Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Evolutionary science provides a reasonable explanation for only the last thing you listed, "how amoebas evolve into men".

No, it doesn't.

It does not explain the other things you listed simply because it is not meant to explain such things.

How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed? It's ALL origins theory.

You are confusing religion which is designed to be an all-encompassing explanation with science which limits itself to explaining observations.

Ok, observations....like...current evolution? Like...the big bang? Like the fact no scientist has ever seen a star born? Like how a leg bone in the desert has been observed procreating and you can tell what color it's skin was and what it ate, based on a LEG bone???

True science limits itself to the scientific theory, which is observable, documentable, and repeatable. Therefore, any origins theory is NOT scientific since it does not qualify under any of those.

This is true; by the very nature of basing their findings on evidence scientists leave the foundations of their theories open to question.

Then tell me why this theory is CONSTANTLY treated as fact and MANY people have been blackballed for questioning it?

Evidence can be open to question, fraudulent, wrong... or even completely accurate. This is the strength of science and logic; we can examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not. This lends long-standing scientific principles significant credibility.

Unless these theories are proven wrong, but the ideas are still left in the textbooks and our children are indoctrinated in lies. When you attempt to point out that the idea in question is false, you're labeled as "one of those Creationist kooks" and not taken seriously.

Compare this to religion which bases their beliefs on faith;

I base my beliefs on a collection of manuscripts that have more fragments (over 25,000) that all say the same thing. It is historically and scientifically accurate, as far as anyone has been able to determine.

Because I was not there at the time those events occured, I have faith that those 25,000 fragments that have been compared to each other by the best scientific minds out there are true, accurate representations of the events as they occured. But I concede it's faith.

It is also faith to believe that the universe exploded from nothing, that non life arises from life, and that ANY life form can somehow magically evolve into another with all the interdependant working parts just happening to mutate all at once. That is faith too.

faith is not open to question at all.

Sure it is. Christians are called in the bible to have an answer for their faith.

Faith cannot be reasonably proved to be *anything* because it deliberately violates the requirements of reason. This is the fundamental weakness of religion; we cannot examine various ideas and determine if they are correct or not.

Of course you can, and you should. You can have intellectual conversations about religions, and discuss all the different aspects of it. That's called philosophy. Determining correctness or "rightness" of these ideas is a matter of culture and perspective, but they can most certainly be discussed and not taken for granted.

This lends long-standing religious principles significant doubt.

I disagree (depending on the principles you would like to discuss).

This is not correct. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the methods of thinking between religious and scientific people

There are MANY scientists who were/are religious, and many of them are people that we hold up as "fathers" and "scholars" of their branches.

so it may be that a discussion of origins between two such people becomes two different discussions altogether.

Or, it can be that the evidence that we can observe can be interpreted in multiple ways that make reasonable sense, if you are willing to admit your interpretation could be wrong. It's all about your starting presuppositions.

However, origins can and is approached from a scientific angle frequently.

Not if one uses "observable, demonstratable and repeatable" as the basis of their theories.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed?

Much more clearly and succinctly.

Just like you can explain "water to ice" without going back to the creation of oxygen molecules by fusion in stars, which then allows hydrogen to oxidize, creating water. That is interesting, and worthy of study in its own right, but it's not part of the freezing process.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

How can you explain "amoebas to men" evolution without explaining how the amoeba got there, how the planet formed, and how the universe formed? It's ALL origins theory.

Easily. Suppose you have a beer in the kitchen, and after you visit the bathroom it is now in the den. Can you explain this without explaining where the beer was packaged, where the ingredients of the beer were grown, and the entire process of getting to that technological point? Of course you can. Evolutionary theory explains simply how various traits were brought about through naturally selective breeding. It does not, nor does it have to, explain the origins of life itself.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Ok, observations....like...current evolution? Like...the big bang? Like the fact no scientist has ever seen a star born? Like how a leg bone in the desert has been observed procreating and you can tell what color it's skin was and what it ate, based on a LEG bone???

Exactly. Look at the modern chicken. It has been bred over generations to possess certain traits which humans desire. This is the core of the theory; if humans can select these traits then there will also be certain traits selected through natural events. The quail which are the best camouflaged live longest, and reproduce more often. Thus, quail become camouflaged rather than being white, or hot blue.

Scientists can see stars in every stage of formation. They can see the aftermath of the “Big Bang”. They can look at a leg bone and draw conclusions based on its similarity to other leg bones we have observed with skin attached. These are reasonable conclusions.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

True science limits itself to the scientific theory, which is observable, documentable, and repeatable. Therefore, any origins theory is NOT scientific since it does not qualify under any of those.

There is evidence which can be observed and documented. Science does not require that you observe or be able to repeat the actual event.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Then tell me why this theory is CONSTANTLY treated as fact and MANY people have been blackballed for questioning it?

It is treated as fact because it has withstood many years of consideration, and I can only assume that those who were blackballed for criticizing it was because they didn’t do it very well.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Unless these theories are proven wrong, but the ideas are still left in the textbooks and our children are indoctrinated in lies. When you attempt to point out that the idea in question is false, you're labeled as "one of those Creationist kooks" and not taken seriously.

These theories have not been proven wrong, so your assumption that they are lies is premature. If you argue in a “kooky” manner, then expect that people will assume that you are a kook.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I base my beliefs on a collection of manuscripts that have more fragments (over 25,000) that all say the same thing. It is historically and scientifically accurate, as far as anyone has been able to determine.

Actually, I would argue that it is not scientifically accurate on the basis that many of the events that supposedly occurred are apparently impossible. However, I am not going to debate this topic as it usually leads to foaming mouths and general disarray.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I disagree (depending on the principles you would like to discuss).

I expected as much. The first and foremost principle would be the existence of a god.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Not if one uses "observable, demonstratable and repeatable" as the basis of their theories.

Where exactly are you getting that basis? Science involves observation and experimentation using empirical evidence, and subjecting those findings to reason. Scientific theories can definitely be developed about past events without repeating those events.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

Easily. Suppose you have a beer in the kitchen, and after you visit the bathroom it is now in the den. Can you explain this without explaining where the beer was packaged, where the ingredients of the beer were grown, and the entire process of getting to that technological point? Of course you can. Evolutionary theory explains simply how various traits were brought about through naturally selective breeding. It does not, nor does it have to, explain the origins of life itself.

There are 6 uses of the word "evolution". One of those directly deals with how non-life becomes life.

Natural selection happens, but it does *not* explain how one kind becomes another kind, IE a bird becomes a reptile, or a monkey becomes a man.

A curved beaked finch and a pointy beaked finch are still finches. A zebra and a horse are still an equine kind. A baboon and a chimp are both monkey kind. None of that process explains how a monkey becomes a man.

This is the evolution I'm talking about.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

A curved beaked finch and a pointy beaked finch are still finches. A zebra and a horse are still an equine kind. A baboon and a chimp are both monkey kind. None of that process explains how a monkey becomes a man.

Chimps aren't monkeys; they're apes. If monkeys and apes are the same "kind", then humans should be in the same group. But "kind" is an amorphous "god of the gaps"-style word that seems to mean "species that some creationists accept evolved from common ancestors, with no real criteria.

There is no difference in evolutionary terms between finches evolving different beaks, and the evolution of different "kinds", because "kind" has no scientific meaning.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

This is the evolution I'm talking about.

This site does a very good job at explaining the massive amounts of evidence for evolution. Look for transitional fossils (the second link).

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates