Evidence supporting creationism ?

[Set Abominae]

Eh, I'm a Satanist - that's all I have to say about creationism. However, I think this site has some pretty interesting ideas.

Check it out: http://www.panspermia.org/

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Nothing wrong with some fish psychology I guess, lets go on for a few more posts until it becomes too absurd.

Let's say a big fish for some reason decides not to eat the smaller one cleaning its mouth. Since I'm certain that fish aren't smart enough to figure out that the little fish' actions are good for it in the long run it has to be some sort of instinct telling it not to swallow. I also doubt that that instinct can be so specific so as to tell the predator not to close its mouth when a smaller one is buggering around in a certain manner in there, therefore the passiveness must be goverered by a more general instinct; perhaps something making it less aggressive, less prone to try to get nutrition from any source possible, less receptive -- in short, all explainations I can think of that are based on an instinct that would cause it to tolerate the smaller fish would make it less competitive in the ordinary race for survival.

Well first of all why couldn't an instinct be so specific as to tell a fish to not swallow when smaller fish are in it. There's also the simple answer that it feels good to have their mouths cleaned, so why mess with a good thing?

And also if mouth infections where such a serious problem as to cause death, it would lead to the death of the fish less capable of handling such an infection (since the helpful behaviour of the smaller fishes which you talk of to come to exist on a larger, relevant, scale, would require an immense amount of time, whereas a new infection could arise comparatively quickly), hence making the entire species stronger and more resistant to said infections. In other words, mouth parasites are more likely a nuisance, not something that would cause a natural selction dependent on the job of the cleaning fishes.

Perhaps species of fish, or induviudal fish within a species, who did not allow smaller fish to clean out their mouths have already died off, theres no reason to think this isn't the case.

Your argument regarding the small fish I can accept to some extent, though it seems an utterly unnatural foodsource and way of acting, something that would only be tried in extreme conditions under which animals would logically move somewhere else or simply die.

I don't understand. Why would the little fish die or move away when they have plentful foodsource in the parasites in the big fishes mouths?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

yes, but we were referring to birds.

Yeah sorry about that, read a little too fast. I couldn't tell you a perticular reason that the birds don't peck at the fishes flesh, but it is possible that either a) the birds that eat the parasites are not strong enough to break through the scales or b) the perticular fish is not to their liking so they quickly learn not to eat the flesh.

 

[JColtrane]

I think an important distinction must be made here: Survival of the fittest can and does lead to a dominant trait in a species. This is a principle that almost everyone accepts, evolutionist or not. Now certain forms of evolution will make the claim that this principle can be applied in a way that a new species can result from this process. I have a difficult time accepting this as there is no empirical evidence for it as far as I'm concerned. And even if it was proved that this could happen, modern evolutionary theory still has no explanation for how matter came into being, so it still needs something to be created somewhere along the line.

 

[Kenneth R.]

argh! enough with the fish!

Anyays, Creationism shouldn't be taught in school. It's a religious belief not a scientific fact. Keep evolution in schools, and creation in churches. Lets the kids decide on their own.

until one is proven fact, you are mistaken. they are both valid theories at this point.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I think an important distinction must be made here: Survival of the fittest can and does lead to a dominant trait in a species. This is a principle that almost everyone accepts, evolutionist or not. Now certain forms of evolution will make the claim that this principle can be applied in a way that a new species can result from this process. I have a difficult time accepting this as there is no empirical evidence for it as far as I'm concerned. And even if it was proved that this could happen, modern evolutionary theory still has no explanation for how matter came into being, so it still needs something to be created somewhere along the line.

absolutely.

 

[Xorv]

until one is proven fact, you are mistaken. they are both valid theories at this point.

then let me just edit my post with theroy instead of fact..

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The thing is creationism isn't scientific. To be a scientific theory there must be the possibilty of the said theory being disproved through physical, empyrical data. Because the theory of creationism can always be defended on metaphysical grounds it is impossible to ever disprove it. Therefore teaching creationism as a scientific theory is an error.

 

[RookParliament]

until one is proven fact, you are mistaken. they are both valid theories at this point.

Talkorigins.org will say it better than I ever could.

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."


"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

 

[RookParliament]

Now Silent Song you should know what a scientific definition of theory is. Don't use the argument that since there is a Theory of Ecolution it is not also a fact.

You know what even if God came down unto this planet tommorrow it still wouldn't disprove evolution. Scientists would just have to find the place God has (if any) in being an evolutionary force.

 

[RookParliament]

Creationism is not a valid theory because it is not falsifiable. God is not falsifiable. Therefore creationism and God have no place in science. Science can be proven false with new facts, and can change and evolve.

