As long as the Christian holds scientific views and is willing to change his or her mind with new evidence. Science uses induction and abduction, both of which are monotonic. For example, if I saw that the grass was wet, I could say it rained. If I only saw that the grass was wet, then new evidence (the road and sidewalk aren't wet) would mean that I would need to add this new information into the mix.
To think it rained would then be incorrect. Rather, abductively, one would say the grass was watered. Whether one wished to say it was watered by a hose or by sprinklers, one would need to observe if the sprinkler heads are still propped up, or if water is leaking from the hose. Having an open mind doesn't mean one should be gullible to accept what's presented. It should mean one will consider the possibility and find evidence.
I'm rambling.
Interesting thing you brought up. Let's look at the rain scenario for a moment. If I wake up and saw that the grass was wet, I immediately thought it rained. But that is not a part of science. Did I observed it raining? Or did the neighbors thought they would be nice and watered my lawn in the evening when I slept? Or was it dew just forming on the grass? I mean I can see the grass is wet, and by looking through the microscope, I can tell that it was H20. But that is about how far I could go, unless if I had an eyewitness who observed that.
I do agree that YEC is not a part of science. It is a Religious Worldview, just like Evolution.
Stop making false equivocations. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Creationism is religion that tries to manipulate science in order to promote it's unsubstantiated claim.
The_Creation_Center
It has to be observed, tested, and repeated. We can only test things that are in the present.
No. Just stop.
You're talking about the twisted definition of Observational Science employed by Creationists to promote the view that the only science that counts applies to what you see happening in front of you, dismissing everything else because "you weren't there, so you can't prove it".
This fallacious view gets extra irony points for the basis of its own beliefs being impossible to substantiate. It is nothing more than a self-contradicting, thought-terminating cliche.
The_Creation_Center
As a Young Earth Creationist ... we both have the same evidence ... I don't have any different evidence than Evolutionists. But here is the difference: We have different interpretations of the evidence.
...from "evolutionists", you say? When a Creationist employs that term, it's usually part of an implication that evolution is just another belief system or worldview ( an "ism" ) as opposed to a scientific theory.
What you and other Creationists don't seem to understand is that, by their very nature, scientific ideas cannot be beliefs. Science is based on an interpretation of facts, and, by definition, theories are never beliefs. We may accept evolution, but it would not be science if we believed evolution (or, rather, if one had to believe it regardless of evidence).
The distinction is similar to the use of evidence in a court of law: the defendant's mother may believe her son couldn't have committed the crime, but no responsible court will disregard the weight of evidence in favor of someone's unsubstantiated belief about the case.
The_Creation_Center
Let's take a look at the Grand Canyon for instance. We have the same hole in the ground. Evolutionist says that it takes a little bit of water and a lot of time. Creationists says that it takes a lot of water and a little bit of time. It is the same evidence, just two entirely different interpretations.
Right; one is based on empirical evidence and years of study, and the other is based on a preconieved notion engineered to promote a view found in an Iron Age book which makes unsubstantiatable claims about the universe being created by a supernatural being who can control matter at will.
The_Creation_Center
Also, I actually watched the debate and downloaded it, and planning to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and find out which is observable, testable, and repeatable.
Good for you. When you go through it, make sure to keep tallies for each time Ham repeats his slides. (Also be sure to note all the times he declines to respond to Nye's direct questions, how often he makes logical fallacies, and how many times he goes totally off topic and starts talking about secularist conspiracies and religious dogma.
Hello everyone. I want to ask everyone's opinion and have a nice "friendly" conversation. I was talking to someone in the forum, and she says that she believes in science and proof so she can never be friends with a Christian. I am a Young Earth Christian and I definitely love science. Matter of fact, I am planning to major in the subject of science when I graduate from College. Not only I love science, but biology, archeology, geology, meteorology, and astronomy. But someone says that since I am a Christian, I cannot be a scientist. But I would love to hear what others think. ^^
Hello everyone. I want to ask everyone's opinion and have a nice "friendly" conversation. I was talking to someone in the forum, and she says that she believes in science and proof so she can never be friends with a Christian.
