Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 295 (447099)
01-08-2008 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
01-07-2008 8:00 AM


Re: God on the lab table - evolution in the present day.
Hi RAZD,
I marvel at the photography of 54 million years ago.
Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?
Beautiful 54 million year old picture of something.
Have fun

"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 98 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2008 8:00 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2008 10:30 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 107 of 295 (447103)
01-08-2008 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by NosyNed
01-08-2008 1:40 AM


Re: Hunting for the ancestors
Hi Ned,
No one is going to "prove" that. It is however the very most reasonable conclusion to draw from the current evidence.
So it is reasonable to you because you want to believe that.
I think it is just as reasonable that all things are related because God formed man and animals from the dust of the ground.
So I choose to believe that.
As of this moment I can not prove or disprove either.
But if what I believe is correct there will come a time in the future that the answer will be made known to all.
If I am incorrect what difference does it make?

"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 104 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 1:40 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 108 of 295 (447107)
01-08-2008 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
01-08-2008 1:42 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Ringo,
Would you please point out to me where I compared evolving from a single-celled life form to walking to the moon?
You're the one who compared, in Message 73, evolving from a single-celled life form to walking to the moon.
Thanks in advance
I did bring up Lucy.
You're the one who brought up Lucy in Message 88.
I was adding a little more distance than you had put in your example.
Ringo writes:
So what? We're following lines of ancestry here. If your grandmother didn't have any Polynesian descendents or Norwegian descendants, does that mean your father wasn't a transitional between her and you?
Since I am not Polynesian or Norwegian why would my father have to be a transitional?
Now if I were Polynesian or Norwegian he would definately have to be a transitional since neither of my grandparents were Polynesian or Norwegian and neither was my mother.

"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 105 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 1:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:14 AM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 109 of 295 (447110)
01-08-2008 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by ICANT
01-08-2008 2:48 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
ICANT writes:
Would you please point out to me where I compared evolving from a single-celled life form to walking to the moon?
I already did point it out, and you even quoted me:
quote:
You're the one who compared, in Message 73, evolving from a single-celled life form to walking to the moon.
Message 73:
quote:
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.
The subordinate clause, "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", doesn't alter the fact that you're comparing evolution to walking to the moon.
Leaving out the subordinate clause doesn't alter the meaning:
quote:
I know this sounds stupid. But to tell me I evolved from a single cell life form [...] is just as stupid to me.
In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.
Either you intended to make the comparison or you confused yourself with all that gibberish about the singularity. If you didn't mean to make the comparison, just say so and stop wasting my time.
Since I am not Polynesian or Norwegian why would my father have to be a transitional?
That's exactly what I said. It doesn't matter what ethnicity your ancestors were any more than it matters whether Lucy was your direct ancestor. The fact is that your father is a transitional between your grandfather and you. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what "transitional" means.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:48 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 12:21 PM ringo has replied
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 1:13 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 110 of 295 (447169)
01-08-2008 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
01-08-2008 3:14 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Ringo,
If I understand what you are tryig to say, you may correct me if I am wrong.
You are saying that it would make no difference if you could prove to me where the first life form came from and the singularity (orgin of the universe) came from in my conclusion.
If that is what you are saying I beg to differ with you.
You prove to me where the singularity, point in spacetime, or anything else you want to call it, came into existence from the absence of anything:
You prove to me where and how the first life form came into existence from the absence of life:
When you accomplish providing the proof for these two things then I will retract my statement:
ICANT writes:
In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.
But be aware I did not say that would convince me that I evolved from a single cell life form.
It would just convince me that it was just not as stupid as thinking it would be easier to walk to the moon.
Now if I have lost you along the way just ignore me.

"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 109 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:14 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 12:54 PM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 295 (447176)
01-08-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
01-08-2008 12:21 PM


ICANT writes:
You prove to me where the singularity, point in spacetime, or anything else you want to call it, came into existence from the absence of anything:
The singularity has nothing to do with this discussion. We're only talking about what happened to single-celled life forms, evolving through Lucy to you.
You prove to me where and how the first life form came into existence from the absence of life:
That also has nothing to do with this discussion. We're only talking about what happened after the origin. It's like we're trying to discuss the Bible and you're obsessing about whether a typesetting process or a photographic process was used to print it.
But be aware I did not say that would convince me that I evolved from a single cell life form.
Nobody cares what you think. Nobody's trying to convince you of anything. I'd just as soon try to convince an amoeba that it's an amoeba.
All I'm doing in this exchange with you is helping you demonstrate that you're incapable of debating honestly.
When you accomplish providing the proof for these two things then I will retract my statement: In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.
So you're saying that you didn't mean to compare evolution with walking to the moon? That's the only question I asked. You could have just told me I misunderstood you.
As it is, I'm sure your evasion has been noted by the readers.
I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself. Do you think there's a barrier that prevents small changes from one generation to the next adding up to big changes? If so, please tell us what that barrier is.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 12:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:44 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 112 of 295 (447186)
01-08-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ringo
01-08-2008 3:14 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Ringo,
I had to address this point.
That's exactly what I said. It doesn't matter what ethnicity your ancestors were any more than it matters whether Lucy was your direct ancestor. The fact is that your father is a transitional between your grandfather and you. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what "transitional" means.
I may not understand what you mean by "transitional" so maybe you should give me a definition.
Trying to think along the lines you have laid out I would see a transitional as:
My grandmother being a 100% mortal human being.
Me being a 100% spiritual being.
My father being a 50% human being and a 50% spiritual being would be a transitional.
But there is one more part to the equation. My mother would also have to be 50% human being and 50% spiritual being.
Before you jump up and down shouting no, no, no, remember I am only trying to let you know what I think a transitional would be. Rather than saying one element becoming an entirely different element with the element between being the transitional. If there was nothing in-between then there would be no transitional.
I am sure that many of you will correct my definition of transitional. Some will say in evolution that all the steps are transitional, so be it.
At some point in the process one element has to cease to be that element in order to become the other element. This process is called
transmutation.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
act or instance of transmuting or being transmuted: as a: the conversion of base metal into gold or silver b: the conversion of one element or nuclide into another either naturally or artificially.
To get from the point of a single cell life form to a complete human being has to have many places where one creature life form became a totaly different creature life form.
You have fun now,

