Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

[Deacon]

So your argument is unless we are willing to get in a lab we should just shut up and believe them no matter what?

The argument is that if you have an alternate hypothesis, gather the data and prove it.
Prove it to such an extent that it will persuade those that disagree.
Integrate it among many disciplines.
That is how scientific revolution occurs.

For YECreationism that means a new geology, a new nuclear physics, a new biology and genetics, ... the list goes on.

but that’s not all, integrate these new creationist sciences so they work together.

then apply them so that they can be applied to applications that work today.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

The argument is that if you have an alternate hypothesis, gather the data and prove it.
Prove it to such an extent that it will persuade those that disagree.
Integrate it among many disciplines.
That is how scientific revolution occurs.

For YECreationism that means a new geology, a new nuclear physics, a new biology and genetics, ... the list goes on.

but that’s not all, integrate these new creationist sciences so they work together.

then apply them so that they can be applied to applications that work today.

Rob

So the answer is yes. Got it.

 

[KeyserSoze]

ICR, AIG, and more..

Oh good grief. You don’t even know what a science organization is.
AiG and ICR are NOT “science organizations”
They are fundamentalist religious websites.
They are not accredited. they don’t submit to peer review.

Heck, they even have religious “statement of faith” pledges where they come right out and tell you that they refuse to accept “ANY SCIENCE” if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture.
How can you even argue this subject when you don’t even know what constitutes a “scientific organization” or reference,,.?

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh good grief. You don’t even know what a science organization is.
AiG and ICR are NOT “science organizations”
They are fundamentalist religious websites.
They are not accredited. they don’t submit to peer review.

Heck, they even have religious “statement of faith” pledges where they come right out and tell you that they refuse to accept “ANY SCIENCE” if it contradicts their interpretation of scripture.
How can you even argue this subject when you don’t even know what constitutes a “scientific organization” or reference,,.?

Sorry, didn't know you got to define what a scientific organization is. And accredited by who? And who says they do not submit to peer review. On what basis do you make that claim? (Spoiler Alert: They do submit to peer review)

They are biblical scientists. I know that idea blows your mind.

 

[Reformed1689]

@KeyserSoze I have a question for you. If the creation account is not literal but figurative (despite there is no evidence for that) when does Genesis start becoming historical narrative? When are we to take it literally? Is it the fall? Is it the Ark? Is it the Tower of Babel? Is it Abraham? Is it Joseph? Is all of it figurative? What is your answer?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Sorry, didn't know you got to define what a scientific organization is. And accredited by who? And who says they do not submit to peer review. On what basis do you make that claim? (Spoiler Alert: They do submit to peer review)

They are biblical scientists. I know that idea blows your mind.

I don’t have to define it. They themselves defined what they are,
“An apologetics ministry”.
They are also listed as a religious ministry on their tax returns,
Also, there is no such thing as a “biblical scientist”.
If you’re invoking biblical miracles as causes for phenomena, then by definition, you aren’t conducting “science”

 

[Reformed1689]

I don’t have to define it. They themselves defined what they are,
“An apologetics ministry”.
They are also listed as a religious ministry on their tax returns,
Also, there is no such thing as a “biblical scientist”.
If you’re invoking biblical miracles as causes for phenomena, then by definition, you aren’t conducting “science”

And explaining how the universe started is also not conducting science since it can't be tested or observed. Seems you have a double standard.

 

[KeyserSoze]

@KeyserSoze I have a question for you. If the creation account is not literal but figurative (despite there is no evidence for that) when does Genesis start becoming historical narrative? When are we to take it literally? Is it the fall? Is it the Ark? Is it the Tower of Babel? Is it Abraham? Is it Joseph? Is all of it figurative? What is your answer?

Just because you desire all those stories to be literal doesn’t mean we ignore all the evidence that shows they can’t possibly be.
So, as with all stories, we take each tale, one at a time, and check them for accuracy.
So it’s clear that Adam and Eve wasn’t literal.
Noah’s tale is clearly shown to be mythology as well.
Now, is it possible that certain individuals were real..? Sure.

Ultimately, What we take as “literal” MUST rest on evidence.
If all the evidence shows that Noah’s flood is clearly impossible, then it’s rather silly to try to convince a scientifically educated society that it is actual history.
as Francis Collins so elequently stated, “ it does not serve faith well” to do that.

 

[KeyserSoze]

And explaining how the universe started is also not conducting science since it can't be tested or observed. Seems you have a double standard.

There is evidence that the universe started by the Big Bang,
The expansion outward from a centralized core, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the temperature of deep space, etc all point toward the Big Bang. Thus we can test the universe and predict what should be found if the BB actually occurred.
Testable predictions are the hallmark of science.

 

[JonC]

Six hour warning - this thread will be closed sometime after 4 am EST.

 

[Reformed1689]

So it’s clear that Adam and Eve wasn’t literal.

Based on what?

Noah’s tale is clearly shown to be mythology as well.

No, actually it hasn't been.

If all the evidence shows that Noah’s flood is clearly impossible, then it’s rather silly to try to convince a scientifically educated society that it is actual history.

Evidence doesn't show it is impossible. With God all things are possible.

 

[Reformed1689]

There is evidence that the universe started by the Big Bang,
The expansion outward from a centralized core, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the temperature of deep space, etc all point toward the Big Bang. Thus we can test the universe and predict what should be found if the BB actually occurred.
Testable predictions are the hallmark of science.

