Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 295 (443169)
12-23-2007 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:12 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
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.
You're in luck! Mudskippers seem to fit the bill nicely, here!
-
Of course if you assume this fish’s fins were becoming legs there would be several generations that could neither walk nor swim.
You're absolutely right! Mudskippers can't walk as well as a land animal, nor can they swim as well as other fish. Yet, they seem to be doing pretty well.

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:12 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 77 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 9:38 PM Chiroptera has 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 295 (443175)
12-23-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:26 PM


Re: On Hugh Ross
So you still failed to address the fact that the current Theory of Evolution explains evolution; micro, macro, whatever.
That is the fact you need to deal with.
Until you can present models that explain what is seen better than the current models you have nothing.
Nothing that is, except the great financial model that keeps ignorant gullible members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Communion of Bobbleheads sending money, lots of money, to the snake-oil salesmen like Hugh Ross.
The current models in biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology explain what is seen. So far no Creationist, no ID salesman has been able to present models that explain what is seen. If you think you can, there are numerous threads BEGGING for someone from the ID/Creationist cults to step up to the plate.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:26 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by JRTjr, posted 12-24-2007 1:10 AM jar has replied

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


Message 50 of 295 (443180)
12-23-2007 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
12-23-2007 10:22 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Chiroptera,
Only two problems I see, off the bat, with your Mudskippers. One, they are present day animals; they would have had to exist hundreds of millions of years ago to be transitions from fish to land animals.
Two, they’re fully formed creatures, they have functional limbs. Where are the long lost ancestors that were the transitional forms from a fish to this Mudskipper?

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 46 by Chiroptera, posted 12-23-2007 10:22 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by subbie, posted 12-24-2007 12:15 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2007 12:30 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2007 7:59 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 12-24-2007 9:23 AM JRTjr has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 51 of 295 (443197)
12-24-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:58 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
transitional forms
Once again, here's an assload of transitional forms. More specifically, here's some transitionals between fish and amphibians.
Here is a more recently discovered example of a transitional form between fish and amphibians. The really neat thing about Tiktaalik is that it was discovered after paleontologists predicted how long ago something like it might have lived, and predicted where it might be found based on the age of the rocks at that particular site.
So, I'd like you to do two things for me, binky. One, tell me why these aren't transitional forms and, two, show me a similar discovery that anyone has ever made based on a prediction of creationism.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 295 (443201)
12-24-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:58 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
So why is either of those a problem?
One, they are present day animals; they would have had to exist hundreds of millions of years ago to be transitions from fish to land animals.
So we can't have a modern day transition of fish to land animals? Another radiation?
Two, they’re fully formed creatures, they have functional limbs.
So is\do every single transitional animal.
Again, why are these problems?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 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 53 of 295 (443216)
12-24-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
12-23-2007 10:34 PM


Re: On Hugh Ross
Dear Jar,
I can not explain anything, to you, until you get out of the circular logic circle you’re in.
. the current Theory of Evolution explains evolution
I find it necessary to repeat myself here, “ . 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.”
Macro-Evolution does not have the explanatory power to account for many things we see in the things we call life. I have given examples but you just ignorer them; so why should I continue to discus it with you?

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 49 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 10:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by sidelined, posted 12-24-2007 7:27 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 60 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 9:09 AM JRTjr has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 54 of 295 (443240)
12-24-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 9:35 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr writes:
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?
Yes. It lacks the appearance of design.
jrtjr writes:
All I have to say to this one is ”Cause and Effect’.
You are really saying more than just that: you are saying that a god type entity is the cause. This is also contradicting your own point. If cause and effect are inviolable as you posit, then any implication that the designer is out side of this process is special pleading and a logical fallcay.
jrtjr writes:
What I am saying is that every step given in the Genesis one account has been substantiated by science.
You keep asserting this but provide no evidence. What is this scientific evidence that hiterto eludes science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 9:35 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 55 of 295 (443242)
12-24-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by JRTjr
12-24-2007 1:10 AM


Re: On Hugh Ross
jrtjr1
I find it necessary to repeat myself here, “ . 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.”
Oh... REALLY?! Do tell, jrtjr1, how quantum mechanics tells us this would you? Since you brought it up {quantum mechanics} could you explain how QM shows the universe to operate in a way that is not mechanical?

