Evolution VS Creation - Page 8 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 161Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #106 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:00 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,782
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP View Post
Yet I should allow scientists who state as fact, along with "missing pieces" mind you, tell me and my children how I was created? Is that not called faith?



No thanks.



Joshua 24

[15] .......................: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Not fact, theory of evolution. We will always have missing pieces in every theory, that however does little to take away from all the other (and for that matter overwhelming) evidence that provides trends in support of the theory. The fall back position of creation has allegorical stories with zero science based evidence, faith untested. A faith based on event(s) for which no evidence is given. Science is based on trends from evidence already attained, not faith.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Ikaika is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #107 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:08 PM
UMP
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,279
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
Not fact, theory of evolution. We will always have missing pieces in every theory, that however does little to take away from all the other (and for that matter overwhelming) evidence that provides trends in support of the theory. The fall back position of creation has allegorical stories with zero science based evidence, faith untested. A faith based on event(s) for which no evidence is given. Science is based on trends from evidence already attained, not faith.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The faith in evolution bus left. It's stuck in the mud somewhere down the road, with all those other buses with missing pieces. I'll take the road less traveled and go through the narrow gate, home.
UMP is offline  
post #108 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 567
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
Well, it has a lot more pieces than any evidence suggesting creation (which there is zero). For one to conclude creation as a default conclusion because not every piece of evidence is available is not a science based discussion. It's assuming a conclusion before all evidence is available. The puzzle (the trends) are a lot better visualized today than even last year.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
First bolded -- Where did I say anything that concluded creation? I have said that I am a skeptic and that I have not accepted the theory of evolution as fact based on what I know. We agree that there are missing pieces to evolutionary theory. Again, we just seem to disagree on how much is missing and how critical the gaps are.

Second bolded -- To make sure I'm understanding this statement correctly, are you #1 assuming I am saying the creation story is supported by evidence and that I'm assuming a conclusion for creation before all the evidence is available? If so, the second part of this is logical mind F for me. This is EXACTLY what evolution theory does while ignoring significant gaps and leaps of faith. If I understood your comment wrong I apologize and if so please clarify.

~ Passio
Idyit is offline  
 
post #109 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,782
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by UMP View Post
The faith in evolution bus left. It's stuck in the mud somewhere down the road, with all those other buses with missing pieces. I'll take the road less traveled and go through the narrow gate, home.


You are free to believe whatever you wish, but you will always have difficulty justifying creation using the tools of science. There is no way to test for a creator. And making this a default conclusion for all evidence is not based on science. This is why debates of this sort are nonsense.

Religion plays an important role for those who wish to believe just as science plays a role in modernity. However, the two cannot be intertwined in any real way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #110 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:15 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,782
Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyit View Post
First bolded -- Where did I say anything that concluded creation? I have said that I am a skeptic and that I have not accepted the theory of evolution as fact based on what I know. We agree that there are missing pieces to evolutionary theory. Again, we just seem to disagree on how much is missing and how critical the gaps are.



Second bolded -- To make sure I'm understanding this statement correctly, are you #1 assuming I am saying the creation story is supported by evidence and that I'm assuming a conclusion for creation before all the evidence is available? If so, the second part of this is logical mind F for me. This is EXACTLY what evolution theory does while ignoring significant gaps and leaps of faith. If I understood your comment wrong I apologize and if so please clarify.



~ Passio


Not addressing you directly, simply the reason why creation (as a viable science) v evolution can't be taken as a reasonable debate. They speak in different languages. The whole point of this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #111 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:19 PM
UMP
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,279
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
You are free to believe whatever you wish, but you will always have difficulty justifying creation using the tools of science. There is no way to test for a creator. And making this a default conclusion for all evidence is not based on science. This is why debates of this sort are nonsense.

Religion plays an important role for those who wish to believe just as science plays a role in modernity. However, the two cannot be intertwined in any real way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
...at least, not yet.
UMP is offline  
post #112 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:19 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 10,586
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Passio,

Isnt the example below - speciation? And fwiw you remind me of this scary smart guy who used to post here. I believe your grasp of the underlying science is greater than mine.


From scientific American:
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-observations/


Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyit View Post
~ Passio
MEM2020 is online now  
post #113 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 567
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
Not addressing you directly, simply the reason why creation (as a viable science) v evolution can't be taken as a reasonable debate. They speak in different languages. The whole point of this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I appreciate you clarifying your general statement. Can you address the second part of 'conclusions without all the evidence' seemingly levied at creation theory?

My challenge is to the scientists or general public who claim evolution as fact then use incomplete science to make a conclusion or state flawed/disproved evidence to 'prove' a theory.

As to creation or intelligent design scientists, I like it. Will there be sloppy, biased or dogmatic evidence presented? Sure. There will also be some good work done to question things generally accepted on the evolution side. Likely there will also be good challenges to sloppy, biased or dogmatic work done on the evolution side. This is what drives excellence and a clearer picture.

