Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[McBell]

I would be happy to give you the limits. Mankind has different traits, haircolors, skin colors, heights, facial features, etc... however they are all still mankind. Birds have different features, colors, leg lenghts, beak shapes, different calls, etc... however they are still birds. Dogs have different features too yet they are still dogs. limits limits limits.

so what is the difference between a timber wolf and a grey wolf?
What stops evolution from making changes over time to go from one species, timber wolf, to another, grey wolf?

 

[Man of Faith]

so what is the difference between a timber wolf and a grey wolf?
What stops evolution from making changes over time to go from one species, timber wolf, to another, grey wolf?

I don't know the differences between different types or species of wolves, but they are still wolves which is a limit. Nobody has ever observed a wolf evolve into anything other than another wolf or species of wolf.

What stops a wolf from evolving into anything other than a different type or species of wolf? That is for scientists to determine, not me. However if they want to believe or accept that wolfs can evolve into something other than another type of wolf or species of wolf then they are free to believe or accept that but that isn't science, that is imagination.

 

[McBell]

I don't know the differences between different types or species of wolves, but they are still wolves which is a limit. Nobody has ever observed a wolf evolve into anything other than another wolf or species of wolf.

What stops a wolf from evolving into anything other than a different type or species of wolf? That is for scientists to determine, not me. However if they want to believe or accept that wolfs can evolve into something other than another type of wolf or species of wolf then they are free to believe or accept that but that isn't science, that is imagination.

So in a nutshell, you have nothing but your claim that they do not evolve from one "type" to another?

Define "type"
For example, is a pit bull one type and a german sheppard another type?
What about a possum and a kangaroo?


Seems you are doing nothing more than parroting something you have read or been told.

How about just letting us know your source so that we can get the answers to our questions?
Your not knowing anything is getting rather annoying.

 

[Man of Faith]

So in a nutshell, you have nothing but your claim that they do not evolve from one "type" to another?

Define "type"
For example, is a pit bull one type and a german sheppard another type?
What about a possum and a kangaroo?


Seems you are doing nothing more than parroting something you have read or been told.

How about just letting us know your source so that we can get the answers to our questions?
Your not knowing anything is getting rather annoying.

Well I can't know it all after all I am just one human bean. That is why I defer some things to scientists. However if you believe in common descent then you have to believe that random mutations can take us from the goo to the zoo to me and you. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone can accept that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The evidence that is presented today for the ToE came after The Origin of the Species so how can we say that the evidence lead to the conclusion? The conclusion came first.

Again, you have been misinformed, misled, or are simply ignorant to the facts.

• Ancient Greeks had theories of descent with modification.
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), developed a theory of common descent.
• Carolus Linnaeus, or Carl Linné (1707-1778), a devout Creationist, developed modern taxonomy, (which Creationist have mutilated with their pseudo-scientific Baraminology), and observed the development of new species.
• Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), Charles Darwin's grandfather, argued that all life could a have a single common ancestor, based on his findings as a naturalist.
• Thomas Malthus' (1766-1834) theory of population growth was in the end what inspired Charles Darwin to develop the theory of natural selection.
• Charles Darwin, based on his observations and findings as a naturalist, and based on the findings of those before him, developed his original theory of common descent and evolution. (Do you really think the idea popped into his head, then he went on the Beagle to find evidence?)
• Modern biologists have observed and found more and more evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. Much of what they have found does not match up with every aspect of Darwin's original theory. However, rather than reinterpret, or ignore the facts and evidence, the ToE is modified to fit the facts.

Concerning the question, I have answered that to the best of my ability and the answer is the evidence is not ignored, it is interpreted. No scientist in their right mind would say that any evidence is contrary to the ToE. That is a one way ticket to the unemployment line and obscurity. Let's take homology as an example because that is easy to understand how evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways, IMO. However we could take any "evidence" for evolution and reinterpret it to fit the creation model. Man is homologous to Apes so that is evidence for evolution. The data showing that man is homologous to apes is available to evolutionists and creationists alike. However a creationist will interpret the data to say that creatures were created homologous to other creatures so that is only evidence for evolution if one has a prior acceptance of common descent.

There is only one way to interpret naturalistic evidence. And that is in accordance with natural law. If one insists on supernatural interpretations of natural evidence, then they have left the scientific method and entered into the realm of pseudo-science.
You have been told many times, so I will have to assume that your ignorance on this matter is willful, that any scientist who could prove the existence of a deity, or completely topple the ToE, would be challenged. His tests, if accurate, and his observations, if verifiable, would be tested for falsifiability over and over.
When it was shown that his theory was solid, worldwide fame would await.

