Sugarbeary
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:00:13 +0000
Doubtful Dreamer
LoveLoud837
-your first point explains the exact same thing I said with different words. I don't follow why you would make that a point of argument when you restate what I say in a different way. It is like we are on the same page but you're trying to outprove me? Just weird.
You claim that neither a theory nor a hypothesis can be tested when a theory is rather heavily tested and a hypothesis revolves around performing a test. Re-reading your statement, however, it may have been that you do understand this and the wording chosen was just unclear.
Quote:
- There aren't that many logical loopholes needed to connect the two, in fact none are needed except the fact that our schools are required to not teach creation.
How do you explain starlight and the long term consistency nature that comes with it without exploiting a logical loophole?
Quote:
Enter God, who creates all the different kinds of animals (changing the definition of kind to the commonly used system of kingdom, phylum, order, etc. doesn't make it false, it means you changed the x variable's name to a or something along those lines).
Changing what a "kind" is based upon what has been observed is fairly dishonest, however. Saying this or that speciation event doesn't count because it didn't change "kinds" explicitly relies upon the lack of a proper, strict definition of "kind." Instead, what a "kind" is just keeps climbing the classification tree, which is a non-argument where you have changed your definitions to avoid having to address the point.
Quote:
From these different kinds, genetic variation occurred with the eventual loss of genetic information and manipulation of breeding and environmental factors leads to the creation of new species that have not gained genetic information, as supported by science unless aided by the 'god' of time.
Where is there information lost?
Quote:
Example of Creation evolution: start with wolf, obtain through the decrease of genetic information the coyote, dingo, border collie and many other variations til you get to the chihuahua.
How does this signify the loss of genetic information? A border collie and a chihuahua have nearly identical genomes as far as I can tell.
Quote:
Creationists are not anti-science,
If rejecting the basic assumption of science is not anti-science, I do not know what is. You can exploit logic to create a universe that looks the same as what science describes, but this still requires the rejection of science if you are to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. The two are fundamentally incompatible.
Quote:
and can fit facts into the model.
Being able to make things fit through the use of extraneous assumptions is not really science. It is kinda the opposite of science.
- The stars were created, it doesn't make sense to have 'delayed gratification' of seeing the stars. It makes more sense that when they were created, they appeared. Of course, the velocity of light is bound to the elementary equation Vf =Vi +at. The final velocity of course is the speed of light. The rest of the formula is subjectively a differential equation, that science assumes is constant. Imagine then an instantaneous Vi of infinity, and an instantaneous change to the current light velocity levels. Without concrete proof, it cannot be proven that God didn't instantaneously make many of the stars instantaneously visible by Earth, and its a moot point to argue on grounds of no concrete evidence one way or another. The only thing you have is the current levels of light.
-Kinds allow for speciation. Most people could answer the 'who does not belong' question between a wolf, a coyote, a husky and a banana. Galapogos island speciation goes along with the science of creation. Birds change into other birds. Turtles into other turtles.
-information is lost when through reproduction it does not exist in the DNA code. This is easily seen by a Punnett Square and should have been learned in middle school/high school biology.
-'Science's' assumptions are religious in nature.
1) The origin of time, space, and matter in the big bang. As you know, the big bang only describes the moments after it happened. The origins of matter or energy is a chicken/egg problem consuming many thinkers, not actual data and hard conclusions. Also, this is an unrepeatable process, just like God's abilities.
2) Chemical evolution, making elements from hydrogen, the supposed material made/composed from the big bang. Iron can't be produced from fusion.
3) Origin of Stars and planets. We haven't observed the origin of these.
4) Origin of life. This is debated as having to do with aliens, comets, lightning strikes, etc. It has never been observed, and can't be replicated to be observed.
5) Macroevolution - the change from one kind of plant/animal to another. Changing from something like a dog to a non-dog. This has never happened and can't be observed.
6) Microevolution- where we come together, changing inside of kinds. Dogs to different types and variations, like curly/straight hair, bigger/smaller, calm/hyper.
That is 5 out of six in a religious, have to believe it because we can't prove it, things in science about evolution.