Questions for Evolutionists

[artsylady]

It beggars belief that, having now been told the difference between a hypothesis and a theory so many times in so many different threads that you should still use the words interchangeably.

I guess because while I know it's a big thing to you, science magazine often use the word theory to mean what you call a hypothesis.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf096/sf096a01.htm

ID doesn't contradict natural selection.

So, you're saying that ID is not a scientific theory because it contradicts another scientific theory?

No. ID contradicts evolution by natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Why do you think this? Evolution by natural selection cannot yet explain the complexity issues. However, I do think that ID doesn't contract change within a species, or microevolution by natural selection.

And no, I am not saying ID is not a scientific theory because it contradicts another - I am saying it is not a scientific theory because it solely relies on the disproof of another theory - because it cannot produce positive evidence for it's own hypothesis.

It doesn't rely on disproof. There's not enough evolutionary evidence to contradict anything when it comes to a complex structure.

The theory that the earth is round replaced the theory that it was flat.

Firstly, you're wrong in that there was never a theory that the earth was flat, there was an unsupported hypothesis.

Type in 'theory' into that science frontiers search engine and see if you don't come up with the word in this context that you don't like.

All I'm trying to say is that ID is no less scientific than the dinos to birds theory because neither one of them is truly observable. All we observe is the evidence.

It's just that you're wrong. There is nothing unscientific about only being able to observe the evidence - there is something unscientific about not making a single testable prediction, being impossible to falsify, and relying solely on the disproof of the previous theory.

What testable prediction does the theory that dinos were killed off by meteors make?

This is essentially irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant. You say a scientific theory must have testable predictions so what are the predictions>

I'm not arguing that the dinosaurs killed by meteor theory is scientific (although it is, I'd be happy to argue this on a seperate thread) - I am arguing that ID is not scientific, which it isn't.

But I want to know the difference. Dinos to birds makes a prediction. What's the prediction?

From this response, attempting to change the subject by diverting attention to a totally different theory, I take it you are conceding that ID doesn't in fact make any testable predictions, and therefore is not scientific or falsifiable, or positively evidenced?

I'm trying to make a comparison.

Dinos to birds is scientific because it makes predictions. ID does not. So what are the predictions?

Yes, against the other theories that so far haven't come with the answers according to the definition of science.

Even if natural selection were proven to be totally incorrect - this would leave us with a lack of a theory - it would not default us to intelligent design. ID is unscientifically promoting a two model paradigm, where natural selection is on one side, and it on the only other side, and therefore disproof of one means proof of the other. It is thus neglecting the null hypothesis - having no hypothesis or theory at all.

But everyone agrees on natural selection.

Well, I say those same fossils speak of a flood. The same parameters, same evidence, but your call yours science and mine unscientific.

Only problems are that

a) the idea of a catastrophic worldwide flood makes predictions, most of which have been proven untrue.

b) a catastrophic worldwide flood has never been able to explain the evidence as was in the first place - such as the antiquity of fossils.

What predictions have been proven untrue?

The flood explains the fossils better than evolution.

[artsylady]

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf033/sf033p16.htm

Ian, I'm not sure where you were asking me to show you more about the dinsosaur footprints, but here's one.

Look at this quote.

Professor Kurban Amanniyazov, leader of the expedition, elaborated:

    "We've discovered imprints resembling human footprints, but to date have failed to determine, with any scientific veracity, whom they belong to, after all. Of course, if we could prove that they do belong to a humanoid, it would create a revolution in the science of man. Humanity would 'grow older' thirty-fold and its history would be at least 150 million years long."

Now that is a major change. If they can make the change, based on evidence, that easily, to make humans OLDER that easily, why can they not just instead make dinosaurs YOUNGER?

That seems to be a recurring theme. Where new evidence comes to light, dramatically altering the dates where there is a choice to make one older or one younger, the automatic choice is to make one older. It's just so automatic - but that's what brainwashing will do.

[artsylady]

Ok, 2 things here.

1. We have lots of evidence for when the dinosaurs died out, so any new theory of younger dinosaurs would have to explain this away first.

Creation Scientists look at that evidence differently. Same evidence, mind you.

2. Reading the quote, it says there were footprints that resembled human ones, but they couldnt determine who the belonged to. So this isnt evidence that humans walked with dinosaurs, its evidence that footprints resembling ours were found in the same place as dinosaur ones.

Well what does that prove to you?

What conclusion can you draw from that?

Without more evidence or proof this doesn't mean anything.

That's exactly why mainstream science would put it in the anomalie catagory.

I am slightly worried about the site itself. It benefits greatly from cherry-picking evidence and distorting it (note it links to the fortean times as though it was a reliable source).

Do you think it's a creationist site?

I stumbled upon it accidentally but it is a good site for people like me to use.

[artsylady]

The use the scientific method backwards. They start with a conclusion and work back, ignoring all evidence that doesnt fit.

Personally, I'm thinking so what. If the evidence is there and it fits, then great. And then I'll point you to the 'myths' of science.

Well what does that prove to you?

What conclusion can you draw from that?

What conclusion can I draw from poorly researched vague evidence?

Poorly researched? Why do you say that?

No one has thrown this out. Why are you? They've simply set it aside for now.

That's exactly why mainstream science would put it in the anomalie catagory.

An anomaly to me is a well verified piece of evidence that doesnt fit with the mainstream view. Such as the photoelectric effect when QM hadnt been invented. Do you know of any follow up research done on this? Would the site tell you if it had been done and a very good explanation had come about?

The site simply has taken snippets from science magazines. That's all it does as far as I know.

You keep saying that there are loads of pieces of evidence that people have faked to get themselves recognised, is this one of them?

I'm not sure who you are talking to here.

No, not at all. The site makes money by finding 'anomalies'.

How does it make money?

The quote you showed me was hardly an anomaly, an interesting find, but not anything that causes problems until there is more evidence to back it up.

More evidence than a thousand prints?

Are you really that skeptical when it comes to accepting evidence for evolution?

If these footprints aren't somehow good enough for you, maybe you should look at other evidences used in evolutionary theory. Maybe those evidences better fit creationism.

The site has a reason to make these things sound worse than they are, and cherrypicks evidence.

It finds magazine articles that talk about scientific anomalies (evolutionary anomalies would be more correct.) and it compiles them. Why are you so upset about that?

I'm sure you can find out more on these prints somewhere else too ya know.

[artsylady]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp

I wasn't the one who said it, but I guess there is actually a lot of fraud in the fossil business.

[artsylady]

Actually I missed reading that part about creationists ignoring evidence that fits.

I disagree.

I really didn't think you were going to fall for that common myth - I'd actually mentioned it before. But since we are on the topic, please tell me what one peice of evidence creation scientists ignore.

And about having the story before the evidence, what do you really think evolution did?

Do you think they had all of this evidence and then wondered what it all was about and then figured out that, hey evolution must have happened? Is that what you think?

[artsylady]

Unfortunately, Foglight, I believe you are right.

I think this is a perfect example of not noticing evidence:

QUOTE

How does it make money?

Perhaps, artsylady, you missed the large advert for their book. Do they give this away? How about their newsletter?

Yeah, you definitely can't trust a site that sells a book and a newsletter can you?

I think you should try to stay away from Talk Origins for awhile. Your paranoia of creationists has begun to creep out into other areas now.

QUOTE

I'm sure you can find out more on these prints somewhere else too ya know.

Then do so before you come and post it here. You have read a single extract from a website, not researched it, then posted it as amazing proof against a vast and well accepted theory. Dear me, even the quote itself said it wasnt known what they were seeing.

Go back to the original post. I didn't say 'amazing' and the part that I thought that was the funniest was how they can so easily just move man's age back so many millions of years.

And btw, AIG, one of those very scary lying creationists sites - you know - the kind Talk Origins warns you about? Well, they don't accept the evidence for this either.

[Bread_of_Life]

Then do so before you come and post it here. You have read a single extract from a website, not researched it, then posted it as amazing proof against a vast and well accepted theory

Quite. Without the context of a peer reviewed paper, a quote from a website is worth, well, just about nothing.

[Bread_of_Life]

the part that I thought that was the funniest was how they can so easily just move man's age back so many millions of years.

