M
Melchior
Guest
Who is sick of all the creation and evolution polls?
- Status
M
Melchior
Guest
Option one should say: Evolution, not Evolutions. I hate that you can’t edit polls.
Option three should say:
I suspect that some of those for evolution are recruiting people to vote and/or are registering under new names to vote numerous time. Thus accounting for the radical change in the numbers from previous polls.
Mel
Option three should say:
I suspect that some of those for evolution are recruiting people to vote and/or are registering under new names to vote numerous time. Thus accounting for the radical change in the numbers from previous polls.
Mel
B
bengal_fan
Guest
NO…NOT AGAIN! WHY, WHY, WHY!?
:crying: :crying: :crying:
:crying: :crying: :crying:
W
whowantsumadebo
Guest
I think this gets pretty heated; its exciting and I’m still not convinced either way.
J
JimG
Guest
Why is it always Creation vs Evolution? Both may be necessary.
Further, it inserts theology into scientific debate, and inserts science into theology, neither of which is good methodology.
Further, it inserts theology into scientific debate, and inserts science into theology, neither of which is good methodology.
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
Definitely tired of the fantasy story of evolution and the ridiculous claim that evolution is part of science.
M
Melchior
Guest
Me too. I wish I could be here in about 100 years when people look back on evolution as a sophisticated mythology.
Mel
W
wanerious
Guest
You sound very sure of yourself. Your authority is indeed impressive, since you dismiss with a wave of your hand the life work of generations of thousands of scientists and specialists as well as the opinion of JPII and the Vatican advisory scientists. Legions of geologists, physicists, and astronomers would also be impressed, as their work is likewise impugned by supporting and constraining evolutionary schemes. Of course, the fossil evidence is only one avenue of investigation; molecular biologists and chemists are also guilty of this increasingly widening conspiracy, supporting evolutionary models in a process labeled by you as a “fantasy”.
Do you believe that offspring are genetically different from their parents? Can we agree on that, as a starting point, at least?
S
SeekerJen
Guest
By “fantasy story”, do you mean “all humans are evolved from clams”, or “organisms can evolve to adapt to their environment”?
The former is as yet still a theory, and one that doesn’t have any more evidence than creation theory to prove it as fact. The latter I have seen in my own work as a biological scientist.
M
Melchior
Guest
Well, the latter, Micro-Evolution is a fact. Species adapt but remain the same species. I am much taller than I bet my great grandfather was. But change within species and changing from one species to the other is the difference between “In the beginning was the Word…” and A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away." Truth vs. fantasy.
But I would love to keep this thread off the specifics of the debate since there is a current, active one going on (as there is every week.
)Mel
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
Thanks for the compliment.
I do not believe the imaginative story of evolution for the same reason that you believe in it: evidence
Science is slave to evidence, demonstration, and observation. Hypothesis and Theory abound, but nothing can ever be confirmed as fact unless experiments can be run to give us a first hand demonstration. To claim otherwise is an attempt to shame the word “fact” and the brillant minds who demonstrated gravity, or the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Evolutionists claim that by observing the fossil record that provides evidence of evolution. Unfortunately for them nobody has actually lived long enough to watch monkeys turn into men. The Big Bang is in the same boat becuase nobody actually ever witnessed it firsthand. The two theories are interesting and perhaps give direction to genuine scientific investigation, but atheists are tempted to grab “theories” and “hypothesis” and sell them as scientific fact.
W
wanerious
Guest
I agree, to a point. There exist scientific theories that are deductive in nature and yet provide very accurate approximations to “real” behavior. Gravity is an excellent example. We all have been alive long enough to “witness” many revolutions of the Earth about the Sun. No one, though, has witnessed a complete orbit of Pluto. Neither can we place Pluto in a lab and reconstruct the conditions of the outer solar system to feel confident in its deduced period. Would you claim, then, that the calculated period of Pluto (248 years) is also a “fantasy story”? (I know, these were not your words). Do astronomers not “do science” in investigating the physics of heavenly bodies because we cannot perform experiments on them? More fundamentally, what do you mean by the “fact” of gravity? Of course, our best models of gravitational behavior are only approximate, so in science we rarely use the word “fact”, since every observation is subject to some systematic uncertainties. General relativity is our most successful model to date, yet evidence for it comes from objects we cannot do experiments on and from places we cannot hope to reach.
