Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Since all creationists keep reffering to works of other fellow creationists saying "It is worth taking a look, at least take a look at both sides!" I felt that I might just as well do the same thing. This site sumarises a detailed list of answers to the most common nonsense claims by creationists.

    http://www.museumstuff.com/articles/...042751109.html

    These are the 15 creationist claims that the site adresses (tears appart) by pointing out teh fundamental errors in them:

    1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
    2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
    3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
    4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
    5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
    6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
    7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
    8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
    9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
    10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
    11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
    12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
    13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
    14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.¨
    15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.


    All of the above is of course nonsense and was adressed by Scientific American (The Magazine which first published these 15 answers). Once again I invite everyoen to check out the site.

    http://www.museumstuff.com/articles/...042751109.html

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Since all creationists keep reffering to works of other fellow creationists saying "It is worth taking a look, at least take a look at both sides!" I felt that I might just as well do the same thing. This site sumarises a detailed list of answers to the most common nonsense claims by creationists.

    http://www.museumstuff.com/articles/...042751109.html

    These are the 15 creationist claims that the site adresses (tears appart) by pointing out teh fundamental errors in them:

    1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
    2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
    3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
    4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
    5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
    6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
    7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
    8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
    9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
    10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
    11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
    12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
    13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
    14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.¨
    15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.


    All of the above is of course nonsense and was adressed by Scientific American (The Magazine which first published these 15 answers). Once again I invite everyoen to check out the site.

    http://www.museumstuff.com/articles/...042751109.html
    I'm not a creationist at all (I firmly accept evolution) but evolution is a theory, not a fact.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    I'm not a creationist at all (I firmly accept evolution) but evolution is a theory, not a fact.
    I refer to answer 1 in:

    http://www.museumstuff.com/articles/...042751109.html

    "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.

    All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. "
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    I'm not a creationist at all (I firmly accept evolution) but evolution is a theory, not a fact.
    It comes down to wordlplay. Yes evolution is a theory, but creationists would use this to suggest that it thus lacks validity which isnt true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    It comes down to wordlplay. Yes evolution is a theory, but creationists would use this to suggest that it thus lacks validity which isnt true.
    The thing is that in science there is no such thing as "facts". Thus to say that Evolution is a theory and not a fact is rather meaningless since a theory is the highest status something can ever obtain within Science.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The thing is that in science there is no such thing as "facts". Thus to say that Evolution is a theory and not a fact is rather meaningless since a theory is the highest status something can ever obtain within Science.
    The problem is that scientists are very sloppy with language and still talk (and think) in outdated terms like "facts" etc which philosophy has long since abandoned.

    Creationists are perfectly correct to say that evolution is 'just a theory', not a proven fact. But it is never possible to prove that a scientific theory is true, in the strict sense of proof, for the inference from data to theory is almost always non-deductive.

    By the same token, we could argue that it is 'just a theory' that water is made up of H20, or that matter is made up of atoms. But creationists do not argue this.

    If they are to make their position defensible they simply cannot turn on the point that our data doesn't guarantee every scientific theory.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The thing is that in science there is no such thing as "facts". Thus to say that Evolution is a theory and not a fact is rather meaningless since a theory is the highest status something can ever obtain within Science.
    True.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    By the same token, we could argue that it is 'just a theory' that water is made up of H20, or that matter is made up of atoms. But creationists do not argue this.

    If they are to make their position defensible they simply cannot turn on the point that our data doesn't guarantee every scientific theory.
    Thats the thing with them, many 'facts' they dont dispute are no more provable or valid that the theory of evolution, however they leave them alone as they dont happen to be inconvenient to their beliefs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    The problem is that scientists are very sloppy with language and still talk (and think) in outdated terms like "facts" etc which philosophy has long since abandoned.

    Creationists are perfectly correct to say that evolution is 'just a theory', not a proven fact. But it is never possible to prove that a scientific theory is true, in the strict sense of proof, for the inference from data to theory is almost always non-deductive.

    By the same token, we could argue that it is 'just a theory' that water is made up of H20, or that matter is made up of atoms. But creationists do not argue this.

    If they are to make their position defensible they simply cannot turn on the point that our data doesn't guarantee every scientific theory.
    I think you yourself are being rather sloppy with your usage of language. Firstly, the source of the criticism of evolution due to its status as a theory is that this makes it nothing more than an idea, and by extension holding no scientific value; it is not a point of semantics, rather an exploitation of them.
    Secondly, very few scientists I've met discuss facts; phrases such as models, structures, frames, theories, concepts, and the like are much more common. The first biologist I ever spoke to on the subejct of evolution concluded a discussion with "remeber, it would take only one fossil to compeltely disprove this theory", leaving no doubt that this was merely the most accurate model available and no more.
    Finally, water is H2O, because it is defined as that. The two words mean precisely the same thing. Any sample of water, of course, won't be entirely H2O be that is because it is impure.