Basically, your failure to answer the question, and insert "interpretations" is a cop out and failure. While "homology" may have been the sole evidence for some of the ancients, it is a far cry from the overwhelming evidence observed today.

 

[Autodidact]

I have a theory that God exists. I cannot demonstrate his existence in a lab because it is a process that requires millions of years. That is why I call it a theory. Kinds like.... you know.....evolution.

Please get back to us when you learn what a scientific theory is. Wait, I'll help you out:

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
from here.



Does that help?
God, and the supernatural in general, are outside the scope of science. It is a basic part of the scientific method to exclude the supernatural.


You're simply mistaken, due to your fundamental ignorance of what science is and how it works. If you want to debate it, you may find it helpful to learn about it, so you don't keep making these elementary errors.

 

[Autodidact]

Said the creationist to the evolutionist.

What are you talking about? What on earth is an "evolutionist?" Did you mean something like, "person who accepts science?" Those of us in this thread advocating on behalf of science do understand what a theory is. You do not. We really can't have an intelligent discussion when you don't know the most basic concepts.

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution is a starting point for all modern day science and those that accept the ToE (evolutionists).

As usual, since you have no idea what it is, or know anything about science, you're completely and utterly wrong. Evolution is a fundamental theory in Biology. It has no impact on astronomy, chemistry, physics or many other sciences that don't deal with living things. Every time you post, you reveal more about your fundamental ignorance of the most basic scientific principles.

Again, I have offered many times to explain to you what ToE is, and you have deliberately chosen not to learn. Fine; that's your prerogative. What is not, if you have any honesty, is to continue to spout off about something about which you know nothing.

Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species people have used that as their starting point and it is deeply engrained into every part of science.

O.K. Please explain how Darwin's Origin of Species has influenced quantum mechanics, climatology, astronomy and atomic chemistry. I'm fascinated.

So what you're saying is that all of science is contaminated, and needs to be thrown out? Basically, science is bad and doesn't work?

Darwin was right to some degree, there is change within organisms and if you want to call that evolution that is fine I won't argue much about that. But what Darwin observed and what we observe today is change with limits. What we don't observe is common descent which is where I believe Darwin went too far. However people accept common descent because they see the change with limits.

What are those limits? How do you know? What evidence supports the idea there are limits? What mechanism imposes these limits? And why on earth would we be interested in what you believe? You believe all sort of odd things. Let's stick to reality, rather than your beliefs, O.K.?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolution is a starting point for all modern day science and those that accept the ToE (evolutionists).

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Evolution is not a "starting point". It's an observed fact.

But what Darwin observed and what we observe today is change with limits. What we don't observe is common descent which is where I believe Darwin went too far. However people accept common descent because they see the change with limits.

Same question asked of everyone else: How do you know what has or hasn't been observed? When was the last time you were at a science library perusing the biology journals? When did you last attend a conference on evolutionary biology?

If your answer to both of those is "never", why in the world would you think you're in any sort of position to speak authoritatively about evolutionary biology?

Well I can't know it all after all I am just one human bean. That is why I defer some things to scientists.

No you don't. If you "deferred to scientists", you would accept the consensus in the life sciences that all life on earth shares a common ancestry. You do the exact opposite of "deferring to scientists".

 

[Autodidact]

The evidence that is presented today for the ToE came after The Origin of the Species so how can we say that the evidence lead to the conclusion? The conclusion came first.

Really? Have you read the book? Because it's all about the evidence on which Darwin based his theory. True, all the evidence since then continues to support it, which is why it remains a fundamental biological theory, but the initial theory is based on the evidence Darwin so painfully gathered. That's one of the reasons he's considered one of the greatest scientists of all time.

Concerning the question, I have answered that to the best of my ability and the answer is the evidence is not ignored, it is interpreted. No scientist in their right mind would say that any evidence is contrary to the ToE

Exactly. The evidence is overwhelming, and no one in their right mind who has looked at it could possibly conclude otherwise. Of course, you've made sure you never have to look at that evidence, so you have no way of knowing that.

. That is a one way ticket to the unemployment line and obscurity.

Well, unless they base their objections on evidence and the scientific method. Then they'd get a Nobel prize.

Let's take homology as an example because that is easy to understand how evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways, IMO. However we could take any "evidence" for evolution and reinterpret it to fit the creation model.

Yes, of course. YOu could also take the opposite evidence and fit it to the creation model. That's one of the reasons we know creationism isn't science--it's not falsifiable.

Man is homologous to Apes so that is evidence for evolution. The data showing that man is homologous to apes is available to evolutionists and creationists alike. However a creationist will interpret the data to say that creatures were created homologous to other creatures so that is only evidence for evolution if one has a prior acceptance of common descent.

