Yes, gravity can be tested.

Ironically, Newton's theory of gravity ultimately turned out to be wrong. Now we have Einstein's general relativity which describes reality a little better.

But evolution can likewise be tested. And as I said many, many times before, it is routinely done in labs, usually with fruit flies.

As for the "generate life" comment, that's just non sequitur. Evolution is not about "generating life".

Infidel,

Interesting that you posted this in the religion category. Thanks, otherwise I may not have found it.

Good debate.

I agree with KFC across the board.

KFC POSTS 17

Agree, "that all living things came into being through a creator" can be taught without getting into religion.

When you think about it both sides of the debate have a "creator".

One side of the debate posits that all livings things came into being through the process of change called evolution....therefore "evolution" is the "creator".

The other side of the debate posits that all living things came into being through the process of a creator....therefore a "creator" is the "creator".

Your bringing "belief" up is quite interesting. It too goes both ways.

Why bring "belief" in?

Students don't have to believe in a creator to be taught that side of the debate.

Apply that to teaching students about the Declaration of Independence which contains the word "Creator"...do students have to believe in the Creator to be taught the DofI?

exactly.  Just like our kids don't have to believe in some of the aspects of evolution even though that's all they're being taught. Right now they are being taught some things that are contrary to what we believe and what we teach them.  At least they are more balanced than the kids who only get one side of the issue.  Have to say that.  It should be about education; not indoctrination.   

Carry on Lula.  I'm heading up north so I'll be gone for a week or so. 

leauki posts:

I've read about those fruit fly experiments. They all start with fruit flies and end up with fruit flies. That's not "testing evolution"...for it's not evolution at all. Rather, its "variety within kind" due to reshuffling of genes or "recombination".

Scientific tests on fruit flies that show variety within kind or recombination should not be confused with evolution because NEW, HIGHER GENETIC INFORMATION IS NOT GAINED IN THE PROCESS GIVING RISE TO VARIETY.

The definition of EVOLUTION, according to my daughter's 10th grade science book and what is being taught in all public (government) schools, is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestor.  

Lula -

You & KFC talk amongst yerselves.  Toodle loo.

No, they just have to know that the majority of the western world world at the time of the writing of the DoI, including the English Empire, from whence the majority of the population of the fledgeling US came from as either immigrants or the children of immigrants, followed some variation of Christianity, and thus influenced the wording of the DoI. The difference here is that they are not being asked or told that they believe in an "invisible, omnipotent entity" that randomly decided "Hey, you know what? Just for fun, I'm going to put these creatures on this ball of rock I just made a week ago, and just to screw with them, I'm going to put these giant bones under the ground on this week old ball of dirt and have them date far older than a week old."

I find it interesting that none of you find it the least bit strange that a population of six billion is viable, or even possible off an initial population of 2. Maybe bacteria can, but humans have several million times the DNA of a simple E. Coli.

lula posts:

My point was simply that Students don't necessarily have to believe in Almighty God to be taught both sides of the debate.

Well, the dinosaurs were created before man so that would make them older...but as to how much older, well, some think that a few dinos survived Noe's Flood especially water or marine reptiles. Didn't they find some fossils of human and dino footprints together?

My parents helped...I'm one of 10!

Actually the population of the earth suggests the earth is young...much younger than the latest guess of 4.5 billion years old .

Evidently, the period between 1650 and 1850 was analyzed for population growth and changes. From that, one estimate provided that at about the year 3300 BC, there was only one family. Keeping in mind the rate of world population has varied greatly as a result of famines, wars, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fires, estimates of the population of the earth based on small sized family from the time of Noe's Flood in 2300BC to the time of Christ was about 300 million people.

Now, let's contrast that with what evolutionists declare....if the human race had been on earth for 1 million years even figuring in the lowest rate, the resulting population at the time of Christ would have been 2 times 10 to the 43rd people. (2 followed by 43 zeros)! Someone said that a 1,000 solar systems with 9 planets like ours could barely hold that many people, packed solid!

Explain to me how having an initial population of 2 with limited genetic variability as, assuming the creation story to be true, Eve was essentially a clone of Adam, is capable of sustaining itself past the 3rd or 4th generation without every single child having an extraordinary number of genetic diseases. By the 7th or 8th generation, they would have to breed nearly constantly to even have a hope of increasing the population and by the 50th generation, humanity would have eradicated itself, simply due to the amount of infant and child deaths surpassing the rate of production.

