 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Off-Topic Conversations: Evolution. Is it just a theory.:
Archive through Apr 10, 2004
Archive through Apr 10, 2004
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
Actually, yes, please do post links. Because I've read numerous articles written by Creationis "scientists" - and none thus far have followed the scientific method in their studies, which negates the validity of the study from a scientific standpoint. If you are aware of Creationist research that follows the scientific method, I know I personally would be very interested in reading about it.
One point YES there is Evidence for Creationism you just have to look on the net....(or read there books, watch there videos...)
Lets see....first of the site Starfire mentioned:
http://www.answersingenesis.org
In there Q&A topic they cover Fossils, flood, Young Age Evidence, bible...and many other topics....
Flood Evidence...this beeening the worldwide flood...
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm
has news from the EV and CV worlds, and has their veiw...(a Creationism veiw....)..constantly updated....(usually)
there is a whole book on the net here: (free to read) http://www.creationscience.com/ (takes time to load)
Then there are the archaeology sites like:
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
Starfire, I have not heard of Dr Dino, but I did find it after a couple of attempts I will cheak it out, thanks....http://www.drdino.com/
Anyway there are heaps of websites...
gypsychic the above stuff is general links it is clear you what a more detailed link....
lets see....I'm not sure what you have read...how about:
Experiments on Lamination of Sediments
by Guy Berthault:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_sedexp.asp
follow up report: Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/456.asp
Covers a report in nature which find the same things.....
Posted By:  Adam Apr 08, 2004 - 04:10 pm |       | Um... Have you actually READ those websites you linked to? Check out the page on dinosaurs: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3947.asp Good grief. I knew more about dinosaurs than those people when I was five.
Oh god (it's a pun), this is frightening. I wonder if these people ever attened real schools. Sorry, but their attempts at science... aren't.
Someone I vaguely know wrote up a nice little piece a while ago, which I will provide for you. Consult this piece when reading those websites.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
First, a couple of brief definitions, courtesy of Michael Shermer:
Science: A set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena … aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
Psuedoscience: Claims presented in such a way that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.
Already, these definitions suggest some things to look for in evaluating claims. Scientific claims should be testable and open to rejection by contrary evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are made to appear scientific, often for ulterior motives such as monetary gain, political or ideological purposes, or to gain personal fame for their proponent(s).
Here are some things to ask when you come across a new idea:
1. Is it testable?
If an idea is claimed to be scientific, there should be a way to test the idea, either by making certain observations and gathering evidence or by performing certain experiments or other tests. Ideas which are not testable may actually be correct, but they are not scientific, because science aims to build a testable body of knowledge.
2. Is it repeatable/reliable?
If a scientific fact is true, it should remain true regardless of who tests it and when they test it. In contrast, pseudoscientific ideas are often unreliable. Psychic powers seldom work in the presence of skeptics, and they are never producible on demand. Moreover, only some people can use these powers, apparently. In contrast, given appropriate methods and equipment, anybody can verify the speed of light.
3. Is it supported by evidence?
All science is supported by evidence. In contrast, we are usually asked to accept pseudoscience on the basis of somebody's authority. Thus, psuedoscientists will often tell you how long they have spent working on their pet theory. They will tell you that many prominent people reject relativity, so it must be false. They will tell you that so many people have seen UFOs that they must exist, but when you ask them to show you convincing evidence of a UFO they cannot do so.
4. Who has the onus of proof?
In science, the onus of proof regarding a claim is on the claimant. If I say that relativity is wrong, it is up to me to support my arguments. If I claim to have invented a water-driven engine, it is up to me to demonstrate a working model. In contrast, pseudoscientists always say "Prove me wrong." They claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect somebody else to prove it isn't so. Science expects them to produce a sample of moon cheese or other evidence which supports their claim.
5. Is it well delineated?
Most advances in science have implications in a rather narrow field, though there are a few exceptions. In contrast, almost invariably, pseudoscientific theories will claim to revolutionise at least one major field of study, such as cosmology or evolution. Psuedoscientists always attack the most established and high-profile physical theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution. They never attempt to revise one small area, such as providing a new measurement of the half-life of plutonium.
6. Is it open to change?
Scientific ideas are always open to change when new evidence comes along. For example, the big bang theory was shown to have a number of problems as a result of observations by astronomers. The theory was changed to include an inflationary period, and the modified theory solves many of the problems. No scientific theory claims to be the last word on something. Since science is tied to evidence, new evidence always has the potential to change the science.
In contrast, pseudoscientists tend to hold onto their ideas, even after they have been convincingly rebutted by argument or evidence. They also tend to be selective as to what evidence they consider valid; they select what supports their theories and ignore what is inconvenient.
