Evidence supporting creationism ?

[RookParliament]

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.

If we were talking about some subjective philosophy than inductive reasoning is the cat's pajamas. But I thought we were talking about evolution which is scientifically proven. But you are right in saying experimental evidence is no good without real world verification.

Point in fact evolution has a mountain, nay an ocean, of real world verification.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Woah what a subject!

Well having just graduated with a degree in zoology i thought i'd add my opinion here.

I was taught for the last 4 years that evolution is the real deal, and the sheer ammount of proof and evidence for it is huge. You just have to read a few books on the subject and you'll get heaps of it, Darwin's work on finches etc, fossil records etc.
There really is a lot going for it and because it is based on a good deal of factual eveidence then it is taught a a scientific theory.
I personally see no reason to say it is wrong at all, the theory works fine and stands up to a lot of punishment from people who claim it to be wrong.
What evolution theory cannot answer is where the very first molecule cames from and why, that is not an area for a zoologist to go into and is the sort of area a phycist or chenmist is better suited to answer on. The theory of evolution itself is not concerned with where molecule came from, it is the theory of how a single organism/species has changed into all the ones we have today.

In my opinion the creationism theory is not science, it can't ever prooved because as has been said it's based on a metaphysical idea, one there will never be solid evidence for. Teachong creationsim as science is wrong, it distorts the idea of science and in my opinion is a means of trying to give the theory more credibility than can be proven through studies.
One of my biggest problems with the theory is that creationism and the ailen life theory both are ways of avoiding answering the question. They don't give any explanation of how life evolved, they just pass it off as the work of a divine being that may or may not exist. Doesn't answer the question just pushes it to one side.
I've actually heard people claim that fossils are not evidnce of evolution because God put them there to make us question our beginings! What kind of an argument is that, it just shoves a heap of good evidence under the carpet and says God moves in mysterious ways! Not a decent argument.

On the subject of how to proove a theory. In all my work if i said something was a fact or had been proven then it meant i had to get the same experimental result in roughly 95% of my tests.
So if i did 100 experiments and 95 gave the same result i'd be fairly certain that what happened in those 95 test was the norm and could say so. I didn't proove anything, just showed that there's a pretty good chance my theory was correct.
One last point is that i never tried to proove something correct, you simply do experiments so that you can say that to a certain degree of certainty all the other posibilities (null hypotheses) are incorrect.

 

[Kenneth R.]

If we were talking about some subjective philosophy than inductive reasoning is the cat's pajamas. But I thought we were talking about evolution which is scientifically proven. But you are right in saying experimental evidence is no good without real world verification.

Point in fact evolution has a mountain, nay an ocean, of real world verification.

you still maintain that this "theory" is fact. therein lies our disagreement.

 

[Kenneth R.]

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.

i argue not against evolution but against macro-evolution. i see no evidence that the latter is any more than theory.

 

[JColtrane]

I disagree that creationism should not be taught as a part of science. IMO, the teacher should present both theories and present the evidence for both. This is the only fair way for the student to evaluate the issue and make his or her choice. For instance, for one class you could show fossil records supporting evolution and then the next day you could talk about a protein and its neccesary combination of 50 some amino acids (nigh impossible for it to randomly come together) or the irreducible complexity of the cell.

Thanks for enlightening me Lord SteveO on the fact that evolution does not try to attempt to explain where the first molocule came from. I suppose it is really a theory that attempts to explain what happened from that first molocule, not how that molocule got there. In other words, it still leaves a greater mystery unsolved.

 

[milkman]

Just my two cents, but I'd rather not be taught a load of bullshit (creationism) in my school.

 

[the alumnus]

I disagree that creationism should not be taught as a part of science. IMO, the teacher should present both theories and present the evidence for both. This is the only fair way for the student to evaluate the issue and make his or her choice. For instance, for one class you could show fossil records supporting evolution and then the next day you could talk about a protein and its neccesary combination of 50 some amino acids (nigh impossible for it to randomly come together) or the irreducible complexity of the cell.

i disagree on this "teaching both theories". science teachers should only teach scientific theories. creation science is theology, not science at all. it is not in any way falsifiable by evidence. rather, it takes the evidence of evolutionary science and adds the theological statement that "god did this". should we teach other creation stories in school as alternatives, such as the hindu churning the seas of milk? should math teachers present alternatives to things that are "only theories", like the number theory. that's right folks, numbers are only the theory! or einstein's relativity, only a theory. should kids "figure it out for themselves"? no, they should be taught science as we understand it.

