I understand it's a theory based on evidence but the interpretation of that evidence is coming from an ideology of no creator(s). Creationism only interprets the same evidence with the assumption everything comes from something. There is no way to prove either right or wrong, that's my point.

1. it does not come from an ideology of no creator(s). It comes from a standpoint that it's irrelevant or not necessary to the equation. It's a very unbiased way to research the matter. One starts with A must be true so let's go from there. The other starts with the question "what is true" or "is this true".

 

2. It's not an interpretation. The fruit flies and the tumor examples are experiments to test the predictions laid out in the theory of evolution. The theory makes a prediction (that evolution occurs naturally) that is then tested. The outcome of the tests continues to prop up the theory. 

 

3. Experiments have proven that evolution occurs. Over time new species will evolve from current ones and those branches will continue to move from each other until they no longer resemble the original. 

 

4. No predictions for experimentation exist for creation doctrine. It simple cannot be taught as science because there is literally nothing to back it up. None at all. If was to be taught you'd be teaching theology and not science. 

---

Well, I assume that the actual subject of this thread is officially dead.

 

I leave this thread asking one question.  How was the universe created?

 

Any answer must be backed up by proven facts not theory.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Well, I assume that the actual subject of this thread is officially dead.

 

I leave this thread asking one question.  How was the universe created?

 

Any answer must be backed up by proven facts not theory.

We made it pretty far though!

 

Way to shut down any discussion in the matter. 

 

That answer is very easy. We don't know for sure. We have a couple of working theories backed by physics, mathematics, and some observable data. Obviously they can't currently be proven since it happens billions of years ago and cannot be observed.

 

At the risk of crossing the line of rules here, if that is the kind of evidence one needs to accept a scientific theory, then I wonder how they accept other things in their lives. 

---

Well, I assume that the actual subject of this thread is officially dead.

 

I leave this thread asking one question.  How was the universe created?

 

Any answer must be backed up by proven facts not theory.

I could sit here quoting scientific papers on the Big Bang, the multiverse, string theory and steady state all day, then follow it up with writings about creationism, some of them actual scientific articles. None of that would get us anywhere except suspended, so I'll just respond with the only answer that anyone should ever give:

 

I don't know.

---

We made it pretty far though!


Way to shut down any discussion in the matter.


That answer is very easy. We don't know for sure. We have a couple of working theories backed by physics, mathematics, and some observable data. Obviously they can't currently be proven since it happens billions of years ago and cannot be observed.


At the risk of crossing the line of rules here, if that is the kind of evidence one needs to accept a scientific theory, then I wonder how they accept other things in their lives.

Lol do I really strike anyone as re accepting type!? I have a freaking bunker man!

---

Lol do I really strike anyone as re accepting type!? I have a freaking bunker man!

Ha! It was you on doomsday preppers!!!!!

---

Ha! It was you on doomsday preppers!!!!!

Those people baffle me id never show national tv my stash

---

A scientific theory is different than the other "theory". 

 

From the OSU website:

"some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

 

Small scale, short term evolution has been seen and recorded multiple times. It's only hard to imagine it on a larger scale if you have a preconceived notion blocking that path.  

 

So what is it: rigorous adherence to proven fact or using your imagination?  You have to pick one!

 

To say that short term changes in allele frequency or the manifestation of dominant traits within a pre-existing gene pool directly and seamlessly extrapolate to radical mutation and the creation of new traits is disingenuous at best and an affront to what we now know about the complexity of genetic structure (as opposed to someone in the mid 19th century.)

 

In short, a given population of bacteria exposed to an external chemical may cause the selection of the bacteria with thicker cell walls to become more dominant, its the part where they grow legs and walk out of the test tubes that's lacking.  

---

I could sit here quoting scientific papers on the Big Bang, the multiverse, string theory and steady state all day, then follow it up with writings about creationism, some of them actual scientific articles. None of that would get us anywhere except suspended, so I'll just respond with the only answer that anyone should ever give:

 

I don't know.

 

And that's all i would ask of anyone.  If we're talking about a science class, teach the proven facts and explain that extrapolations are just that.  It's not that complicated.  

 

Getting back to the original topic, I think that we are missing the boat here.  The educational system that we are all accustomed to is in reality more of a victorian model.  We have the technology now that would allow a teacher to lecture and interact with hundreds maybe even thousands of students.  We shouldn't be paying inordinate amounts for paper books when for 40 bucks a kid can get a machine that has access to just about every text ever written.  We should be focused less on simply teaching information that can be readily accessible and actually start focusing on teaching students how to be successful and more productive.  When you focus and teach kids on the dynamics of being industrious enough to find information and become active learners then the person in front of them proctoring the exam becomes less and less relevant.  