 

[RookParliament]

I think an important distinction must be made here: Survival of the fittest can and does lead to a dominant trait in a species. This is a principle that almost everyone accepts, evolutionist or not. Now certain forms of evolution will make the claim that this principle can be applied in a way that a new species can result from this process. I have a difficult time accepting this as there is no empirical evidence for it as far as I'm concerned. And even if it was proved that this could happen, modern evolutionary theory still has no explanation for how matter came into being, so it still needs something to be created somewhere along the line.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Here you go. Take your time look it all over. Any questions about evolution you have talkorigins will usually have all modern known facts, theories, and opinions. The only agenda talkorigins has is teaching people about evolution

 

[JColtrane]

I would look at the scientific evidence for evolution this way:
There are two types of evidence that can support it:
1)Historical
2)Experimental
Historical is to be preffered because no matter how many times you experiment on something and it comes out a certain way, it is--to use a philosophical term--an inductive argument, meaning that there is still assumption involved, you assume that it will come out the same the next time even though it might not. Really, IMO, experiments can "prove" nothing, holding to the strict sense of the word. They may be enough to convince some people, but you are still believing in something, it is not proven. In truth, it is a belief system also.
Historical evidence is the way to go IMO, and there is no convincing facts for evolution (in the crossing species form) there either.
In short, evolution has no facts. Therefore, your arguments about teaching facts in schools is void. Evolution should be taught in schools, but not as fact.

One thought that still occupies me that no one had a reply to (most likely b/c there is no answer): How did matter evolve? There is no scientific basis to say that something came from nothing, which is highly ironic b/c evolution claims to be a strictly scientific theory.

 

[RookParliament]

I would look at the scientific evidence for evolution this way:
There are two types of evidence that can support it:
1)Historical
2)Experimental
Historical is to be preffered because no matter how many times you experiment on something and it comes out a certain way, it is--to use a philosophical term--an inductive argument, meaning that there is still assumption involved, you assume that it will come out the same the next time even though it might not. Really, IMO, experiments can "prove" nothing, holding to the strict sense of the word. They may be enough to convince some people, but you are still believing in something, it is not proven. In truth, it is a belief system also.
Historical evidence is the way to go IMO, and there is no convincing facts for evolution (in the crossing species form) there either.
In short, evolution has no facts. Therefore, your arguments about teaching facts in schools is void. Evolution should be taught in schools, but not as fact.
One thought that still occupies me that no one had a reply to (most likely b/c there is no answer): How did matter evolve? There is no scientific basis to say that something came from nothing, which is highly ironic b/c evolution claims to be a strictly scientific theory.

Did you even look at the link? The facts supporting evolution (some of them) are right there.

Anyway the job of scientists in the next century and beyond will be to look at where the matter came from as well as try to conclusively show how the expansion of space started out.

Also if you conduct multiple experiments under the same conditions and they all turn out the same way then that is proof. If even once it doesn't turn out well that has to be investigated to figure out why. You can not just throw it out and proclaim it null.

 

[Kenneth R.]

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.".

unproven.

Also if you conduct multiple experiments under the same conditions and they all turn out the same way then that is proof.

no, it means that it has yet to be proven wrong. many people tested and verified newton, that did not mean he was absolutely correct.

 

[RookParliament]

unproven.

no, it means that it has yet to be proven wrong. many people tested and verified newton, that did not mean he was absolutely correct.

Unproven to you only because you refuse to look at the evidence.

Newton was right. Einstein never disproved Newton he just expended our understanding beyond what Newton worked with utilizing new knowledge and theories. :EDIT: I see what you wrote could be taken to say what I just said about Newton and Einstein.:EDIT: I said it would need to be investigated if the experemint, even once, did not turn out the way it was meant to. Whether that would indicate an error of the experimeters. or the whole damn idea behind the experiment would have to be determined.

:EDIT: Anybody else seem to think the UM servers are suffering or is it just me?:EDIT:

 

[RookParliament]

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/06/30/boll/index1.html

You'll need to get a Salon Free Day Pass

 

[Kenneth R.]

Unproven to you only because you refuse to look at the evidence.

i look. that is not the issue. i find the "evidence" thus presented to be uncompelling to me to change my views on the issue. presenting evidence is one thing, compelling evidence is another.

 

[JColtrane]

Also if you conduct multiple experiments under the same conditions and they all turn out the same way then that is proof. If even once it doesn't turn out well that has to be investigated to figure out why. You can not just throw it out and proclaim it null.

I agree that you cannot throw it out and proclaim experimental evidence null, but it cannot prove anything. You need to read up on the concept of an 'inductive' argument. I repeat, even if an event results from a certain stimulus every time you conduct the experiment, that is still not proof. It may be in the scientific world, but this is a philosophy forum, after all.

 

[RookParliament]

i look. that is not the issue. i find the "evidence" thus presented to be uncompelling to me to change my views on the issue. presenting evidence is one thing, compelling evidence is another.

I'm beginning to think the only evidence you would except is if your non-existent god came down from his heaven and told you that evolution was real.