Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by Eladar
Tell that to people who try to tell others they are fools for not accepting evolution as truth.

Let me explain how science works, just so we're clear.

You have scientific facts, that would include both the natural laws and physical objects like
fossils. These are facts, since only a mad man could deny their accuracy/existence.

Then you have scientific evidence. That would be observations that anyone can make, and
thereby verify. An observation could be fossils placed in chronological order, and then you
see a progression from one form to another. It could also be the result of an experiment
that is repeatable. A scientific piece of evidence is not necessarily a scientific fact, since
it's possible to misunderstand what you observe, or certain facts could be missing so you
don't get the complete picture.

Finally you have plausible explanatory models that must account for the above. It's this
model that allows us to test whether or not we have a decent grasp on the full picture
regarding a specific class of evidence. The point of an explanatory model is to expand our
understanding of reality, and hopefully discover new and interesting facts. It does this by
allowing us to make predictions and test whether or not those predictions come true. This
explanatory model is called an hypothesis initially.

An important part of real science is the peer-review process. The idea here is that you must
submit your hypothesis to the community for serious inspection. Other scientists whose
fields of science are somehow related to your hypothesis will examine it thoroughly. Their
goal is to find everything wrong with it, and if you (or anyone else) can't correct your model
to account for any contradictory evidence, you lose and the hypothesis will join that heap
of sad failures that's constantly growing.

However, should your hypothesis pass the peer-review process, and if there's enough
evidence to support it, it will be taken as a workable theory. At that point, though it's not a
scientific fact, it's considered to be an essential truth from which new hypothesis and
theories can be spawned. Some of those may lead away from the theory, in which case it is
again put into question, and the cycle continues.

Now, the theory of evolution has withstood serious peer-review inspection for over a
hundred and fifty years, and there's a massive amount of scientific fact and evidence
collected, all of which support the theory, none of which contradicts it (though creationists
attempt to argue otherwise, in the eyes of the scientific community they fail).

It's still a possibility that evolution is shown to not be a complete explanation, like newton's
theory of gravity was shown to not be complete, but it's worked so far as a model that can
account for all the collected facts, allow successful predictions and spawn new and
interesting fields of science. It's a very useful and solid theory at this point, and only
religious literalists yet oppose it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Faith means believing propositions to be true without evidence sufficient to
justify such belief or despite evidence that the proposition is false.

Science NEVER does this.

And correspondingly science neither contains nor requires faith.

Claims otherwise are a pathetic creationist lie.

Believing in the Theory of Evolution is obviously based on faith, because there is not sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. And despite evidence that the proposition is false, the proposition is still accepted on faith.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Believing in the Theory of Evolution is obviously based on faith, because there is not sufficient evidence to justify such a belief. And despite evidence that the proposition is false, the proposition is still accepted on faith.

Wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
Let me explain how science works, just so we're clear.

You have scientific facts, that would include both the natural laws and physical objects like
fossils. These are facts, since only a mad man could deny their existence.

Then you have scientific evidence. That would be observations that anyone can make, and
thereby verify. An observation could be ...[text shortened]... 's a very useful and solid theory at this point, and only
religious literalists yet oppose it.

Both creationists and evolutionist observe fossils, but there is no way to be sure fossils are placed in chronological order of age because the age of fossils can not be determined by observation.

Evolution from one kind of an animal to another has never been repeated. Therefore, we can't know it ever happened.

There has been no progression from one kind of animal to another ever observed to support the evolution theory. The vast amount of transistional fossils (missing links) that Darwin predicted would be found are still missing. Therefore, the evolutionary model has been a failure in providing any truth.

The Evolution Theory is only accepted by those scientists that believe and have faith in it because of their brainwashing by evolutionists. Many scientist have refused to be fooled into accepting this religion of evolution by faith.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Both creationists and evolutionist observe fossils, but there is no way to be sure fossils are placed in chronological order of age because the age of fossils can not be determined by observation.

We find fossil X in a strata that is below the strata of fossil Y. Chronological order doesn't
imply that we know the exact age of fossil X and Y, only that we know in which order they
died, first fossil X and then fossil Y.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution from one kind of an animal to another has never been repeated. Therefore, we can't know it ever happened.

As I showed in the gods image thread over in the spirituality forum, scientists have now
observed new information added to DNA. That's all you need to observe to accept the fact
of the process of evolution. In fact, in that specific experiment, you see one species of
bacteria evolving into a new species.

Originally posted by C Hess
We find fossil X in a strata that is below the strata of fossil Y. Chronological order doesn't
imply that we know the exact age of fossil X and Y, only that we know in which order they
died, first fossil X and then fossil Y.

That still would not prove the order that each died. That would only be an assumption. To ASSUME is a good way to make an ASS out of U and ME, but not a good way to do science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The vast amount of transistional fossils (missing links) that Darwin predicted would be found are still missing. Therefore, the evolutionary model has been a failure in providing any truth.

As I've already explained my knuckleheaded friend, if you put the fossils found in
chronological order you see the progression between forms. Every fossil that appears
between two other fossils is a link.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Evolution Theory is only accepted by those scientists that believe and have faith in it because of their brainwashing by evolutionists.

No it's been accepted by the scientific community as a whole because there's no way to
refute the overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That still would not prove the order that each died.

Since a strata, as a matter of scientific fact, takes a long time to form, it is a safe bet that
animals died in the order of strata their fossils are found.

Originally posted by C Hess
As I showed in the gods image thread over in the spirituality forum, scientists have now
observed new information added to DNA. That's all you need to observe to accept the fact
of the process of evolution. In fact, in that specific experiment, you see one species of
bacteria evolving into a new species.

I didn't see that there was new information added to DNA. However, even if scientists are able to add new information to DNA, that would not be proof of the theory of evolution. We need to see one kind of animal changing to another kind of animal to prove the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by C Hess
Since a strata, as a matter of scientific fact, takes a long time to form, it is a safe bet that
animals died in the order of strata their fossils are found.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 has already proven that the laying down of strata by volcanic ass, water, and mud flow can happen very quickly. Also dead animals in moving water are not sorted out by time of death

Originally posted by RJHinds
I didn't see that there was new information added to DNA. However, even if scientists are able to add new information to DNA, that would not be proof of the theory of evolution. We need to see one kind of animal changing to another kind of animal to prove the theory of evolution.

I will repeat. It was observed that a gene duplication took place, producing a DNA that is at
least one gene longer than the original, and then that gene changed to allow the bacteria in
question to use citrate acid as a carbon source (which specifically makes it a different
species of bacteria). Whether or not you understand the concept of added information to
DNA is irrelevant to scientists world over.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 has already proven that the laying down of strata by volcanic ass [sic], water, and mud flow can happen very quickly. Also dead animals in moving water are not sorted out by time of death

Geology is not something I'm really knowledgable about, but from your failures to
understand how DNA works and yet act so confidently, I think I can safely assume you're
talking out of your volcanic ass.

Originally posted by C Hess
I will repeat. It was observed that a gene duplication took place, producing a DNA that is at
least one gene longer than the original, and then that gene changed to allow the bacteria in
question to use citrate acid as a carbon source (which specifically makes it a different
species of bacteria). Whether or not you understand the concept of added information to
DNA is irrelevant to scientists world over.

It is still a bacteria the same as a person with an extra toe or finger is still a human. No evolution there, just a variety.