Neither Evolution nor Creation are

The word "science" has an almost magical connotation to it. Whenever a theory is labelled "scientific" it carries an authority that cannot be denied by the common man. Consequently, those who oppose the "scientific theory" are considered ignorant and/or bugs to be squashed and ignored.According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "science" is defined as: "...A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain..."When considering this definition in the light of what is taught about Evolution one can readily see that Evolution is non-scientific. According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal (obviously such an "observation" is impossible!) Neither have evolutionists demonstrated that a single-celled animal has the ability to "create" a multi-celled animal.Waving "millions of years" and "natural selection" in someone's face does not answer the question. In order for evolution to be considered "scientific" it must show either observation or demonstration of its theory. Since "evolution" happened billions of years ago and happens over millions of years it fails the test of science."Creation Science" is a little bit better off than its rival. Presumably, God was there at the beginning of the Universe so His testimony of what happened would be authoritative. However, there are two uphill battes a "Creationist" must fight: 1) That God exists, and 2) That the Christian Holy Bible is a trustworthy message from God. Once these two are established argument over it being "scientific" can then commence.Why, then, do intelligent people "debate" about these things? Evolutionists who have established themselves as "scientists" have a very strong reason to maintain the illusion of science for their theory: Money. Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities they have a very basic emotional link to protect and defend evolution from all critics.At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal - that of declaring the glory of God in creation. Such men are usually subject to the whim of the evolutionist who have co-opted most, if not all, of the research funds and hold most of the seats of authority in education and science. Certainly, they cannot be criticizing evolution because they want to protect their own jobs!Robert

[QUOTE][b]According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal[/QUOTE][/b]Already off to a bad start as far as basic knowledge of the scientific principles we are debating, I see.

Ah! There it is. Just as I had predicted. I am now an ignornamus?Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?In Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" he point out that all that is necessary for evolution to occur is the first existence of life he does not even say what kind of life (actually hints at something more basic than single-celled animals).I must have missed something there?Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
The word "science" has an almost magical connotation to it. Whenever a theory is labelled "scientific" it carries an authority that cannot be denied by the common man. Consequently, those who oppose the "scientific theory" are considered ignorant and/or bugs to be squashed and ignored.

​

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "science" is defined as: "...A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain..."

​

When considering this definition in the light of what is taught about Evolution one can readily see that Evolution is non-scientific. According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal (obviously such an "observation" is impossible!) Neither have evolutionists demonstrated that a single-celled animal has the ability to "create" a multi-celled animal.

​

Waving "millions of years" and "natural selection" in someone's face does not answer the question. In order for evolution to be considered "scientific" it must show either observation or demonstration of its theory. Since "evolution" happened billions of years ago and happens over millions of years it fails the test of science.

​

"Creation Science" is a little bit better off than its rival. Presumably, God was there at the beginning of the Universe so His testimony of what happened would be authoritative. However, there are two uphill battes a "Creationist" must fight: 1) That God exists, and 2) That the Christian Holy Bible is a trustworthy message from God. Once these two are established argument over it being "scientific" can then commence.

​

Why, then, do intelligent people "debate" about these things? Evolutionists who have established themselves as "scientists" have a very strong reason to maintain the illusion of science for their theory: Money. Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities they have a very basic emotional link to protect and defend evolution from all critics.

​

At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal - that of declaring the glory of God in creation. Such men are usually subject to the whim of the evolutionist who have co-opted most, if not all, of the research funds and hold most of the seats of authority in education and science. Certainly, they cannot be criticizing evolution because they want to protect their own jobs!

​

Robert

---

You could at least TRY to get the sayings of modern evolutionary theory right.

And how have I misrepresented Evolution?Robert

Before we get deeper into the discussion of what science is & isn't. Could you furnish us with some examples of scientific theories.What ever dictionary definition you choose to accept on what science is, will have to be in the context of what you accept as scientific theory.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Answer Mark first and then check your post and try to correct yourself. It's pretty glaring actually. How can you propose to debate something that you have shown yourself to not know even the most basic principles of?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Ah! There it is. Just as I had predicted. I am now an ignornamus?

​

Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?

​

Robert

---

This is better, and more a accurate representation of the theory.This is not what you said in your first post, however. You said:

quote:

---

According to Darwin, and today's neo-Darwinism as well, a single-celled animal existing 10 billion years ago has not been "observed" to give birth to a multi-celled animal.