You can't test the big bang, you can't repeat it. Not science.

 

[KeyserSoze]

You can't test the big bang, you can't repeat it. Not science.

Oh good grief, you can test the Big Bang, and NO, you don’t have to “repeat it” in order to do so.
Science doesn’t have the ability to gather the hydrogen necessary to create a star either, but that doesn’t mean that star formation isn’t a science. We can gather information from stellar nurseries to test the processes involved. We can study our own sun which is already in existence to determine many of the processes involved.
If you think we have to recreate the Big Bang in order for it to be science, then you’re knowledge of science isn’t very good.
Forensic science for example doesn’t witness the murder in real time. It assertains what happened in the past by analyzing the evidence left behind in the present. By your logic, the only way for forensics to be a science would mean that we’d have to murder another victim, and duplicate the evidence. Lol

 

[KeyserSoze]

Based on what?

No, actually it hasn't been.

Evidence doesn't show it is impossible. With God all things are possible.

Based on what,.?
Oh, I don’t know.. Population genetics, The entire science of anthropology, etc..
as for Noah....?
Oh let’s see, No way the polar ice caps could possibly exist.
All of Egypt would need to be wiped out and it wasn’t.
No place for all the water to come from. no place for all the water to go. No way saltwater fish or coral reefs could survive being inundated with fresh water.
No way all the animals could get to an ark, No way the animals could make their way back to their current habitats after the ark landed.
No way species could survive the genetic bottlenecks to prevent extinction, etc etc.
The list is endless. THATS how we know that Noah’s flood is fable.

 

[Reformed1689]

All of Egypt would need to be wiped out and it wasn’t.

And what makes you think Egypt pre-dates the flood?

No place for all the water to come from. no place for all the water to go. No way saltwater fish or coral reefs could survive being inundated with fresh water.

You are gonna need to give more detail than that. The water came from above and from below. Not to mention this was a SUPERNATURAL event, not a natural one. You seem to forget that part.

No way all the animals could get to an ark

Based on?

No way the animals could make their way back to their current habitats after the ark landed.

Which is probably a good reason why a lot of animals went extinct.

The list is endless. THATS how we know that Noah’s flood is fable.

Not very compelling.

 

[KeyserSoze]

And what makes you think Egypt pre-dates the flood?


You are gonna need to give more detail than that. The water came from above and from below. Not to mention this was a SUPERNATURAL event, not a natural one. You seem to forget that part.


Based on?


Which is probably a good reason why a lot of animals went extinct.


Not very compelling.

We know Egypt pre dates the flood.
According to your own creationist resources, the flood occurred about 4400 years ago.
Egypt dates back millennia before that. Yet it has an uninterrupted history and culture.
As for the water, it can’t come from either above or below. If the water was above, it would create massive atmospheric pressure that would destroy any life on this planet, and if it came from below it would have boiled everything on earth alive when it came up because the radiation under the earths surface heats the planet from within. Just like old faithful at Yellowstone, , Old Noah would have been poached. Lol
Then you have the entire science of biogeography which is global species dispersal.
Your ark lands in the mountains of Turkey. 2 koalas get off.
Now, how do they get back to Australia.? How did they cross the mountains and 1000s of miles of Pacific Ocean,.?
Yet there they are today in Australia..?
This problem arises with species all over the globe
Madagascar lizards, South American emus, no way to get back home. Lol
Now, as for your claim that i’m “Ignoring the supernatural” ,,
Of course I am,, because once you invoke miracles to explain away all these mountains of evidence, then you are no longer conducting science.
Your conducting religious apologetics.
You’re making the evolutionists case for them..
If you want creationism to be accepted as “science”, then you need to follow the rules of science..
so NO MIRACLES.. and without miracles YECism implodes.

 

[777]

If you think we have to recreate the Big Bang in order for it to be science, then you’re knowledge of science isn’t very good.
Forensic science for example doesn’t witness the murder in real time. It ascertains what happened in the past by analyzing the evidence left behind in the present. By your logic, the only way for forensics to be a science would mean that we’d have to murder another victim, and duplicate the evidence. Lol

But here there is only one murder as a baseline, and the murder happened a long time ago. You try solving a murder case thousands of years old with forensic evidence. And the only pure science is mathematics.

 

[Reformed1689]

Egypt dates back millennia before that. Yet it has an uninterrupted history and culture.

Based on?

Of course I am,, because once you invoke miracles to explain away all these mountains of evidence, then you are no longer conducting science.

So do you believe Jesus rose from the dead?

You’re making the evolutionists case for them..

Not really.

If you want creationism to be accepted as “science”, then you need to follow the rules of science..

Now here is where you are wrong. I don't believe in Creation Science. Science cannot explain origins. It is impossible. I take eyewitness account which trumps any and all theories.

so NO MIRACLES.. and without miracles YECism implodes.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Is there a God?

 

[Reformed1689]

But here there is only one murder as a baseline, and the murder happened a long time ago. You try solving a murder case thousands of years old with forensic evidence. And the only pure science is mathematics.

Science is his god. It is an idol that he apparently worships. He needs to repent.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Based on?

I take eyewitness account which trumps any and all theories.

Actually, no.. it doesn’t.
If you look into this matter, you’ll actually find that ‘eyewitness testimony’ statistically is the LEAST RELIABLE evidence there is.