In your defence, she's wrong - to an extent. There isn't an inherent dichotomy between religion and science, insofar as science does not speak to or against religion...
EXCEPT, and the word "except" is vital here, where a given religious claim (for example, that Deep Korgash, The Librarian Beyond, has a library containing all lore ever created by intelligence - and that library has a portal on the far side of the moon that can only be accessed during a total lunar eclipse) is testable by science.
Quote:
I am a Young Earth Christian and I definitely love science. Matter of fact, I am planning to major in the subject of science when I graduate from College. Not only I love science, but biology, archeology, geology, meteorology, and astronomy. But someone says that since I am a Christian, I cannot be a scientist. But I would love to hear what others think. ^^
Well, to be a Young Earth Creationist - at least of the type of creationist represented by Ham, Hovind, Slick, Sarfati, etc - you cannot be a scientist in any of those fields... at least not properly. Such creationists hold as axiom that the universe is ~7500* years old and that a particular Renaissance English translation of an ancient anthology of myth and history is a literal account in all its details.
It speaks on biology, suggesting (contra Gregor Mendel) that it is possible to associate alleles for health and strength with double-recessive pigmentation alleles in a reliable, repeatable manner by breeding animals in the presence of a rune-carved quarterstaff - and that this works equally well with all livestock without having to use species-tailored carvings or staff wood. (Genesis 30.)
It speaks on archaeology - or rather on future archaeology, by putting in the mouths of revered prophets some prophecies of the future - such that even we, with our modern technology, would never again find the ruins of certain cities which would be sacked by Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. Specifically Tyre. (Ezekiel 26.)
It speaks on geology, suggesting (as all Young Earth Creationists believe) that the entire face of Planet Earth was covered in water - water that, in its accession and recession, carved out every geological feature that we see today. (Of course, Genesis 8.) Well, every feature except the River Euphrates, which was one of the rivers sourced at the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2.)
It speaks on meteorology, suggesting that hailstones are angelic artillery rather than dirty iceballs. (Job 38.) Also, that this artillery is incendiary (as seen in Egypt during the plagues of Exodus.)
It speaks on astronomy, claiming that the moon is autoluminescent (Genesis 1: it's made of light, just like the sun and stars, and thus would logically share their essential nature rather than be made of a chunk ripped from the primordial earth,) and that the earth could endure one-third of all of the stars being thrown down at it (Revelation 12.)
Heck, it speaks on linguistics, suggesting that everyone went insane after trying to build the world's largest ziggurat - yet despite everyone's language being confused with respect to everyone else's, the people still wandered out in groups that *could* necessarily understand each other but not other groups. (Genesis 11.)
*7500, as I'm giving you the Aardsma hypothesis: that 1 Kings 6 contains a scribal error that pushes the history back 1000 years and makes it somewhat more compatible with actual history.
You're basically talking about what I believe. There is no dispute of that kind of Evolution. Matter of fact, you are talking about mutations with beneficial outcomes. I have no problem with that. We can actually observe that in the present and it is documented. That what science is. But when I talk about Evolution, I am not necessarily talking about mutations with beneficial outcomes or how there are many different species of moths to different species of moths. That is scientific because it is observed.
Then what are you talking about because if you are talking about something else you aren't talking about evolution.
Quote:
1) Cosmic Evolution: This is where the big bang happened. I have argued with people that told me this is not Evolution. But everything had a beginning, and it always starts on the Evolutionary theory. But where did the matter come from? Amazingly enough, National Pornographic Geographic says that nothing was there, but it exploded. I'm sorry, but I do not believe in that kind of Evolution.