 

[RookParliament]

i argue not against evolution but against macro-evolution. i see no evidence that the latter is any more than theory.

What about all the hundred's of documented instances of macroevolution? You're just going to ignore it I suppose.

 

[Kenneth R.]

show me.

 

[RookParliament]

I disagree that creationism should not be taught as a part of science. IMO, the teacher should present both theories and present the evidence for both. This is the only fair way for the student to evaluate the issue and make his or her choice. For instance, for one class you could show fossil records supporting evolution and then the next day you could talk about a protein and its neccesary combination of 50 some amino acids (nigh impossible for it to randomly come together) or the irreducible complexity of the cell.

Thanks for enlightening me Lord SteveO on the fact that evolution does not try to attempt to explain where the first molocule came from. I suppose it is really a theory that attempts to explain what happened from that first molocule, not how that molocule got there. In other words, it still leaves a greater mystery unsolved.

Amino acids do not randomly come together. Each amino acid has certain propensities for joining together with other amino acids. Think of amino acids as LEGO blocks. Some LEGO blocks can't be combined, others can.

Irreducible complexity is a laugh. Did you know that the mitochondria in our cells are actually bacteria that migrated into cells and set up a symbiotic relationship? Anyway as always talkorigins discusses this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

 

[RookParliament]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

:EDIT: This ones for you Silent Song

 

[Kenneth R.]

interesting, but that does not show concrete proof that evolution leads to the creation of *new* species from old, only that similarities between species exist in an orderly manner...

 

[SoundMaster]

interesting, but that does not show concrete proof that evolution leads to the creation of *new* species from old, only that similarities between species exist in an orderly manner...

What did god evolve from?

 

[JColtrane]

By the way, this is a philosophy forum. I think I'm going to stop talking about science (I suppose you do know more about it than me

Anyways, I know that it won't surprise most of you that I make such an audacious claim, but I have found proof of the existence of God. It is found in Aristophanes' The Knight :

Master: What, do you think there really are gods?
Servant: I know it.
Master: Know it! How?
Servant: I'm such a wretched god-detested chap.
Master: Well urged indeed.

 

[JColtrane]

What did god evolve from?

Now that's a terrible question. Silent Song is arguing for creation. HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. Now, as far as I know, God is viewed as the first-mover. He is eternal and nothing caused him to come into existence for He always was and is. This basic stuff.

 

[RookParliament]

interesting, but that does not show concrete proof that evolution leads to the creation of *new* species from old, only that similarities between species exist in an orderly manner...

Did you even read Part 4 or Part 5? The molecular evidence or the actual observation of speciation events?

 

[RookParliament]

By the way, this is a philosophy forum. I think I'm going to stop talking about science (I suppose you do know more about it than me

Anyways, I know that it won't surprise most of you that I make such an audacious claim, but I have found proof of the existence of God. It is found in Aristophanes' The Knight :

Master: What, do you think there really are gods?
Servant: I know it.
Master: Know it! How?
Servant: I'm such a wretched god-detested chap.
Master: Well urged indeed.

I always find it amusing when translations of older works always gain a British accent for me. Whenever I read any of the Romans, or even the pre-Revolutionary Russians I always give them a British accent in my head

 

[milkman]

I always find it amusing when translations of older works always gain a British accent for me. Whenever I read any of the Romans, or even the pre-Revolutionary Russians I always give them a British accent in my head

How insightful!

 

[RookParliament]

How insightful!

Sarcasm I would assume?
Well done

 

[SoundMaster]

Now, as far as I know, God is viewed as the first-mover. He is eternal and nothing caused him to come into existence for He always was and is. This basic stuff.

Really? How do we know this?