Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#37821 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
http://www.trueorigin.org/crea theory.asp
A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists
© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.
popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.
Where is the hypothesis of creationism?

Hint, a theory has to pass a few tests and present stuff we call evidence to be tested first, until then, it's a hypothesis. By dishonestly calling it a theory is flat out lying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37822 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow....So You Believe Speculation As Proof ?
Perhaps You Can Convince The Third Graders, But Im Betting They Are Smarter Then That.
Sorry Pal...You And Science Dont Come Close To Proving Your Assertions.
Actually, it does and with far more certainty than your never seen or heard from god. You're refusal to understand the science doesn't make it go away.

Again, if you believe in god, why would you take the words in an old book of unknown origin over the evidence plainly left for us to explore?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37823 Aug 13, 2012
What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise,“science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.“Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason,“the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37824 Aug 13, 2012
It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.[It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.”[It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:

The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37825 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
You are going back to my earlier question...
Show me where on earth do we have a monkey professor?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#37826 Aug 13, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is correct?,Ha,ha,ha,I 'm sure you have the recipe in the kitchen next to the pancake batter mix.Abiogenesis has absolutely ZERO evidence, Zero! yet you have swallowed it all on faith, why? It concurs with your world view, why don't you just choose the aliens seeded earth theory, it hasn't been proven unworkable in a lab like abiogenesis and you can still use the liar,fundie and uneducated tags for those who disagree.
Now you are just plain lying. The evidence supporting Abiogenesis is surprisingly simple, I am not surprised you fail to understand it. Here it is, in brief form:

In the past there is evidnece that there was no life on Earth. At a point evidence of life is present. So no life -- then life. There, evidence for Abiogenesis!

Now, the real Abiogenesis question is HOW did it happen, not if it happened. We are still working on that question. Of course, the answer to that question doesn't have any impact on evolutionary theory. Whether God, Aliens, or chemistry did it, doesn't really matter for evolution.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37827 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Why should current science be able to stop death?
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question:*Why* should current science be able to stop death?
Be practical!
I am giving you a direct answer, they can never stop death...
Back to my questions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37828 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
The philosophical worldview of ever present relativism of which atheists are so fond cannot be extended into principles of mathematics.
Atheism and theism is irrelevant to science. And math for that matter.
HTS wrote:
A snowflake is not complex.

How is "complexity" measured in an objective manner via the scientific method?

Feel free to ignore this again just like you did the last ten times or so.

[QUOTE who="HTS"]It is a random aggreate of crystals.
Incorrect. It is A crystal.
HTS wrote:
It is hexagonal only because of the molecular configuration of water. A snowflake is no more complex than random patterns of a kaleidoscope.
Which are VERY complex. If you don't believe me go pick a whole bunch of such patterns and draw them accurately with pencil by hand. It may take a while.
HTS wrote:
If a snow flake were complex, then every snowflake in existence would have defied laws of probability.
There are no "laws" of probability. Probability by definition is the potential for MULTIPLE outcomes. Nothing observable has defied probability, even if caused naturally.
HTS wrote:
A dam forming in a river? Are you kidding? Every time I hear such examples my suspicions are confirmed...
Natural dam:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12150532 @N04/3966479569/
HTS wrote:
No complexity can be produced without intelligence. All you can do is re-invent concepts of complexity according to your twists logic.
You can't even define "complexity". But if you are correct then you should have no problem in presenting the mechanisms of how intelligence creates complexity - specifically your designer, not pointing to analogies of human examples.

By the way, here's some examples of complexity forming without intelligence:

http://www.internobetoon.ee/images/silevalge....

Smooth concrete. Simple.

http://www.gov.im/lib/images/mnh/heritage/spa...

Rough rocky cliffs. Complex.

http://www.all-hd-wallpapers.com/wallpapers/b...

Still water. Simple.

http://www.hms-wager.org.uk/images/rough-seas...

Rough sea. Complex.

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-mediu...

Single cell. Simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bright_gree...

Tree. Complex multi-celled organism.
HTS wrote:
Do actually think that snowflake geometry is in any way analogous to a genetic code
Complexity formed via natural chemical processes. Yes we do.
HTS wrote:
with language-type functionality?
Not aware of any genetic code with language-type functionality. DNA has no grammar or sentence structure. This is demonstrated by the fact that all humans born have 125 to 175 random mutations. This is perfectly normal and does little harm in general. Try making those same changes to written language you will for the most part eventually end up with gibberish. Even when some words are still valid after changes (like dog turning into dig) the grammar is still lost, hence the "language" of DNA is merely an analogy, and not to be taken too literally. In order for it to be considered an intelligently written "code" one must provide evidence of the agent responsible and the mechanisms it uses to do whatever it is you think it did.