Not Evolution
Quote:
2) Chemical Evolution. This is where all of the chemicals evolved from Hydrogen and Helium. But what about the higher elements? Some say that you can fuse by adding more energy. But really, adding more energy is destructive. We can see that on roofs, and on a car's finish. The sun's energy is fading them away. It is destructive. There is only one thing that can absorb the energy, chlorophyll that plants use. I'm sorry, but we never actually tested, observed, or repeated that.
Not Evolution
Quote:
3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution. This is where planets and stars form. There are a lot of stars out there. I mean a whole lot. Scientists estimates that there are enough of stars out there that everyone on this planet can own 11,000,000,000,000. Have fun naming them.Those are the ones we know about. We do not know the ones we do not know about. But if the universe is 20 billion years old, it would not even support of why we have so many stars. Scientists estimated that we have 70 sextillion. That is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If we divide 70 sextillion by 20 billion, that would be 3,500,000,000,000 stars forming every single year, or 6,665,000 stars forming every single minute. We do not see that many stars forming every single minute.
Not Evolution
Quote:
4) Organic Evolution. This is how life begin from non life. We never experienced life from non life, and please don't say that you have in your refrigerator. They claim that in the beginning was nothing, then it rained on the rocks, and out of the soup came alive. But it is a scientific impossibility from life coming from non life. That is not a part of science.
Not Evolution
Quote:
5) Macroevolution. That is where one kind to another kind. We have many animals in the world, but we have species and kinds. But we do not have dogs producing cats or rabbits producing horses. But they say that if you give it time, one kind can evolve into another kind. But that has not been observed, tested, or repeated. We haven't seen it happening today. Or how we came from monkeys. Now they are using the word primates now. We somehow evolved from primates as monkeys are. But that I believe is not part of science.
You're misusing the term. Macroevolution is basically a compilation of "microevolutions" Also there are a number of experiments that show that speciation does occur though. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations; Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum; and de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
are three such experiments that do show that a new species can come from an existing species via mutation or environment changes.
Quote:
6) Microevolution. This is what I believe in. One species to another species. I believe that the dog, fox, and the wolf had a common ancestor. It was a dog. We see kinds producing after their own kinds. Mutations and Variations are examples of Microevolution, which is scientific and can be observed, tested, and repeated.
I do agree that YEC is not a part of science. It is a Religious Worldview, just like Evolution.
Stop making false equivocations. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Creationism is religion that tries to manipulate science in order to promote it's unsubstantiated claim.
It is a religious worldview, just like Creation. We have no idea what happened before the Big Bang. Not even Bill Nye knows, nor Richard Dawkins. And what caused the Big Bang? How do they know that happened?
Quote:
The_Creation_Center
It has to be observed, tested, and repeated. We can only test things that are in the present.
No. Just stop.
You're talking about the twisted definition of Observational Science employed by Creationists to promote the view that the only science that counts applies to what you see happening in front of you, dismissing everything else because "you weren't there, so you can't prove it".
This fallacious view gets extra irony points for the basis of its own beliefs being impossible to substantiate. It is nothing more than a self-contradicting, thought-terminating cliche.
It is not made up by just the creationists, but also the scientists. It is called the Scientific Method. You can find out more at: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html and http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
Quote:
The_Creation_Center
As a Young Earth Creationist ... we both have the same evidence ... I don't have any different evidence than Evolutionists. But here is the difference: We have different interpretations of the evidence.
...from "evolutionists", you say? When a Creationist employs that term, it's usually part of an implication that evolution is just another belief system or worldview ( an "ism" ) as opposed to a scientific theory.
What you and other Creationists don't seem to understand is that, by their very nature, scientific ideas cannot be beliefs. Science is based on an interpretation of facts, and, by definition, theories are never beliefs. We may accept evolution, but it would not be science if we believed evolution (or, rather, if one had to believe it regardless of evidence).
The distinction is similar to the use of evidence in a court of law: the defendant's mother may believe her son couldn't have committed the crime, but no responsible court will disregard the weight of evidence in favor of someone's unsubstantiated belief about the case.
