surely man with his all-wise brain can figure it out can't he? If man can't figure out something that easy he must really be dumb! Man's mind outdone by a whim of nature, this is getting hilarious. If we really want to accomplish something, then the best thing to do is not plan! Doesn't that make sense? Chaos is better than a plan. Har Har. Yeah boy, that really screws things up in the engineering world!
I checked out abiogenesis in the Wikepedia, and here is a direct quote:
no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.
Well it looks like they are real short on results and extra long on theories. Nothing has changed since the Miller experiment in 1953. Appalling!
Has anyone created life from inert ingredients? This should be a really easy task shouldn't it? I mean after all it was just a little electricity hitting the right combination of goo to get it all started wasn't it? Who was it that thought they would find primordial goo all over the ocean bottom, wasn't it Huxley?
If an accident started life with no plan whatsoever, then surely man with his all-wise brain can figure it out can't he? If man can't figure out something that easy he must really be dumb! Man's mind outdone by a whim of nature, this is getting hilarious. If we really want to accomplish something, then the best thing to do is not plan! Doesn't that make sense? Chaos is better than a plan. Har Har. Yeah boy, that really screws things up in the engineering world!
I checked out abiogenesis in the Wikepedia, and here is a direct quote:
no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.
Well it looks like they are real short on results and extra long on theories. Nothing has changed since the Miller experiment in 1953. Appalling!
Last edited:
Why not just go back to the early 20th century theory that the Devil was planting fossils and other such evidence of evolution? It's such a beautiful theory, because it's utterly unfalsifiable. "Creation science" right now is unfalsifiable because it takes advantage of (completely predictable) holes in evolutionary theory. However, as more and more information comes to light about evolution, the "creation science" theory, while logically no less sound, becomes increasingly taxing on one's common sense. However, if the Christian ostriches were to go back to the Devil theory, there would be no way that science could in any way refute their beliefs. The very fact that creationists have given up on the Devil theory reflects a backing-down on their part as far as science goes. They make concessions to scientists solely based on how "creation science" becomes increasingly untenable, even as a phrase.
S/G said: Coyotes, wolves, and foxes and dogs are all different species. The various types of dogs haven't speciated, since their domestication is relatively recent.
Woody: Yet they can interbreed. They are called hybrids but the offspring are capable of breeding as well.
Woody: Yet they can interbreed. They are called hybrids but the offspring are capable of breeding as well.