Well, this is one non-atheist astronomer willing to fight for the likelihood of the Big Bang theory. It is a model that very successfully accounts for many present-day observations, and it has as of now no competitors.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Poll << I suspect that those for of evolution are recruiting people to vote and/or registering under new names to vote numerous time. Thus accounting for the radical change in the numbers. >>
Wrong. The polls seem consistent. Evolution vs. Creation in here either goes 50% vs. 50% or 2 to 1 for some form of creationism (66% creation vs. 34% evolution). Once you sign in, you can normally vote once, unless you delete your cookie or something. I doubt anyone’s trying to cheat.
I am sick of the creation-evolution threads since all that’s needed to be said was said in the first 5 or so loooooooooong threads. Going by the scientific evidence presented in these threads, evolution wins.
Number One (300+ replies)
Number Two (almost 200 replies)
Number Three (150+ replies)
Number Four (160+ replies)
Number Five (100+ replies)
I wanted to add this last poll did go 2 to 1 for evolution, but that’s because this poll was “7 days” (or young-earth creationism) vs. God-guided evolution.
Phil P
Wrong. The polls seem consistent. Evolution vs. Creation in here either goes 50% vs. 50% or 2 to 1 for some form of creationism (66% creation vs. 34% evolution). Once you sign in, you can normally vote once, unless you delete your cookie or something. I doubt anyone’s trying to cheat.
I am sick of the creation-evolution threads since all that’s needed to be said was said in the first 5 or so loooooooooong threads. Going by the scientific evidence presented in these threads, evolution wins.
Number One (300+ replies)
Number Two (almost 200 replies)
Number Three (150+ replies)
Number Four (160+ replies)
Number Five (100+ replies)
I wanted to add this last poll did go 2 to 1 for evolution, but that’s because this poll was “7 days” (or young-earth creationism) vs. God-guided evolution.
Phil P
N
Newman60
Guest
wanerius and PhilVaz both choose to make greater leaps of faith than those of us who believe in a creation model.
Yes, wanerius, if you look you will find that there are competitive proposals in the evolutionary field to the discredited big bang theory. And of course the big bang doesn’t answer the question of who created the first energy and the first matter.
You will also find many scientists including geologists and micro-biologists who believe in creation science and not evolution.
There is no fossil evidence for evolution without great leaps of faith. There is a way to project such things as Pluto’s movement by observation over time and that is easy to plot and accept. Much easier than the many great leaps of faith required to believe in the evolutionary religion.
How can one look at the world, the universe, our bodies and the creatures we see all around us and believe it all occurred purely by chance?
Newman60
Yes, wanerius, if you look you will find that there are competitive proposals in the evolutionary field to the discredited big bang theory. And of course the big bang doesn’t answer the question of who created the first energy and the first matter.
You will also find many scientists including geologists and micro-biologists who believe in creation science and not evolution.
There is no fossil evidence for evolution without great leaps of faith. There is a way to project such things as Pluto’s movement by observation over time and that is easy to plot and accept. Much easier than the many great leaps of faith required to believe in the evolutionary religion.
How can one look at the world, the universe, our bodies and the creatures we see all around us and believe it all occurred purely by chance?
Newman60
W
wanerious
Guest
Which are…?
The Big Bang is discredited? By whom? This is news to me.
Agreed. It’s domain is from 10^-40 seconds after the initial expansion until the present.
The burden of proof is upon you. Who are they? Are they active researchers in the field?
No. I assert there is no methodological difference. We extrapolate the behaviors of planets and other objects with shorter periods to those objects with presumably longer periods. We assume, until shown a good reason to think otherwise, that the physical laws that govern one part of the universe (and at a certain time) also govern other parts (and other times).
We can readily show that organisms are genetically different from their parents. We can show the effect of preferentially selecting certain descendants based upon environmental and competitive pressure in the lab. We can then extrapolate this behavior over millions of years, coupled with the independent verifications given by paleontology, molecular genetics, geology, and botany, to arrive at a robust and self-consistent explanation for biological variations and relations. Let’s not just constrain ourselves to zoology. There are any number of good speciation experiments that can be shown botanically as well.