7. Is it, at least in principle, falsifiable?
All good scientific theories are, in principle, falsifiable. When a scientific idea is proposed, the person putting it forward will usually suggest tests and/or observations which could show whether the idea is wrong or right.
Pseudoscientific ideas, on the other hand, are often deliberately constructed so as to be untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.
8. Is it realistic?
Scientists are (usually) prepared to accept what the world throws at them, even if it means throwing out cherished ideas in the face of new evidence. Psuedoscience tends to be full of wishful thinking. Whilst it would be great if we all had psychic powers, scientists won't believe in them without good evidence - but pseudoscientists will.
If, after asking these questions, an idea still seems plausible, then chances are that it is scientific. That doesn't mean it is right, of course - that depends on the evidence.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I'm glad you posted some more specific. So far I've made it through the truth from genesis site, and I'm sorry to say that none of what I've seen has anything to do with the scientific method. Their focus seems to be disproving evolution, and their articles are deliverately deceptive by their own admission.
Fir instance, they have an article on the red blood cells in the T-Rex, and their claim seems to be that it therefore can’t possibly be as old as science claims. However, they provide no backing for this claim, no explanation for why it would be “impossible.” The article also references Mary Schweitzer as the “the scientist most involved with this find” – when in fact, she is a graduate student at the university, and Horner is the scientist most involved with it. It then directly quotes her as follows:
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’2
But that never actually happened, by the site's own admission. When you actually look up the citation that is after the quote, it reads as follows:
2. “The T. Rex blood cells were actually first noticed by a professional pathologist casually interested in looking at such an ‘old’ piece of bone under the microscope.
Also, the scientists never found blood vessels.
This article is deliberately deceptive by its own admission. Additionally, it never supports its claim that hemoglobin could not survive 65 million years. Further, even if everything in this article were correct, I fail to see how that has anything to do with creationism.
I have read thoroughly through that last two links that you posted, and while I saw many attempts to disprove evolution, I didn’t see one scientific study on creationism itself. Disproving evolution does not prove creationism - it is not an either/or situation, scientifically speaking.
Sorry, I'm really not trying to discourage your beliefs, even though it may seem like it. I have no problem with your belief in Creationism. I also believe in a higher power influencing the beginning of life - perhaps not the same thing you believe, but my beliefs also are not scientifically proven, or even scientifically testable. It does bother me, however, when sites like that are deliberately deceptive and put something forward as "science" when it is not science.
The scientific method begins with a hypothesis based on observation. In the case of Creationism, the hypothesis is that God created life. To prove Creationism scientifically, it is THAT hypothesis that must be tested and experiemented on in an empirical manner. Disproving evolution will not prove creationism.
That said, I also believe there is far more to life than that which can be scientifically proven.
Adam I don't need to know what to look for....I will not Consult you list.....I have my own ideas.......
gypsychic.....Yes alot of the website is about Disproving evolution, but if you look you will find.....come back in a second...
"In the case of Creationism, the hypothesis is that God created life. To prove Creationism scientifically, it is THAT hypothesis that must be tested and experiemented on in an empirical manner. Disproving evolution will not prove creationism."
I agree the last part of you statement is true....
It seems us Creationists have to stick to one hypothesis...that old one...when evolutionists can have a how bunch...the test for God....I ask gypsychic how to go about that?..the old argument to say look you can't test that, so there...end of discussion....
We have a load of other hypothesis.....
gypsychic you seem to have missed the Experiments on Lamination of Sediments links I posted after the other links so here they are again....
Experiments on Lamination of Sediments
by Guy Berthault:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_sedexp.asp
follow up report: Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/456.asp
Covers a report in nature which find the same things.....
No they don't test for God, but for the flood.....and if your going to push the point about testing for God...then there is nothing more I can say......
If you do want other Experiments then I can look for some more.....
| Posted By: Adam Apr 09, 2004 - 12:59 am | | "Adam I don't need to know what to look for....I will not Consult you list.....I have my own ideas......."
Well, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good hypothesis. 
Sorry, just teasing. There is a reason why I do not consider myself an atheist. As one who greatly values logic and evidence, and the scientific method which has so greatly improved the standard of life for so many people, I am unable to rule out completely something like gods or ghosts. If there's no evidence either way, it can't be tested or evaluated. So basically it does not enter consideration when weighing the facts of the nature of reality. By default, that plunks me straight in the middle of the agnostic camp.
| Posted By: Starfire Apr 09, 2004 - 05:00 am | | Adam,
It is very ironic that your name is Adam. You seem really into this. You may want to order Kent Hovind's video series. I have watched most of it. He also does live debates. One local church was able to get a live broad cast for the congregation to watch. He and the answers in Genesis crowd have their differences, but he can really hold his own on the creation debate.