Links please.

Utilizing the population rate for the 17th to 19th centuries to determine the date of the initial appearance of humans is incredibly inaccurate. The population growth rate for early humans would absolutely be nowhere near as high as that of the 17th to 19th centuries due to, among other things, life expectancy, quality of medical care (assuming any at all), number of hazards to humans, and the number of people actually capable of breeding.

Also assuming the 3300bc = 2 people theory, how do you explain

1) The number of people that absolutely had to have existed for the Egyptians to have built the city of Memphis in 3150BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_egypt#Early_Dynastic_Period

2) The cliff carvings at Damaidi in Ningxia, China, dating to 6000BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_china#Prehistory

3) The pottery pieces found in the Guangxi province of china dating to between 19,000BC and 16,500BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_china#Prehistory

4) Radiometric dating that puts material from both the Moon and meteorites at 4.5 billion years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

5) How the population of humans has ANY effect on the age of Earth

6) Fossil evidence placing humans in Africa 200,000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans

Just a quick guess as to your reply, "The Evolution religious fanatics fabricated all the evidence of humanity and the Earth being older than 6000 years old just to discredit the level headed and openminded Creation theorists."

Yes, but you didn't understand them.

The fruit fly experiments show that two populations of animals, once divided, evolve into more distinct types of animals.

Since there is NO EVIDENCE for something that would stop or limit this evolution, they WILL eventually become VERY DIFFERENT, i.e. what you think of as different species.

You can disprove this. You can go ahead and find this stop or limit, this reason for why they would stop changing. But that stop has never been found. Just claiming that something would stop is not enough. You'd have to show evidence for it.

And if you think that "species" is that limit, you clearly haven't understood the point of this. Species borders do not exist in this process. The differences between species that you perceive (and that do exist) are just a lack of surviving populations between the two different species. This is exactly what Darwin's theory predicts and hence Darwin's theory remains the thing to teach.

A scientific theory is not something that is very very true, it is something that is very very disprovable. That's why Creationism is NOT a scientific theory: it cannot be disproven.

In science we do not look for explanations that cannot be challenged, we look for explanations that can.

Everything else is philosophy or theology and should be taught in philosophy classes.

The misconception you fell victim to is the belief that something is more scientific if it is harder to disprove. But quite the opposite is true. Science is what is easier to disprove.

Here's how Darwin's theory can be disproven:

1. Show how one species "turns into" another consistently.

Darwin's theory claims that this doesn't happen, that instead one species branches to become two or more. By showing how "one species turns into another", you would disprove Darwin's theory.

2. Show how there is a physical real limit over which change cannot happen.

The first is very difficult to do for Creationists since they have so little knowledge of Darwin's theory that they don't even know that it doesn't claim that one species turns into another.

The second is something you simply take for granted without proving it.

Either way, these are but two ways evolution could be proven wrong. Since those possibilities exist, evolution is science.

Creationism, to qualify as a scientific theory, would have to allow ways to disprove it too. So how one disprove Creationism?

Still not getting it? Let me explain it using another example.

Things fall towards the floor.

I can come up with two explanations:

1. This is caused by gravity, which could be disproven, for example, by observing just one heavy item fall up with no other power influencing it.

2. This is caused by G-d deciding that it should fall down. This cannot be disproven since observing it falling up can be explained by the fact that G-d, making His own decisions, might have decided so in this one case.

The first is science (because it can easily be disproven). The second is religion (since it cannot be disproven).

The same applies to evolution and Creationism. The first can be disproven (by many, many theoretically possible observations which have yet to be made). The second cannot be disproven (since no observation cannot be explained by "G-d made it that way").

Creationism explains absolutely everything. It explains what we observe and it explains everything we might ever observe. That's why it isn't science.

Evolution explains only what we observe. It does not explain everything we might observe. That's why it isn't religion.

If a rabbit appeared in front me, out of thin air, right now, Creationism would explain it and evolution would not. That's the difference.

Creationism is too true to be science. Truth explains both the observed and everything else. Science explains only the observed. Science is about facts, not truth.