"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 109 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:14 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 1:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 114 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 1:40 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 122 by Stile, posted 01-08-2008 3:45 PM ICANT has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 113 of 295 (447193)
01-08-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
01-08-2008 1:13 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
ICANT writes:
I am sure that many of you will correct my definition of transitional. Some will say in evolution that all the steps are transitional, so be it.
Hopefully all will say this. All life is transitional, no matter what situation you consider, because reproduction is almost always imperfect. If the endpoints are your maternal grandfather at one end and you at the other, then your mother is a transitional between your maternal grandfather and you. If the endpoints are Cro-Magnon man and you, then all direct ancestors between you and Cro-Magnon man are transitional.
At some point in the process one element has to cease to be that element in order to become the other element. This process is called
transmutation.
Transmutation is not a biological term. There is never any step in the process of descent where the offspring is suddenly a different species. Generally, offspring are as closely related to their parents as you are to yours. It is only the sum of many steps of descent that produces new species, and the differences are only apparent if you compare organisms that are many, many steps apart.
Speciation is one of those processes that happens very, very gradually. When do the foothills become mountains? Where does the harbor become ocean? When does the boy become a man? Where does the north become the south? These are all examples of gradual transitions. At some point we realize that there has been sufficient change, and then we say, "We're in mountain country now," or "We're in the open ocean now," or "I'm a man now."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 1:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:11 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 114 of 295 (447195)
01-08-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
01-08-2008 1:13 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
ICANT writes:
At some point in the process one element has to cease to be that element in order to become the other element.
(I'm not going to use the term "element" because that term has a specific meaning in science.)
But no, one organism doesn't have to "cease to be" to become another organism. There's a little something called "reproduction". One organism (or more than one) produces an offspring, a different organism, a child. And because of the imperfections in DNA copying, the child is different from the parent. So there's already a change there, a transmutation, if you like. Every generation is already different from the previous one, even while the previous generation is still alive.
So every change is a transition. Every generation is transitional.
So what prevents those little transitions from adding up to big changes?

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 1:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:53 PM ringo has replied
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:57 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 115 of 295 (447205)
01-08-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ringo
01-08-2008 12:54 PM


Hi Ringo,
I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself. Do you think there's a barrier that prevents small changes from one generation to the next adding up to big changes? If so, please tell us what that barrier is.
Before I try to answer this question would you please clarify what you mean by big changes.
If you are talking about the difference in a Chihuahua dog (small dog under 6 lbs) and a great dane (huge dog over 32 inches tall) I see no problems. I think it would be neat to start with a pair of chihuahua's and produce a great dane.

"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 111 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 12:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 2:56 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 3:08 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 116 of 295 (447210)
01-08-2008 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ringo
01-08-2008 1:40 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Ringo,
So there's already a change there, a transmutation, if you like.
No Ringo there is evolution.
There is not a transmutation whether I like or not, whether you like or not. The child has not ceased to be a human being.
See definition of transmutation.
Here:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=...
or Here:
Message 112

"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 114 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 1:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:00 PM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 117 of 295 (447212)
01-08-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ICANT
01-08-2008 2:44 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Do you think there's a barrier that prevents small changes from one generation to the next adding up to big changes? If so, please tell us what that barrier is.
Before I try to answer this question would you please clarify what you mean by big changes.
I think I've been pretty clear throughout the thread. Big changes are from single-cell to Lucy or from Lucy to you. Specifically, what barrier prevents that?

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:28 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 118 of 295 (447213)
01-08-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by ringo
01-08-2008 1:40 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Ringo,
So every change is a transition. Every generation is transitional.
Who passed that law?
Have fun,

"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 114 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 1:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:05 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 119 of 295 (447214)
01-08-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ICANT
01-08-2008 2:53 PM


ICANT writes:
The child has not ceased to be a human being.
Of course not. Nobody has suggested that.
Again and again and again, we're talking about cummulative changes from generation to generation, over thousands of generations. We're not talking and we have never been talking about one organism magically changing to a different species all by itself.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:59 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 120 of 295 (447215)
01-08-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ICANT
01-08-2008 2:57 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
ICANT writes:
quote:
So every change is a transition. Every generation is transitional.
Who passed that law?
It's not a "law". It's what the word means.
quote:
tran·si·tion
-noun
1. movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another; change: the transition from adolescence to adulthood Dictionary.com.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:57 PM ICANT has 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