Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

ROS:

Quote:

Most of us here recognize that nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang.

Just to be pedantic. If you assume a QM model, what came before the BB is a quantum potential field. It is the same field that explains virtual particle production currently. The BB is just an extrapolation of virtual particle production. Time and space is simply (arbitrarily) defined as starting at the big bang.

The mathematical construct of the QM potential as currently described does not need to exist within time or even space as we think of it. A moderately close analogy would be to say that we can talk about what exists at a point north of 90 degrees north latitude. It is just that we cannot speak of it as being on the Earth.

The problem comes when you have to keep reminding yourself we are talking about abstract constructs.

Just as in QM the movement backward in time is not an issue. The formalism description of an electron moving forward in time is exactly that of a positron moving backwards in time. It is often mathematically less complicated to assume the latter. It makes no difference.

I just thought that I'd add this in case you wanted to research this further and also to see the fun as RL and BD "comment" on this.


DARN, I went and slipped science onto the thread again didn't I.

What, now your even stealing my allusions to old television shows?

I can script a few generic responses for you to use if it will help.

No, but if you look at your patent for the perpetual motion machine you'll see my lawyer has gotten my name added. He's working on the other two now.

OK. So you simply follow the crowd.

Not a prob.

You are aware that down thru history, most of the major advances in science are not produced by followers of the orthodoxy, aren't you?

Probably has something to do with a willingness to ask potentially unpopular questions and take the heat for it.

Hope you're having a good day.

I wonder how much in the history books is not told!?

real life wrote:

The reason that theistic evolutionists can be considered creationists in a broad sense is because they believe God created the world and then used a process of evolution to develop life in it.

That level of creationism does not require direct conflicts with the physical world as we understand it (through science).

Bartikus wrote:

I wonder how much in the history books is not told!?

One nice thing about geology; it doesn't tell you everything, but what it does tell you is the truth.

Creationism doesn't require any conflicts with the physical world.

Evolutionists often say there are certain things that 'only evolution explains'.

Geology doesn't 'tell' us anything.

We look at evidence, draw inferences, and later revise them based on new evidence.

If geology 'told' us something, there'd never be a need to revise anything.

real life wrote:

Geology doesn't 'tell' us anything.

We look at evidence, draw inferences, and later revise them based on new evidence.

If geology 'told' us something, there'd never be a need to revise anything.

Are you just trying to be pedantic?

I didn't say the rocks spoke to us or anything. You're the one who believes in talking snakes, not me.

So, was there a point to your post, other than stating the obvious.

real life wrote:

Creationism doesn't require any conflicts with the physical world.

I guess it depends on which 'creationism' beliefs you are talking about. I'm talking about YEC (as I stated before). And YEC definitely IS in conflict with reality.

What type of creationism are you talking about?

real life wrote:

Evolutionists often say there are certain things that 'only evolution explains'.

Right now, evolution is the only scientific explanation for the evidence we see related to biology and biological history.

What alternate explanations did you have in mind? Please be specific.

But your statement that 'geology tells us the truth' implies that your interpretation equals truth.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Creationism doesn't require any conflicts with the physical world.

I guess it depends on which 'creationism' beliefs you are talking about. I'm talking about YEC (as I stated before). And YEC definitely IS in conflict with reality.

What type of creationism are you talking about?

real life wrote:

Evolutionists often say there are certain things that 'only evolution explains'.

Right now, evolution is the only scientific explanation for the evidence we see related to biology and biological history.

What alternate explanations did you have in mind? Please be specific.

Do you agree that there are certain things that 'only evolution explains'?

If not, what conflicts with the physical world are you referring to that cannot be explained by creation?

I do think it obvious that the human factor in science causes great variability in the interpretation of evidence.

How we interpret things can be wrong, and often has been.........

Nor does it change the absolute validity of evolution as a scientific fact.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Creationism doesn't require any conflicts with the physical world.

I guess it depends on which 'creationism' beliefs you are talking about. I'm talking about YEC (as I stated before). And YEC definitely IS in conflict with reality.

What type of creationism are you talking about?

real life wrote:

Evolutionists often say there are certain things that 'only evolution explains'.

Right now, evolution is the only scientific explanation for the evidence we see related to biology and biological history.

What alternate explanations did you have in mind? Please be specific.

Do you agree that there are certain things that 'only evolution explains'?

If not, what conflicts with the physical world are you referring to that cannot be explained by creation?

You didn't answer any of my questions.

All you did was ask more questions. The same questions I already answered.

Are you paying attention?