Spirituality
25 Jul 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerSome of the empirical evidence is described here:
No one denies that natural selection accounts for microevolution within a creation framework. We just see no empirical evidence that natural selection can create totally new species out of a chemical soup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo you are lead to believe it seems. Nothing you can reproduce in a lab. Did you even bother to read the link on abiogenesis I posted?
Some of the empirical evidence is described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe scientific method does not rely exclusively on reproduction "in a lab."
So you are lead to believe it seems. Nothing you can reproduce in a lab. Did you even bother to read the link on abiogenesis I posted?
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
The theory of evolution is banckrupt for two reasons: first, it cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method. If man tries to recreate any event from the past, it is tainted since something is added that wasn't present at that time, man's intellect. Secondly, there are two aspects of evolution, Micro and Macro evolution. Micro is observable, since we see it every day. Man manipulates genes to create new kinds of canines as one example. However, Macro doesn't occur and hasn't been observed, if it were true then Linnaeus' Taxonomy would be obsolete.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe scientific method does require you to be able to test your hypothesis. A hypothesis for microevolution can be tested. The same cannot be said about macroevolution since it has never been observed in the present time.
The scientific method does not rely exclusively on reproduction "in a lab."
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIn fact, the consequences of large-scale evolution can and have been observed in a rather large number of independent ways.
The scientific method does require you to be able to test your hypothesis. A hypothesis for microevolution can be tested. The same cannot be said about macroevolution since it has never been observed in the present time.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIf you make certain unprovable presuppositions they force you to interpret evidence in a certain way which could be interpreted differently if you had different presuppositions. This is called confirmation bias.
In fact, the consequences of large-scale evolution can and have been observed in a rather large number of independent ways.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAmusing you would be calling up confirmation bias as evidence for creation.
If you make certain unprovable presuppositions they force you to interpret evidence in a certain way which could be interpreted differently if you had different presuppositions. This is called confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
One thing irritates me: the religious set trying to refer to creation myth as 'creation science' when there is in absolute fact ZERO science in the creation myth. And the Christian creation myth isn't even from Christianity OR Judaism, it is in fact a paved over versions of a MUCH earlier Egyptian 7 day creation myth, which in Egypt was just one of MANY such myths.
The Jews living in Egypt ATT just repaved it, repacked it for Jewish consumption.
It is just as fake in the original Egyptian version as it is in the Judaic and Christian version.
I can envision some alternate universe where those ancient Jews living in ancient Egypt had picked on of the other Egyptian creation myths to repave as their own.
The bible would then have quite another story and just as fake as what we see now.
"There came a time when the waters contained no life and god said there should be life and one of his angels came down to Earth and there was a fight between two competing angels and their blood shed fell in the ocean and all life forms came out of that blood'
Or some other such nonsense.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
05 Sep 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseThe fact that you say there is zero scientific evidence for creation is a result of your confirmation bias. If creation were true what would you accept as suitable evidence for it?
Amusing you would be calling up confirmation bias as evidence for creation.
One thing irritates me: the religious set trying to refer to creation myth as 'creation science' when there is in absolute fact ZERO science in the creation myth. And the Christian creation myth isn't even from Christianity OR Judaism, it is in fact a paved over versions of a ...[text shortened]... shed fell in the ocean and all life forms came out of that blood'
Or some other such nonsense.
05 Sep 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseCreation is a statement of faith in my opinion and how I define myself. I am a creationist not an ID believer. There is common ground between the two but I prefer creationism.
Amusing you would be calling up confirmation bias as evidence for creation.
One thing irritates me: the religious set trying to refer to creation myth as 'creation science' when there is in absolute fact ZERO science in the creation myth. And the Christian creation myth isn't even from Christianity OR Judaism, it is in fact a paved over versions of a ...[text shortened]... shed fell in the ocean and all life forms came out of that blood'
Or some other such nonsense.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerFortunately, that is no issue here. The evidence for evolution is so strong that it was overwhelmingly accepted even before DNA was discovered.
If you make certain unprovable presuppositions they force you to interpret evidence in a certain way which could be interpreted differently if you had different presuppositions. This is called confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
05 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraArgumentum ad populum😉
Fortunately, that is no issue here. The evidence for evolution is so strong that it was overwhelmingly accepted even before DNA was discovered.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNo, and DNA doesn’t help the evolution argument either. You can not even definitely say life started with DNA!
Fortunately, that is no issue here. The evidence for evolution is so strong that it was overwhelmingly accepted even before DNA was discovered.
06 Sep 18
Originally posted by @siciliandragonAs a matter of fact, there is a huge body of empirical evidence that this occurred.
If mean by "large scale" evolution Macro-evolution, not so. Macro-Evolution is emergence of new kinds from chance mutations. That has never been observed, only changes within kinds.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution