Article on Accelerated Evolution rates

[Himantolophus]

uh wow, I don't know where to start.

I agree with what you say.
I'm not against science. I'm against claims that science has been done in ordinary "weighing the evidence" stuff. The prestige of science has been used to push gibberish about evolution and gang.

no they don't. Scientists don't go around pushing evolution on people. The creationists are the ones with agendas. The majority of people who have a problem with science are the conservatiove Christians, almost everyone else doesn't care if evolution and "millions of years" are mentioned on a program or in a book.

It's just that evolution and old Earth ideas have been around foe so long that they are the basis for a lot of the work done in the sciences. If science, like biology and geology, had a foundation in NOTHING, how would anything get accomplished. If it were based in CREATIONISM, we would come up with vastly different explanations! Scientists keep their foundation in evolution and old Earth since we know that both ideas are the closest to reality. and frankly, most of the discoveries fit in well with those ideas.

So a tactic of the thinking creationist is to pint out WRONGNESS in origin subjects. Then analysis why they were wrong. Demonstrating they are not doing science and never did.

Supporting creationism by attacking evolution is a TERRIBLE way to get your way. Unless you start finding evidence to back up YEC, you have no ground to stand on.

So if the scientific method isn't science, how should they do it??? Take a look at any scientific journal. For the most part the background info, materials, methods, experimentation, data and conclusions are all perfectly valid and based on actual experimental data. do you think we should put science back into the 14th century just to make the creationists happy?? Look where that science got us...

Docs ain't doing science either by the way. Nobody calls Doctors SCIENTISTS.

Are you kidding? I am in grad school and all of the professors that taught me Physiology, Ecology, Physical Oceanography, Biometry, and Ichthyology were "Dr. something something". Last time I checked, they were all doing significant research on the side and are Doctors. Even medical doctors can do scientific research, how do you think we develop new vaccines and medical technology and proceedures?

[Robert Byers]

WEll, I would disagree with you concerning many doctors who ARE invovled in clinical studies and in hard research (love to hear you state that around JOhns Hopkins or Duke UNiversity or the Mayo Clinic); however, my point is that much of the current medical knowledge IS based on science. I visit my GI and see the rows and rows of medical research journals. So if you go to the doctor and follow his or her advice, then you are accepting the medical research that comes from conclusions from experimental and clinical studies.

Look, if you accept current medical knowledge and surgical procedures and pharmacology, then you are accepting the results of the scientific method. And it is rather capricious to on one hand be willing to accept the scientific research (you don't furiously debate the results of medical research with the same fervor) and yet completely reverse positions and immediatley reject the research from scientists.

And the scientific method merely asserts that until evidence proves otherwise, then hypothesis and theories and models are accepted as the best understanding.

There are thousands of CHristian scientists who disagree with YEC models. Are they wrong? They haven't the same philosophical reasons for embracing an OEC/fossil record viewpoint as the atheist scientists and yet they view the same data.

Docs are not scientists. Yes medical science is science. That is done in special places with the use of the scientific method. Yes amen.
They test and retest unlike historical sciences which can't and don't test.

Yes Christians who disbelieve genesis for origins are wrong. yet they never had the case put to them to any extent.
This is a forum to educate.
People have funny ideas.
Robert Byers

[zoegirl]

Docs are not scientists. Yes medical science is science. That is done in special places with the use of the scientific method. Yes amen.
They test and retest unlike historical sciences which can't and don't test.

and yet, amazingly enough, some of those same doctors ARE the ones who engage in research clinical research. And yet see patients with those medical conditions they are researching. Sure, not all doctors engage in that research, but your statement is a remarkable generalization

Yes Christians who disbelieve genesis for origins are wrong.

We believe Genesis, we heartily believe that the Word of God is literal. We believe it literally states that the universe is old.

yet they never had the case put to them to any extent.

To any extent?!?!? Do you honestly believe that we haven't thought through this matter?!? That those CHristian scientists don't wrestle and ponder through their research? That you are the first to challenge on the material?

People have funny ideas.
Robert Byers

they sure do.....
.

[Himantolophus]

They test and retest unlike historical sciences which can't and don't test.

wow... how do you suggest we test something that takes thousands or millions of years to see? Do you have a patent on a time machine. without this technology we can only go on the evidence left for us to study.

Please stop the bold assertions if you are unable to back them up. This is getting old fast and you are making yourself look bad.

[Himantolophus]

Yes Christians who disbelieve genesis for origins are wrong. yet they never had the case put to them to any extent.

so... your interpretation is right and theirs is wrong? What revelation led you to that conclusion? Last time I checked we all are reading from the same Book here

[Robert Byers]

They test and retest unlike historical sciences which can't and don't test.

wow... how do you suggest we test something that takes thousands or millions of years to see? Do you have a patent on a time machine. without this technology we can only go on the evidence left for us to study.

Please stop the bold assertions if you are unable to back them up. This is getting old fast and you are making yourself look bad.

Back what up? Whats getting old? Another accelerated rate?
No excuses. Time machines or not. historical sciences are not using, mostly or entirley, the scientific method. Thats my assertion. Its up to you to show they are. If you make excuses then you have agreed with my assertion. I can you as witness.
I agree only weighing the evidence can take place. Not testing it.
Rob byers

[Canuckster1127]

They test and retest unlike historical sciences which can't and don't test.

wow... how do you suggest we test something that takes thousands or millions of years to see? Do you have a patent on a time machine. without this technology we can only go on the evidence left for us to study.

Please stop the bold assertions if you are unable to back them up. This is getting old fast and you are making yourself look bad.

Back what up? Whats getting old? Another accelerated rate?
No excuses. Time machines or not. historical sciences are not using, mostly or entirley, the scientific method. Thats my assertion. Its up to you to show they are. If you make excuses then you have agreed with my assertion. I can you as witness.
I agree only weighing the evidence can take place. Not testing it.
Rob byers

Your assertion is absurd. You may not agree with all the theories that science is coming up with, and that's fine, I don't agree either, but the basis of disagreement is very different. You're effectively claiming that any assertions that are not directly observable and recreatable are by definition not scientific because hard science requires this as a standard. That's a common YEC claim and again, it is absurd. Observation, extension and inference are all part of the scientific method within biology and other fields. Science, by definition is designed to adapt and change on the basis of either more evidence or a better theory or explanation. Theories in the scientific sense are more than hypothesis and yet less than law. You're discounting the entire field using absolute terms and not dealing with the individual theories and evidence and the onus in that regard is very much upon you.

[Himantolophus]

Back what up? Whats getting old? Another accelerated rate?

back up everything you have said to this point. you say stuff and you cannot back it up. You do not provide examples, evidence, proof of what you assert. That is what is getting old.

No excuses. Time machines or not. historical sciences are not using, mostly or entirley, the scientific method. Thats my assertion. Its up to you to show they are. If you make excuses then you have agreed with my assertion. I can you as witness.

again, how can you use the scientific method on something that occurred in the PAST and how can you test processes that take thousands to millions of years? So YES, they can't use the scientific method, but what do you suggest they use and still keep it scientific? On the other hand, young Earth creationism rests on the facts that these processes can occur over very short time periods. Why haven't said creation scientists observed a species form in the lab or a plate move 6 feet in a day? I can turn the testability thing right back on you!

No excuses, I am perfectly happy with the way scientists study the past because we are left with so many relics and hints of it that we can easily piece it all together.

"I can you as witness"? What the heck does that mean?

I agree only weighing the evidence can take place. Not testing it.

However, even simply weighing the evidence points to old earth/evolution. Testing has only further supported it. So, going backwards or forwards, it still supports science.

[Robert Byers]

They test and retest unlike historical sciences which can't and don't test.

wow... how do you suggest we test something that takes thousands or millions of years to see? Do you have a patent on a time machine. without this technology we can only go on the evidence left for us to study.

Please stop the bold assertions if you are unable to back them up. This is getting old fast and you are making yourself look bad.

Back what up? Whats getting old? Another accelerated rate?
No excuses. Time machines or not. historical sciences are not using, mostly or entirley, the scientific method. Thats my assertion. Its up to you to show they are. If you make excuses then you have agreed with my assertion. I can you as witness.
I agree only weighing the evidence can take place. Not testing it.
Rob byers

Your assertion is absurd. You may not agree with all the theories that science is coming up with, and that's fine, I don't agree either, but the basis of disagreement is very different. You're effectively claiming that any assertions that are not directly observable and recreatable are by definition not scientific because hard science requires this as a standard. That's a common YEC claim and again, it is absurd. Observation, extension and inference are all part of the scientific method within biology and other fields. Science, by definition is designed to adapt and change on the basis of either more evidence or a better theory or explanation. Theories in the scientific sense are more than hypothesis and yet less than law. You're discounting the entire field using absolute terms and not dealing with the individual theories and evidence and the onus in that regard is very much upon you.

I am discounting, very well, that fields of study that do not practice the scientific method in coming to conclusions are not fields of science. In fact these fields used to be/still called historical sciences in order to segregate them from actual science fields.
All you say about coming to conclusions is fine but lets not give the prestige of science to regulat weighing the evidence endeavors. This is the big complaint of yec. Evolutionary concepts are presented to the public as if they were as "proven" as ideas of gravity or medicine. When they are just waiting to be overthrown by new ideas.
Science is not another work for knowledge. It is the process that defines and so separates from everything else.
Rob byers

[Himantolophus]

I am discounting, very well, that fields of study that do not practice the scientific method in coming to conclusions are not fields of science. In fact these fields used to be/still called historical sciences in order to segregate them from actual science fields.

What about the majority of "actual" science that is based on historical science? This includes all fields of biology, geology, astronomy, and archeaology, as well as parts of others. If you remove that basis, how does anything get learned?

All you say about coming to conclusions is fine but lets not give the prestige of science to regulat weighing the evidence endeavors. This is the big complaint of yec.

So... you don't want scientists doing science? Creation scientists also do not use the scientific method, so what are we left with to learn stuff?

Evolutionary concepts are presented to the public as if they were as "proven" as ideas of gravity or medicine. When they are just waiting to be overthrown by new ideas

oddly enough, prior to the 19th century, creationism (YEC) was presented as "proven" to the masses. It just so happened to be overthrown by new ideas.
If present-day Darwinian evolution is replaced with another evolutionary theory that explains things better, then let it be. We know that the Earth is ancient and that microevolution occurs, macroevolution still needs to be figured out. YEC is an obsolete idea lost in the middle ages before we knew anything about our Universe and Earth.

Science is not another work for knowledge. It is the process that defines and so separates from everything else.

science is responsible for almost every human advance in the last 500 years... give it some credit when credit is due. Think about where we were in 1500 and where we are now. Science is responsible for our knowledge, plain and simple.

[Robert Byers]

I am discounting, very well, that fields of study that do not practice the scientific method in coming to conclusions are not fields of science. In fact these fields used to be/still called historical sciences in order to segregate them from actual science fields.

What about the majority of "actual" science that is based on historical science? This includes all fields of biology, geology, astronomy, and archeaology, as well as parts of others. If you remove that basis, how does anything get learned?

All you say about coming to conclusions is fine but lets not give the prestige of science to regulat weighing the evidence endeavors. This is the big complaint of yec.

So... you don't want scientists doing science? Creation scientists also do not use the scientific method, so what are we left with to learn stuff?

Evolutionary concepts are presented to the public as if they were as "proven" as ideas of gravity or medicine. When they are just waiting to be overthrown by new ideas

oddly enough, prior to the 19th century, creationism (YEC) was presented as "proven" to the masses. It just so happened to be overthrown by new ideas.
If present-day Darwinian evolution is replaced with another evolutionary theory that explains things better, then let it be. We know that the Earth is ancient and that microevolution occurs, macroevolution still needs to be figured out. YEC is an obsolete idea lost in the middle ages before we knew anything about our Universe and Earth.

Science is not another work for knowledge. It is the process that defines and so separates from everything else.

science is responsible for almost every human advance in the last 500 years... give it some credit when credit is due. Think about where we were in 1500 and where we are now. Science is responsible for our knowledge, plain and simple.

Its not science that advanced mankind but intelligence of which science is a particular topic. Yes its been in the last 500 years. The traditional interpretation was that the protestant reformation raised up people in the protestant countries above the rest. Especially where Evangelical/puritan christians were. This was largely and continously in the British world.
Science only advanced things where science was involved. Its not just another word for intelligence but is a system and later a method for making sure of conclusions. Historical sciences reveals the first word is retarding the second. They want the prestige of science without the ability to do what the prestige came from in the first place.
Rob Byers

[Himantolophus]

yes, and the same Protestant Reformation released the people of Europe from the "iron grip" of the fundamentalist Catholic Church that had put the shackles on some of the great scientific minds at that time. The P.Reformation led to the birth of scientific ideas that eventually led to evolution.