Evolution v. Creationism

[abu afak]

Religion requires no evidence. It is based solely on belief. In science, beliefs have to be proven, we call them hypotheses. Many scientists have a belief in God but separate that from their real-world hypothesis, theories and experiments.

Science does not deal in "Proof," only Math does.
Science Deals in Theories affirmed over time. (that started as mere hypothesis).
Scientific theories, like Evolution and Gravity, can also be Facts.

Perhaps my 50th posting:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​

[.....]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

 

[Hollie]

Religion requires no evidence. It is based solely on belief. In science, beliefs have to be proven, we call them hypotheses. Many scientists have a belief in God but separate that from their real-world hypothesis, theories and experiments.

I don't disagree about 'belief' requiring no evidence. I will point out however that competing belief systems have caused civilizations to clash and wars waged as those belief systems have sought to "prove'" the efficacy of their respective gods.

Science does not operate on "belief". And, I'll point out that irrefutable evidence is not a part of science knowledge. It is a process of discovery that flexes as new data is confirmed and meets the rigors of the Scientific Method.

I can't help but notice the attacks on science we see in here in so many forums are from the more excitable religious types. They know with absolute certainty that "belief" is not an attribute for their religious views as their gods are real and extant and the reason and rationality that drives science is to be met with fear and loathing.

 

[Hollie]

Boy, are you WRONG and not even a shred of evidence to show us to back up your spiel.

Speaking of fear and loathing....

 

[Hollie]

It matter because people can not agree and both sides have to be right…

People from the evolution side ( most not all ) believe it will prove a deity did not create this Universe while people on the Religious side want to prove that a deity gave us all this and I say it can be both if you really are open minded…

I would disagree in the sense that, (per the thread topic), the difference between evolution vs. creationism is that evolution is evidence based. The evidence drives the conclusions. I see nothing in science thst seeks to disprove god or gods. On the other hand, seeking evidence of God's work undermines faith. If one is questioning their faith, it is sometimes considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it

 

[ReinyDays]

That is not the case with creationism which has an internal bias. The “Statement of Faith” that is a prerequisite for creationer ministries is a guarantee of subjective bias.

I believe it is the Spirit of Christ that was created ... and "once is enough" as it were ... not a thing easily investigated by scientific methods ... and the dating here is of ... dubious origins ... depends on the version and (interestingly) the state of mathematical thought at the time of the translation ... the Latin version had no zero as a number ... that came with the Islamic tradition much later ... ha ha ha ...

DNA evidence gives us a genetic bottleneck around 50,000 years ago ... what's the oral tradition look like once set down on paper? ... and what is there to learn about human nature from this? ...

We sure did like re-populating the planet ... maybe absolute monogamy was the best way to keep straight whose kids were whose ... maybe this is still the best way? ...

 

[james bond]

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

There are no facts of evolution and it would not be ToE either as they made assumption of millions and billions of years. The evos have no explanation for the beginning of space and time nor what the Big Bang was. Sure, there is the CMB, but it does not lead to human history. OTOH, creationists explain with the 6 Days of Creation. That has not been disproved and science has backed it up, along with the global flood.

However, your Big Bang Theory has some contradictions.

"Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin

1. The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
2. The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
3. The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.

Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that secular scientists’ interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some creation scientists are starting to question.1


The second argument isn’t as impressive as it sounds. The Big Bang model is able to account for the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium because it contains an adjustable parameter called the baryon-to-photon ratio. Big Bang scientists simply choose a value for this parameter that gives them the right answer. Even so, it’s not clear that the Big Bang can account for the total number of atoms (per unit volume) in the universe. And even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang cannot correctly account for the observed amounts of lithium isotopes.2,3

Figure 1. The intensity of the CMB radiation (as a function of frequency) very closely matches the intensity profile of a blackbody having a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins. Measurements were taken by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.

Image credit: Public domain. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

However, the third argument, the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a blackbody. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1)."

Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?

Introduction Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin: The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...

www.icr.org

 

[james bond]

the difference between evolution vs. creationism is that evolution is evidence based. The evidence drives the conclusions.

This isn't true. Of course, the religionists look to see how evidence backs up their beliefs. What is FALSE is the belief that science doesn't include the supernatural.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are no facts of evolution and it would not be ToE either as they made assumption of millions and billions of years. The evos have no explanation for the beginning of space and time nor what the Big Bang was. Sure, there is the CMB, but it does not lead to human history. OTOH, creationists explain with the 6 Days of Creation. That has not been disproved and science has backed it up, along with the global flood.

However, your Big Bang Theory has some contradictions.

"Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin

1. The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
2. The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
3. The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.

Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that secular scientists’ interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some creation scientists are starting to question.1


The second argument isn’t as impressive as it sounds. The Big Bang model is able to account for the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium because it contains an adjustable parameter called the baryon-to-photon ratio. Big Bang scientists simply choose a value for this parameter that gives them the right answer. Even so, it’s not clear that the Big Bang can account for the total number of atoms (per unit volume) in the universe. And even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang cannot correctly account for the observed amounts of lithium isotopes.2,3

Figure 1. The intensity of the CMB radiation (as a function of frequency) very closely matches the intensity profile of a blackbody having a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins. Measurements were taken by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.

Image credit: Public domain. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

However, the third argument, the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a blackbody. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1)."

Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?

Introduction Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin: The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...

www.icr.org

So no need to actually discuss the topic, just go with another thread arguing the same thing?

And BTW, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

 

[james bond]

So no need to actually discuss the topic, just go with another thread arguing the same thing?

And BTW, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Your arguments are weak sauce and you do not understand the evolution is lacking as a theory. I wouldn't put it as hypothesis. It's a LIE. Moreover, you want to IGNORE how we even got to evolution by not discussing the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a LIE, too.

Thus, there is no need to discuss further as you backed out of discussing how we got to evolution.

 

[abu afak]

Your arguments are weak sauce and you do not understand the evolution is lacking as a theory. I wouldn't put it as hypothesis. It's a LIE. Moreover, you want to IGNORE how we even got to evolution by not discussing the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a LIE, too.

Thus, there is no need to discuss further as you backed out of discussing how we got to evolution.

We've all seen Genesis Ch 1, ergo you are NOT Needed here at all.
(ICR and AIG links just try to twist/shoehorn that blatantly wrong tale of Kweation and discredit Real science.)
So Sayeth logic.
`

 

[WinterBorn]

Your arguments are weak sauce and you do not understand the evolution is lacking as a theory. I wouldn't put it as hypothesis. It's a LIE. Moreover, you want to IGNORE how we even got to evolution by not discussing the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a LIE, too.

Thus, there is no need to discuss further as you backed out of discussing how we got to evolution.

And why is this debate so important? What does it really matter when it happened millions of years ago?

 

[surada]

Science does not deal in "Proof," only Math does.
Science Deals in Theories affirmed over time. (that started as mere hypothesis).
Scientific theories, like Evolution and Gravity, can also be Facts.

Perhaps my 50th posting:

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​

[.....]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches

scholar.harvard.edu

 

[Hollie]

This isn't true. Of course, the religionists look to see how evidence backs up their beliefs. What is FALSE is the belief that science doesn't include the supernatural.

Ranting of a Flat Earther.

 

[surada]

Ranting of a Flat Earther.

The adaptations of finches is easily understood.

 

[surada]

Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches

scholar.harvard.edu

 

[Hollie]

I believe it is the Spirit of Christ that was created ... and "once is enough" as it were ... not a thing easily investigated by scientific methods ... and the dating here is of ... dubious origins ... depends on the version and (interestingly) the state of mathematical thought at the time of the translation ... the Latin version had no zero as a number ... that came with the Islamic tradition much later ... ha ha ha ...