You are right. Science cannot be beliefs. But then why is there belief in the textbooks today? Like I said, I have been in Colleges and Universities, and I am still looking for proof of Evolution. Not just changes of species over time, but how can we observe millions of years? How can we observe man coming from monkeys?
Quote:
The_Creation_Center
Let's take a look at the Grand Canyon for instance. We have the same hole in the ground. Evolutionist says that it takes a little bit of water and a lot of time. Creationists says that it takes a lot of water and a little bit of time. It is the same evidence, just two entirely different interpretations.
Right; one is based on empirical evidence and years of study, and the other is based on a preconieved notion engineered to promote a view found in an Iron Age book which makes unsubstantiatable claims about the universe being created by a supernatural being who can control matter at will.
That is an interpretation of the fact. They said that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. But is that fact or is that faith? Let's look at the facts. We have the same Grand Canyon. We have the same layers in the canyon. But let's look at another view on the Grand Canyon. The River exits the canyon at 1,800 feet above sea level. It enters the Canyon 2,800 feet above sea level. But the top of the Canyon is over 7,000 feet above sea level. Did the river flow uphill to carve out the Grand Canyon?
Quote:
The_Creation_Center
Also, I actually watched the debate and downloaded it, and planning to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and find out which is observable, testable, and repeatable.
Good for you. When you go through it, make sure to keep tallies for each time Ham repeats his slides. (Also be sure to note all the times he declines to respond to Nye's direct questions, how often he makes logical fallacies, and how many times he goes totally off topic and starts talking about secularist conspiracies and religious dogma.
I will, if you look at how many times Bill Nye doesn't have an answer for Ken Ham.
You're basically talking about what I believe. There is no dispute of that kind of Evolution. Matter of fact, you are talking about mutations with beneficial outcomes. I have no problem with that. We can actually observe that in the present and it is documented. That what science is. But when I talk about Evolution, I am not necessarily talking about mutations with beneficial outcomes or how there are many different species of moths to different species of moths. That is scientific because it is observed.
Then what are you talking about because if you are talking about something else you aren't talking about evolution.
Quote:
1) Cosmic Evolution: This is where the big bang happened. I have argued with people that told me this is not Evolution. But everything had a beginning, and it always starts on the Evolutionary theory. But where did the matter come from? Amazingly enough, National Pornographic Geographic says that nothing was there, but it exploded. I'm sorry, but I do not believe in that kind of Evolution.
Not Evolution
Quote:
2) Chemical Evolution. This is where all of the chemicals evolved from Hydrogen and Helium. But what about the higher elements? Some say that you can fuse by adding more energy. But really, adding more energy is destructive. We can see that on roofs, and on a car's finish. The sun's energy is fading them away. It is destructive. There is only one thing that can absorb the energy, chlorophyll that plants use. I'm sorry, but we never actually tested, observed, or repeated that.
Not Evolution
Quote:
3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution. This is where planets and stars form. There are a lot of stars out there. I mean a whole lot. Scientists estimates that there are enough of stars out there that everyone on this planet can own 11,000,000,000,000. Have fun naming them.Those are the ones we know about. We do not know the ones we do not know about. But if the universe is 20 billion years old, it would not even support of why we have so many stars. Scientists estimated that we have 70 sextillion. That is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If we divide 70 sextillion by 20 billion, that would be 3,500,000,000,000 stars forming every single year, or 6,665,000 stars forming every single minute. We do not see that many stars forming every single minute.
Not Evolution
Quote:
4) Organic Evolution. This is how life begin from non life. We never experienced life from non life, and please don't say that you have in your refrigerator. They claim that in the beginning was nothing, then it rained on the rocks, and out of the soup came alive. But it is a scientific impossibility from life coming from non life. That is not a part of science.