From reading your posts you and your boys are athletes. Who's getting better at their position or sport, the one who is getting beat and taking losses or the one who always wins? Competition, that is an activity that truly contested, is what drives excellence.

~ Passio
Idyit is offline  
post #114 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 01:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,782
Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyit View Post
I appreciate you clarifying your general statement. Can you address the second part of 'conclusions without all the evidence' seemingly levied at creation theory?



My challenge is to the scientists or general public who claim evolution as fact then use incomplete science to make a conclusion or state flawed/disproved evidence to 'prove' a theory.



As to creation or intelligent design scientists, I like it. Will there be sloppy, biased or dogmatic evidence presented? Sure. There will also be some good work done to question things generally accepted on the evolution side. Likely there will also be good challenges to sloppy, biased or dogmatic work done on the evolution side. This is what drives excellence and a clearer picture.



From reading your posts you and your boys are athletes. Who's getting better at their position or sport, the one who is getting beat and taking losses or the one who always wins? Competition, that is an activity that truly contested, is what drives excellence.



~ Passio


Again, let's stop using the term fact. Facts end all discussions, theories are based trends due to the consilience of evidence presented via the scientific method. So, with theories we will always be open to new discoveries within a given theory. Thus far I have yet to see any evidence that refutes evolution in favor of creation. But, evidence does help us find new trends in the theory. Flaws are reduced in terms of acceptable levels of uncertainty based on emphasizing that this evidence from a consilience of data sources and not a single biased source or conspirators.

Yes, intelligent design exist in labs when scientists (gods) manipulate the genome of an organism. But, when relating this to our own origin and if we use the same methodology (criteria), no equal evidence is present.

The best way to think of evolution is to examine one of its legacies, cancer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #115 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 02:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 567
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEM2020 View Post
Passio,

Isnt the example below - speciation? And fwiw you remind me of this scary smart guy who used to post here. I believe your grasp of the underlying science is greater than mine.


From scientific American:
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

This process, known as Hybrid Speciation, has been documented a number of times in different plants. But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-observations/
The Tragopogon transformation is fascinating. As an evidence of speciation it's pretty cool. Where I have trouble is the 'what next' argument. Tetraploid plants that can't reproduce with parent species is by definition a new species. The missing piece (Ikaika) for me is that from this evidence I must accept that this flower can become not only a different species but a different thing altogether. How does this happen? Are there proposed theories that connect the dots between flower and new thing?

Here's where I really have a problem with the article. Tragopogon is cool and presents evidence of a new species evolving. Following this observation is more evidence that simply does not match. None of the examples given were truly non mating species. All were genetic variance (flies) or selective breeding due to preference, mate guarding or isolation. This is the kind of sloppy evidence vomiting that I object to.

~ Passio

Idyit is offline  
post #116 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 02:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 567
Re: Evolution VS Creation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
Again, let's stop using the term fact. Facts end all discussions, theories are based trends due to the consilience of evidence presented via the scientific method. So, with theories we will always be open to new discoveries within a given theory. Thus far I have yet to see any evidence that refutes evolution in favor of creation. But, evidence does help us find new trends in the theory. Flaws are reduced in terms of acceptable levels of uncertainty based on emphasizing that this evidence from a consilience of data sources and not a single biased source or conspirators.

Yes, intelligent design exist in labs when scientists (gods) manipulate the genome of an organism. But, when relating this to our own origin and if we use the same methodology (criteria), no equal evidence is present.

The best way to think of evolution is to examine one of its legacies, cancer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I would gladly discard the term fact when referring to evolution. On this we are on the same team.

"My challenge is to the scientists or general public who claim evolution as fact then use incomplete science to make a conclusion or state flawed/disproved evidence to 'prove' a theory. "

~ Passio
Idyit is offline  
post #117 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 02:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,782
Re: Evolution VS Creation

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such evidence-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #118 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 02:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17,782
Re: Evolution VS Creation

There is the scientific theory of evolution and then there allegorical stories of creation. They do not utilize the same basis of evidence and the two are not comparable in any debate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Ikaika is offline  
post #119 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 04:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,909
Re: Evolution VS Creation

In addition there must be a way a scientific theory could be disproved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikaika View Post
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such evidence-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
uhtred is offline  
post #120 of 385 (permalink) Old 03-09-2017, 07:56 AM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 1,002
Re: Evolution VS Creation

What I think is really really neat about evolution is that humans have advanced the process so we don't need it any more. So it appears that intelligent design made the process obsolete many moons ago. The dachshund was designed to chase badgers in holes many moons ago. I wonder if a few million years from now if folks would conclude that dachshunds evolved, not knowing they were specifically bred for the job, to chase badgers.

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior tech-novelist The Social Spot 2 09-08-2016 02:34 AM
Religion Mr The Other Politics and Religion 585 02-20-2016 07:44 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome