Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 11 of 295 (440616)
12-13-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-12-2007 7:40 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
There is Evolution, the observation that life has changed over time, and there is the Theory of Evolution which so far is the best explanation of how Evolution happened.
Dear Jar,
You started off with a decent explanation of the distinctions between two different things that have been called “2aEvolution” however; I take exception to your assertion that 2[Macro] Evolution took place.
One of the problems with discussing 3Creationism and 4Evolutionism is that many time words are tossed around, and often misused. (I see this on both sides, so please, do not think I am harping on Evolutionists)
A good example of this is your assertion that:
. Law and Theory are the same thing.
Please see the definitions of 6Law and 7Theory below.
As to Evolution; Yes, even the ”Young Earth’ 5Creationists agree that 1”Micro’ Evolution happens. {Also known as ”Adaptation’} However, 2Macro-Evolution has neither been evidenced nor proven by any stretch of the imagination.
There are two primary things that Creationists take exception to with respect to ”Macro-Evolution’. The first is that the evidence does not show a progression from one less ”evolved’ creature to many, more ”evolved’, creators of varying types. Yes, there are variations within phyla (species, or group of animals) but these ”variations’ in no way explain never before seen organs, limbs, etc. [I.E. New species popped into existence, and were not decedents of previously existing species {The ”Cambrian Explosion’ for example.}]
Secondly, and probable the more contentious of the two, is the idea (touted by Evolutionist) that we can explain all of the working of the universe by only looking at what is inside the universe; as if anything that exists outside of our universe is somehow unreal. It is this blind belief that has kept scientist from accepting the ”Big Bang’ for so long.
This is tantamount to an investigator, locked in a house with no windows, believing that everything in that house must have come into existence from inside the house, and of its own accord.
Definitions:
1 Micro-Evolution:
n.
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
Dictionary.com - American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
1a Adaptation:
n.
4. Biology.
A. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
B. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
C. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
2 Macro-Evolution:
Evolution on a species level (speciation and extinction) and at higher taxonomic classifications (appearance and disappearance of genuses, families, orders, etc.).
Dictionary.com - American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
2a Evolution:
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Dictionary.com - American Heritage Dictionary
3 Creationism:
-noun
A. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
4 Evolutionism:
n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
Dictionary.com - American Heritage Dictionary
5 Creationists:
There are two major ”brands’ (if you will) of Creationists. First there are the ones that believe that all of Creation is between six and forty-four thousand years old because they view the six days of Creation in Genesis as six twenty-four hour periods. These are known as ”Yong Earth Creationists’. The second is know as ”Old Earth Creationists’, they believe that the six days of Creation in Genesis are six undisclosed time periods (probably Millions of years each day).
I, personally subscribe to the latter. For more on the Six Creation Days you can follow the link to where I discussed this at length. {Page: #2, Message: #137}
6 Law:
15. (in philosophy, science, etc.)
A. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
B. a mathematical rule.
Dictionary.com - American Heritage Dictionary
7 Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Dictionary.com - American Heritage Dictionary
Edited by jrtjr1, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : removed unwarrented use of larger font.
Edited by jrtjr1, : Changed Font Size, my apologies; I am suppose to wear glasses.:-o

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-12-2007 7:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 12-13-2007 9:56 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 13 by nator, posted 12-13-2007 10:34 PM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 14 of 295 (440642)
12-13-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
12-13-2007 10:34 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Nator,
You have a good point with the walking thing. However, to make the comparison valid you would have to be able to get to the moon by just walking.
We see not only variants on a design, but new designs. (I.E. give me a process that gets me from never having leg to walking upright) You have to have legs, to be able to walk, to take the first step of a journey of a thousand miles;-}
Dear Jar,
I want to rely to you, but I also want to go into more depth, so it may take me a few days.
Dear AdminSchraf,
I assume you added
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO YELL!
to my thread. Forgive me, however, I am not sure what you mean by it. It is my understanding that ”All Caps’ is considered ”Yelling’.
Edited by jrtjr1, : Changed Font Size, my apologies; I am suppose to wear glasses.:-o

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 12-13-2007 10:34 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 12-14-2007 12:07 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 17 by nator, posted 12-14-2007 7:46 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2007 8:11 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-15-2007 9:00 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 16 of 295 (440670)
12-14-2007 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
12-13-2007 9:56 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Jar,
If I am
irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance.
Then why have you replied to my message?
Creationism is only willful ignorance.