Not Evolution
Quote:
5) Macroevolution. That is where one kind to another kind. We have many animals in the world, but we have species and kinds. But we do not have dogs producing cats or rabbits producing horses. But they say that if you give it time, one kind can evolve into another kind. But that has not been observed, tested, or repeated. We haven't seen it happening today. Or how we came from monkeys. Now they are using the word primates now. We somehow evolved from primates as monkeys are. But that I believe is not part of science.
You're misusing the term. Macroevolution is basically a compilation of "microevolutions" Also there are a number of experiments that show that speciation does occur though. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations; Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum; and de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
are three such experiments that do show that a new species can come from an existing species via mutation or environment changes.
Quote:
6) Microevolution. This is what I believe in. One species to another species. I believe that the dog, fox, and the wolf had a common ancestor. It was a dog. We see kinds producing after their own kinds. Mutations and Variations are examples of Microevolution, which is scientific and can be observed, tested, and repeated.
Okay.
You can do your own research on Google and find many sites that the first 5 stages are Evolution. Even in Science Journals and and Textbooks, the Big Bang is part of Evolution. Also with Macroevolution is change from kind to kinds. But a man can not be from a monkey because they are two different kinds. A Fox cannot be from a Turtle.
Hello everyone. I want to ask everyone's opinion and have a nice "friendly" conversation. I was talking to someone in the forum, and she says that she believes in science and proof so she can never be friends with a Christian. I am a Young Earth Christian and I definitely love science. Matter of fact, I am planning to major in the subject of science when I graduate from College. Not only I love science, but biology, archeology, geology, meteorology, and astronomy. But someone says that since I am a Christian, I cannot be a scientist. But I would love to hear what others think. ^^
the subject of science rofl
well u wouldnt be a great biologist if you thought genesis happened.
Hello everyone. I want to ask everyone's opinion and have a nice "friendly" conversation. I was talking to someone in the forum, and she says that she believes in science and proof so she can never be friends with a Christian. I am a Young Earth Christian and I definitely love science. Matter of fact, I am planning to major in the subject of science when I graduate from College. Not only I love science, but biology, archeology, geology, meteorology, and astronomy. But someone says that since I am a Christian, I cannot be a scientist. But I would love to hear what others think. ^^
the subject of science rofl
well u wouldnt be a great biologist if you thought genesis happened.
Well... I see the account of Genesis in everyday science. XD
In your defence, she's wrong - to an extent. There isn't an inherent dichotomy between religion and science, insofar as science does not speak to or against religion...
EXCEPT, and the word "except" is vital here, where a given religious claim (for example, that Deep Korgash, The Librarian Beyond, has a library containing all lore ever created by intelligence - and that library has a portal on the far side of the moon that can only be accessed during a total lunar eclipse) is testable by science.
Theres many claims in religion.
You gave a far fetched example to prove a point. But fact is there are dozens of claims and assumptions that are just plain wrong. Also, for science many facts have to prove a theory, religion is not empirical like this at all. They cherry pick stuff to add to their 'fact' pool. Science has to look to the facts unbiasedly.
Theres no amount of evidence in any religion to rival even one more solid theory of science. Hundreds of studies and thousands of facts prove or suggest evolution is real for example. Historically, theres not much that could be said. With so many religions the real one would need a way to stand out from the rest, evidence wise. And it just isn't the case. I don't need to prove there are no unicorns in the moon, they need to prove there are. And they can't. Its that simple. And yeah, we oculd test what is in the moon, so far, no 'unicorn' like noises emanating from the moon. Similarly, there sno evidence of angels demons gods ghosts divination psychics fairies succubi and more. Deep sea creatures might constitute 'mosnters' so I avoided using the word monster. Unicorns were actually a one horned goat anyways, and much like how the hcinese htink ivory cna cure prostate cancer or some stupid thing, they thought their horns did s**t too. That is why the legends came. Because somebody probably killed it and wanted to brag he has its horn as a trophy, then somehow it turned into a legend.