One reason he is so controvesial is he links himself to radical or "fringe" causes. Like Americans are not obligated to pay income taxes under our constitution. People have tried to use his legal battles to take away his credibility. I don't see why, but they do. I have even seen links to download the videos to your computer, but the links are dead. This video set is available on his website. If nothing else Adam, you find him most entertaining. The video sets are expensive. I got mine from my church. Maybe you can borrow them from a chruch library. The videos of his debates are cheaper about $10. Here is the link.
www.drdino.com
"the test for God....I ask gypsychic how to go about that?"
You can't - scientifically. Again, I was making no points about evolution/creationism; the points I was making were about what is or is not "scientific."
As for "proof" of God - that is not something I have ever needed, so I haven't put a lot of thought into how to do it. I have my own beliefs about God, after much personal exploration, and they are strong and unshakable at this point in my life. Other's beliefs are their own. Another person's relationship with God is a personal thing between that individual and God, and has nothing to do with me.
I did read the Lamination of Sediments experiment. I just don't see how that has anything to do with creationism or evolution. The great flood is another issue entirely, and within the scientific community (as I understand) there is acceptance of a cataclysmic flood.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that science deals with the physical world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. Evolutionists can have a bunch of hypotheses as long as they go through and test each and every one of those hypotheses. Same thing is true for Creationist.
Feel free to post more experiments, and if you do so you have my commitment that I will read them with an open mind.
However, I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for, because God cannot be tested (now anyway - who knows what the future holds?) And, in my opinion, really doesn't need to be tested.
The main point I was trying to get across with my last post is that sites like that hurt their own cause. People who read their articles - those who believe will continue to believe. Those who don't, will continue not to believe. Those in the middle - well, a lot of them will catch the same deceptiveness that stopped me. And when that happens, they will be less likely to listen to anything else that site has to say, if even some things on the site are correct.
Now, my personal belief is this: I do not believe in the Adam and Eve story. I also don't believe in evolution as the full story - though I do believe that evolution covers the physical aspects.
I'll compare it to creating a painting. You have to gether materials, make and stretch canvas, manufacture brushes, etc. In the end, you end up with a work of art, but it did not simply spring into existence - and there is something there more important than all of the buiding blocks. There is an artist behind it.
To me, evolution is the building blocks and God is the artist. I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive.
I have no proof, many would disagree with me, and that is certainly not scientifically provable. But it is, nonetheless, what I believe. Science, to me, only goes so far.
gypsychic I see you point of veiw....
I will give a breif overview of why the flood is important.....
It is not just to prove a flood happened, the Sedimentation Experiments are to show how the rock layers where formed, which differ from the evolution account. It's to show that the rock layers can form quickly, the evolution account says the layers happened over millions/billions of years. Now you can say again that disproving evolution does not prove creationism, but it is one of the things we do and it is allowed.........We also try to show there was only one Ice Age...that the Noah’s Ark would have worked....
The main way to get through to a person is to probably sit down and talk to them face to face....I have read on the site that this works well, along with videos, and mags...off course not possible here....
Another thing creationists are working on is to prove that the earth is only 6000yrs old....here is a report from last yr...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp
Here is the interesting paragraph...
The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years.
DK -
You know, I can go through and list all the many, many examples of places where answersfromgenesis.com presented information in a deceptive manner, and many more where they flat out lied. I can go through and tell you all the reasons why the sedimentation experiment doesnt prove what that site is claiming that it proves. But the fact is, I don't have that kind of time and it wouldn't interest you anyway. You have your beliefs, I have mine, so be it. As I said, if you wish to present information, I'll read it - and enjoy it, if it presents new information in an honest, forthright manner.
But I will give absolutely no credence to a site that has already proven itself to be deceptive.
"Now you can say again that disproving evolution does not prove creationism"
Ok, I'll say it again.
"but it is one of the things we do and it is allowed...."
Allowed by whom? It is not allowed by the scientific method.
DK - how about if I agree that there's no such thing as evolution. Instead, I'll join one of the groups that believes aliens put us here. Some groups believe - and yes, I have met some of these people - they believe just as strongly that people were dropped off on earth by aliens. They have evidence - runways built by early man, stars in star charts that weren't visible to the naked eye - patterns that can only be viewed from the upper atmosphere. To them, disproving evolution means the aliens brought us here.
Now, prove them wrong.
See the problem?
BTW - I'm far more stubborn face to face.
Let me say this:
What works for one person does not work for another....