What's your definition of "the lowest rate"?

Last century alone we saw many human populations shrink in size by well over 50%. The overpopulation is the result of other human populations growing faster.

How can you guarantee that in the last million years human populations generally followed the trends of today's most successful populations rather than the least successful?

To me it is obvious that the human population didn't grow much before the advent of fire and farming. So where did you get your optimistic numbers that would allow complete and utter overpopulation?

And where did you read that "evolutionists declare" such an overpopulation? Isn't that something you made up?

I am an "evolutionist" and I just told you that I don't think that the human population grew quite as quickly as you claim I should have said.

I certainly believe the Creation story is true. God was the One doing the Creating and He is the principal Author of the Scriptures...so there can be no contradiction.

And it helps me answer your question. Genesis tells us that Almighty God called the world and all living things into existence by saying, "let it be" and it was.  Man was to be superior over all creation and instead of calling man into existence, God Himself "formed" the human body most perfectly. Physically perfect...their genes were perfect. God gave them supernatural gifts (perfect justice) and as long as they remained faithful to God's command, they were immortal, that is, their bodies were free from all sickness, disease, aging, and would never die. All of Creation was "very good".

But with their Fall, sin entered the world and God cursed the world so that perfect creation then began to degenerate and everything suffered decay and death.  

Scripture doesn't say how many children were born to Adam and Eve, however, the Jewish historian Josephus writes there were 33 sons and 23 daughters. These children would have not recieved any imperfect genes from Adam and Eve since the effects of sin and the curse would have been minimul to start as it takes time for these errors to accumulate. So, in this situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval without any potential to produce deformed or diseased offspring.

Over thousands of years this degeneration would have produced all sorts of genetic mistakes.

But by the time of Moses, a few thousand years later, there were plenty of people on earth by then, and degenerative accumulations would have built up to the point that God forbid brother/sister and close relative marriage. Leviticus 18-20.

So let me ask you this question:

Can that statement be proven wrong?

Is there anything I (or anybody else) could possibly say or find or demonstrate that would prove that statement wrong?

(Maybe if I proved that G-d doesn't exist, you could dismiss such a proof by stating that maybe G-d just pretended not to exist so I wouldn't see Him? Or would G-d not be capable of such an act?)

[quote]Also assuming the 3300bc = 2 people theory, how do you explain

1) The number of people that absolutely had to have existed for the Egyptians to have built the city of Memphis in 3150BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_egypt#Early_Dynastic_Period

2) The cliff carvings at Damaidi in Ningxia, China, dating to 6000BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_china#Prehistory

3) The pottery pieces found in the Guangxi province of china dating to between 19,000BC and 16,500BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_china#Prehistory

4) Radiometric dating that puts material from both the Moon and meteorites at 4.5 billion years old http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

5) How the population of humans has ANY effect on the age of Earth

6) Fossil evidence placing humans in Africa 200,000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans[/quote]

Regarding the highlighted, Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I wrote, "Evidently, the period between 1650 and 1850 was analyzed for population growth and changes. From that, one estimate provided that at about the year 3300 BC, there was only one family.", I was referring to the survivors of the Great Flood, Noe's family of 8, and not to Adam and Eve.

The info comes from Ariel A. Roth's "Some Questions about Geochronology" in Origins, Vol 13, No. 2, pgs. 59-60   He addresses # 5 above basically saying that taking all these factors into consideration, the population of the earth going back to Noe suggests the earth is young not 4:5 billion years old.

Besides population, check out this link for other good reasons why the earth is thousands of years young and not 4.5 billios of years old. It rebuts #'s 4 and 6  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsonzYYIPU

Lula posts

leauki posts:

And I would ask how can something true be proven wrong?

Psalm 32:6-9, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the spirit of His mouth; gathering together the waters of the sea , as in a vessel; laying up the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of Him. For He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created."

leauki posts:

lula posts:

Then you are working with a different definition of "evolution" than the  textbook one that is being taught in schools.

Nothing has evolved according to the textbook definition of evolution and therefore it cannot "be tested" as you claim.

That's why I said the fruit flies experiments was not testing evolution....none of the fruitflies gained new higher genetic information that the parent did not already possess.