True.Origins

[RufusAtticus]

What double standard? My original post referred to a specific page discussing creation and provided a link. I don't remember claiming that creationists aren't allowed to provide references.

Furthermore, I also don't remember asking in general for a Theory of Creation. I was just wondering if anyone could find one in the article I linked too. You volunteered to provide me with one. So far I don’t remember putting any restrictions on how you can support your claim or present it to me.

If you don’t like the references I used, feel free to offer up criticisms of them. Criticizing me for offering references is an extremely weak position to take.

So Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life? Hmmm....So then at what point did evolution start?

Quick answer: After the origin of life.

More answer: Evolution is an emergent property of imperfect replication. Ergo, evolution cannot occur until you have imperfect replicators. What ever leads up to the imperfect replicators is not in the realm of evolution.

 

[unworthyone]

The problem is you are not giving a narrowed down version of the theory of evolution...

I need to know what you think would be a legitimate narrowed down version.

So please, provide me with a quick description of the "Theory of Evolution".

 

[AtheistArchon]

- Actually there are a few different theories of evolution, technically. Each of them are an attempt to explain evolution, and each of them (if they're valid) have empirical evidence backing them up.

- Every one I know of incorporates several empirical observations into it: the geological column, transitionary fossils, genetics, even astronomy and physics. Most of them also rely on natural selection and descent with modification.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Well this post is going to assume that you have at least read this link for background information.

Now, I will present the most concise form of the theory of evolution.

God didn’t do it.

Just kidding.

Here is an actual one, per the modern synthesis.

Mutation plus selection, drift, and gene flow are responsible for the diversity of life.

I would be happy to elaborate on any terms in that definition for your edification.

 

[ardipithecus]

Mutation plus selection, drift, and gene flow are responsible for the diversity of life.

This has a huge ommission: recombination.

I would always be careful of limiting oneself a small set of causes. The conventional understanding for the origin of mitochondria does not fit the above.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Hehe, I feel that mutation covers recombination.

You do make a good point about mitochondria and other cellular symbotic events. I will ponder how to best incorporate that into my distalation.

~~RvFvS~~

 

[unworthyone]

This is the problem with trying to define the "Theory of Evolution". Nobody really has a good answer. It's subjective and just like the "Theory of Creation", they both are "unproven". They should be called "Theories of Hope".

 

[RufusAtticus]

Unworthyone,

You promised me a "Theory of Creation." I'm still waiting.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Unworthyone,

You promised me a "Theory of Creation." I'm still waiting.

Hahah!! Why give myself up for scrutiny when your fellow "Evolutionists" even argued with you on what the theory is? Get your own theory straight before demanding someone else explain theirs!

The deal is, my theory could be tested and falsifiable. You say its not, I say it is. Is it science? OF COURSE! I can test it.

Now I'd like to see you test on how we transitioned from a ape-man to homo-erectus or whatever when all you have are fossils. You can't TEST IT! You can merely "SPECULATE" that they look similar so they have to be "related".



The fossils are just as much evidence as the bible is. They both "Speculate" on how man came into existence. You accept "reasonable assumption", I accept "truth".

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by unworthyone
Hahah!! Why give myself up for scrutiny when your fellow "Evolutionists" even argued with you on what the theory is? Get your own theory straight before demanding someone else explain theirs!

In other words, you can't do it.

The deal is, my theory could be tested and falsifiable. You say its not, I say it is. Is it science? OF COURSE! I can test it.

Nice to be able to make an assertion such as this when you refuse to present your theory!

Now I'd like to see you test on how we transitioned from a ape-man to homo-erectus or whatever when all you have are fossils. You can't TEST IT! You can merely "SPECULATE" that they look similar so they have to be "related".

No. It is tested with every new discovery. So far, it works.

The fossils are just as much evidence as the bible is.

Sorry, but the bible is actually hearsay.

 

[RufusAtticus]

So basically, unworthyone, you are incapable of providing me a Theory of Creation, despite your promise to do so. Why am I not suprised.

 

[npetreley]

What would a theory of creation be?

If you're looking for a theory as in "This is what we theorize happened," then why not just quote the first part of Genesis verbatim as the theory?

If you're looking for a scientific explanation of the process of creation itself (such as, "this explains how it was possible to create something out of nothing") then I wouldn't hold my breath.

Perhaps I missed some earlier post, but why do you need a theory of creation, anyway? If Genesis is true in the literal sense, then it's true. What's to theorize?

 

[Vorkosigan]

"What's to theorize?"

In science, we don't call things "a scientific theory" until you've got something that's testable and falsifiable, that makes genuine predictions, and so on. Unworthyone was being asked for a scientific theory of creation because he'd promised to deliver one some time ago, as I recall.

As for Genesis 1 and 2 being literally true, if you believe that, and you believe that no evidential framework is required, what are you doing here?

In any case, the story of Genesis, as you know, cannot be literally true, although it might be an interesting metaphor. The earth is much older than the few thousand years that Genesis claims.

Vorkosigan

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
What would a theory of creation be?

A theory of creation would explain something - why life exists, why it is diverse, etc. It would make testable predictions on what kinds of data we should find when we examine the fossil record or compare genetic sequences of living organisms. It would be subject to falsification, if the data should prove to be inconsistent with it.

If the only explanation creation is useful for is that "God made everything a few thousand years ago, and that's why it is here," then it may or may not be useful depending on how the term "God" is defined.

If "God" is defined as "Whatever made everything" then the "explanation" is a mere tautology and does not add to our knowledge about the world. If "God" is defined as the central deity of the Hebrew and Christian religions, then the theory will have to shoulder a huge burden of proof: the proof that God exists.

The theory must make predictions that will confirm or falsify its claim(s). If it cannot say what we should expect to find in the fossil record, in biogeography, in a phylogenetic study of gene sequences - or in some kind of data or test the results of which will verify or falsify the theory, then it is pure speculation and cannot be called science.

If you're looking for a theory as in "This is what we theorize happened," then why not just quote the first part of Genesis verbatim as the theory?

The first part of Genesis isn't really testable. It cannot be confirmed or falsified by objective data. If it can be, then explain how & do the tests & you have made a theory out of a Bible verse.

If you're looking for a scientific explanation of the process of creation itself (such as, "this explains how it was possible to create something out of nothing&quot then I wouldn't hold my breath.

A theory without explanatory power isn't a lot of good. What does your theory explain, how does it explain it, and how can the explanation be tested to see if it is consistent with, and the best explanation for, observed facts?

Perhaps I missed some earlier post, but why do you need a theory of creation, anyway? If Genesis is true in the literal sense, then it's true. What's to theorize?

Well, if it is true then it is true, but we do not know whether it is true except by either faith or scientific investigation. Scientific investigation hasn't done anything toward supporting the truth of Genesis 1-2, but faith does. If you prefer faith to science, then that is fine. Just don't expect scientists to do the same.

Many Christians consider faith and science amenable: they do not take Genesis 1-2 as literal accounts of creation. They believe by faith that God created, they accept by science that evolution took place.