You can’t just make up an argument to have with someone. No one argues that it happened purely “by chance”. More or less random mutations have to be coupled with environmental and competitive selection pressures to drive the perpetual change of organisms over time. Giant clouds of hydrogen gas don’t just form stars purely “by chance”, but those atoms are constrained to behave in accordance with physical laws; laws which ultimately shape the wonderfully complex objects we call stars and predict their eventual evolution and demise.
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
Okay first it seems like your more logical than some of the evolutionists that I’ve talked to in the past. They apparently didn’t want to talk after a point because they didn’t want the fallacy of evolution exposed by their un-scientific reasoning. In a way we can’t blame them- evolution is the product imaginative Darwin and makes a case for die-hard atheists.
Yet I’ve actually referred to scientific explanations as approximations before, but it didn’t go well with the atheistic evolutionists so I called those “approximations” by another name - “educated guesses” Those educated guesses include both the theory of Evolution and Big Bang theory. Both are based on scientific findings. But the conclusions from those findings are not binding until something is actually directly observed such as the orbit of the planet Pluto. Now nobody can actually live to watch an entire orbit take place, but there are two observable facts
- (Direct Observation) The planet exists to directly observe by human eyes
- (Educated Guess based on direct observation) The orbital path can be approximated based on the fact that we can directly observe it.
- (No Direct observation) Evolution or a living monkey-man was never directly observed by human eyes. (only reconstructed fossils)
- (Educated guesses not based on direct observation) evolution is based on educated guesses on something that was never actually observed.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
wanerious << Let’s not just constrain ourselves to zoology. There are any number of good speciation experiments that can be shown botanically as well. >>
Hold on, we know all paleobotanists are full blown creationists or at least intelligent design theorists
Phil P
Hold on, we know all paleobotanists are full blown creationists or at least intelligent design theorists
Phil P
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I propose a new poll (if I ever figure out how to do it I will post as a true poll)
- My opnion on any matter of Catholic doctrine affects the truth or falsity of that doctrine (yes or no)
- My opinion on any matter of mathematics, physics or other natural sciences affects the truth or falsity of that proposition. (yes or no)
- My opinion on the motives, intelligence, education level, orthodoxy, authority, and fitness of another person to comment on any matter of religion or science directly affects that person’s fitness to offer an opinion. (yes or no)
- There is no absolute truth, only my opinion on matters of religion and science are true. (yes or no)
- Results of polls asking for opinions masquerading as truth are meaningful and contribute to discussion on matters of science and religion (yes or no).
S
SocaliCatholic
Guest
This is a good poll to post.
To create a poll simply start a new thread and after your done typing your message there is an option on the bottom of the page to create a new poll.
W
wanerious
Guest
I’m pretty sure I’ll talk as long as you like
I agree, though I think “educated guess” is a little weak. A hypothesis is more like an educated guess, a theory is a very convincing court case, usually accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. But you’re right, what elevates a hypothesis to a theory is some body of evidence supporting it, and (importantly), no evidence contradicting it. Newton’s Laws predict the elliptical orbit of Pluto, and one may observe some portion of the orbit and note that it follows the prediction of Newton’s gravitational equations. Newton’s theory of gravitation, then, is supported. It is only an approximation, however. Looking at Mercury’s orbit we notice that it also follows an elliptical path, but the orbit iself precesses around the Sun over time. This is too small an effect for us to measure for the outer planets. Newton’s theory has to be modified to account for this subtle motion. Einstein’s General Relativity is a more successful model and predicts just this precession. In the future, there may be other observations that cause us to further modify our most current gravitational model.
Fossils exist within geologic deposits, to be directly observed by human eyes. Molecular evidence in DNA exists, to be fairly directly observed by human eyes.
Based upon direct observation and comparison of fossils, as well as the material they are embedded in, as well as DNA in modern organisms, the guesses as to their relationships can be verified or modified.
I strenuously disagree
No prior orbits of Pluto were observed, either. We assume our science is good enough to reconstruct the story. Also, if we and “monkeys” had a common ancestor, why would we expect to see monkey-men now?
What? The original hypotheses were constrained and modified based upon the last 150 years or so of geologic, palentologic, and biologic observations.
We will never “observe” evolution, just as we will never “observe” gravitational theories. They are explanations for natural processes. The map is not the territory.
- Status