Yes, that's because they're great big liar-heads.

It's not just the pattern of thousands of homologies, MoF, it's the DNA evidence, the pattern of nested hierarchies, the radiometric dating, the geographical distribution of species, the laboratory experiments, the computer modeling, the specific pattern of vestigial features, the fossil record, the mitochondrial evidence, all of it consistent and pointing in one direction--common descent.

Now it's possible that God could have poofed everything into existence and made it look exactly as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor. It's also possible that He created everything last Thursday with an appearance of great age, but that would lead to some very strange theology, don't you agree? That's why we have to exclude magic as a scientific necessity--it's not testable.

What's your hypothesis, MoF, magic poofing?

 

[Autodidact]

I would be happy to give you the limits. Mankind has different traits, haircolors, skin colors, heights, facial features, etc... however they are all still mankind. Birds have different features, colors, leg lenghts, beak shapes, different calls, etc... however they are still birds. Dogs have different features too yet they are still dogs. limits limits limits.

So what you're saying is no new species ever evolve? The limitation is the species line, is that right?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know the differences between different types or species of wolves, but they are still wolves which is a limit. Nobody has ever observed a wolf evolve into anything other than another wolf or species of wolf.

What stops a wolf from evolving into anything other than a different type or species of wolf? That is for scientists to determine, not me. However if they want to believe or accept that wolfs can evolve into something other than another type of wolf or species of wolf then they are free to believe or accept that but that isn't science, that is imagination.

But the scientists did that, MoF, and the answer turns out to be: nothing. There is no limit.

So what you're saying is that science is limited to what we directly observe? They should not make any inferences from the data, but just report what they observe? For example, they can't tell us the shape and size of the earth, because they can't observe it directly? Can't tell us anything about the composition of distant stars, or atomic particles?

 

[Autodidact]

Well I can't know it all after all I am just one human bean. That is why I defer some things to scientists. However if you believe in common descent then you have to believe that random mutations can take us from the goo to the zoo to me and you. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone can accept that.

I'm confused. YOu do accept what the scientists say, or you don't? Or you do unless you have a bias against it, or what? In short, do you agree or disagree that the scientific method works? Wait--do you know what the scientific method is?

 

[McBell]

I'm confused. YOu do accept what the scientists say, or you don't? Or you do unless you have a bias against it, or what? In short, do you agree or disagree that the scientific method works? Wait--do you know what the scientific method is?

I suspect that he is far to impressed with his little spoutings, "from the goo to the zoo to me and you", to be concerned with truth or facts.

Never understood the fascination creationists have with what they think are witty little sayings.

hells bells, seems to me they spend all their time making them up than actually doing anything that resembles science.

 

[Draka]

I think it's plainly obvious he doesn't want to deal with actual science...he didn't even acknowledge my post where I pointed out, quite clearly, that creationism doesn't use the scientific method and what the scientific method actually is. Goodness knows it's obviously not something he'd want to learn or acknowledge because it would make him face how wrong he is. He's not interested in actually learning and debating, just propogating his nonsense. He's pretty useless to argue with and all he seems to do is this::ignore:

 

[Man of Faith]

I think it's plainly obvious he doesn't want to deal with actual science...he didn't even acknowledge my post where I pointed out, quite clearly, that creationism doesn't use the scientific method and what the scientific method actually is. Goodness knows it's obviously not something he'd want to learn or acknowledge because it would make him face how wrong he is. He's not interested in actually learning and debating, just propogating his nonsense. He's pretty useless to argue with and all he seems to do is this::ignore:

This is the false notion that creationists are ignorant and need to learn in order to become evolutionists. That is far from the truth. What should happen is the more a person learns the more they should see the problems with Darwinism and see how it doesn't make sense.

 

[Willamena]

What should happen is the more a person learns the more they should see the problems with Darwinism and see how it doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to me.

 

[Man of Faith]

It makes sense to me.

Keep learning.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What should happen is the more a person learns the more they should see the problems with Darwinism and see how it doesn't make sense.

Well, as long as the more you learn, the more you understand about evolutionary theory, and how it, not only makes sense, but is also a scientific theory supported by literally millions of pieces of evidence, then you can think whatever you want about "Darwinism," whatever that is.

 

[Man of Faith]

Well, as long as the more you learn, the more you understand about evolutionary theory, and how it, not only makes sense, but is also a scientific theory supported by literally millions of pieces of evidence, then you can think whatever you want about "Darwinism," whatever that is.

I see a person that doens't know what Darwinism is, or kind, or type, or micro-evolution, or limits on evolution, should teach a creationist.