Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would say the last thing.

But what I was saying is that everything is only a probability.

And I understand what you are saying but things like Gravity and a Round Earth while possibly only probable in certain things are in fact absolute truth in others.

Everything falls at a certain rate when outside forces like wind resistence is moved.

The point from one side of the Earth is partially the same to other sides of the Earth which points to them being equal distance.

Partially true premises that have been tested.

Evolution generally focuses on the proving only the conclusion true with highly untestable premises which astronimaclly raises the their chances of being false as well as being true.

Actually in some ways it becomes an even split.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why would you say the last thing?

Because as far as I can see the evidence is incredibly convincing and logical. I wouldn't know what should prove it wrong.

Originally posted by Newjak
And I understand what you are saying but things like Gravity and a Round Earth while possibly only probable in certain things are in fact absolute truth in others.

Everything falls at a certain rate when outside forces like wind resistence is moved.

The point from one side of the Earth is partially the same to other sides of the Earth which points to them being equal distance.

Partially true premises that have been tested.

Evolution generally focuses on the proving only the conclusion true.

But so many parts of evolution have been tested and proven. Maybe the chances of evolution are 1 000 000 000 000 000 : 1 and the chances of a round earth 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 : 1, but who is counting?

Also, could either you or Dígi change your avi 😐

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because as far as I can see the evidence is incredibly convincing and logical. I wouldn't know what should prove it wrong.

But so many parts of evolution have been tested and proven. Maybe the chances of evolution are 1 000 000 000 000 000 : 1 and the chances of a round earth 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 : 1, but who is counting?

Also, could either you or Dígi change your avi 😐

Evolution has been tested but many of the premises making it up haven't been. It doesn't matter how much the conclusion is checked and proven if it is based off of false premises.

For instance you test the Big Bang theory to death. It is logical, it is sound. There are no other alternatives theoretically. That doesn't change the fact that if the starting foundation of it is wrong then everything else also becomes false.

I would actually say that the chances of Evolution being wrong since it is one of those theories that possess essentially untestable pieces would actually be closer to an even split.

Considering that odds are relative I think there is an equal chance that when or if we can test some of the currently untestable pieces of evolution the odds become even since any new information can in fact go either way as it is new information.

And no we can not change out the Avi 😐

Originally posted by Da Pittman
😆 I coudn't keep watching that video because it is so much BS 😆

Yeah, that was my dilemma.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
😱 im so sorry, im gonna go sulk in a corner....... 🙁

Hehe, I thought you might!

Originally posted by Newjak
That doesn't make it fact that just makes possibly sound.

Evolution has been tested but many of the premises making it up haven't been. It doesn't matter how much the conclusion is checked and proven if it is based off of false premises.

For instance you test the Big Bang theory to death. It is logical, it is sound. There are no other alternatives theoretically. That doesn't change the fact that if the starting foundation of it is wrong then everything else also becomes false.

I would actually say that the chances of Evolution being wrong since it is one of those theories that possess essentially untestable pieces would actually be closer to an even split.

Considering that odds are relative I think there is an equal chance that when or if we can test some of the currently untestable pieces of evolution the odds become even since any new information can in fact go either way as it is new information.

And no we can not change out the Avi 😐

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that is different for either gravity or the roundness of earth. But I might misunderstand, could you elaborate on "It doesn't matter how much the conclusion is checked and proven if it is based off of false premises." in regards of evolution-

In order for Evolution to become an absolute truth what has to been proven to be true?

Consider that with what has to proven to make the premises true for Gravity or the roundness of Earth. Gravity ust needs to have a uniform factor roundness just needs to prove distance that shape of the planet.

Those make the foundation of what makes something true.

You can test and say that it is possible for evolution to take place or to prove that minute adaptations of genetic material can overtime lead to changes.

But what is the few things that must be proven true for Evolution to be true?

Originally posted by Newjak
Ok here it is.

In order for Evolution to become an absolute truth what has to been proven to be true?

Consider that with what has to proven to make the premises true for Gravity or the roundness of Earth. Gravity ust needs to have a uniform factor roundness just needs to prove distance that shape of the planet.

Those make the foundation of what makes something true.

You can test and say that it is possible for evolution to take place or to prove that minute adaptations of genetic material can overtime lead to changes.

But what is the few things that must be proven true for Evolution to be true?

No idea, tell me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No idea, tell me.