---

Evolutionary theory does not predict that single celled organisms would give birth to multi-celled animals.Now, considering that the ToE has (copious) positive evidence to support it, potential falsifications which have not been observed, and many, many testable hypothesese, how is it not scientific?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:

​

Why, then, do intelligent people "debate" about these things? Evolutionists who have established themselves as "scientists" have a very strong reason to maintain the illusion of science for their theory: Money. Awarding themselves PhD's and grants and prestigious positions in colleges and universities they have a very basic emotional link to protect and defend evolution from all critics.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!The vast, vast majority of Biologists make in the neighborhood of mid five-figure salary. They are comfortable, but not wealthy by any means. NOBODY becomes a Biologist at a University to get rich. Sure, Gould and a few others can command six figures from Harvard, but they are at the pinnacle of their fields, and I would say that they make most of their money through the publication and popularity of their popular press books, not their salaries.Compared to the likes of Bakker, Robertson, Reed, and Schuler, scientists are paupers, indeed. [QUOTE]At least the "Creation Scientist" is following a more noble goal - that of declaring the glory of God in creation. Such men are usually subject to the whim of the evolutionist who have co-opted most, if not all, of the research funds and hold most of the seats of authority in education and science. Certainly, they cannot be criticizing evolution because they want to protect their own jobs!Robert[/B][/QUOTE]Ah, yes, it can't possibly be that Creation 'scientists' are simply bad/incompetant scientists (at worst, liars), and that Creation 'sicnce' has religion and the Bible at it's core rather than evidnece and the scientific method, can it?It has to be a great conspiracy!BTW, I can back up my claims. Just ask.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
It has to be a great conspiracy!

​

BTW, I can back up my claims. Just ask.

​

---

I think the conspiracy is more serious than even you suggest Schrafinator. No one has ever observed Stephen Jay Gould and Benny Hinn together. The idea that they may be separate people is "only a theory" and I need evidence - real hard solid evidence, not bald assertions or inferences - that they different.Hinn's haircut is clearly the product of advanced design - it is highly complex and highly specified, and more significantly, the probability of it occurring by chance (say, after a rough night's sleep) are vanishingly small. But his congregations are made up of the poor and needy, so they couldn't possibly donate sufficient funds to pay for the immaculate grooming.I suggest that the most likely candidate is a highly successful, highly paid popular author: the cunning part of the conspiracy is that by hiding behind a mask of Darwinism, the polar opposite of all he really stands for, Gould-Hinn diverts all possible suspicion.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-25-2002]

Greetings:Mark asks for an example of a Scientific theory? Einstein's General Relativity Theory.Gene wants me to be more clear about Evolutionary theory. OK. How does Evolution explain the jump from original single-celled animals in the primordial goo 10 billion years ago to multi-celled animsals. Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!Schrafinator does not seem to comprehend that all of the biologists he is referring to would be out of a job if the theory of evolution was found to be false. He then compares their salaries to oddballs like Bakker, Schuller et all. I was hoping for a more intelligent response, because I was thinking of men who are in the science field like Russell Humphreys, or Michael Behe.Strange, that all of you who think you know so much cannot even respond intelligently to the most basic of questions: Where is your evidence that single-celled animals behave in a way that produces multi-celled animals?At the very beginning Evolution fails the test.Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Can they (or you) demonstrate that such can happen? You say that there is an abundance of evidence for it - well? Show me!

---

I love this argument about direct observation: one can imagine all these creationists refusing to believe anything until it can be directly observed.Take, for example, a medicinal trial. Would they say that Lansoprazole cannot be proved to reduce stomach acid unless they can actually observe it having an effect on the cells involved? I mean, they would actually need to see the chemical doing its work directly with a microscope that can work at the molecular level — none of this inferential stuff.

quote:

---

Schrafinator does not seem to comprehend that all of the biologists he is referring to would be out of a job if the theory of evolution was found to be false. He then compares their salaries to oddballs like Bakker, Schuller et all. I was hoping for a more intelligent response, because I was thinking of men who are in the science field like Russell Humphreys, or Michael Behe.

---

As for the grand conspiracy theory about scientists being out of a job if evolution was proved false — far from it, they would have research grants aplenty to explore the exciting new field of creation science. But surely Robert isn’t serious about his point. Would he look at the power and wealth of the mainstream Christian church through the ages and conclude that it was a vast conspiracy to keep its clergy in work? It’s such an unworthy topic to raise: that’s why I felt obliged to poke fun at it in an earlier post.(Actually, I note that Robert mentions Mark, gene, and Schrafinator by name, but misses me out. I suspect this is because he knows I have seen the truth about this conspirancy. His refusal to counter me suggests he is afraid of the debate. On the other hand if he does debate with me, I could take Phillip Johnson’s line and claim this is the kind of topic Creationists are willing to discuss so it must be worthy of consideration. http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_011202.htm)

quote:

---

Strange, that all of you who think you know so much cannot even respond intelligently to the most basic of questions: Where is your evidence that single-celled animals behave in a way that produces multi-celled animals?

