Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 295 (443276)
12-24-2007 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by JRTjr
12-23-2007 10:58 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear jrtjr1,
they are present day animals
You didn't understand the point. Heck, you don't even understand the point you are trying to make.
You claimed that there could not have been a transitional between land animals and fish because the transitional wouldn't be able to swim or to walk. I just showed that this is not true. A fish could survive on the boundary of land and sea, and could have adaptations to its fins that allows it to "walk" after a fashion.

"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 50 by JRTjr, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 4:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 62 of 295 (446532)
01-06-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
12-24-2007 7:59 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Happy New Year Everyone
Dear Dr Adequate,
I believe that you are finally starting to get the gist of what I am saying. You are quit correct in saying.
{What Evolutionist call}Transitional forms are always fully formed creatures .
This is the gist of my point. My point being “”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms”.
I.E. you have life form ”A’ and life form ”B’. If life form ”A’ and life form ”B’ are fully formed where are the intermediates?; (the transitional forms)
To say that life form ”B’ transitioned from life form ”A’ you must give some means by which this happened. For instance; if ”A1’, ”A2’, or ”A3’ are not viable then you’re never going to get to B.
You have to show the mean by which new organs come into existence. For instance water breathing fish gills are totally different organs from air breathing lungs. Each is designed for different purposes; each has highly specialized parts that make it work the way it does. Yes, some of the parts may be interchangeable, but not all. How do you explain ”New parts’ that are not, and could not have been, part of the original organ?
Adaptation (Micro-Evolution) only works for systems that are in place. I.E. A finch population’s (pre-existing) beak size and shape may vary over time to adjust to available food sources. However, this adjustability does not explain how the bird got the beak in the first place.
To put it on a much simpler level, try to figure out what it would take to convert a Row Boat into a Model-T. O’ and don’t forget, you can’t use you brain to do this either. Remember, Evolution supposedly did it with out an intelligent Designer.
. which must, in order to be ancestral to anything at all, be able to function in its environment.
Again, you’re starting to make sense here. So take this to its logical conclusion. Lets go to the genetic code. I do not have the exact figures right here in front of me, however, is it not true that errors in the genetic code are either ”Good’ ”Bad’ or ”Neutral’ (I.E. ”Good’ increasing the cells viability, ”Bad’ decreasing the cells viability, or ”Neutral’ make not difference in the cells viability) If memory serves me correctly the ”Bad’ errors out way the ”Good’ ones by something like 1,000 to 1.
So if this were a dace, and the objective of the dace was to get to point ”C’ from point ”A’ and you were at point ”B’ you would have to take a thousand steps back toward point ”A’ before taking one step forward toward point ”C’. How far, then, do you think you would progress to point ”C’?
Going back to the ”water breathing fish gills’ and the ”air breathing lungs’; if in fact a fish developed ”air breathing lungs’ there would have to be thousands, if not millions, of incremental steps each new generation would have to undergo before a fully formed ”air breathing lung’ became capable of actually filtering oxygen from the air. Each of these ”incremental steps’ would, in itself, not be viable and therefore would not have survived to pass on the new genetic information to continue the procession toward a new working organ (In this case a lug).

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 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2007 7:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 01-06-2008 4:38 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 01-06-2008 4:55 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2008 5:39 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 136 by Kapyong, posted 01-08-2008 5:34 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 295 (446574)
01-06-2008 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 3:32 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
My point being “”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms”.
Look at a 1914 Model T, a 1928 Model A, a 1958 Fairlane and a 1990 Taurus.
The Model A still had mechanical brakes, but it got rid of the weird Model T transmission. The Fairlane kept the Model A transmission but had hydraulic brakes. The Taurus kept the Fairlane brakes but had an automatic transmission.
Are you saying that the Model A and Fairlane weren't transitional?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 3:32 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 5:09 PM ringo has replied
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 10:27 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 64 of 295 (446576)
01-06-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
12-24-2007 9:09 AM