If legends occur so simply, theres absolutely no reason to suspect any religion is true when they just try and make it sound more believable over time, and take elements form toher rleigiosn to make it more popular, such as yule. YULE that alone should disprove the integrity of the religion, but noooooooooooo. Science somehow has to 'disprove' every infinite false claim, I don't think so, its up to those claims to prove themselves, with literally infintie amounts of claims that can be false or 'untestable' (which means its false, if you cant test it its not real, literally NOTHING to go on, like every other fiction. Historical fiction too, which is all religion is. ) it sltierally a waste of time to go through with any of those claims, they need to stand up for themselves not 'right until proven wrong' Its possible, until proven right, but theres nothing even hinting at it being remotely true empirically/scientifically, it must be false.
So, can't disprove it? No. Everything that is untestable is fake, we can simply develop more technology to test what we couldnt before. So something inherently untestable, is inherently false. So yeah if its untestable, then sure its wrong. But if its testable, its going to be proven wrong when you look at it statistically, dozens of religions, the odds are slim that any of them are valid. Even if we had to somehow assume one was correct, the odds are definitely not in any individual religion's favor.
I don't think you should sugar coat it with such a fancy example, acting as if their claims are few and far between. No, they have many claims and assumptions. I won't stand for it.
Hello everyone. I want to ask everyone's opinion and have a nice "friendly" conversation. I was talking to someone in the forum, and she says that she believes in science and proof so she can never be friends with a Christian. I am a Young Earth Christian and I definitely love science. Matter of fact, I am planning to major in the subject of science when I graduate from College. Not only I love science, but biology, archeology, geology, meteorology, and astronomy. But someone says that since I am a Christian, I cannot be a scientist. But I would love to hear what others think. ^^
the subject of science rofl
well u wouldnt be a great biologist if you thought genesis happened.
Well... I see the account of Genesis in everyday science. XD
What specifically? Plants being made before the sun? Or adam being made out of a rib being plausible from genetic evidence? rolleyes its a load of inaccuracies.
NOT TO MENTION they act like famring was always around. We have evidence it wasn't always around. And post farming religiosn tend to be mor einto human-liek deities and sacrifices and killings anyways, and promotes the concept of heroism.
Before then it was more like tall tales, your religion falls in line with this theory, that many religions fit.
...I actually watched the debate and downloaded it, and planning to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and find out which is observable, testable, and repeatable.
Good for you. When you go through it, make sure to keep tallies for each time Ham repeats his slides. (Also be sure to note all the times he declines to respond to Nye's direct questions, how often he makes logical fallacies, and how many times he goes totally off topic and starts talking about secularist conspiracies and religious dogma.
I will, if you look at how many times Bill Nye doesn't have an answer for Ken Ham.
First: I'd like to note that you addressed nothing from my previous post other than this, totally ignoring how I debunked your claims - and then opted to invoke a tu quoqe fallacy in an attempt to defend Ham doing the same thing you're doing nowrofl
Second: Nye addresses all of Ham's questions, and when he's asked something like "where'd the Big Bang come from", he straight-up says that he doesn't know, then and goes on to say that that is why finding the truth - rather than just assuming an answer - is so important.
Now, to address some other things you've said in the interim:
The_Creation_Center
Creation, just like Evolution, is not a part of science. It is Religious Worldviews.
This is a blatant lie. Evolution is a scientific theory based on facts. Creationism is a religious theoryhypothesis idea based on faith. One requires evidence to substantiate it, and the other actively closes its eyes, covers its ears and goes "lalalalalala~" so as not to see or hear it.
For example, AIG's 'Statement of Faith' says "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record". It also states that the Bible "is the supreme authority in everything it teaches", that "its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science" and that "the final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself " - which is a heaping helping of circular logic. (It also implies that the 66 books of the KJV are the only books, and that the Trinity is Biblical in origin lol)
The_Creation_Center
Did you actually know that there are multiple kinds of evolution?
