Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

quote:

---

Why am I a creationist? This is more spiritual than science. Since god is present in my life through prayer and scripture it is hard for me to accept a theory which tries to disprove what i experience everyday

---

What do you experience "every day" that compells you to reject 200 years of scientific inquiry?I mean, why does your stripe of Christianity or your belief in God seem to be dependent upon rejection of the reality of nature?Do you really think God would be displeased, and send you to Hell, if you, for example, accepted that allele frequencies change in populations over time, or that all of the various radiometric dating methods return very similar results for the same rock sample?

quote:

---

An example of empirical evidence is that 2+2 will always be 4.

---

Incorrect.2+2=4 is an abstract, mathematical "proof", not "empirical evidence"."Empirical" means "derived by experience". IOW, Empirical evidence is evidence which can be experienced by our senses.

quote:

---

Empirical evidence doesnt say anything about origins since all the theories are built on interpretation including creation and evolution theories.

---

Empirical evidence has, in fact, a few things to say about origins in the form of hypothese, but why do you seamlessly shift into talking about the ToE?Ideas about the origins of the first life are wholly distinct and separate from the Theory of Evolution.(You've been here a while, Jazz, so I'm surprised that you have fallen into this error)The ToE is an extremely robust and productive scientific Theory which has withstood probably millions of individual tests, including being confirmed by the evidence from the (relatively) new field of genetics.Lastly, you mention something about Creation "theories". Since I assume you are referring to the scientific definition of "theory" could you please refer me to a scientific theory of Creation? I have never seen one that has positive evidence observable by anyone, is falsafiable, and that explains all of the observed evidence better than the existing theory.

quote:

---

Why is gravity only a theory? Because it changes according to your position in the universe? Because its a human invention made to explain certain things like why are we not floating in the air? Gravity exists.

---

You have missed the point.The fact is, we don't really understand gravity very well, and there are actually several competing theories which attempt to explain it.By contrast, we do understand evolution quite well.Why is it that you accept Gravitational Theories without question, yet you reject a much better supported theory?

quote:

---

It is not a law because its value changes according to your position so yes its a theory because its not constant.

---

No, it's a theory. The term "law" doesn't have a precise meaning in science; it's lind of thrown around a bit. there is no "graduation" from theory to law to indicate greater certainty.

quote:

---

Here we go again. Why dont you take up prayer and see what i mean. I'm tired of answering this question. Let God become a reality in your life and see what I mean.

---

So, God wants you to reject 200 years of scientific inquiry?Hmm, I guess you reject all of modern medicine, then? You must not be vaccinated, must not take any drugs and certainly you must not take any antibiotics.I'm not sure how you can justify using a computer, either.Now, regarding everything you said about the possible problems with the various radiometric dating methods, you ignored my question entirely!My question was:Why is it that all of the various radiometric dating methods return very similar results for the same rock sample?If they are flawed, how is it that they are flawed in such a way as to return consistent dates for a single rock sample?

quote:

---

Let me see if I got this. Youre basically saying that if you have two cookies and i give you two more the day may come when this adds up to five or three. Explain yourself I dont get you.

---

No.2+2=4 is not something that needs to be tested by empirical methods. It is an abstract numerical concept. Representing the abstract symbols on a computer screen as cookies does nothing to change the concept."Empirical evidence" is, by contrast, evidence which is gathered or recorded, not an abstract concept. It is the data of the universe which we attempt to gather up in the net of theories. Theories attempt to explain the phenomena which left the evidence.The fact that planets in orbit closer to the sun complete an orbit more quickly that planets in orbit farther away from the sun is empirical evidence, for example.

quote:

---

Youll have to forgive me on this one but ive never heard of this toe theory. Have any good links where i can learn about this?

---

Theory
of
EvolutionIt's the lingo.Now, I notice that you neglected to address several important points from my last post. Here they are for your convenience:

quote:

---

The ToE is an extremely robust and productive scientific Theory which has withstood probably millions of individual tests, including being confirmed by the evidence from the (relatively) new field of genetics.

---

quote:

---

Lastly, you mention something about Creation "theories". Since I assume you are referring to the scientific definition of "theory" could you please refer me to a scientific theory of Creation? I have never seen one that has positive evidence observable by anyone, is falsafiable, and that explains all of the observed evidence better than the existing theory.

---

quote:

---

I don't think this is as simple a statement as it might seem. While it is true, I suspect a pretty large portion of the population (half? purely guessing) have never even thought about this, and it's no small percentage who wouldn't even know what you mean when you suggest it unless you explained.

​

I'm basing this purely on my experience teaching 4th and 5th grade math for a couple years and talking to parents.

​

I guess I'm saying this, because Jazzlover said, "Explain yourself I dont get you." You didn't explain yourself, because it seems obvious to you. You just asserted it again.

---

Hmm, this is interesting. I really thought I had explained it!So how would you teach it or explain it?