Re: On Hugh Ross
Dear Jar,
. when natural explanations such as the current Theory of Evolution explain things then there is no need to look beyond to some imaginary magic.
There are two problems I see with this statement. First is that {Macro} Evolution doe’s not have the explanatory power that those who promote it ascribe to it. (I.E. They say that nature works this way, and yet the observable facts say it doesn’t.) Second, I am not promoting anything “imaginary” or “magical”. If I pick up a watch and ask “who made it” you do not have to assume I believe in fairies. As Spock once said, “Nothing unreal exists”. (I.E. If it exists it must be real.) God exists, He is real, there is logical, verifiable, evidence that He has operated in this universe to, not only, make a viable place for life to exist, but that He has formed life itself.
No one has posted anything, that I have read, that contradicts these facts. Evidence, not opinion verifies facts and dislodged myth.
The observable facts of nature show that life appeared (fully formed), that new kinds of life appeared (fully formed) at different times in geological history, and that this process of new kinds of life forms appearing has stopped (I.E. Variations of existing kinds pop up; however, ”new kinds’ of life are no longer appearing). Science tells us that even the simplest of single celled life forms are micro factories of unprecedented design. Where there is design there is a Designer.
As to your examples, so far they seem to have been refuted, not ignored.
Again, saying that I am wrong, and proving it are two different things. If you’re offering up “ . the current Theory of Evolution explains evolution” as evidence that I am wrong then you have not given evidence of anything.
The topic still remains though, "scientific theories taught as factual." Do you plan to present an example related to the topic?
Please read my post, this string, message #37.

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 60 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 9:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 01-06-2008 4:55 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 295 (446581)
01-06-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 3:32 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
{What Evolutionist call} transitional forms are always fully formed creatures .
This is the gist of my point. My point being “”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms”.
I think you've again misunderstood what Dr Adequate is saying. Transitional forms are always fully formed.
So when you say, "“”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms," you're dead wrong. Any argument that begins with this incorrect premise will also be wrong.
You mentioned gills and lungs. The specifics of what we think we know about lung evolution is a bit involved, but lungs did not evolve from gills. Lungs evolved one tiny step at time, each creature in the chain being both fully formed in that it was properly adapted to its environment because it was capable of surviving and reproducing, and transitional between forms that came before it and forms that came after.
All species are transitional because reproduction is never perfect, so offspring are always different from parents, and change is cumulative.
And all species are always fully formed because they are adapted to survive and reproduce in their environment. Those that are insufficiently adapted do not survive to reproduce, and when this happens to an entire species it is an extinction event.
Relevant criticism requires accurate information. It makes no sense to criticize evolution for believing that transitional forms are not fully formed, because this isn't something that evolution believes. Or has ever believed. Evolution does not believe there has ever been a species of less than fully-formed creatures. Though I can't be sure, I think the origin of the term "fully-formed" is a creationist one, as the requirement that all organisms always be fully formed is so obvious to anyone who understands evolution as to never require expression.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 3:32 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 66 of 295 (446582)
01-06-2008 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 4:43 PM


Re: On Hugh Ross
Spock is not real.
First is that {Macro} Evolution doe’s not have the explanatory power that those who promote it ascribe to it.
So you keep asserting. However the conclusion based on the evidence is that that micro evolution can explain EVERYTHING seen. What would keep minor changes over time from leading to whole new species?
The observable facts of nature show that life appeared (fully formed), that new kinds of life appeared (fully formed) at different times in geological history, and that this process of new kinds of life forms appearing has stopped (I.E. Variations of existing kinds pop up; however, ”new kinds’ of life are no longer appearing). Science tells us that even the simplest of single celled life forms are micro factories of unprecedented design. Where there is design there is a Designer.
Bullshit. All there is in the record are variations. Period. All that survives is a fully formed critter. Only fully formed critters live long enough to pass on their genetics to the next generation.
Please read my post, this string, message #37.
Message 37?
There is NOTHING in Message 37 that is on topic.
The topic, in case you missed it is "scientific theories taught as factual."
Please present something on topic.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 4:43 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 67 of 295 (446583)
01-06-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chiroptera
12-24-2007 9:23 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Chiroptera,
You claimed that there could not have been a transitional between land animals and fish because the transitional wouldn't be able to swim or to walk. I just showed that this is not true.
I apologize; apparently I did not make my point clearly. Let me try again.
When I said that they “wouldn't be able to swim or to walk” I meant that before the fin became a viable leg it would make a poor fin; therefore the creature would neither be able to walk nor swim.
Maybe the fin to leg example does not get my point across clearly enough. If you go to my posting message #62 it give a better example of what I am talking about as far as transitioning from one organ to another.

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 61 by Chiroptera, posted 12-24-2007 9:23 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 01-06-2008 5:10 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 68 of 295 (446588)
01-06-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
01-06-2008 4:38 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Dear Ringo,
Are you saying that the Model A and Fairlane weren't transitional?
Thank you for your question. It is an excellent one.
Answer:
Yes, and No.
No, not in the sense of unguided natural process like Evolutionist try to say happened.
Yes, they were transitions; however, thousands of man hours went into the design of each new model. I.E. Intelligent men worked log hours to bring improved products. If you put that kind of time and effort into bring something into existence would you not want credit for it?