Now if that an’t the pot calling the kettle black;-}
Now, Jar, you apparently haven’t been looking hard enough to find a Creation Model. However, since you asked here is something for you to sink your teeth into. (Message 28. O’ and by the way; I posted this three years ago, on this site.) You can also go to Reasons.org to find a “Testable Creation Model” and here is a Time Line for you.
The real problem is not that we can’t or don’t present a logical model, the problem seams to be that you are only willing to look at our universe in a purely mechanical way. You assume that ”if it exists in this universe it must come from something (or someone) inside (and therefore bound by) this universe.’ Even quantum mechanics is telling you otherwise, and yet you refuse to listen. Why?
What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence.
One more question about my being
irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance.
If, as atheist want us to believe, there is no God, no life after death, etc. Why is it so important to atheist to make sure no one believes in God? If there are no absolute moral standards; then why try to take mine away from me?
On the other hand, if there is actually a God, then what point is there in denying it? Do you actually believe that if you ignore your Creator He may just go away?
See, it is not that I am “irrelevant”, “of no worth”, or “of no importance”; It is that if I am right then there is a Creator, and He just might want to know why your sticking your head in the sand.
I am not trying to be rude here, however, the evidence for a Creator is so overwhelming that it makes it hard for me not to laugh when some one tries to say that there is no God.
The fact that there is a Creator is so well established that, even after a hundred years of atheist trying to convince the world that God does not exist more then eighty percent of the world’s population still believe in a god(s) of one form or another. Sure, people get strange ideas, and I have heard of some really wacky beliefs; But there is usually some modicum of truth (I.E. Fact) in there some where.
I challenge you to look over the information I have provided. For just a moment strip away your preconception of what Creationism is and what Evolution is and is not. Look at the facts and then try to start putting the peaces together. (Not in an Evolution frame work or a Creation frame work) Let the peaces lead you to your conclusions; instead of using your preconceived conclusions to frame the facts.
Remember: if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck; it’s probably a walrus ;-}
Edited by jrtjr1, : Link correction ”Time Line’

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 12-13-2007 9:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 12-14-2007 7:54 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-14-2007 9:41 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 23 of 295 (441572)
12-18-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
12-14-2007 7:46 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear nator,
Taking you off the planet is my point; and yes, I would say that it is necessary. (Not literally but figuratively.)
Why? Mainly because of the fossil record. From about 3.8 Billon to less then one billion years ago you have single celled life forms, and soft tissue multi-cell life forms. Then, in just over a half billion years you have everything else just showing up. No transitional forms, just a whole lot of new phyla (species, or group of animals) popping into existence in a vary short period of time (geologically speaking).
See, the fossil record goes from nothing (life form wise) to single celled and soft tissue multi-cell life forms. Then, with no so-called “Transitional forms” you all-of-a-sudden have every phyla to ever exist. That is a leap that has not been explained by Evolutionists. A leap that is so big and outrageous it’s laughable to believe it was a “natural progression event”.
The suggestion that a jellyfish washed up on a shore one day and lived long enough to grow legs might as well be a jump to the moon. Yet that would be the only conclusion you could come to if you believe that there was no intelligent agent that had anything to do with the bringing about of life on Earth.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 12-14-2007 7:46 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2007 8:05 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by JB1740, posted 12-18-2007 8:14 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 12-19-2007 11:41 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 26 of 295 (441583)
12-18-2007 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Larni
12-14-2007 7:54 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Larni,
So, you have the blue prints to the human body? To say something is a “Piss poor design” you have to know what it was designed for. I could complain that a can opener was a bad hammer and therefore a “Piss poor design”
Just because man’s eyes were not designed to your specification dos not mean they were not designed at all or that they wore poorly designed.
As to ”testing the model’ (Creation Model) Good question. However, you must not have gone to the link. I provided and read my postings. Because it give at least one in message #28.
I’ll recount an example of the predictive abilities of the Creation model from that posting.
According to “the first chapter of genesis, the Bible starts of by proclaiming that God existed before the Universe.
“1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1: 1
Now, we know that the universe had a beginning {I.E. the Big Bang} something or Someone had to begin it.

See, The Bible stated that the universe had a beginning some four to six thousand years before Evolutionist had to, grudgingly, admit that the universe started with a “big band” some time in the distant past.