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by JRTjr, posted 12-24-2007 1:10 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 295 (443247)
12-24-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:34 PM


My apologies, please, enlighten me.
Well, I can point out some of your specific mistakes, but you're going to make a lot more unless you sit down with a good book on the subject and try to understand the theory of evolution from the basics on up.
Let's look at your particular statements:
jrtjr1 writes:
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.
Some evolutionists think that, some don't: it is a philosophical position that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution per se any more than it has with the theory of gravity. This is why you will find no such statement about epistemology in any biology textbook.
jrtjr1 writes:
The suggestion that a jellyfish washed up on a shore one day and lived long enough to grow legs ...
... is a suggestion that no-one ever made.
The theory of evolution is about the gradual accumulation, in a lineage, of small germ-line mutations that occur randomly and are then favored by natural selection.
What you are describing is the sudden, coordinated, simultaneous appearance of somatic mutations in an individual without natural selection being involved in any point.
In just a few words, you've managed half-a-dozen rather basic mistakes. Now, this tells me that you've literally never got through Chapter 1 on any textbook on evolution, or you'd know better.
jrtjr1 writes:
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.
And again, if you'd got through Chapter 1 of any book on evolution, you would know that no evolutionist claims that the appearance of design is "just a coincidence". Rather, we all agree that it is an inevitable effect of the law of natural selection.
I suggest, again, that you find a good thick book on the subject and start from the beginning.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:34 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 295 (443252)
12-24-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:58 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Two, they’re fully formed creatures, they have functional limbs.
Again, this demonstrates a very basic gap in your knowledge. Transitional forms are always fully formed creatures: the law of natural selection requires it. Something that is half one thing and half the other still adds up to one whole animal, which must, in order to be ancestral to anything at all, be able to function in its environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 295 (443257)
12-24-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:12 PM


Of course if you assume this fish’s fins were becoming legs there would be several generations that could neither walk nor swim.
OK, you don't know the theory of evolution, but you could have applied your common sense.
What we would get would be "several generations" which could both walk and swim.
In fact, "several generations" is a massive understatement. I am considerably morphologically derived from the lobe-finned fish that were my ancestors, but I can walk and swim (as I believe is true for most mammals). So can lobe-finned fish such as, yes, mudskippers, even to this day. So can amphibians.
Mere common sense should tell you that any transition from water to land could also be able to do both.
As for the theory of evolution, it predicts that they should be able to do both. In the theory of evolution, a lineage can't get more poorly adapted now in order to be better adapted later. As you yourself point out:
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.
Here you are using a flash of insight into the theory of evolution to argue against evolution. Yes, there can't be useless stages. This is what the theory of evolution says.
Since those least capable of out running or out witting the predators get eaten ...
Bear in mind that when the first land vertebrates were crawling ineptly about on the land, there was nothing much to predate them, precisely because they were the first land vertebrates. They didn't have to "outrun" anything, except possibly one another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:12 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 12-24-2007 8:32 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 295 (443260)
12-24-2007 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
12-24-2007 8:21 AM


Nice job of explaining things in your last three posts. Jrtjr1 has so many misunderstandings about evolution that one almost doesn't know where to begin, but you seem to have figured it out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2007 8:21 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 295 (443275)
12-24-2007 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by JRTjr
12-24-2007 1:10 AM


Re: On Hugh Ross
I find it necessary to repeat myself here, “ . 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.’
Ah, no that is not what I or anyone else is "assuming".
What we are concluding is that when natural explanations such as the current Theory of Evolution explain things then there is no need to look beyond to some imaginary magic.
Macro-Evolution does not have the explanatory power to account for many things we see in the things we call life. I have given examples but you just ignorer them; so why should I continue to discus it with you?
So you keep asserting but you offer no evidence of why that should be so. Macro-evolution is simply the sum of lots of micro-evolution.
As to your examples, so far they seem to have been refuted, not ignored.
The topic still remains though, "scientific theories taught as factual." Do you plan to present an example related to the topic?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by JRTjr, posted 12-24-2007 1:10 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 4:43 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024