Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

Discussion in 'Science' started by NaturalBorn, Nov 18, 2014.

  1. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Post scientific theories to support the model of how you believe the universe came into being and life exists as we observe it today.

    Try to fit your posts within these scientific rules. Keep you personal insults to yourself.

    A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method"is this very law of causality—that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.

    These"standard procedures and criteria" are what scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists boil them down to the four following essentials


    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
    2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.

    This necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. Theories which cannot be tested,because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories. It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.
     
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As I said in another thread, thinking that experiments=science is middle school science. Learn some more about different methods of science, and we can talk.

    http://www.geosociety.org/educate/NatureScience.pdf
     
  3. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you claiming scientists do not do experiments?
     
  4. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fine. That is you opinion.
     
  5. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Creationism and evolution aren't inherently contradictory. Also, why is the OP asking for models about how the universe came into being (and I assume how life began in the first place) if one side is just supposed to be talking about evolution? Even if a god snapped its fingers moments ago and created everything as it is now, evolution would be occurring. It seems like a proper face-off would be creationism versus natural cosmology, or divinely guided evolution versus natural evolution. Creationism versus evolution is sort of like arguing about organic farming versus cooking with a microwave. The two are kind of related, but not necessarily at odds with one another.
     
  6. rwild1967

    rwild1967 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about this:

    You first!
     
  7. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm claiming that there is more to science than just experiments. In the natural sciences and the earth sciences, the scientific method doesn't always involve experiments. Read the linked document. Again, please get a background in science. There's no sense me having to teach you about science. It just goes to show that most young earth creationists are ignorant of science.
     
  8. rwild1967

    rwild1967 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    still waiting..........
     
  9. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope, that is the Fact, the Science is there for anyone born with a brain to see and the belief comes from the heart. You on the other hand believes it has to be exactly was it was written by men in Genesis and ignore the science right in front of your face. That is Your choice, being willfully ignorant of science is a common choice by some that somehow believe that science attacks their beliefs because it does not match word for word with the Bible, that is a Choice on their and your part. Personally I prefer to not underestimate HIS works and abilities to grow exactly what HE intended to grow. Will be fun to see who is right, see ya on the other side, I will be the one that comes up from behind ya and says "I Told You So" LOL.
     
  10. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is you opinion. Let's try some scientific theories, not more conjecture.


     
  11. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More to it, agreed, but experiments are done in science labs all the time for discovery in the natural and Earth sciences.


     
  12. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then you should have no problem explaining your so-called facts. Science DOES match up with the Biblical historical accounts. Show your proof of m.y./ b.y.



     
  13. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    *Sometimes* science involves experiments. But not always.

    If I'm studying ants, for instance, most of my work involves meticulous observation, not experimentation. There might be an experiment here or there -- "let's see what the ants do if I do THIS!" -- but mostly I'm observing them.

    Archaeology, for instance, involves basically zero experimentation.
     
  14. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's pretty much the answer the Pope just gave us, so - it doesn't count.
     
  15. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Then why are you demanding to see proof of experiments showing evolution, if you know that there is more to it than experiments? Did you read over the link? Just read page 7 of it. It pretty much digests it, since you dont' seem to have the intellectual curiousity to investigate it.
     
  16. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, lets start with creation of life; experiments and investigation by scientists have discovered that what was previously considered just a blob of jellied matter is far more intricate and complex than realized. Science has come to understand the complex micro-machines and how they operate within every living cell far exceed the possibility of random assembly over even an infinite amount of time. Even the construction of these complex machines is impossible enough, but science still is unable to determine where the information required to run these mini-factories could come from.

    The mathematical probability of just the assembly of a living cell (not the information programming) is calculated at 10[SUP]2[/SUP]. That is 10 followed by 27 zeros. That would be about the same probability as someone winning the lottery every day for ten years. The science just does not work for random evolution of life from molecules.

    Your turn.

     
  17. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you not capable of writing a digest version of what it is you understand this 11 page piece? Write it in your own words.

     
  18. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    yes but it is not necessary to do experiments to do science. In fact planetary science is not based on visiting planets. For example, both Neptune and Pluto were predicted to exist before their discovery based orbits of other planets in solar system. We know Pluto's orbit but we have never seen a complete one and no one ever will. But we have evidence for it and can make predictions based on it and guess what, most come true. Thus is the same with evolution. Virtually every prediction of evolution has been proven when evidence is discovered. You can ignore that, you can spend time trying to put up road blocks to reality.......or you could simply acknowledge your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is up to you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    almost none of what you wrote here is true.
     
  19. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I never said they do not match up, I said they do not match up exactly as written in the Bible. The Devil is in the details, pay attention to all the words I use. What facts do you want, all of the mountains of evidence supporting Evolution from the sciences of Archaeology, Astronomy, Geology, Anthropology, Anthropobiology, Astrophysics, Biology, Cosmology, Cryptozoology, Dendrochronology, Dendrology, Ekistics, Entomology, Ethnogeny, Geochemistry, Glaciology, Ichthyology, Limnobiology, Mastology, Micropalaeontology, Mineralogy, Oceanography, Ophiology, Orology, Ornithology, Palaeoanthropology, Palaeobiology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeontology, Palaeopedology, Paleobotany, Piscatology, Pterylology, Seismology, Volcanology, or Zoogeology, to name just a few sciences that deal with the issue of Evolution or support it and the age of the Earth. Have you done your reading, when it comes to the sciences?
     
  20. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Source for that claptrap?

    - - - Updated - - -

    It was already done. No reason to reinvent the wheel.
     
  21. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would not know, I did not hear what he said on the topic, I do not live on the words of a man in Rome, but I do know that the Chatholic Church is coming around to the science and is not having an issue doing so, does that bother you? I know what the science says, been reading it since I discovered what a library was many many many moons ago and I know what the Bible says, they are often closer than many think when one uses a more open mind. I do not say they agree on all points, never have claimed that, but it was not meant to be either a science of history book, it is a teaching tool. Thing is this, Science does not require we believe in it to be the truth, based on the data it simply is what it is, and for some of us the same applies to believing in God, HE simply is what he is. The difference is one must believe in God for it to be real to them but then again as you can see some also refuse to believe in science and for them that science they ignore is simply not real for them. When one thinks about it, or at least for me, it is interesting that neither requires our believe to be the truth, it is our own arrogance that allows us to believe we are the be all and end all when it comes to who gets to judge what is truth and what is fiction.
     
  22. rwild1967

    rwild1967 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But science has determined nothing of the sort. It has been shown that primitive Earth was rich in the ingredients of life, and that these ingredients can indeed spontaneously combine to form ammio acids and proteins. This has actually been duplicated in experiments.

    Here are several different theories on what came next:
    Personally I lean towards the Genes First theory.

    Here is the link to the page I borrowed the list from.
     
  23. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, your answer did count. My facetiousness gets away from me at times.

    As a lifelong ala carte Catholic, I have no issues with the church coming around to science. In fact, it's not a matter of it just coming around. The Vatican has owned a huge telescope on Mt. Graham (not far from me) from which to ponder the skies for about 40 years now.

    Yeah, I don't know what that's about. I am sure there are all sorts of levels of science ignorers, but ignoring science is something my cats can do.
     
  24. rwild1967

    rwild1967 Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,343
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh ok. I knew that.
     
  25. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Catholic Church has pretty much said evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity since about 1951. The Big Bang Theory was proposed around that time by a priest astronomer, and the Pope agreed with it.
     

Share This Page