We assume that the first cells could
A) Self-Sustain

B) Self-Replicate

C) Had enough Genetic material to duplicate the proteins needed to replicate.

We often say but look we can note from modern cells that they do possess all these things. That isn't good enough and as of now these things are currently untestable until we can create self sustaining cells from scratch. Which we can not do.

These things are paramount to the evolution being proven true. If even one of these things are false then the foundation for Evolution becomes extremely weakened.

Anyways that is what I was saying. Untestable premises make everything about the theory almost a 50/50 toss-up. Despite everything about the inside of the Theory being testable because it still relies on possible false assumptions.

Originally posted by Newjak
These are often trivial things that we take for granted.

We assume that the first cells could
A) Self-Sustain

B) Self-Replicate

C) Had enough Genetic material to duplicate the proteins needed to replicate.

We often say but look we can note from modern cells that they do possess all these things. That isn't good enough and as of now these things are currently untestable until we can create self sustaining cells from scratch. Which we can not do.

These things are paramount to the evolution being proven true. If even one of these things are false then the foundation for Evolution becomes extremely weakened.

Anyways that is what I was saying. Untestable premises make everything about the theory almost a 50/50 toss-up. Despite everything about the inside of the Theory being testable because it still relies on possible false assumptions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would the immense amount of evidence we have be explained otherwise though. Don't you think the evidence makes it incredibly likely that those foundations are true too. It's not like that we can't say anything about it.

It generally goes like this. Ok this is what we assume, ok taking these assumptions into play we can test for these things, these things are true therefore the assumptions are true.
It becomes circular and not very good logic or evidence because no matter what the evidence only becomes true if the assumptions become true not the other way around.

Originally posted by Newjak
Except our evidence generally relies on those foundations to be true.

It generally goes like this. Ok this is what we assume, ok taking these assumptions into play we can test for these things, these things are true therefore the assumptions are true.
It becomes circular and not very good logic or evidence because no matter what the evidence only becomes true if the assumptions become true not the other way around.

I understand logic. I just don't think evolution is contra logic really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I thought it is generally more like "Oh, there is a fossil...we can carbon date it"...oh, it is this old.

I understand logic. I just don't think evolution is contra logic really.

Theories on the other hand always assume something.

That why there can be Theories in Math because they always assume something to make something testable but once outside of that or if those assumptions proven false they no longer work.

The Pythagorean Theory is perfect for this. It assumes a right angle triangle. Once outside of those assumptions or if that assumption proves false it no longer works.

And I'm not saying that Evolution runs contrary to logic just that since its Premises or assumptions are currently untestable it is probable not fact.

As it is probably true and probably the only thing we can find to be true because it is the only probable things we can find.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah because you are not making a Theory about how old the Dinosaur Leg is. You are testing it and what you think its age is doesn't matter because it will be tested.

Theories on the other hand always assume something.

That why there can be Theories in Math because they always assume something to make something testable but once outside of that or if those assumptions proven false they no longer work.

The Pythagorean Theory is perfect for this. It assumes a right angle triangle. Once outside of those assumptions or if that assumption proves false it no longer works.

And I'm not saying that Evolution runs contrary to logic just that since its Premises or assumptions are currently untestable it is probable not fact.

As it is probably true and probably the only thing we can find to be true because it is the only probable things we can find.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Yes, but what does that have to do with molecular biology, specifically, the function of DNA?

Topology demonstrates change in function and complexity without change in the amount of information being used.

No it does not! Topology simply notes the structural arrangements/measurements of living and non-living things. Function doesn't even enter the equation. That is the job of biology. Why do you even have an opinion?

Originally posted by ushomefree
No it does not!

Sure it does.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Topology simply notes the structural arrangements/measurements of living and non-living things. Function doesn't even enter the equation. That is the job of biology.

A disk is very simple but it can change into an ornate vase with all the same information.

Mutation doesn't need new information just different information. That's my only point.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Why do you even have an opinion?

I don't understand the question.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...I don't understand the question.

Like a good Christian, he was trying to shut you up. 😆

YouTube video

Abiogenesis is a different field of science from evolutionary biology. Evolution doesn't necessarily have to account for the neuropsychology of consciousness and morality (notwithstanding that as a practising neuroscientist I'm not in favor of unsubstantiated dualistic theories, and believe that "morality" is a simply a result of neural substrates - e.g. see what happens when you damage the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.) These are again, at their core different fields of science.

Therefore Mr D'Souza's objections to evolution are relatively irrelevant.