So far not a soul has done that.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37829 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
This question has been answered...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37830 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
With that kind of logic a garbage dump site is complex.
You're analogy is revealing in its lack of real thought...
Yes, a garbage site IS complex.

Formed by intelligence too, no less.

Stick to zombies and werewolves, you sound smarter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37831 Aug 13, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you think all things seem to follow orderly patterns?
We still don't care Mikey.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37832 Aug 13, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
How does the non-existence of "monkey professors" provide evidence for the existence of a god?(There isn't anything in the process of evolution that requires all species to evolve in the exact same way.)
<quoted text>
Can you name *one* way?
This question has been answered previously...
Apes or great apes can never be a creator like humans, why, because they are not created in the likeness of God...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37833 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
I Lived These Eras.....He's Not Wrong, And Gave A List Of Sources You Could Check At The End Of The Article.
LIberal/Atheists Are The Offspring Of Marxists, Socialist, And Communists....End Of Story
Like Rome....This is The Reason For our Failures.
Rome was Christian when it fell. You boys also destroyed the library of Alexandria before that happened.

Oops.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37834 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Science, Has Been Influenced By Nazis, Since The Second World War. America Allowed And Even Coveted These Scientists To Help With The MIlitary Aspects.
These Same Nazi Scientists Formed The Elite Who Dictate Whats Considered Worthy To Study Or Publish.
Their Offspring Are The Elite In Science And Many Other Factions In America.
" Beat You From With-in "
Seems To Have Worked.
Whoa, hold on there bucko! The Nazi's HATED the liberal socialist Commies! And to top that, they were CHRISTIAN. These guys were YOUR BOYS!

WE are the evil atheist socialist liberal Commies, remember?

Sheesh, try to remember which side you're on, eh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37835 Aug 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Great apes???
We are only to some extent related, but no matter how you colour it, they(humans) can never be apes...
No, actually they ARE apes. Hominid bipeds.

And it was a Christian who pointed it out.

He even wrote back to a bunch of whiny Christians who complained about being called apes, asking them if there was a good scientific reason for them to be classified otherwise.

He didn't get one.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#37836 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several
Creationist semantics. Layman language is not accurate enough for scientific endeavors. The scientific community has to have higher standards of matters, including the use of labels which must also be more specific and descriptive. Try studying science instead of reading and then copy-pasting from a creatard website.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37837 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It's because we DO understand them we attribute them to God.
Ah.

Well that's useless then ain't it?(shrug)

Rather than simply giving Him the credit, you could at least explain HOW He did it.

But all we get is "God works in mysterious ways"...

Yeah, great "understanding" ya got there, pardnuh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37838 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Claim.....Now, Prove It
What, you missed it the last hundred times?

Of course you did. I bet you also missed that bigfoot too, and one day it'll come back. And in greater numbers.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37839 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're dead wrong.
Foxglove produces digitalis... It doesn't have to be processed. Saying it's poisonous ignores the entire issue. If it just needed poison to enhance survival, then why did it need to also evolve properties that save heart patients? Coincidence? I guess you're going to have to swallow hundreds of fortuitous coincidences to rebut my argument.
How is it fortuitous to foxglove?

If it's your contention it was designed to save heart patients then surely it would have been designed without the need for prior processing, yes?

Or even better, we could have been designed with better hearts.

If your contention is that these were designed then obviously you have a mechanism and evidence of it, yes? After all, you wanted to put ID/Creationism back in play and not considered a pseudo-science, right?

What's the "scientific theory" of ID?
HTS wrote:
You description of carrots and potatoes likewise was a total dodge. Both plants are nutritious and enhance the survival of animal species. These properties IMPAIR the plants because they are consumed. The fact that a potato has multiple eyes is irrelevant. Why is it nutritious to animals?
At this point I'm gonna have to conclude you're just a kitten hater. Teh stoopid burns.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37840 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
{Snip of Drivel}

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
Hey, Flash! That's cosmology. Not evolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How 2014 Was the Beginning of the End for the G... 4 min Latter Day Taints 12
Graham Balks at Funding U.S. Embassy in Cuba 5 min Cat74 7
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Le Jimbo 165,180
Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush lead GOP 2016 field 44 min The Sage of Main ... 28
Congress presses Obama on Russia sanctions 1 hr serfs up 14
Not much chance of Congress stopping Cuba policy 1 hr cancer suxs 2
Mike Lee: 'Unacceptable' for ICE Chief to Asser... 1 hr Dee Dee Dee 6
More from around the web