Not only did the Bible say it first but it also gave three initial condition for the Earth {before it was made ready for live}, showed the progression of life as God added new phyla (species, or group of animals), and states that God is not continuing to Create new phyla. (Of course that is why we see fewer and fewer phyla from the end of the Cambrian period to this day.)
You also seem to forget that science does not have an socio political agenda
I would have to agree that ”Science’ does not have an agenda. However, Evolutionist do. As to my agenda, (I.E. my being a Christian and an ”Old Earth’ Creationist), how does me, having an agenda, change what the science is saying?
The facts say there is design to this universe, all the way down to the single celled life. If your going to ignore the facts just because I may or may not have an agenda, then so-be-it.
My job here is to present, and explain the facts. Whether or not you accept them is not my problem. Do not get me wrong here, I hope you will eventually accept the facts; however, If you choose to ignore them that is your problem not mine.
Edited by Admin, : Change font color in difficult to see portion.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 12-14-2007 7:54 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by reiverix, posted 12-18-2007 9:01 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 12-18-2007 9:39 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 27 of 295 (441587)
12-18-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
12-14-2007 9:41 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Jar,
Your ”Avatar’ is irrelevant, when you say
It doesn't matter what Creationists accept, they are irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance. Creationism is only willful ignorance.
Your denying the vary things your now purporting to believe in. Either you accept the fact that this universe was designed by a Creator or you blindly believe that man can explain the entire universe by strictly physical, mechanical, and chemical means.
So which is it? Are you a “Irrelevant Creationism Christian” or an atheistic Evolutionist?
Please, also read my response to Larni. I ”Put to the test’ the Creation model. As far as putting
God on the lab table for examination as well as provide the methods God used.
There are fields of research that you do not have many things you can actually take into a lab and scrutinize. For instance Astronomy, you can’t bring a star (or galaxy for that matter) in to a lab and do test on it directly.
There are also processes we can only theories about because we are not {and will never be; this side of eternity} privy to all of the data. For instance, how the Creator brought the universe into existence.
However, that in no way prevents us, from a scientific prospective, from being able to say “Yes, this is designed”. By the way, admitting something is designed in no way prevents us from figuring out how it works and, on so levels, how it was made.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 12-14-2007 9:41 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 10:59 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 30 of 295 (441610)
12-18-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
12-15-2007 9:00 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Percy,
Your argument seams to make a lot of sense until you start looking at the shire complexity of the process you’re talking about.
Let’s start at the beginning. Before the first life forms became ”life forms’, assuming they just happened (I.E. assuming no Intelligent Agent designing them.), you have to believe that matter is self organizing to the extent that vary complex, and information rich things can come from non-complex non-information rich materials.
Lets go back to my cake example ( Message #7 on the ”first genetic material’ string)
We want to see how this cake is made. Now I have a Recipe book, eight ingredients, a mixing bowl, and an oven.
To say that this cake came about with out an ”Intelligent Agent’ would be ludicrous, would it not? However, we are talking here about only a small handful of variables. The eight ingredients, a mixing bowl, etc.
Now consider the more complex ”Protein’. A protein is just one building block of a cell; yet just one protein has something like one to two hundred amino-acids. Each of these ”amino-acids’ must be placed in the right place to have a functional protein (with some room for error). Just like our cake, if you place the wrong amount of the wrong ingredients into the mix it will not work. (And that’s not to even mentioning contaminants getting into it and messing everything up.)
So for life to have started by itself (I.E. no Intelligent Agent designing or creating it) you have to believe that you can get hundreds of ingredients, mixed in just the right way, at just the right times, without getting contaminants in it. Then there’s the programming you have to deal with. Again, you have to be able to believe that vast amounts of information (encoded in DNA, RDN, etc.) can be collated into a coherent language that can then be used to replicate a new cell. Remember, we are talking about a cake baked on an atomic scale.
Take for instance the Bacterial Flagellum. You have what amounts to an out-board motor for a bacterium. Magnified fifty thousand times you can see a hardwired motor that runs up to 100,000 rpm, and can stop on a dime; it has two gears (forward and reveres), it’s water cooled, has a rotor, U-Joint, drive shaft, and propeller. All of this is built at the atomic level. If it is so easy for something of this complexity to come together without an Intelligent Agent the why are our top scientists struggling with duplicating it?
I’m sorry, but science tells me that that kind of information rich, organization of components is the domain of an Intelligent Designer.
Now, once the cell is born, is it possible that mutations could cause more complex creatures?
