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

baddog1 wrote:

The beginning of life clearly happened, yet how it happened has not been scientifically proven. (Therefore it is an "unknown science").

I used the term "unknown science" as a play on rosborne's statement concerning creationism. ("...I tend to associate 'creationism' with a more rigid belief system which in many cases conflict with known science.")

Evolutionists have a more rigid belief system when it comes to scientific evidence, except when it comes to how life [and therefore evolution] began. In other words: ros claims that creationists beliefs conflict with (known) science - I say that evolutionists beliefs conflict with (un-known) science.

Rosborne's original question was how do you define "evolutionism"? What is your definition, baddog?

0 Replies

RL

Quote:

So the dead trees were floating in a river channel which was cutting through layers of sediment and coal, and then the trees were deposited upright (some of them 10-30 ft tall) and buried in the sediment within the newly created channel?

. Some were, some were not. Did you take the virtual tour, Dn does a good job of explaining the interpretation. The underlying faxct is that the channels of braided streams meander in short time periods, geologicaly speaking. The Creationists , on one hand want you to believe that we (geologists) argue that these stream meanders (Uniformitarianally speaking) MUST have formed over vast times, when, indeed we can see that the "polystrate tree stumps" lie within conformable deposists of one or two storm or sediment events. This isnt even debated by Creationists anymore. Didnt you get5 the memo? :wink:

0 Replies

baddog

Quote:

"Stubborn belief systems" go both ways there farmer

. The day that Creationists even add one jot to our body of knowledge Ill kiss yer ass. NAme one scientific project (no counting the hunt for the ARk) that Creationists have begun.
The fact is, they dont WANT any evidence cause it f*cks with their pre conceived notions and Biblical revelations. All Creationists try to do is discredit any research done by standard science. However, they do it by quote mining, not equivalent expeditions or lab research.

Ive asked this question about 3 years ago of Real Life , "Name me one Creationist scientist whose advanced any evidence to support their beliefs" So far Real Life has , by imprecise wording, nominated only newton (because when Newton was alive there was no theory of natural selection so, in effect everyone, according to RL, had to be a Creationist). Thats the kind of "evidence" that Creationists have forwarded.

Next time you fill your gas tank, thank an ANTI CREATIONIST or ANTI ID er for finding the crude.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Evolutionists have a more rigid belief system when it comes to scientific evidence, except when it comes to how life [and therefore evolution] began.

I don't believe that is accurate. Most scientists will readily admit that they don't know the details of how life began. I'll grand you that we assume it wasn't poofism, but that's just because we're consistant with our philosophical base.

Science has a theory about the general way life began, and there is evidence to back up the general nature of that theory. I think everyone involved has a reasonable idea of just how detailed that theory is.

baddog1 wrote:

In other words: ros claims that creationists beliefs conflict with (known) science - I say that evolutionists beliefs conflict with (un-known) science.

And I ask again: How can anything 'conflict' with un-known science, or unknown anything?

I don't even know how to address such an idea.

0 Replies

Ros. lemme take a moment and put it all together for you with a little analogy about Government crop stipends.

Each year I must submit my plans to the USDA for all my plans to NOT grow crops. Then they pay me not to grow them. I must be quite accurate in defining all the acreage that I WONT be planting and what Im NOT going to have for sale. Its all quite clear . Now this year Im not growing cotton because I didnt grow soybeans in the same field last year. I have to rotate what I dont grow so the soil isnt depleted.

Make Sense? Very Happy

So, conflicting with unknown science is just like NOT growing soybeans.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ros. lemme take a moment and put it all together for you with a little analogy about Government crop stipends.

Each year I must submit my plans to the USDA for all my plans to NOT grow crops. Then they pay me not to grow them.

That's quite a scam you've got going there Wink

0 Replies

Bloody 'ell. You guys are still going? I've lost hope trying to keep up.

0 Replies

http://www.bioexchange.com/news/news_page.cfm?id=21387

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Rosborne's original question was how do you define "evolutionism"? What is your definition, baddog?