    (Original post by H&E)
    I think you yourself are being rather sloppy with your usage of language. Firstly, the source of the criticism of evolution due to its status as a theory is that this makes it nothing more than an idea, and by extension holding no scientific value; it is not a point of semantics, rather an exploitation of them.
    Secondly, very few scientists I've met discuss facts; phrases such as models, structures, frames, theories, concepts, and the like are much more common. The first biologist I ever spoke to on the subejct of evolution concluded a discussion with "remeber, it would take only one fossil to compeltely disprove this theory", leaving no doubt that this was merely the most accurate model available and no more.
    Finally, water is H2O, because it is defined as that. The two words mean precisely the same thing. Any sample of water, of course, won't be entirely H2O be that is because it is impure.
    The knowledge that water is H20 exists only in our minds – it does not exist externally. It is a symbol that we apply. All theories exist in the mind alone and are not the objects which they seek to describe.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    The knowledge that water is H20 exists only in our minds – it does not exist externally. It is a symbol that we apply. All theories exist in the mind alone and are not the objects which they seek to describe.
    What are you talking about? The labelling of water with these letters is not a theory... you're getting confused. I can't even make sense of the last part:

    "All theories exist in the mind alone and are not the objects which they seek to describe"

    Did you even read what Jonatan quoted?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    The knowledge that water is H20 exists only in our minds – it does not exist externally. It is a symbol that we apply. All theories exist in the mind alone and are not the objects which they seek to describe.
    By this reasoning you can extend everything to exist in your mind only, that is, we are only figments of yoru imagination. Then you may ask why you bother to argue with us...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    What are you talking about? The labelling of water with these letters is not a theory... you're getting confused. I can't even make sense of the last part:
    It is a theory, its taught as such in 1st year university chemistry. The structure of a compound cannot be proved, we can only hypothesise as to what it would most likely be.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    By this reasoning you can extend everything to exist in your mind only, that is, we are only figments of yoru imagination. Then you may ask why you bother to argue with us...
    Since you seem to like quotations, I’ll give you one from Stephen Hawking:

    “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it.” (p 11, Brief History of Time)

    I have been looking for the past 5 minutes for where Hawking says that these theories only exist in the mind but I cant find it at present.

    You must be conscious that your theories, values, judgements etc are not the thing they are about.

    What we call ‘science’ has been and will continue to be that combination of words (a theory) that yields the greatest understanding, and thereby control, over the subject in question.

    Your problem is that your not conscious of that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    Since you seem to like quotations, I’ll give you one from Stephen Hawking:

    “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it.” (p 11, Brief History of Time)

    I have been looking for the past 5 minutes for where Hawking says that these theories only exist in the mind but I cant find it at present.

    You must be conscious that your theories, values, judgements etc are not the thing they are about.

    What we call ‘science’ has been and will continue to be that combination of words (a theory) that yields the greatest understanding, and thereby control, over the subject in question.

    Your problem is that your not conscious of that.
    Yes I know about Hawkings, I know about Roger Penros and I know about Richard Feynman and Einstein, and guess what: They all have different interpretations of what a theory is!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Yes I know about Hawkings, I know about Roger Penros and I know about Richard Feynman and Einstein, and guess what: They all have different interpretations of what a theory is!
    The disagreement between leaders in a scienfic field of the correct nature of a theory is often used by creationists as evidence that the theory is wrong. This is unture, this only shows that the exacty nature of the theory is unclear, it does not mean the theory is wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    It is a theory, its taught as such in 1st year university chemistry. The structure of a compound cannot be proved, we can only hypothesise as to what it would most likely be.
    Not the labelling of it - the theory I pressume is that water "particles" are made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Whether we call these atoms H, O, Z, P etc. is not theory - it is defenition. Whether these defenitions are correct is not the issue, as a hydrogen atom is defined as "H". Whether this atom is a component of water is theory. That's my point in response to:

    "The knowledge that water is H20 exists only in our minds – it does not exist externally. It is a symbol that we apply."

    (Original post by mik1a)
    Not the labelling of it - the theory I pressume is that water "particles" are made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Whether we call these atoms H, O, Z, P etc. is not theory - it is defenition. Whether these defenitions are correct is not the issue, as a hydrogen atom is defined as "H". Whether this atom is a component of water is theory. That's my point in response to:

    "The knowledge that water is H20 exists only in our minds – it does not exist externally. It is a symbol that we apply."
    But the "atom" is a theory too, which the Greeks came up with...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Solis Invictus)
    But the "atom" is a theory too, which the Greeks came up with...
    Are trees theories? I think its safe to assume that scientist are as sure of atoms existing as trees

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Are trees theories? I think its safe to assume that scientist are as sure of atoms existing as trees
    We observe an object. An image is formed in our mind. But before we are conscious of it preconditioned judgements and values, labels and meanings in the subconscious transform the image. By the time we’re conscious of the image of the object it has been radically altered – there are names to it, values ascribed to it etc. But this altered image, with all the meanings attached to it, only exists in the mind.

    And that’s the observable universe.

    When you talk about atoms you’re talking about something in the unobservable universe. We create mental pictures and images of things we cannot perceive. They may very well correspond to what is there. But they are not it. In reality there are no atoms, particles etc. These are images and concepts that exist in our mind which give us a certain control over the unseen universe. And because they give us control we call them knowledge.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.