Please! Any one know the ratio of so called 1 ”good’ mutations verses 2 ”Bad’ mutations verses mutations that are 3neutral? Might want to look it up.
1. ”good’ mutations: Mutations that improve the life forms survivability.
2. ”Bad’ mutation: Mutations that hinders the life forms survivability.
3. ”neutral’ mutation: Mutations that do not effect the life forms survivability.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 12-15-2007 9:00 AM Percy has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 32 of 295 (441618)
12-18-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by JB1740
12-18-2007 8:14 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear JB1740,
You state that it is “utterly false” that there are not transitional forms. Great, give me an example of a transitional form.
As to me not knowing what ”Phyla’ (Hint: definition is “species, or group of animals”);-}
Can you define "short period of time?" I have a pretty solid concept of geologic time and have parameters of "short" versus "long" intervals. Can you give me some numbers so we can see if we're anywhere on the same sheet of music?
I would be glad to.
From about 3.8 Billon to less then one billion years ago you have single celled life forms, and soft tissue multi-cell life forms. Then, in just over a half billion years you have everything else just showing up. No transitional forms, just a whole lot of new phyla (species, or group of animals) popping into existence in a vary short period of time (geologically speaking).
This means that the large majority of diverse life came into existence in the last 600 Million years; were as life has existed on this planet for something like 3.8 Billion years. So that would be roughly an eighth of the time life has existed. This link will take you to a chart that gives you a visual representation of what I am talking about.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by JB1740, posted 12-18-2007 8:14 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by JB1740, posted 12-18-2007 11:23 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 12-18-2007 2:08 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 12-23-2007 10:14 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 37 of 295 (442129)
12-20-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
12-18-2007 10:59 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Jar,
You state,
I am a Christian Evolutionist.
In other words you’re hedging your bets.
Jesus Christ (I.E. the Person Christians follow) claimed to be the God of the Old Testament of the Bible; the God of the Bible claimed to have Created (Designed, formed, and fashioned) the universe (Genesis Chapter #1). On the other hand (Macro-) Evolution is a belief system that tries desperately to explain everything without the pesky problem of an Intelligent Designer; and you’re claiming to be both????
You keep telling me I am wrong, and yet not giving me any reason that ”it ain’t so’.
no one has been able to present an example of something "That is designed".
I have, repeatedly, shown things that were designed in my posts; and even though I get people who tell me that I’m wrong, they never seem to be able to come up with a ”logical’ ”reasoned’ reason I am wrong; their just sure I am.
I’ll give you an example: Message #77
The problem with that is it is both lousy science and even worse theology. If you wish to look at some natural object and say "It is designed" then you must conclude that the Designer is Inept, Ignorant, Incompetent, Irrational and Ineffective.
Of course you’re precluding that it is a natural object (I.E. Not designed)’ and then claiming that it is preposterous to imply design.
This is really the heart of the problem with people who have bought into the Macro-Evolution myth.
It is presumed that Life {A} came into existence purely by natural processes, and {B} that adaptation is sufficient to explain Macro-Evolution. Therefore any thing that is critical of Macro-Evolution is obviously wrong.
So why not assume, for a moment, that God created this universe (I.E. Designed, formed, and fashioned).
Would not the Creator’s plans for what He wants to accomplish have something to do with how he created it? (I.E. You design a blender to mix liquids or to purée fruits and vegetables. So how well it functions is based on what it was designed for. Right?.)
You’re claiming ”bad design’ assuming you know every purpose the Creator may or may not have had in mind.
Lastly, before you call something “unscientific” why not test it using the 1 Scientific Method.
Instead of assuming Macro-Evolution it true (or a fact) why not test it. Does science not test something before it is relied on?
I know your going to write me back and claim that “Macro-Evolution has been proven”. So I’m going to preempt you here. No, it has not.
Macro-Evolution has been assumed, and therefore used; if questioned (at all) the person (or persons) questioning it are called names (like irrelevant, a joke and of no worth or importance), and told that we must have an ”agenda’. (Assuming that “having an agenda” some how makes the evidence we present invalid) No evidence has ever been offered to support any of the major tenants of Macro-Evolution.
As a matter of fact science has been offering evidence reputing Macro-Evolution theory since before Darwin’s thesis made the myth of Macro-Evolution seem scientific. Reasons.org is a good place to go to get some of the evidence I am talking about.
