| Creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up. It does. you are not looking. |
Posted on 12/17/2004 2:13:45 PM PST by Rodney King
Actually, you are quite wrong. Science starts with a hypothesis, works up to a theory, and then works up to a law. The rejection of this by the liberals merely proves they firmly believe in the relativist and extreme view of science and truth.
By rejecting the principles of the natural sciences they discredit any attempt they make to claim scientific competence. Mere rejection on their part, although the fashionable thinking for so long, does not discredit the scientific principles.
In many ways, the real problem is that the Darwinists are mentally superficial people who want to reject the truth because it is inconvenient. We have such things as Boyle's Law, Mendel's Law, the Law of Gravity, etc.
While these intellectual midgets reject the concept of scientific law, they have been promoting such mentally superficial rubish as quantum mechanics, the big bang, etc.
There is such a thing as absolute truth and necessary truth but they prefer to accept pseudo-science because they are afraid to be unfashionable.
God created evolution
You won't find this in the bible... you'll find just the opposite... therefore, you must be talking about a different God.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”
The Holy Bible (Re 4:11)
God created ALL things. Since evolution exists and is a fact, He must have created it. To deny that He created all things denies the one true God.
"Actually, you are quite wrong. Science starts with a hypothesis, works up to a theory, and then works up to a law. "
Actually, you are quite wrong.
Hypothesis: The deductions made after studying an occurrence, by collecting data about the occurrence, and turning it into useful information to back up your hypothesis.
Theory:In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
Law:A scientific principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions, for instance, the law of magnetism states that likemagnetic poles repel one another, while opposite poles attract.
Various hypotheses might eventually be raised to the status of theory. Theories explain an observed fact. There is the fact of evolution and the Theory that explains it.
Laws are generally able to be stated in terms of mathematics and do not vary under SPECIFIC conditions.
"the real problem is that the Darwinists are mentally superficial people "
The real problem is creationists misinterpret the Bible.
And they tramped it down very well too.
Frankly, creation theory might have had a chance without that 6000 year garbage.
Biology texts discuss the abiogensis hypothesis, but it is not in the Theory of Evolution.
The only argument creationists have against evolution is putting the origin of life in it, when it is not there. It is a dishonest tactic and points out that there is not much of Jesus in their attitude or science in their Bible misinterpretation.
Creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up. It is purely sophistry derived from faulty interpretation of Scripture.
The young Earth idea is particularly amusing, but it is far from the only kookiness in creation science/ID. The Noah tale contain many items that give scientists a belly laugh when creationists take them "literally".
| Creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up. It does. you are not looking. |
A "theory of science" is essentially a fact. There is no such thing as "only a theory". You can say it is only a hypothesis, but a scientific theory is a very prestigious set of ideas and data to support it that support an observed phenomenon. In this case the observed fact is evolution.
Creationist misinterpretations of the Bible are internally inconsistent in the Bible and contrary to observed fact in nature.
Please give us the reference to any peer reviewed scientific paper that supports creationism.
I have never found even one.
The key part that you are conveniently overlooking: "but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments"
"Law:A scientific principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions, for instance, the law of magnetism states that likemagnetic poles repel one another, while opposite poles attract." Inadequate definition. Laws can be said to be universal or relational.
"Theories explain an observed fact." <---Contrary to the requirement of demostration.
"There is the fact of evolution and the Theory that explains it." <---just because your science teacher's favorite textbook says it is a fact doesn't make it so. A lot of tripe has been put into textbooks.
"Laws are generally able to be stated in terms of mathematics and do not vary under SPECIFIC conditions." Universal laws do not vary under any conditions. Relational laws do not vary under SPECIFIC conditions.
"Laws are generally able to be stated in terms of mathematics" <---incorrect; too much importance placed upon math (deductive reasoing); not enough importance placed upon inductive reasoning and the highest form or reasoning; most scientific laws have nothing to do at all with mathematics.
"the real problem is that the Darwinists are mentally superficial people "
The real problem is creationists misinterpret the Bible.
| Please give us the reference to any peer reviewed scientific paper that supports creationism. I have never found even one. Like I said.... you havn't looked. |
I have looked. There are none. I don't think you understand the nature of the cause you apparently seek to defend.
This has nothing to do with biology.
I believe the Bible is true, but I probably don't believe what you say the Bible says is true.
Nevertheless, the Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. I am not going to quibble about definitions with you.
A Theory is not just a guess. You cannot say "it only a theory" when it comes to science.
The Word says it is so.
Even if I didn't believe the Word it is a matter of simple observation for me.
There is no way I can reason that all things i.e. everything just happened.
The basic tenets of scientific observation rule out the very notion.
Now do I believe that species adapt? Yes, I do.
Survival of the fitest? Yes, I do.
Jesus certainly seemed a fine rabbi.
And, the biology text I mentioned did not discuss any origins of life hypotheses.
Ulrey is an "origins of life" hypothesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.