---

So what is it: rigorous adherence to proven fact or using your imagination? You have to pick one!


To say that short term changes in allele frequency or the manifestation of dominant traits within a pre-existing gene pool directly and seamlessly extrapolate to radical mutation and the creation of new traits is disingenuous at best and an affront to what we now know about the complexity of genetic structure (as opposed to someone in the mid 19th century.)


In short, a given population of bacteria exposed to an external chemical may cause the selection of the bacteria with thicker cell walls to become more dominant, its the part where they grow legs and walk out of the test tubes that's lacking.

Maybe you should teach the greatest minds in the world your most diligently researched findings. Because I'm sure you have citations for your assertions.


It's really not hard to extrapolate the data based on millions of years. Some people don't seem to grasp the time frames we are talking about that allows the slow process of evolution that brings on multiple branches in the kingdoms.

---

Maybe you should teach the greatest minds in the world your most diligently researched findings. Because I'm sure you have citations for your assertions.


It's really not hard to extrapolate the data based on millions of years. Some people don't seem to grasp the time frames we are talking about that allows the slow process of evolution that brings on multiple branches in the kingdoms.

Ok but we've been observing mankind and have recorded history going back thousands of years and still no next step in our evolution. Isn't it completely possible that evolution just doesn't simply happen on the large of a scale?

---

Infinity cross zero is still zero. To invoke the law of large numbers you have to have a proven rate of occurance.

---

Ok but we've been observing mankind and have recorded history going back thousands of years and still no next step in our evolution. Isn't it completely possible that evolution just doesn't simply happen on the large of a scale?

You do realize that it could take millions of years before we see the next step in human evolution?  Humans have only been around close to 100,000 years (well, unless you're a young earther, in which case it's 6000, which is far less).  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Infinity cross zero is still zero

---

You do realize that it could take millions of years before we see the next step in human evolution?  Humans have only been around close to 100,000 years (well, unless you're a young earther, in which case it's 6000, which is far less).  

 

I don't know anytime someone tells me this is happening, you'll never see it, your great grandchildren will never see it, your great grandfather never saw it, but millions of years from now it'll happen, I'm skeptical.

 

Species evolve I just don't believe the evolve into completely new species.  

---

Infinity cross zero is still zero. To invoke the law of large numbers you have to have a proven rate of occurance.

Finches.


You speak of disingenuousnes, then ignore that there have been studies that show over time traits evolve based on natural selection


Your bias is clear.


Anyone see the picture of the snake fossil with legs? There ya go.

---

I don't know anytime someone tells me this is happening, you'll never see it, your great grandchildren will never see it, your great grandfather never saw it, but millions of years from now it'll happen, I'm skeptical.


Species evolve I just don't believe the evolve into completely new species.

See my post above

---

Finches.


You speak of disingenuousnes, then ignore that there have been studies that show over time traits evolve based on natural selection


Your bias is clear.


Anyone see the picture of the snake fossil with legs? There ya go.

 

Yet a snake is still a snake, it didn't evolve into a mammal or a fish it's still a snake. Its also just as plausible that this fossil is simply an extinct member of the snake family.

---

Yet a snake is still a snake, it didn't evolve into a mammal or a fish it's still a snake. Its also just as plausible that this fossil is simply an extinct member of the snake family.

But, dude, you don't see the implication? A snake is no longer a snake if it has legs.


There is a fossil record that shows that this species is in an intermediary stage of evolution...


There was a trait within that species that was expressed as legs, that species is no longer around, and we now have snakes and salamanders...


It's kind of a big deal moving from no legs to legs, now imagine hundreds of millions of years, and you can extrapolate from there... At least most scientists do.

---

But, dude, you don't see the implication? A snake is no longer a snake if it has legs.


There is a fossil record that shows that this species is in an intermediary stage of evolution...


There was a trait within that species that was expressed as legs, that species is no longer around, and we now have snakes and salamanders...


It's kind of a big deal moving from no legs to legs, now imagine hundreds of millions of years, and you can extrapolate from there... At least most scientists do.

 

It always has been and still is part of the reptile family, with or without legs biologically there isn't much difference between snakes and lizards. Evolution in a species is perfectly reasonable and observable, some reptiles grow legs, some reptiles evolve without legs and slither, some reptiles can hold their breath longer as they hunt in the water, but they're still reptiles. It's when we make the mental leap into a reptile no longer being a reptile but a mammal or some other species that we go off into a guessing game. For evolution to happen on the progressive scale that single celled evolution teaches we have to believe that species evolve into different species at some point, there is just simply no evidence of that. 

---