I previously answered this question in the same regard as rosborne's position on creationism as seen here: "I differentiate between 'creation' and 'creationism'. Creation can be broadly associated with more spiritual beliefs, which don't necessarily conflict with physical evidence.

I tend to associate 'creationism' with a more rigid belief system which in many cases conflict with known science."

However, to more objectively answer your question - I agree with the traditional definition(s) as provided by reliable sources such as Merriam Webster. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolutionism

Did you ask for rosborne's definition of creationism? If so - I missed it. Perhaps ros will share that information with us. And I would enjoy your definition of creationism as well wandeljw.

Thanks.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Evolutionists have a more rigid belief system when it comes to scientific evidence, except when it comes to how life [and therefore evolution] began.

Quote:

I don't believe that is accurate. Most scientists will readily admit that they don't know the details of how life began. I'll grand you that we assume it wasn't poofism, but that's just because we're consistant with our philosophical base.

And that is the inherent problem - "philosophical base"! Scientists who hang their hat on their "philosophical base" have greatly limited their potential for learning. Allot a little time and read about Einstein's thoughts on this very subject.

Quote:

Science has a theory about the general way life began, and there is evidence to back up the general nature of that theory. I think everyone involved has a reasonable idea of just how detailed that theory is.

I agree that many in science agree with this. There are also many scientists who remain open-minded to the possibilities of creation; simply because the beginning of life has not been scientifically proven!

baddog1 wrote:

In other words: ros claims that creationists beliefs conflict with (known) science - I say that evolutionists beliefs conflict with (un-known) science.

Quote:

And I ask again: How can anything 'conflict' with un-known science, or unknown anything?

I don't even know how to address such an idea.

I addressed this on a previous thread.

0 Replies

baddog1,

To me, there is an important distinction between creation and creationism. Creation is a religious doctrine, an issue of faith. Creationism is the attempt to make the religious idea of creation into something scientific.

The link you provided for "evolutionism" gives a definition for evolution only. I do not see the use of "ism".

Evolutionary theory describes the process of how biological diversity occurred in nature (not "how life began").

Here is a summary of evolutionary theory and the supporting evidence:

Quote:

Source: David Quammen, National Geographic Magazine

0 Replies

baddog

Quote:

There are also many scientists who remain open-minded to the possibilities of creation; simply because the beginning of life has not been scientifically proven!

. That may be true to an extent. Being open to a concept of Cretion doesnt automatically imply a creator. Creation is merely when lifes clock got running. We HAVE evidence of self replicating molecules, and regulated systems, as well as weeing the ubiquity of such substances as key amino acids and nucleotides in the spectra of the stars.
One of the most religious of the evolution scientists is KEn Miller of Brown. He sees a transcendent deity who doesnt micromanage or even get5 involved with the process. His point is that, as we gradually unfold the facts and truths of the natural world, Its got fewer and fewer supernatural components. In fact, supernatural components are just another way of naming those things that we cant understand YET.

Seeing order as a sine qua non of Creation is apparently only unique to biology. The most complex ordered substances on earth are some multi layered flat hydrated silicate mineral species with associated metal ions that form expandable rocks. They make DNA look like leggos. Yet nobody argues about their formation being "evidence " of a manifestation of a God. I see no differences except one has the unique caracteritic of being alive and , since were alive too, well, these living things MUST have had a mechanic in the sky.

It isnt that some scientists "keep their minds open and others close them" most scientists who have their minds "open" as you say, havent yet come up with any evidence. We are always bombarded with Creationism sans evidence. After losing on the evidence field , then the counter argument is that such scientists who are more demanding of their evidence are actually "ATHEISTS".

Why dont the Creationists attempt to do one of the following

1 find some evidence that is, at least worth debating,(so far none exists) or

2Admit that Creationism is a charming myth of religious belief (dont parade it in a lab coat)

Id be happy with that and it would keep Creationism and ID from being stealth science topics for our kids.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

baddog1,

To me, there is an important distinction between creation and creationism. Creation is a religious doctrine, an issue of faith. Creationism is the attempt to make the religious idea of creation into something scientific.