​

At the very beginning Evolution fails the test.

---

What test? A test of absolute observability that only applies to this interpretation of this area of science?What you need is a test for which:
a: the biblical account succeeds but evolution fails;
b: is applicable to other areas of science, with the same results (if they fail the test, they are not scientific).And a definition of what you would regard as evidence towards this test would help.Meanwhile, I still await observable evidence (in accordance with the definition you give above) that Benny Hinn and Stephen Jay Gould are separate people.

Hi, Robert, Welcome aboard!I don't think you're getting many straight answers to your questions, but you sort of set the tone with your initial post. Your views aren't all that dissimilar from Redstang's and Jet's, who believe evolution perpetuates itself through a conspiracy on the part of its adherents. You, at least, provide a reason: they do it for the money.For most people, a career in evolutionary biology or paleontology is not a ticket to either wealth or fame. The slim financial rewards are far too insufficient a motivation to live a lie. And how would so many people from so many countries of so many religions for so many years perpetuate this lie?Conspiracy theories are notoriously difficult to rebut. Did you know our government doesn't want us to know that blue elephants are secretly living in our refrigerators? What's that? You've never seen a blue elephant in your refrigerator? See, the conspiracy is working! Your question about the origin of multi-celluar life actually concerns an implication of the theory of evolution, not evidence for it. The theory of evolution is accepted by scientists because of the supporting evidence, most prominently the fossil record of change over time. Mining, road construction and other activities related to the Industrial Revolution during the first half of the 19th century brought to light a record of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth. Those examining this evidence were Creationists, at least as the term would be understood at the time, and they concluded that evolution had occurred, though they didn't know how. It wasn't until Darwin that a workable mechanism was proposed.The implications about multi-cellular life derive from just an examination of the fossil record. As you peer further and further back in the fossil record life becomes more and more primitive. At some point we cease finding mammals, then we cease finding reptiles and amphibians, then we cease finding any land animals at all, then we find no jawed fishes, then no fishes, then no vertebrae, then no multicelluar life, then no life at all.So if evolution is the theory for how species change over time, if evolution is the explanatory framework for how dog-like creatures became horses or how hippo-like creatures became whales, then it must also be the explanation for how uni-cellular life became multi-cellular life. We accept this because we are looking at things in an evolutionary framework for which there is much evidence, not because there is detailed evidence for how this particular transformation, indeed any transformation, took place.If you require a theory to explain everything before you accept it then no theories will ever meet your criteria. Physics challenges and perhaps even exceeds evolution in presenting us with unfathomable mysteries, so you may as well include physics in the conspiracy.--Percy

Greetings:Mister Pamboli seems to think that I am demanding observational evidence in order to validate evolution as a science. I am not. If you re-read the definition of science that I gleaned from the Oxford English Dictionary then you will find that it says: "...observation or demonstration..." It is an either/or not necessarily a both/and proof. I think I pointed out that "observation is impossible" so I am asking for a demonstrated fact that validates evolutionary theory in its most basic premise.So my question still remains: Has evolution demonstrated that single-celled animals behave the way they have claimed to behave 10 billion years ago?Both Mr. Pamboli and Percipient comment on my "conspiracy theory" allegation. Though I never mentioned that it was a "conspiracy" such an action is just normal human behaviour. Clearly, biologists who have done their PhD's on evolutionary theory have a vested interest in "maintaining the status quo" so to speak. This is a problem with any group that has seized power in any type of situation: government, business, or science. Evolutionists have created their own type of fundamentalism.What got me thinking about this is the recent PBS series on Evolution. I noticed that little or no evidence was produced that scientifically (that is observation or demonstration) proved evolution. I also noticed that when it came to an opposing theory - like that of special creation - that their highly biased presentation seriously misrepresented so-called "Creationists". Evolutionists have truly created a fundamentalism all of their own.Apparently I am being labelled a "Creationist" here, but such is not the case. I do not believe many of the creationist teachings concerning the beginning and nature of the universe. I also do not believe evolution, and, I believe that evolution is far more harmful to science than creationism.Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
So my question still remains: Has evolution demonstrated that single-celled animals behave the way they have claimed to behave 10 billion years ago?

---

Its going to have to wait unanswered untill an adherent of exogenesis (life from space)comes along then given that the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old...10 billion is the aproximate age of the universe and I think the consensus of opinion would be that single celled organisms didn`t appear imediately after the big bang.....Probably why no one answered it, just a thought....