DNA evidence gives us a genetic bottleneck around 50,000 years ago ... what's the oral tradition look like once set down on paper? ... and what is there to learn about human nature from this? ...

We sure did like re-populating the planet ... maybe absolute monogamy was the best way to keep straight whose kids were whose ... maybe this is still the best way? ...

I can’t comment on spiritual matters as I have no way of defining such things. That seems to be the ultimate divide between creationism and evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms based on discoverable data, making predictions and testing for results leads to consistent interpretations. The creationist environment has to account for a supernatural being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and the creationist is left with unsolvable dilemmas as to why the creator wouldn't directly communicate with you but used heresay testimomy written in books authored by the corruptible hand of man.

 

[Hollie]

The adaptations of finches is easily understood.

For most of us, yes.

 

[james bond]

We've all seen Genesis Ch 1, ergo you are NOT Needed here at all.
(ICR and AIG links just try to twist/shoehorn that blatantly wrong tale of Kweation and discredit Real science.)
So Sayeth logic.
`

There is NO EVOLUTION except for natural selection by the creationists. Darwin's natural selection falsely theorizes that something that is not in the creature's DNA occurs -- macroevolution. It may as well be made up by Darwin because he and his family were atheists. The proof is we do not observe macroevolution happening.

Darwin's natural selection claims that the creature can change beyond their DNA's characteristics. This is never observed and will never be observed. What we observe is microevolution and that is the change within the creature's DNA.

OTOH, you FINALLY admitted creation is right on and that observation backs up creation science. Genesis tells it all and that God created Earth, the universe and life in six days.

I am NEEDED and WANTED here because I am the one who points out how the Bible backs up creation science. Furthermore, I point out the faults of Darwinism and evolution and those who fall for it and are atheists and agnostics will be SCREAMING IN PAIN, AGONY and HURT FOREVER, i.e. Darwinism leads to atheism and agnosticism. I point out the CORRECTION AND TRUTH and that is why you want me gone. I make you and the evos look FOOLISH and SAF. Let's not fall for Darwin's lies and head towards an afterlife of agony, pain and hurt beyond belief in order to be finally convinced. If one follows Darwinism, then it will be TOO LATE!

 

[Hollie]

There is NO EVOLUTION except for natural selection by the creationists. Darwin's natural selection falsely theorizes that something that is not in the creature's DNA occurs -- macroevolution. It may as well be made up by Darwin because he and his family were atheists. The proof is we do not observe macroevolution happening.

Darwin's natural selection claims that the creature can change beyond their DNA's characteristics. This is never observed and will never be observed. What we observe is microevolution and that is the change within the creature's DNA.

OTOH, you FINALLY admitted creation is right on and that observation backs up creation science. Genesis tells it all and that God created Earth, the universe and life in six days.

I am NEEDED and WANTED here because I am the one who points out how the Bible backs up creation science. Furthermore, I point out the faults of Darwinism and evolution and those who fall for it and are atheists and agnostics will be SCREAMING IN PAIN, AGONY and HURT FOREVER, i.e. Darwinism leads to atheism and agnosticism. I point out the CORRECTION AND TRUTH and that is why you want me gone. I make you and the evos look FOOLISH and SAF. Let's not fall for Darwin's lies and head towards an afterlife of agony, pain and hurt beyond belief in order to be finally convinced. If one follows Darwinism, then it will be TOO LATE!

“natural selection by the creationists”

Hilarious.

 

[zaangalewa]

There is NO EVOLUTION ...

You are wrong and you know this very well when you take a look at the hand of a gorilla and your own hand and ask yourselve where this similarity could come from. And no Christian ever asked you to defend god and his creation against his children and their evolution. That's totally weird.





We human beings are not only the beneficiaries but also the stewards of other creatures. Thanks to our bodies, God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement. Let us not leave in our wake a swath of destruction and death which will affect our own lives and those of future generations.
Pope Francis