I now see where you (& ros) can come to your conclusion about creation & creationism; thanks. I do not agree that "creationism is the attempt to make the religious idea of creation into something scientific". I do believe that life was created which by proxy is a scientific fact.

Quote:

The link you provided for "evolutionism" gives a definition for evolution only. I do not see the use of "ism".

As with creationism - MW shows the main word, then below shows related words. 'Evolutionism' is there.

Quote:

Evolutionary theory describes the process of how biological diversity occurred in nature (not "how life began").

I understand evolutionary theory fairly well and appreciate the article. Evolution is not my issue other than to say that most "evolutionists" strongly believe in scientific evidence - except when it comes to the beginning of life. [And of course; evolution could not be - w/o life.] This goes back to my thought above. It's a scientific fact that life (and therefore ensuing evolution) was originally created. The big dispute is how, why, etc. Creationists believe there was a creator who began life - evolutionists won't believe that, despite no scientific evidence showing otherwise.

I feel that evolutionists should (at the very least) consider that life was begun by a creator. This is a very basic scientific procedure. [All things are possible until proven otherwise...] The evolutionists that I know - will not dare consider that life could have been originally created due to philosophical/emotional/whatever reasons and this greatly limits their vision.

Einstein spoke volumes about this phenomenon - about how limiting it is. I agree with him - he was a pretty smart chap! :wink:

0 Replies

baddog wrote:

I feel that evolutionists should (at the very least) consider that life was begun by a creator.

Science relys on evidence. How can science consider a creator if you have no evidence for a creator. Even Christians can't agree on what God is all about let alone the rest of the worlds population.

Are you going to pull out the Bible and say this is all the evidence you need?

0 Replies

farmer:

farmerman wrote:

[That may be true to an extent. Being open to a concept of Cretion doesnt automatically imply a creator.

Can't agree with you here. What phenomenon (as proven by science) did not have a creator?

Quote:

Creation is merely when lifes clock got running.

When did life's clock start? How? Why? By whom?

Quote:

We HAVE evidence of self replicating molecules, and regulated systems, as well as weeing the ubiquity of such substances as key amino acids and nucleotides in the spectra of the stars.

Nothing here began without a predecessor.

Quote:

One of the most religious of the evolution scientists is KEn Miller of Brown. He sees a transcendent deity who doesnt micromanage or even get5 involved with the process. His point is that, as we gradually unfold the facts and truths of the natural world, Its got fewer and fewer supernatural components. In fact, supernatural components are just another way of naming those things that we cant understand YET.

And there may come a day when all that I believe is scientifically proven as false. I offer you that possibility - and I must then alter my position. However it may also be scientifically proven that there is/was a creator too. :wink:

Quote:

It isnt that some scientists "keep their minds open and others close them" most scientists who have their minds "open" as you say, havent yet come up with any evidence. We are always bombarded with Creationism sans evidence. After losing on the evidence field , then the counter argument is that such scientists who are more demanding of their evidence are actually "ATHEISTS".

There are radicals on both sides - no doubt about it. I still maintain that it's a scientific possibility that there is/was a creator - and there is no scientific proof otherwise.

Quote:

Why dont the Creationists attempt to do one of the following

1 find some evidence that is, at least worth debating,(so far none exists) or

2Admit that Creationism is a charming myth of religious belief (dont parade it in a lab coat)

1: "at least worth debating..." is rather subjective.

2: OK - I admit it, but only to a point. If science proves me wrong - I will admit it and adjust.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

baddog wrote:
I feel that evolutionists should (at the very least) consider that life was begun by a creator.

Science relys on evidence. How can science consider a creator if you have no evidence for a creator. Even Christians can't agree on what God is all about let alone the rest of the worlds population.

Are you going to pull out the Bible and say this is all the evidence you need?

As proven by deductive reasoning - there's plenty of evidence supporting proof of a creator. Like I asked farmer: What phenomenon did not have a creator? Open your mind and use the entire universe (and beyond) - what scientific evidence proves that any phenomenon did not have a creator. Creator precedes creation, just as life precedes evolution! :wink:

As to your question about the Bible - I can only wish I could do that. My life would be so much easier! Laughing

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

xingu wrote:
baddog wrote:
I feel that evolutionists should (at the very least) consider that life was begun by a creator.