Yes, I do - but not the way that you would define them. You're deliberately confusing the biological and non-biological meanings of the word "evolution", such as claiming that the Theory of Evolution includes the origin of the universe and the origin of life. The biological theory of evolution, as proposed by Darwin and others, has nothing to say about either the origin of the universe or the origin of life on Earth. You're misusing these terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage.
For instance, Creationists claim Microevolution is supposed to be evolution that doesn't result in a new species and Macroevolution is supposed to be evolution that does lead to a new species. This argument is akin to someone saying that while he believes that sometimes wind can erode rock, he doesn't believe it can change the rock's shape. Micro- and Macroevolution describe the same process, but with a difference in operational time. If one accepts Microevolution, they must also accept Macroevolution, since the former inevitably leads to the latter if given a long enough time period and the separation of breeding isolates. One cannot simply accept one and not the other. In biology, Macroevolution is a broad subject of which speciation is only one part. This argument against speciation may be an attempt by creationists to reserve the power to produce a species for God alone.
The_Creation_Center; bolding mine
Also with Macroevolution is change from kind to kinds. But a man can not be from a monkey because they are two different kinds.
Some Creationists have abandoned the attempt to deny that new species can appear (and disappear) by natural means, in favor of drawing a barrier, not between species, but between Baramins (also known as "kinds" ), some sort of collection larger than species. To date, there has not been given any indication of just what sort of a thing a Baramin is, what the nature of the barrier between Baramins is, or how one might detect the barrier (or suspect its non-existence) - other than the uninformative "Baramins are those things that present a barrier to evolution", of course.
While details of Macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind Macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Show me some legit empirical data for Baraminology (since that's how science works) and then you'll have a leg to stand on - after all, if I can't see it and repeat the process, it can't be proven, right?
The_Creation_Center
I see the account of Genesis in everyday science.
Well, you'd best provide some empirical evidence for that too, then. (And by "that", I mean ex nihlo creation, as well as the supernatural being you think is responsible for such.)
You can do your own research on Google and find many sites that the first 5 stages are Evolution. Even in Science Journals and and Textbooks, the Big Bang is part of Evolution.
Okay but cosmology and evolution are separate fields. It seems like you're trying to lump them together unnecessarily.
Quote:
Also with Macroevolution is change from kind to kinds. But a man can not be from a monkey because they are two different kinds. A Fox cannot be from a Turtle.
And you're not using the term correctly. If you want to make up words and make them mean what you want that's fine, but you're going to confuse a lot of people and make people think you are saying stuff you don't mean.
You're basically talking about what I believe. There is no dispute of that kind of Evolution. Matter of fact, you are talking about mutations with beneficial outcomes. I have no problem with that. We can actually observe that in the present and it is documented. That what science is. But when I talk about Evolution, I am not necessarily talking about mutations with beneficial outcomes or how there are many different species of moths to different species of moths. That is scientific because it is observed.
Then what are you talking about because if you are talking about something else you aren't talking about evolution.
Quote:
1) Cosmic Evolution: This is where the big bang happened. I have argued with people that told me this is not Evolution. But everything had a beginning, and it always starts on the Evolutionary theory. But where did the matter come from? Amazingly enough, National Pornographic Geographic says that nothing was there, but it exploded. I'm sorry, but I do not believe in that kind of Evolution.
Not Evolution
Quote:
2) Chemical Evolution. This is where all of the chemicals evolved from Hydrogen and Helium. But what about the higher elements? Some say that you can fuse by adding more energy. But really, adding more energy is destructive. We can see that on roofs, and on a car's finish. The sun's energy is fading them away. It is destructive. There is only one thing that can absorb the energy, chlorophyll that plants use. I'm sorry, but we never actually tested, observed, or repeated that.
