Originally posted by inimalist
sure, its pretty simple. There is no "set in stone" criteria for anything to be considered fact by the scientific community, though there are some very important criteria. The main ones are passing occam's razor and being falsifiable. Evolution passes occam's razor because there is no better way of explaining what we observe objectively in labs around the world. Any other explanation must introduce many more unknowable forces than evolution, and thus, it is considered to be the most consistant explanation for the phenomena.
Some people believe that Evolution is pure FACT. But the problem is that it has not yet been proven to true even by the modern science.
The fact that we can perform an experiment by inbreeding among a certain species of animals belonging to a same genus and show the world that the new born cubs have slight features of both the parents, does not proves Evolution to be true.
Those cubs are born with certain defects that scientists do not tell you willingly but truth never remains hidden for long.
Evolution is about "Survival of the Fittest" or so it says but the problem is that the creatures with defects do not fit in to this category. And I must tell you that some dominant species have also become extinct in the history and we have yet to give valid explanations for the reasons that led to their extinction.
Also Evolutionists claim that life-forms themselves can evolve in to better life-forms by adopting to new envoirnmental changes. How is this so? If we throw a Grizzly bear in to Antartica along with Polar Bears, will it manage to adopt to that new envoirnment and become a more advanced version of it's former-self?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Falsifiability is a little bit different. In science, something cannot be true if it cannot be prooven false. So, we can think of evidence that would disprove evolution. For instance, if we found a new species that was ompletely novel in the fossil and genetic record, then we could possibly conclude that evolution did not occur. Similarily, if we could run a hereditary line of bacteria or whatever, and we found that their survival and genes were not related, evolution would be thrown out the window.
Life-forms often share some similarities with each other. This is not a reason to say that Evolution is true.
The fact is that life-forms always remain the same.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Evolution is also repeatably testable, and experiments that show the validity of the fossil records, heredity, variance, and all of the other qualities involved in the process of evolution have been conducted all over the world with the same rsults. Because of this, predictions can be made about evolution, and while they would be useless in a non-controled eco-system, in a controlled lab setting, there are new experiments that are showing we can use our understanding of evolution to predict certain changes.
Fossil records can decieve us. The oldest known Croc is
Sarcosuchus. It shares some similarities with
Gavial but this does not means that Sarcosuchus evolved in to Gavial.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Methodologically, evolutionary scientists follow the rigors of the scientific method, the same as the people who discovered the way to make the computer you are using today. In fact, because the American scientists during the cold war were so methodologically commited to science and thus evolution, Amreicans did not fall into the folk science that starved much of Russia (their anti-americanism had lead them to refuse the concept of genetic heredity because it was an American science).
Regarding Genetic Heredity:
Genetic Heredity is about adopting the traits of your parents during birth via genes. It is true that every man reacts differently to an event and have different likings and dislikings and can inherit some personality traits from his/her parents and can learn to suvive in different envoirnments but man still cannot evolve himself to a more advanced life-form through exposure to new things or envoirnments. He uses technology to help him in extreme situations. So Genetic Heredity is a baseless case to back Evolution. It is mostly about behavior.
Regarding Genetic Mutations:
Evolutionists claim that over many generations, the genomes of organisms can change, resulting in the phenomenon of evolution. Mutations and the selection for beneficial mutations can cause a species to evolve into forms that better survive their environment, a process called adaptation.
Adopting to new envoirnments is not a thing that is under our control. Check the example of "Grizzly Bear" above. It easily refutes this.
And genetic Modification looks good in science fiction movies, mate. The theory that you can combine Dino DNA with that of Frog DNA and still expect a true live Dino to be born is not true.
DNA modifications causes lots of issues and can lead to bad results.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Finally, Evolution works. Biology doesn't make sense without evolution, nor does creationism. The idea that we were "intelligently" designed with an appendix is ridiculous, and at best shows that this omnscient intelligence in the sky has far less of an idea of how to engineer something than most teenagers.
Evolution does not works my mate.
- The fact that the "Survival of the Fittest" theory have already been proven to be false.
- The fact that an animal adapted to a specific envoirnment cannot survive in an entirely different envoirnment.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Creationism does not pass occam's razor, since a supernatural explanation for events by definition introduces unexplainable entities or variables into an equation.
Science is only limted to materials. Do not blame Creationism for limitation of science.
Originally posted by Bardock42
However, the most damning evidence against creationism is that it is completely unfalsifiable. Given what we know about the universe, for creationism to be true, God, or whatever, would have had to have created the universe in such a way that it appears that it was not created. God would have had to painstakingly designed life with the appearance of evolving.
God creates things in such a manner that we can only guess that how were they created. We make theories about them. But we fail to acknowledge the fact that God have communicated with us through 124,000 Prophets to tell us that he exists and he created all the things but many people still do not want to believe. But God has said that he is testing people.
In old times, he used to destroy people who attacked and killed his prophets but after Noah asked him to give people another chance, he accepted and since then man is free to judge things by our own accord.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Think about the implications of this for a moment. If a universe that appears to be natural can also be designed, then what would be the evidence that the universe wasn't designed or that life was not designed? For instance, scientists can tell you what you would expect to see if what were know about the universe is false, there is no such corellary for creationism. Even the appearance of natural evolution can be proof of design. Thus, simply because the idea is unfalsifiable, creationism is pretty much childish fantasy.
There are two aspects of nature.
A) Materialistic Aspect.
B) Spiritual Aspect.
A) Materialisitic Aspect: This Universe and World in which live are things that we can see and interact with. We ourselves exist in this world as physical beings and can interact with other physical beings.
B) Spiritual Aspect: That things that we cannot see. The existance of 6 more skies above the sky that we know about, Heaven and Hell, Angels and Spirits etc. But the strange thing is that many people have told tales of interaction with Angels and Spirits. We call this realm to be spiritual because we cannot see it but we get to see signs of their existance which are in the shape of miracles, prophets and existance of super-natural phenomenon.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Creationism similarily proposes no experiments that can be done, and makes no predictions about the future.
Like I said before, the first step to understand Creationism is by becoming a believer. It is explained through special signs and not assumptions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically, evolution is science, creationism is religion. there is no reason to argue this point, especially if you think religion is truer than science. If you really think God made everything, don't look foolish by trying to beat science at it's own game. Issac Newton made a fool of himself by theorizing on the metaphysical, as will most natural scientists. Stay with what you know.
Evolution is also a religion. It is mostly based on assumptions and faulty evidences. Science has nothing to do with religion. It is about understanding the working of materialistic phenomenon of this Universe and we often make theories about things that are pure mysterious to us.
And staying with what we know is narrow-mindedness. Man have progressed by not following this notion or else we still would have thought that he Earth is FLAT.