So, if your going to say I am wrong about ”Macro-Evolution’ your going to have to give evidence, not just tell me I’m wrong, call me names, and accuse me of having my own agenda. Science demands evidence. (By the way this is one of the things that Science and the Bible have in common.)
1. Scientific Method:
Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this.
1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference.
2. Determine the initial conditions.
3. Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where.
4. Note the final conditions.
5. Form an hypothesis.
6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations.
{Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series “Biblical Paradoxes” by Br. Hugh Ross}

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-18-2007 10:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 12-20-2007 11:00 AM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 38 of 295 (442142)
12-20-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by JB1740
12-18-2007 11:23 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Just of you JB1740,
phy”lon:
-noun, plural
a group that has genetic relationship, as a race.
[Origin: < NL < Gk phlon race, tribe, class, akin to phyein to bring forth, produce, be]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
spe”cies
-noun
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
3. Logic.
a. one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
b. the set of things within one of these classes.
4. Ecclesiastical.
a. the external form or appearance of the bread or the wine in the Eucharist.
b. either of the Eucharistic elements.
5. Obsolete. specie; coin.
6. the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species.
-adjective
7. Horticulture. pertaining to a plant that is a representative member of a species, one that is not a hybrid or variety: a species rose; a species gladiolus.
[Origin: 1545-55; < L speciés appearance, form, sort, kind, equiv. to spec(ere) to look, regard + -iés abstract n. suffix]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Phyla as in Species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by JB1740, posted 12-18-2007 11:23 AM JB1740 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 12-20-2007 10:47 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 42 of 295 (443164)
12-23-2007 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Larni
12-18-2007 9:39 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Larni,
Yes it does: it shows that if they were designed in a 'just good enough way'. Either that or by a bad designer.
So, let me get this strait here; the design of the human eye does not meat your specifications of what you think it should be like so it is either a “bad design” or not designed at all?
”Bad’ and ”Poor’ are subjective terms.
There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that 'Someone' caused the 'begining'.
All I have to say to this one is ”Cause and Effect’.
The bible saying that there was a beginning is hardly a reason to conclude that that creation 'model' is a scientific model.
I did not say that that the Bible’s account of Creation (the creation model) was scientific just because it said that the universe had a beginning. What I am saying is that every step given in the Genesis one account has been substantiated by science. {I.E. The big band [genesis1: 1], three initial condition for the Earth [Genesis 1: 2], etc} Each of these is verifiable.
So, not just one chance correct answer, but correct on every count.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 12-18-2007 9:39 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 12-24-2007 7:15 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 43 of 295 (443166)
12-23-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sidelined
12-18-2007 2:08 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Sidelined,
Now why would it be a problem that the evolution of life hit huge strides in diversity when sexual selection made it to the forefront?
Please see my post (Message 30) in this string.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 12-18-2007 2:08 PM sidelined has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 44 of 295 (443167)
12-23-2007 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
12-19-2007 11:41 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear nator,
So, if a transitional species were to exist, what would it be like?
That is a vary good question.
Since there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, we can only guess at what a transitional form would look like if they did indeed exist.
Using my ”fish growing legs’ example I guess we would have to find a species of fish that could live on land for brief periods of time, have the beginnings of legs, and still be viable enough to bring up a next generation that at some point in the far fetched future could spend more time on land. Of course if you assume this fish’s fins were becoming legs there would be several generations that could neither walk nor swim. Since those least capable of out running or out witting the predators get eaten; it is more likely then not that a species of fish that could neither swim in water nor walk on land would not be around long enough to bread a new generation.
The problem here, though, is you have to have an organ before it can be changed into a new organ. Where did the fish get his fins before he had fins? Here again each of these things are vary complex; especially when you get down into the workings of a single cell.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 12-19-2007 11:41 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 12-23-2007 10:22 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2007 8:21 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 47 of 295 (443171)
12-23-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
12-20-2007 11:00 AM


Re: On Hugh Ross
Dear Jar,
I accept truth over falsehoods, that's all.
You and I have different opinions on what the meaning of ”Truth’ is.
Truth:
2that which is true; statement, etc. That accords with fact or reality
3an established or verified fact, principle, etc.
New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 12-20-2007 11:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 10:34 PM JRTjr has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 48 of 295 (443174)
12-23-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
12-20-2007 11:59 AM


Dear Dr Adequate,
I notice that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.
Don't you think that it would be a good idea to find out?
My apologies, please, enlighten me.

For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life.
For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 11:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2007 7:47 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024