B
Is The World Old Or Young? Can We Trust Scientific Reasoning?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
New Evidence of Genesis Genealogies To Be Understood as an Accurate Calendar of History
N****ational Geographic Reveals Evidence of Catastrophic Flood in 5,000 BC
N****ational Geographic Reveals Evidence of Catastrophic Flood in 5,000 BC
WASHINGTON-A National Geographic expedition led by Explorer-in-Residence Robert Ballard has discovered remnants of human habitation more than 300 feet below the surface of the Black Sea, approximately 12 miles off the Turkish shore. Evidence suggests these people must have thrived in a coastal setting before a catastrophic flood inundated the area many thousands of years ago.
B
buffalo
Guest
500 doctoral scientists skeptical of Darwin
Growing list of signatories challenges claims about support for theory
More than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s theory of evolution. The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series.
The PBS promotion claimed “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”
“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
more…
Growing list of signatories challenges claims about support for theory
More than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s theory of evolution. The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS’s “Evolution” series.
The PBS promotion claimed “virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.”
“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
more…
P
precious_roy
Guest
Barghhhh.
Evolution, again, is a theory. All scientific theories admit that they have holes in them. They have to because scientific theories must be mutable. That is the whole point.
Sorry, I got a little bit roused there. Center myself, center myself.
A scientific theory is only as good as the weight it pulls in terms of predictive ability. When a theory makes no predictive / testable results, it is not a scientific theory by definition. If the predictive / testable results of the theory become so unusable or frequently wrong, then usually the theory is set aside. If the theory has some holes in it, do you discard it? Well, that all depends. Is there another competing theory which is simpler in nature and offers additional predictive and testable results that the current theory does not? If the answer is yes, then set aside the current theory for the competing theory. If no, continue to use the current theory because it offers more predictive abilities than saying “I don’t know” and throwing your hands up in the air.
Evolution, again, is a theory. All scientific theories admit that they have holes in them. They have to because scientific theories must be mutable. That is the whole point.
Sorry, I got a little bit roused there. Center myself, center myself.
A scientific theory is only as good as the weight it pulls in terms of predictive ability. When a theory makes no predictive / testable results, it is not a scientific theory by definition. If the predictive / testable results of the theory become so unusable or frequently wrong, then usually the theory is set aside. If the theory has some holes in it, do you discard it? Well, that all depends. Is there another competing theory which is simpler in nature and offers additional predictive and testable results that the current theory does not? If the answer is yes, then set aside the current theory for the competing theory. If no, continue to use the current theory because it offers more predictive abilities than saying “I don’t know” and throwing your hands up in the air.
S
steveandersen
Guest
true
under those particular conditions…true
I don’t know what a self caused resistance is and I’ still not clear what you mean by information gain
Not sure want you mean by that either
While it was a clever gimmick for a late 70s rock band I don’t think that the word “devolution” really means anything in biological terms
Are we not men? We are Devo.
I’m still not sure I follow you.
Are you suggesting that evolution requires that a bacterium chooses its’ response to its environment?
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Hmmmmmmm I see! so evolution is a theory that is relies strictly on nature. What i mean is, there trying to explain how all the different speacies came to be by them selves, because they dont want to except that God created them all in there own kind!. Ha Harrrrrr. So there is an agenda!
I see! so evolution is a theory that is relies strictly on nature. What i mean is, there trying to explain how all the different speacies came to be by them selves, because they dont want to except that God created them all in there own kind!. Ha Harrrrrr. So there is an agenda!
P
precious_roy
Guest
Of course that is the case. All science relies strictly on nature because that is all science can see. Science isn’t ‘smart’; it’s not an intelligent, inferential entity. It does not have an agenda. Now the people that conceptualize it, that’s another story…Hmmmmmmm
There is no real litmus test for the soul so you cannot insert it into a scientific theory. If science cannot prove or disprove something, it reserves judgment.
