lucaspa

This is a red herring. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you innocently did this. Strictly speaking, you can't "prove" anything by deductive logic. This true for 2 reasons: 1. No matter how many times you test a theory, there are still an infinite number of tests to do (such as dropping your dog off the roof to test gravity) and it is always (barely) possible that the theory may fail the next test. 2. There is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that there is a better theory to explain the data out there that we haven't thought of. So what happens is the we provisionally accept a theory as true. Unless and until new data comes along to falsify it. In the meantime, we use that theory as the basis for new hypotheses and testing those hypotheses become more support for the theory. Let me try a simple example. We have the theory that the sun is the center of the solar system and the planets orbit the sun. We accept that as (provisionally) true. We then plan the paths of our spacecraft based on that. When the spacecraft arrive when and where we calculated, that is more support for the theory. No, it's not faith, because of that "provisionally". Based on the data we have now, we conclude evolution is true. If new data shows up, then we change our conclusion. Actually, this is evidence against the theory of special creation. After all, if God has been zapping species into existence, why isn't He doing it anymore? However, if you want an example of life coming from non-life, then that has been observed happening spontaneosly: http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm'>http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/ http://www.siu.edu/%7Eprotocell/ http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html http://www.christianforums.com/t155621 Ah, but here is the genius of Darwin. Darwin discovered an unintelligent process that will make design. It's natural selection. The designs in plants and animals did not come into existence "spontaneously"; they took many generations. But they did come into existence without being manufactured like a clock. Actually, a scientist, speaking as a scientist, does NOT say this. He can't say that there is no deity or that God did not cause the universe to come into existence. What the scientist CAN say is that: once the universe exists, there are processes within the universe that will cause the order without God having to intervene directly. Science is NOT atheism. Science is agnostic.

This doesn't take history into account. Pumices, young earth creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1831. Scientists did try it out. They falsified it by 1831. So there is no need for scientists now to falsify it all over again. The data that falsified creationism in the early 1800s still exists; the data didn't go away. Scientists have better things to do than keep re-inventing the wheel or falsifying theories already falsified. What we have are a group of people who refuse to accept that creationism is false. If it were not for their insistence on lying to our kids by teaching creationism in public schools, we would simply ignore them. BTW, the scientists who falsified creationism in the early 1800s were all Christians. Most of them were ministers. So you can forget the "atheist conspiracy" idea that is so popular in creationist circles.

First, let's separate creation from creationism. Creation is the theological idea that God created. Creationism is a specific method God is said to have used to create. In this thread, God is alledged to have zapped the universe into existence in its present form less than 20,000 years ago. Evolution can also be viewed as the method God created. In fact, most Christians do view it that way. There is really no "THE" scientific method. "The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong." Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27. In general, science works by the hypothetico-deductive method. You propose a hypothesis or idea. A hypothesis is a statement about the physical universe. You assume the statement is true -- just for testing You then deduce consequences of that statement: think of things you should observe if the statement is true. You then go looking for those consequences. If you find the consequences, the hypothesis is supported. If you find the opposite, things that simply could not be there if the hypothesis is true, then the hypothesis is falsified -- shown to be wrong. Notice that this is what the OP is trying to do for the hypothesis that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Every example are things that supposedly can't be there if the universe is that old. However, the reason we don't take them seriously is that the consequences are seriously flawed. They misrepresent what happens and/or they have bad data. Criticisms also get criticized. Now, if the earth were created as it says in young earth creationism, these are some of the things we should see (consequences): 1. No or very little sedimentary rock, because there has not been enough time for erosion to make sediments. 2. No stars visible beyond 6,000 light years and stars becoming visible thru history as their light first reached the earth. 3. Isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years in the earth's crust. 4. No or very few fossils. And those fossils are those of contemporary organisms. Skeletons of ALL organisms mixed together in the sediments. 5. Clear genetic boundaries between the "kinds" of organisms. We see the opposite of all these, thus young earth is falsified. Now, each theory stands on its own. That is, falsifiying creationism would not mean evolution is true. Or falsifying evolution does not mean creationism is true. After all, they could both be wrong! The idea that falsifying an old earth means a young earth is true is one of the mistakes of the OP.