Not Evolution
Quote:
3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution. This is where planets and stars form. There are a lot of stars out there. I mean a whole lot. Scientists estimates that there are enough of stars out there that everyone on this planet can own 11,000,000,000,000. Have fun naming them.Those are the ones we know about. We do not know the ones we do not know about. But if the universe is 20 billion years old, it would not even support of why we have so many stars. Scientists estimated that we have 70 sextillion. That is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If we divide 70 sextillion by 20 billion, that would be 3,500,000,000,000 stars forming every single year, or 6,665,000 stars forming every single minute. We do not see that many stars forming every single minute.
Not Evolution
Quote:
4) Organic Evolution. This is how life begin from non life. We never experienced life from non life, and please don't say that you have in your refrigerator. They claim that in the beginning was nothing, then it rained on the rocks, and out of the soup came alive. But it is a scientific impossibility from life coming from non life. That is not a part of science.
Not Evolution
Quote:
5) Macroevolution. That is where one kind to another kind. We have many animals in the world, but we have species and kinds. But we do not have dogs producing cats or rabbits producing horses. But they say that if you give it time, one kind can evolve into another kind. But that has not been observed, tested, or repeated. We haven't seen it happening today. Or how we came from monkeys. Now they are using the word primates now. We somehow evolved from primates as monkeys are. But that I believe is not part of science.
You're misusing the term. Macroevolution is basically a compilation of "microevolutions" Also there are a number of experiments that show that speciation does occur though. Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations; Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum; and de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
are three such experiments that do show that a new species can come from an existing species via mutation or environment changes.
Quote:
6) Microevolution. This is what I believe in. One species to another species. I believe that the dog, fox, and the wolf had a common ancestor. It was a dog. We see kinds producing after their own kinds. Mutations and Variations are examples of Microevolution, which is scientific and can be observed, tested, and repeated.
Okay.
You can do your own research on Google and find many sites that the first 5 stages are Evolution. Even in Science Journals and and Textbooks, the Big Bang is part of Evolution. Also with Macroevolution is change from kind to kinds. But a man can not be from a monkey because they are two different kinds. A Fox cannot be from a Turtle.
What journals are listing The Big Bang as part of Evolution Theory? Just because something can be found on Google doesn't mean it's science. Creationism proponents have also established their own journals when they cannot get their papers reviewed by legitimate science journals. So just because it is published in a journal does not mean it's science, either.
The Big Bang Theory is cosmology. The theory of evolution is biology. These are two different fields in science. There is no such thing as a "kind" in phylogeny (shades of Ray Comfort, are you serious?), this is a way of playing semantics to try and wedge some type of controversy in where none exists. Macroevolution is merely a convenient way of expressing a larger period of time in the same scheme of evolution. It is not a thing that doesn't happen while microevolution does; these are just convenient ways to express different events in the same course of evolution.
A man and a monkey are not part of the same branch of evolution, we share a common ancestor and the very notion of a fox coming from a turtle indicates a fundamental inability to converse coherently in the topic of evolution. If you are able to overturn the theory of evolution, get on with earning your Nobel Prize and you'll be internationally famous and go down in history. Otherwise, all you are doing is demonstrating the laughable amount of scientific ignorance that has stemmed from Evangelical Christianity in the US (for the most part) over the last 50 years that makes me suffer such second-hand embarrassment on your behalf that I cannot even find words to express it. YECs are actually proud of being an international joke on the part of the United States yet you still want to be known of as patriots.
You can do your own research on Google and find many sites that the first 5 stages are Evolution. Even in Science Journals and and Textbooks, the Big Bang is part of Evolution.
Okay but cosmology and evolution are separate fields. It seems like you're trying to lump them together unnecessarily.
It seems that way because he's doing it deliberately, in an effort to impose the view that evolution is a "belief system", in the way that Christianity is, rather than a scientific theory.
Creationists, failing to prove their studies to be scientific, often try to bring evolution down to their level by denouncing evolution as religion or claiming that it isn't science because it can't be falsified or doesn't make predictions. It's a typical "you too" fallacy, used to deflect the fact that creationism remains unscientific whatever the status of evolution is.
