Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[Random]

The equation actually equates energy to matter.

Yes. That is what it is, manifestly.

 

[camanintx]

How so? The magnetic field is obviously decaying, so what do they put forward?gg

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again.

 

[Willamena]

The Big Bang would apply to the first instance; there was no harness, so it would be impossible to create a well-ordered universe as the result of a massive exposion of energy.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread or the other one ongoing, the "Big Bang" as theorized is not an explosion of matter/energy but an expansion of space.

 

[Luke_17:2]

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread or the other one ongoing, the "Big Bang" as theorized is not an explosion of matter/energy but an expansion of space.

Bull. In text books it's called an explosion of matter, and energy. It's been so ever since it was theorized. And why do you think it's called the Big Bang? And what do you mean an expansion of space?

 

[Luke_17:2]

The fact that people have to come up with a straw man defence of it every few years in proof of evolutions idiocy (all 5)!

 

[Willamena]

Bull. In text books it's called an explosion of matter, and energy.

Those textbooks are incorrect, or using metaphor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Overview

It's been so ever since it was theorized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
No, Father Lemaître proposed only an expanding universe. The word 'explosion' is used on that page only in quotes, metaphorically. Father Lemaître actually pictured it as a god-like 'creation' of matter/energy from nothing.

"Both Friedman and Lemaître had found that the universe must be expanding. Lemaître went further than Friedman, since he concluded that an initial 'creation-like' event must have occurred. This is the Big Bang theory as we know it today, and this is why he is credited with its discovery. ... This perception was enhanced by the fact that the theory's inventor, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest. Lemaître himself always insisted that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications; and yet the congruence between his scientific and religious beliefs is apparent in his famous description of the beginning of the universe as 'a day without yesterday'—alluding to the creation account in Genesis."

And why do you think it's called the Big Bang?

Because things compressed are very hot. They cool as they expand away from each other.

"Combined with the assumption that observers anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. Extrapolation of this expansion back in time yields a state in the distant past in which all matter and energy was at an immense temperature and density. This hot, dense state is the key premise of the Big Bang."

And what do you mean an expansion of space?

The distance between 'things' is currently increasing over time. Things exist in space. As you and I also are 'things' that exist in 'space', we are part of that expansion, albeit on a much reduced scale compared to planets and galaxies. You are now microscopically further away from me than you were when I began this post --not enough to make a real difference.

 

[Ernesto]

I adhere to Kent Hovind's position on Evolution: teach it in the schools as one alternative for where we came from

Right, before I get into the nitty gritty of the argument I am about to put forth, I'll just say first off that I agree, partly, with this bit of what you said. I say partly because I personally believe that - as schools teach by subjects - evolution should be taught in science lessons and creationism in religious studies lessons. The reason for my sayign this is very plain and simple: evolution is based upon scientific theory and evidence; creationism is based upon religious theory and 'evidence'. Keep each to their respective classrooms, don't confuse the two as if they are somehow happy coinciders.

I say [evolution is] not science for several reasons: we have never observed or found sufficient evidence for: macro evolution, stellar evolution, organic evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution. The only type of evolution we have ever observed is Micro Evolution; that is the evolution within species.

Now, the aforementioned 'nitty gritty'.
Obviously, at what point evidence becomes 'sufficient' is a lengthily debatable and overly-subjective matter. The religious person who wishes to retain her/his own beliefs will never see any amount of evidence as being enough, no matter how profound and undeniable the evidence may be. Similarily, the scientist isn't willing to accept religion's own version of 'proofs', in order to retain his own beliefs. Someone (I can't remember who) once said: "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice."
Putting this aside momentarily, though, we may still examine what evidence there is for all those aspects of evolution you have listed, and how probable they all are. And don't be mistaken. There is evidence for all of them.
Macro-evolution, for those who are in the dark, is the evolution
of how one species evolves into another. Or at least when creationists refer to it. Really, the scientific definition is something like: "any evolutionary change at or above the level of species." Many creationists accept microevolution (within species), but not macroevolution (such as our dear host, Luke_17:2) on the basis that there is 'no evidence for it.' Well, actually, Speciation has been observed and documented. Let me repeat. Speciation has been observed and documented. That's as good as witnessing macroevolution, which obviously we can't do because of how slow it is. New species have arisen within recorded history: a new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens; Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis; and so forth. Okay? There are more examples here if you're not yet convinced: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html. I won't even go into cosmic evolution in this thread, partly for space reasons but mainly because it's ultimately irrelevant. We're talking about evolution on Earth, not in the universe. The Bible says God created heavens and Earth, not all the galaxies and stars in the universe...