Like if I make the claim there is an invisible teapot orbiting the earth. Science cannot disprove that theory, so it would reserve judgment. But it is also is not a scientific theory because it does not provide testable / verifiable / predictive results.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
woooooooooooooooooo! 
So basically your saying, they dont want to except that god created the world and every speacies in there own kind, so they came up with the theory of common descent evolution. its foundation being micro evolution( slight changes within a species or different variations of a insect or mammal, like different breeds of dogs) is true. A half truth is more believable and harder to refute then a complete lie.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
The problem with common descent evolution or macro evolution is, there is nothing to say that a dog will ever turn in to any thing other then a dog. Why are there not any insects in the process of turning in to a wilder beast? aye aye aye aye! HA hAAA, beat that one. 
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Can a creature will its own adaptions? or are they already programed to do so. I think scientist dont want to believe that all the neccerary data was aready in the first creature or creatures on this earth before they evolved in to different creatures. Thats why they say where just mutations, to give a sense of radomness and luck. this sounds seriouly “conspiritus” to me! How can a creature gain new information that doesnt exist! im telling you man, if evolution is true then it was programed from the start to unfold, not by radom mutations and freak accidents of nature! but by the guiding hand of God!
P
precious_roy
Guest
That is a great idea. Now for science to believe you, all you have to do is provide a theory that offers additional evidence and is simpler than current ones.Can a creature will its own adaptions? or are they already programed to do so. I think scientist dont want to believe that all the neccerary data was aready in the first creature or creatures on this earth before they evolved in to different creatures. Thats why they say where just mutations, to give a sense of radomness and luck. this sounds seriouly “conspiritus” to me! How can a creature gain new information that doesnt exist! im telling you man, if evolution is true then it was programed from the start to unfold, not by radom mutations and freak accidents of nature! but by the guiding hand of God!
The problem with ID, as I see it, is just that. I have never gotten anyone to explain to me exactly what additional predictions that its making and how we test those. Thats really all I wanted to get out of this debate.
And I believe the answer to your question is neither: a creature cannot will its own adaptions nor is it pre programmed to do so.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science will not make pronouncements on the supernatural. It cannot by definition.That is a great idea. Now for science to believe you, all you have to do is provide a theory that offers additional evidence and is simpler than current ones.
The problem with ID, as I see it, is just that. I have never gotten anyone to explain to me exactly what additional predictions that its making and how we test those. Thats really all I wanted to get out of this debate.
And I believe the answer to your question is neither: a creature cannot will its own adaptions nor is it pre programmed to do so.
ID - is not science (yet). The idea is in its infancy and no tests as of yet.
P
precious_roy
Guest
Apologies, I asked a stupid question. My question should have been what testable evidence does it hope to provide?
S
steveandersen
Guest
freesoulhope said:
They who?
As precious_roy said, science can say nothing about God either way since He cannot be measured
And there are many good scientists who accept that God created the world. They just contend that evolution is part of how He did it.
Every species is it’s own kind
That’s the definition of a species
The kind just changes over time
Common decent is not the theory
The theory is natural selection as a mechanism for common decent
What say?
As I said before the micro/macro distinction is artificial. Either you evolve or you don’t
B
buffalo
Guest
A test that would show something was designed.
P
precious_roy
Guest
Is that even testable? I mean, how can you determine if something is designed? This kind of reminds me of the Crabtree Bludgeon.
No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure. Scientists have calculated odds on something being designed. I can’t remember the exact number but is was 10 (to the many zeroes). Actually SETI does it now.
J
john_doran
Guest
how would you go about proving that someone had been killed, not by accident, but by malice aforethought?
P
precious_roy
Guest
Oh, I see what you are saying. So in essence, they would be providing evidence that, for example, the probablility that we evolved from such a form was X, and if X was to low, one would assume desgin was involved?
What would be, for example, some predictive ability that it provided?
- Status