It was in regard to environmental science, right? Well, changes in the environment affect the evolution of organisms. Commerce students should be aware of that to understand one of the consequences of toxic waste of commerce in the environment. I'd appreciate the exact quote.

Scientists and philosophers of science have tried for over 400 years to find a way to tell when a theory is scientific and when it isn't. It's called the Demarcation Problem. There has been no solution. What you are doing here is Special Pleading. You are trying to say ID isn't science. That isn't as strong as saying "it is wrong". My position is stronger. I'm not invoking special pleading to avoid the major claims of ID. ID does make testable statements about the physical universe. And that is the essence of what hypotheses/theories are; they are testable statements about the physical universe. So let's not *****foot around in the morass of what is and isn't scientific. Meet ID head on. It's scientific but it's wrong. The constitutional issue is whether government promotes a religion. That's the Establishment Clause. It's not whether ID is a religion, but whether having public schools teach ID promotes a particular religion. As I said, ID is a falsified theory. But that isn't how IDers want it taught. Now, if ID is false, the ONLY reason to teach it as valid is to promote a religion. In this case the religion is theism in general and Christianity in particular. Of course, the reason IDers promote this as free speech is that they say they have a theory that is equally valid to evolution. They say only special rules prevent them from presenting this idea to students. And you are helping them! You are setting up arbitrary rules of what is and isn't science. So IDers can say "See, our idea is correct but evolutionists don't want it taught and are manipulating what is science just to avoid mentioning an intelligent designer." I'm not doing that, and neither was Quinn and Laudan. If the theory involves a supernatural designer, and if the theory is correct, then that is that. Science will have to live with that. Science is about what IS, not about rules to exclude possibilities. Instead, ID makes testable statements about how traits in organisms came about: they were manufactured and placed in the organisms in their present form. Fine, I can test whether organisms are manufactured artifacts. And we can show that organisms are not manufactured, but arise by the processes of biochemistry and evolution.

We are mostly immune to evolution due to our technology and transportation. The technology negates natural selection by providing resources for everyone and compensating for traits -- such as poor eyesight -- that would be disadvantageous otherwise. Transportation means we have gene flow between most populations, which stops allopatric speciation. However, HIV is causing the selection of individuals with alleles that confer immunity. Also, there are indications that 3 populations of humans are diverging and could, if the trend continues, form their own species. Two of these are Andean and Himalayan highlanders. Data shows they have unique alleles for adaptation to living at the high altitudes. The question is how much they intermarry with lowlanders for gene flow. If they do not intermarry and become isolated in their unique climates, then over many more generations they could become reproductively isolated from the rest of humans -- which means they would be a new species of Homo. The other is the !Kung. Data shows that marriage patterns are that genes do not flow into to !Kung but that a few !Kung intermarry outside the !Kung. So, they are already showing partial reproductive isolation by one of the early mechanisms -- mate selection. Since the !Kung live in the Kalahari, they have adpatations for living in a very arid climate. Two studies have demonstrated that !Kung have some unique alleles. Again, if this continues for many generations, we would have a new species of Homo. Allopatric speciation like this is one of the major mechanisms of evolution. Transformation of an entire large population -- like H. sapiens is now -- is very rare. Instead, you get species splitting and the formation of new species in small populations that are isolated in new environments -- allopatric speciation.

Good points! I also note that the the NY Times article claims the microcephalin allele appeared 50, 000 years ago and claim it is associated with "modern" humans. However, anatomically modern humans -- including present brain size -- were present 100,000 years ago. This raises skepticism in me whether the alleles have that much to do with brain size.

The most common method is electroporation.