Another reason, though that last one is by far enough, is population. Those are just some reasons, though there are plenty, those are the biggest reasons I think.

This just confuses me. You haven't explained anything. What about population?

We cannot know for certain where we came from, and when you ask an evolutionist what his position is, he says: "I believe..." -a religious statement. So in the end evolution is just as much a religion as Creationism, or I.D. is.

This part is infuriating. 'I believe' is not inherently a 'religious statement'. The phrase often just means the same as 'it is my opinion that...' and opinion can either be based on evidence, as in the case of the scientist, or blind faith, as with the religious person.

 

[Ernesto]

I have confidence that one plus one equals two. All hail Pythagoras.

Nicely said.

 

[Ernesto]

Prove it. I'm here to point out it's not science.

So are you saying it's not science just because it's not 100% proven? Is religion thereofre not religion, as God isn't 100% proven?

 

[Luke_17:2]

I'll respond to your long post tonight because I don't have time now, but I'll respond to these short posts-

Nicely said.

No, it's not nicely said. You don't "have confidence" that one plus one equals two: you know. It's a proven mathematical fact. You have confidence (another way of saying you have faith) that something exploded from nothing 15 billion years ago.

So are you saying it's not science just because it's not 100% proven? Is religion thereofre not religion, as God isn't 100% proven?

Yes, I am. Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.

Religion is religion because you can't prove it. Science is science because you can.

 

[gmelrod]

No, it's not nicely said. You don't "have confidence" that one plus one equals two: you know. It's a proven mathematical fact. You have confidence (another way of saying you have faith) that something exploded from nothing 15 billion years ago.

Math is not a proven fact. I have seen a person be hypnotized and convinced that the number 6 no longer existed. Can you be sure that there is not a number between one and two which one plus one already equals. Plus sometimes 1+1=10 (see binary math)

Yes, I am. Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.

I promise that I can cast doubt on any thing you claim as fact. 100% proof is impossible in anything. If science delt only with facts it would never be wrong. But there are plenty of theorys that have now been cast aside (spontaneous generation, the four elements, the geocentric model of the universe. Science is all about falsifiabilty. Science deals only with those things we can test or model. We can observe to see is evolution is occuring. And yet all of science, every bit, is theory supported by other theorys, none of which have been disproven. Once or if they are a New theory is created that better matches the evidence.

Religion is religion because you can't prove it. Science is science because you can.

yep

 

[Ernesto]

Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.

How do you think those facts come about? Through the gradual exploration of theories!

 

[doppelganger]

Plus sometimes 1+1=10 (see binary math)

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary math, and those who don't.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary math, and those who don't.

You deserve frubals for this but I can't give you any. :sad4:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Science deals with facts, and study. Not with a theoy that can only be supported with theories.

Epistemology is the beginning of all things.

 

[Willamena]

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into categories and those who don't.

 

[doppelganger]

Epistemology is the beginning of all things.

And the end.

 

[Willamena]

No, it's not nicely said. You don't "have confidence" that one plus one equals two...

I do; it darned well better equal two, otherwise how would we know how many husbands/wives we really have?

...you know. It's a proven mathematical fact. You have confidence (another way of saying you have faith) that something exploded from nothing 15 billion years ago.

As a wise man once said, "Epistemology is the beginning of all things." It's also the beginning of science. Science begins with, "What do we know?" and "How do we know things?" We make a hypothesis (or "guess" if you prefer) and test to see if we can disprove it. If we can't, we decide it's okay and move on. This is "proof"; this is "fact"; it is the only "proof" that science offers. So you tell me --does that make it absolutely true, or does that make it something we can have confidence in?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And the end.

That's what I meant. :yes:

 

[painted wolf]

People who talk about carbon dating dinosaurs obviously have no genuine knowledge about readimetric dating in general and carbon dating in particular.
As for not being able to turn matter into energy or vice versa... I guess we are all dead.

Sadly there are very few people discussing Creationism who have genuine knowledge of science and scientific method. It's a shame because I'd love to talk with one.
Many scientists have no problem with faith, science (even evolution) says nothing about the existance or non-existance of a diety.

Most Creationist "theory" is more concerned with misrepresenting actual science in hopes of distracting people from the evidence. Rather than looking for actual testable evidence of thier own. This is a disservice to those who want to see "intelligent design" or "creationism" treated as a genuine theory rather than as a bunch of cranks trying to sell books and sermons to the gullable and devout.

As a person of faith and a student of Biology/evolutionary devolpment I find such "look at the monkey!" tatics to be particularly reprehencable.

**this rant has been brought to you by the letter P and the letter W, please return to your regularly scedualed debate**

wa:do