Fin-
The evolution-creation debate is only dead in your mind. The debate is very much alive. Until evolutionists are able to show some actual evidence for evolution and define evolution in a way that can actually be tested, it is not proven. At this point evolution is more of a dogma.
It is interesting that you bring up Popper. He was the one who said that in order for something to be considered science, it muse be falsifiable. Evolution is not science by his standards.
Evolution is not the only means of explaining why we have variations between species. Biblical creationists expect to see variations as well. Natural selection and mutations fit very well (are actually required) in the biblical creation model. However, there are major differences in how evolution and creation use them.
Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.
Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.
The key is that only one of these models is consistent with what has been found through other scientific fields; specifically population genetics and biology. I find it troubling that you make the following claim:
Like i said with science like genetics we know new materials can be added, and we have observed the phenomena of micro-evolution.
In all of the research that has been done with population genetics, there is not instance noted that a mutation has created new genetic information. I would appreciate it if you could provide a source which contradicts this.
Before I agree on micro-evolution, we must first agree on the definition. Micro-evolution is really only variation within a species. It is not the addition of new information. It is the re-arrangement or loss of existing genetic information. All the examples that evolutions provide as proofs for evolution are really only examples of these variations (moths, finches, dogs, flies, bacteria, etc.). That being said, yes micro-evoultion does occur. However, there is no evidence available that shows macro-evolution is possible. If evolution is defined as the creation of new genetic information (which it must), in a sense, the term micro-evolution is really a misnomer.
If the premisse are true and the inference logical; the conclusion is true. You cannot “test” evolution directly, but you can indirectly; you can test the mecanism of evolution. Mutation does happen. Micro-evolution does happen. We can trace history of species (with precise dating) and Natural Selection does happen, so what is illogical in this theory ? look at the parts, the indirect proof, interpretation, scientific laws (genetics), and the whole, then explain me that please, with a scientific and logical method, why this is not a valid theory, and if you can is there an alternative ? How can we explain that ?
Nowhere have I written that natural selection and mutations do not happen. As I have shown you above, evolution requires the addition of new genetic information. Since natural selection and mutations do not do this, how are these indirect proofs? Micro-evolution does not show evolution. It only shows variation between species. Where are the irrefutable intermediates?
I am very curious on your take of the exact history of species. Scientists are hard pressed to show any lineage. The fossil record shows species showing up, fully formed without intermediates. Which dating methods are you referring to? Many of the dating methods scientists have found actually show the age of the earth to have a maximum life much shorter than the billions of years proposed by evolutionists.
Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done. The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense. However, in many of the instances I have read about, including the ones mentioned above regarding natural selection and mutations, creation science actually makes more sense. Please re-read the part on mutations if you disagree.
About “generalities” the theory of complexity state that a system cannot be divide, you have to understand the whole system and the connection between the elements, a system is more than the sum of it’s part you should know that, i can give you good reference if you want.
I am sorry, when I referred to generalities, I was trying to address you point on natural selection and mutations. I was looking for examples. I agree that the theory of evolution is very complex.
First of all, “god” can be a philosophical theory, but creation is’nt a scientific theory
Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds – interpretation of data through a dogma.
Second; You said we are finding the use of what we think was vestigal organs, yes, i can take that (note that this time YOU have a theory with incomplete data, i have nothing against that but you do, you should argue with you about that), but the problem is that we know what’s their use, look at the caecum, it’s not that we don’t know what’s the use of it, we do, other herbivore mammals does have it. The horse have vestigial too of ancients fingers in their legs. It’s not like “Hey wow we don’t know what’s that it’s vestigial”
The whole reason that evolutionists used the vestigal organ argument was to try and show imperfect design. You listed it as an indirect proof for evolution. I stated why it is not. Vestigal organs are a good example of an evolutionary claim shown to be incorrect. I am not sure where you are going with the complete and incomplete data thing. I never said that vestigal organs make the theory of evolution incomplete.
Two words; Historical sciences. For you Lamarck’s “theory” was science (it was base purely on intuition, no real value), but now it seem evolution is not science. Strange.
I am not sure why this thing with Lamarck keeps coming up. I said that Lamarck’s theory and research was science at the time because his theory was based on ideas that could be tested and potentially proven false. It was subsequently proven false and is thus today, not considered science. I do not think that the theory of evolution is testable like the Lamarck’s theory. You are trying to compare apples and oranges in terms of falsibility.
Also a tautology would be; Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. THAT is tautology, but i really don’t see that in evolution, sorry but tautology is about logic, it’s a circular logical fallacies if you prefer. I really wonder where you take all this stuff like Tautology and Thermodynamics.
First of all, I have never used Thermodynamics in any of my arguments. I am still reading into the law(s) and how it relates to the evolution-creation debate. F_alk was the one who injected it into this thread.
Thank you for giving everyone the definition of a tautology. I agree with your definition. What I said in a previous post about natural selection is:
Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science.
I said it is usually set up as one of those three things. I did not say it was always set up as a tautology. I have read many quotes by leading evolutionists that state natural selection as a tautology. Also, I never said that a tautology is not logical. It is logical by definition. A great example of a tautology is: A table is a table. Evolution needs logic that explains something, not self-defining.
What I was trying to get at in the previous post was that it is nearly impossible to state the mechanism of natural selection in a way that is science. Any of those three makes the explanation non-science.