To some people disproving evolution, works....and they join the creation side....
So we do what works for anumber of people, we can't cover everybody...some people believe in 'the Lord of the rings' as fact....
Now lets look at the issue of disproving evolution....on creationism sites and if it's allowed....
On creationism sites we can discuss what we like, this is allow in a free society....so we can discuss non-religion stuff if we what like the next star wars movie, or what type of cars we drive.....We can have articles on how TV's work...
Also anything that is in the news.....
evolution is in the news....
This means we are free to discuss evolution....
Now we are also allowed to tell people what we think of the news and if there is anything we find wrong with it....evolutionists do make mistakes....(right?)
We are allowed to look at the infomation and see if it is deceptive...if there is lots of Extrapolation.....
We can say why the info does not prove evolution...
Now of course disproving evolution does not prove creationism....and saying that it does is not scientific...
Now you can say our methods are unscientific accorrding to you.....
But what we say is allowed, we could say the world is a disc if we wanted to..(like in the discworld books)....
gypsychic,
You are correct it would be a waste of time for you to show me where info is presented on
answersingenesis.org in a deceptive manner, or many more where they have flat out lied, in the same manner it would be a waste of time for me to show you where evolution sites lie and are deceptive....we have our own thoughts....
Let me say this however, lots of things on the site are in brief....
Lots of articles on the site are about reports and articles from other people...the site has it's own inturrputation (spelling?) and does usually do things in brief....they have their own say on the article usually...
Therefore I should try to find the orginal reports...on experiments
The thing is they are long and complexed....
reading through all these postings has made me realise something, a lot of the members here are talking about proof and evidence, proof and evidence of Creation, and proof and evidence of Evolution.
Now I can see why we need all the evidence for Evolution, well not so much see why, more understand that it exists, however, why do we need proof of the existence of god (or whatever it may be!) surely if you are a firm believer in creation, then faith is enough, is that not part and parcel of what the bible says to us...
He that believeth in me etc etc
is not one of the fundamental pieces of evidence in god, faith ? in much the same way neanderthal man is evidence of evolution.
This may seem like a pretty poor definition, but if you tried asking a devout catholic/muslim/whatever, what proof they have of their god, would their faith not be evidence (in their opinion!) of their god.
just a thought!!!
Yes faith is enough for Creation....for a firm believer....
But some are not firm, they see abit on evolution and they begin to wonder....thats while we have alot of stuff that tries to disprove EV...
Alot have different believes, and some believe in the bible, and evolution (not a goood mix, some churchers teach this...that the bible and EV are correct...)....some don't know what to believe....
Once a non-believe in Creation has become a firm believe, then faith should be enough....
Alot of non-believers have become believers because of all that stuff about proof....
Alot of scienetists believe in the bible, but they see contradictions between the bible and historical geology, they what to do their own reserach, to come up with an answer....once they have their answer....(corrrect or not)..they are free to publish it....
Creationists websites general are allow by the said scienetists, to also publish this work, and usually do their own articles, based on the oringail (?), work and there own inturptation and findings....
And EV sites are free to dismiss all that work, in anyway they want.....
Back to Guy Berthault he is not part of the anwersingenesis team, for those interest people....he is the one doing those Sedimentation Experiments
Here is a website which covers his work only:
http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/
you can read a response from a crtic, and his answers.....
and you can email him....note he is from france...
note also he says that his reports have beeen published by "the French Academy of Sciences, The Geological Society of France and recently by the Russian Academy of Sciences."
This form http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/berthaul.html
Note I will not be going though his work in detail, I don't have the time, it is here to read and make up your own mind....
later I may put links to other reports....
"...some people believe in 'the Lord of the rings' as fact...."
Seriously?
DK - I enjoy conversing with you quite a bit, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one and save our discussions for another topic. I see this becoming nothing but frustrating for both of us.
Mr. B - you made some of the point I was trying to get across and failing miserably at communicating.  Also,
"is not one of the fundamental pieces of evidence in god, faith ? in much the same way neanderthal man is evidence of evolution.
This may seem like a pretty poor definition"
Actually there's a specific philospher that used this same basic reasoning. Can't remember the name now except that it started with a "D" (I'm horrible with names). Anyway, the basic premise - if I'm remembering correctly - was That which is good does not lie. Faith is good; therefore, faith does not lie. Faith tell us that God exists. Therefore, God exists.
That's a major simplification, of course, but it's generally what he said.
Yes you are probably right gypsychic, we will have to disagree...it is becoming frustrating.....
As to people believing in 'the Lord of the rings' as fact.....I read about in the NZ Herald, ....some people could have been lying or something I suppose?......I don't know.....
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