Science relys on evidence. How can science consider a creator if you have no evidence for a creator. Even Christians can't agree on what God is all about let alone the rest of the worlds population.

Are you going to pull out the Bible and say this is all the evidence you need?

As proven by deductive reasoning - there's plenty of evidence supporting proof of a creator. Like I asked farmer: What phenomenon did not have a creator? Open your mind and use the entire universe (and beyond) - what scientific evidence proves that any phenomenon did not have a creator. Creator precedes creation, just as life precedes evolution! :wink:

As to your question about the Bible - I can only wish I could do that. My life would be so much easier!

Deductive reasoning is not evidence. Deductive reasoning once said man will never be able to fly.

Quote:

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.» - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later. Newcomb was not impressed.

Quote:

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.»
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

You say everything needs a creator. How do you know the universe was not created spontaneously? Perhaps there were millions of independent universes created. There are questions we will never be able to answer in our lifetime. One of them is how did it all start? If your going to say the creator than we have to ask what creator created the creator? Confused

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
xingu wrote:
baddog wrote:
I feel that evolutionists should (at the very least) consider that life was begun by a creator.

Science relys on evidence. How can science consider a creator if you have no evidence for a creator. Even Christians can't agree on what God is all about let alone the rest of the worlds population.

Are you going to pull out the Bible and say this is all the evidence you need?

As proven by deductive reasoning - there's plenty of evidence supporting proof of a creator. Like I asked farmer: What phenomenon did not have a creator? Open your mind and use the entire universe (and beyond) - what scientific evidence proves that any phenomenon did not have a creator. Creator precedes creation, just as life precedes evolution! :wink:

As to your question about the Bible - I can only wish I could do that. My life would be so much easier!

Deductive reasoning is not evidence. Deductive reasoning once said man will never be able to fly.

Quote:
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.» - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later. Newcomb was not impressed.

Quote:
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.»
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

You say everything needs a creator. How do you know the universe was not created spontaneously? Perhaps there were millions of independent universes created. There are questions we will never be able to answer in our lifetime. One of them is how did it all start? If your going to say the creator than we have to ask what creator created the creator?

My point was not to prove/disprove deductive reasoning - that could be a thread of it's own.

Certainly the universe could've been created spontaneously - that is a possibility. And there could have been millions of universes created. Why? Because science has not proven this did not happen - just like science has not proven the beginning of life. Nor has it proven that you love your Mom. Do you? Prove it.

As to what "creator created the creator" - that is a double negative (or double positive) which some might say is entirely possible!

But not me. :wink:

0 Replies

everything does not require a creator. A grain of sand is not created as much as it is simply a smaller piece of a larger rock, or a larger rock which has been wheathered away.

If the sand was created, it would have to be created by the larger rock, which in term would mean that it created itself, a bit of a recursion error, don't you think? The rock created itself in a some other form.

In this universe there are products and results, and certainly creations, however to resolve that everything is a creation is far off.

Of course there's also non tangable things. Who created things like "commerce," "depression," or "direction?" Not al things are created.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

everything does not require a creator. A grain of sand is not created as much as it is simply a smaller piece of a larger rock, or a larger rock which has been wheathered away.

If the sand was created, it would have to be created by the larger rock, which in term would mean that it created itself, a bit of a recursion error, don't you think? The rock created itself in a some other form.

In this universe there are products and results, and certainly creations, however to resolve that everything is a creation is far off.

Of course there's also non tangable things. Who created things like "commerce," "depression," or "direction?" Not al things are created.

Hi Deist:

Given your career-choice; your answers surprise me. Let's try your example systematically (and very basically).

Sand comes from rock, rock comes from mineral, mineral comes from earth. (Remember - basic!) So we're back to square one - was the earth created?

Who created "commerce" - perhaps a statistician, perhaps a financier, perhaps a thief - I don't know. But someone, somewhere decided to use that term for the 1st time - thus the creator.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know