|
Author
|
Topic: scientific theories taught as factual
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
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: 1.6
|
|
|
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: 1.6
|
|
|
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.
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
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 |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 123 of 295 (447238)
01-08-2008 4:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
01-08-2008 1:38 PM
|
|
Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Percy,
There is never any step in the process of descent where the offspring is suddenly a different species. If that is the case could you please explain the cambrian explosion so that Professor Chen would be able to understand it, Maybe I could understand it then. Professor Chen aggued:
But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argued that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date show that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process.
According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of "the Cambrian Explosion," a geological moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.
Rather than Charles Darwin's familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear." This is an quote from the Boston Globe. Found here, Boston Globe Article 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 113 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 1:38 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 126 of 295 (447245)
01-08-2008 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by ringo
01-08-2008 2:56 PM
|
|
Re-Barrier
Hi Ringo,
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? Since I have not been able to find the step by step process from the single-cell to Lucy I am at a kinda loss to figure out what the barrier would be from Lucy to me. You see I don't believe Lucy came from the single cell life form simply because it has never been proven to be a fact. I do not believe Lucy is my ancestor because that has never been a proven fact either. Now as far as my barrier I will use the words of Professor Chen,
quote:
Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."
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 117 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 2:56 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 128 of 295 (447254)
01-08-2008 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by NosyNed
01-08-2008 4:36 PM
|
|
Re: Ancestors
Hi Ned,
Then what was your ancestor at that time?
Why do I have to have an ancestor at that time?
"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 127 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 4:36 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 4:58 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 132 of 295 (447265)
01-08-2008 4:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 119 by ringo
01-08-2008 3:00 PM
|
|
Re-Transition
Hi Ringo,
Of course not. Nobody has suggested that. Then you are not talking about transition you are talking about evolution but the word in question about the child was transmutation. These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist.
Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species. I agree with these and that this is evolution in progress. But in Message 114 Message 114 You said:
So there's already a change there, a transmutation, if you like. implying transmutation and transition are the same thing. They are not. Definition for transmutation- Message 112 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 119 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:00 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 134 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 5:15 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 133 of 295 (447267)
01-08-2008 5:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
01-08-2008 3:08 PM
|
|
Hi Percy,
That every generation is different from the previous generation is just a simple observation, and the generational change is always occurring. Because reproduction is imperfect there is no way to stop it from happening. OK let me get this clear. Me having green eyes and my one of my sons having brown eyes is a transition. My second son has blue eyes so that is a transition. My first son has a son that has green eyes and that is a transition. My first son's son my grandson has a son that has brown eyes and that is a transition. If this is what you guys are calling a transition I will have to agree that it is a transition although I thought it was a variation within the family. 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 121 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 3:08 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 138 of 295 (447287)
01-08-2008 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Stile
01-08-2008 3:45 PM
|
|
Re: My Transitional 2 Cents
Hi Stile, Hardly because there is no way I could be 1% to 99% a Spiritual being I would have to be 100% human all of me, or I would have to be 100% Spiritual being, as I understand it there is no inbetween.
I hope this quick tweaking of your example can help show what is meant by a scientific transitional. I think Percy made it plain what is considered a scientific transitional on this site. A change from generation to generation. That simply means that there is nothing for Evolutionist and Creationist to discuss. Evolutionist here are saying that there is just a progression from the single cell life form that appeared to where we are today and beyond. Doesn't matter whether you call it micro-evolution, macro-evolution, or transitional you are only talking about a progression from the single cell life form until today. When all scientific facts point to sudden apperances of life forms. My contention is that everything started suddenly. 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 122 by Stile, posted 01-08-2008 3:45 PM | | Stile has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 140 of 295 (447298)
01-08-2008 7:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
01-08-2008 4:24 PM
|
|
Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi jar,
jar writes: Chen has no problem understanding the Cambrian explosion Chen says: Conventional forces of evolution= The long process of generation to generation over long periods of time. can't account for the: Speed=fast, breadth=magnitude, one-time nature=happened once. of "the Cambrian Explosion,"
quote:
According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of "the Cambrian Explosion,"
—Chen
Maybe I misunderstand this statement and it really means that Darwin was correct in his theory of evolution.
"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 124 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 4:24 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 142 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 7:28 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2