It may be funny, but it's by no means true. No scientifist has ever stated, in any peer reviewed paper that I have ever read, nor even implied, that man may have walked the earth hundreds of millions of years ago.

The earliest bipedal tracks we have are of australopithecus afarensis (lucy!) - they are only a few million years old.

It is becoming typical of your posts Artsylady that you are presenting rumour as fact - rather than presenting actual evidence, research and papers to support your assertions. I say again, could it be that you'll believe any old website you read, so long as it supports what you want to believe - that evolutionary science is flawed?

[sinnersavedbygrace]

First of all let me apologize to you all for taking so long to reply. I have been very busy. I tried to compose a well cited rebuttle to evolutionary theory. However that attempt didn't seem to do any good. My scientific knowledge is limited that is primarily why I cited others. I no longer wish to discuss science with you all, because I'm not that well-versed in science and because I don't have answers to all your questions. I apologize. I would like to pose some questions though, if I may.

"All science rests on natural processes, or mechanisms. I would have thought that was obvious. Science comes down to the principle that everything can be explained and follows laws."

I would wonder then if science is really the proper method to use. I mean if all science is obviously based on natural processes as you say it is, then it may be a flawed process. According to you, science rests on natural process. I think this implies that there is no supernatural processes or no God. If the only answer allowed for the universe as we know it is "it came about by natural processes" then that eliminates alternative answers, possibly even the correct one. If the only answer to the following question is "oranges"( "what grows on apple trees?" "oranges" ) Then you can see the predestined answer eliminates all other possible answers, even the right one. Science should look at the evidence and determine the answer, not say the answer is "natural processes" then look for evidence to support that. You say science comes down to the principle that everything can be explained and follows laws. What if something can't be explained or follow laws? Then it doesn't exist? I'm just curious. I'm not aware of anything that can't be explained somehow but if it can't be explained it isn't real? Also this principle of order and things following laws is a key concept in creationism, that God created an ordered universe that has design which can be observed and understood.

"Who made the first automobile? Is it necessary to know in order to build an engine? Cars are a very loose analog to evolution. Start today with a Hyundia Sonata and work backwards through every car ever made and you'll find lots of successes and failures. In tracing the evolution of the automobile is it necessary to know when or who built the first one?"

I suppose it's not necessary to know who built the first one. But if you're an atheist who says there is no God, no creator, then it becomes necessary for you to explain how the first one came to exist, also how the material for that first one to exist came to exist. If you don't answer those questions then you can't say there is no God, creator. And in line with this car analogy. Because all cars share similar charateristics (tires, engine, steering system etc) does not mean they are all related. It simply shows that they shared a common creator (the human mind). The same concept can be applied to life, not all are related but are simliar because of their common creator (God)

"The Kalam Cosmological Arguement

Premise 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause

Premise 2) the universe began

Conclusion: The universe has a cause for it's existence

"Does God exist? In your flawed premise above God must have a cause for existence. You've painted yourself into a corner using flawed logic."

"Unless time is not linear. Or we can apply your same logic to God. Your logic concludes that God "began"."

No where did I say God began to exist. Nor do I see how that logic suggests God began. It is logical that an eternal self-existing God could create a universe which is finite if He chose to number it's days. If you understood which God I am speaking of then this confusion would not have arose. I am speaking of the God of the Bible, which the Bible describes as an infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present God. Who is outside of time and space, yet created time and space when He created the universe. Now I understand just because the Bible says God created the universe doesn't make it true. That's circular reasoning. However if what the Bible says actually did happen, then one would need to accept the Bible as true and everything contained therein. I wonder why so many evolutionists try to prove evolution when they say "evolution is too slow to observe and thus be proven conclusively". Why not disprove 1% of the Bible, because if they do that, then they will no longer have Christian creationists hindering their search for "truth". All it would take is 1% of the Bible to be proven false for all Christianity to crumble. Despite the Bible being under scrutiny from the greatest minds the world has ever known for hundreds if not thousands of years, no one has ever been able to disprove anything the Bible says.

Dear people I apologize for not answering your questions again. I don't have the time currently to research for supporting evidence, now my busy schedule does not mean the evidence does not exist as I fear some of you may try to imply. I will try to search for more evidence when God willing I have more free time. I enjoy reading these posts, you all make me think.