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 63 by ringo, posted 01-06-2008 4:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 01-06-2008 5:32 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 69 of 295 (446589)
01-06-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 4:58 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
When I said that they “wouldn't be able to swim or to walk” I meant that before the fin became a viable leg it would make a poor fin; therefore the creature would neither be able to walk nor swim.
Sea turtles have fins which work quite well for swimming, and yet allow them to walk on land for brief periods.
Other turtles have fins that have developed proper feet, and can walk on land much better, yet can still swim effectively.
A "poor fin" or "poor leg" can still be "good enough" for a creature to survive long enough to reproduce, which is all that evolution requires. Nobody reasonably asks for a fish to suddenly spring a real leg that is fully useful on land. We expect intermediate forms, of which we have a large number of examples.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 4:58 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 70 of 295 (446594)
01-06-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 5:09 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
jrtjr1 writes:
Yes, they were transitions; however, thousands of man hours went into the design of each new model. I.E. Intelligent men worked log hours to bring improved products.
Intelligence is irrelevant. The point is that you've made up a phoney-baloney definition of "transitional" to suit your own purpose. A transition is a transition regardless of how it developed. And transitionals are fully developed.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 5:09 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 71 of 295 (446596)
01-06-2008 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 3:32 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
This is the gist of my point. My point being “”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms”.
I.E. you have life form ”A’ and life form ”B’. If life form ”A’ and life form ”B’ are fully formed where are the intermediates?; (the transitional forms)
Let's test this concept:
You have a life form 'A' - your maternal grandmother
and a life form 'B' - you.
Where are the transitionals, the intermediates? Do you not have a mother? Is she fully formed or is she half you and half your maternal grandmother?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : have half

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 62 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 3:32 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 72 of 295 (446646)
01-06-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
12-14-2007 9:41 AM


Re: God on the lab table
Hi jar,
if you want to insert "GodDidIt", be prepared to place God on the lab table for examination as well as provide the methods God used.
Good Luck!
Why are we required to put our source on the lab table when evolution is exempt from putting its source on the table?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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 74 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2008 8:53 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 86 by jar, posted 01-06-2008 11:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 73 of 295 (446654)
01-06-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
12-14-2007 8:11 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi RAZD,
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.
Why?
To reach california would require no positive change in Nator.
To reach the Moon Nator would have to evolve into a totaly different kind of creature. One that could live a very long time, be able to walk on air, be able to walk in space, be able to live with out breathing oxygen and probably many more I have not thought of.
I know this sounds stupid. But to tell me I evolved from a single cell life form that no one knows where it came from to get on the planet earth that no one knows where the singularity came from that birthed the planet earth came from is just as stupid to me.
In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.
Enjoy

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2007 8:11 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 01-06-2008 9:44 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 74 of 295 (446657)
01-06-2008 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
01-06-2008 8:14 PM


Re: God on the lab table - evolution in the present day.
... when evolution is exempt from putting its source on the table?
The "source" of evolution is the evidence for it, the evidence that helped in formulating the original theory, and in testing theories since then down to the present day.
That source is available to everyone.
That source is the life around us and the observations of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Whether it was Darwin observing finches on the Galapagos Islands in the 1800's or the Grants observing finches on the Galapagos Islands 150+ years later, it is still the observations of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation that is the source of evolution.
All theories are based in the present day, tested in the present day, and do not rely on the past.
The past is evidence, evidence that can validate or invalidate concepts of how that past occurred -- including astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry and biology.
I know this sounds stupid. But to tell me I evolved from a single cell life form that no one knows where it came from to get on the planet earth that no one knows where the singularity came from that birthed the planet earth came from is just as stupid to me.
In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.
Fortunately nature is not limited by opinion.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : 150+
Edited by RAZD, : natures limit

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 72 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 8:14 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 75 of 295 (446662)
01-06-2008 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
01-06-2008 8:53 PM


Re: God on the lab table - evolution in the present day.
Thanks RAZD,
That source is available to everyone.
The "source" of evolution is the evidence for it, the evidence that helped in formulating the original theory, and in testing theories since then down to the present day.
My source for the Universe is God.
My source for Life is God.
What is the source for the Universe and the first form of Life that you claim evolved.
Without the universe and Life there is nothing to evolve.
So what is your source of Life and the Universe it inhabits?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2008 8:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by DrJones*, posted 01-06-2008 9:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2008 10:14 PM ICANT 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