|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
So that's how the DNA of cells figured out how to become DNA in the first place. OK, show me the evidence? Since you've moved back in time to this different topic and don't want to discuss biological evolution anymore does that mean you've decided that we are right on all the rest. That is, you agree that once DNA was in place, however that happened, the evolutionary model best fits the facts we have at hand. If you haven't finished with the area that there is such overwhelming evidence for (approximately none of which you are aware of) then what good does it do to move onto another area? If you looked around this site you'd find that almost everyone here agrees that, while there are a large number of good clues about your question, there isn't any definitive answer. So let's all agree that this is a "don't know the answer (yet)" area. Any problems with that? So we have two areas of agreement:1) We all don't know exactly how DNA formed in the first place. 2) We have one very good explanation for the development of life since then. Right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5738 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
So that's how the DNA of cells figured out how to become DNA in the first place. OK, show me the evidence? That's like asking how your bones figured out how to be hard. DNA didn't figure anything out. It just works that way. Taken any cellular biology yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Natural selection and descent with modification. Maybe a little founders effect and other similar things.
So that's how the DNA of cells figured out how to become DNA in the first place.At least there is evidence for this. There is no evidence for a designer -- that's a religious belief. OK, show me the evidence? Sure, no problem. Check out this on-line lecture:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices Here is the abstract:
Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of. This demolishes the standard ID and creationist "arguments from mathematical impossibility" and shows clear pathways for evolution at all levels. But I doubt that you will watch it. I suspect you are already convinced that it is wrong somehow--you may not be sure exactly how because it gets into some detailed science--but it just has to be wrong because it contradicts your religious belief. And that is the argument you have been making this entire thread. You have not provided evidence for your statements, just blanket assertions that science is wrong and your religious belief is correct. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. We rely on evidence. If you want to play the game you need to ditch belief, superstition, old wives' tales, divination, table tapping and all the rest of that nonsense and bring evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Johnboy writes: bluegenius writes: I think you're scared of the truth, John. A frightened little ape, hiding behind his Bible. The evidence is there, John, in every cell of your body there is information, visible only with a microscope, that tells us that you're an ape. Is this the best dialogue that evolutionists can descend to? We'll see, John. What I'm doing is telling you about yourself, both your biological simian self, and your psychological self. It's quite easy, because I know from experience that creationist Christians are invariably frightened of facing up to the scientific truths about their biological selves. I've never met an exception. I can smell the fear through cyberspace, Johnboy.
Yes, every cell of my body knows exactly where it belongs and where every other cell is. Really? All your cells are sentient? I do think you need a biology lesson, John. For a start, what do all your cells have that might tell us about your simian ancestry? (The clue is in my eponymous picture).
Just how do you think it figured this all out without a Designer/Creator? We'll get onto that later, Johnboy. Biology class first, then philosophy class. Agreed? Now, are you too scared to ask me for my special information that demonstrates your true simian nature? That is the question, as the great Bard said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This tells me and others volumes about your understanding of what true science is all about. Yes. My understanding of "what true science is all about" is in agreement with the 72 Nobel Laureates I quoted.
The ones who deal with substantiating cause and affect know and understand true science. The rest attend your university. The 72 Nobel Laureates whom I cited do not, in fact, all "attend my university", though I am flattered that you should place me in such august company.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
When you don't have a rational answer to reason with, you attack the messenger. I point out that you, a non-scientist, know less about science than 72 Nobel Laureates put together ... and you treat that as an "attack" and condemn it as non-rational? It is perfectly rational, not to mention 100% true. Denying it would be irrational. And treating it as a personal insult smacks of megalomania. You, I see, have chosen to whine about me pointing it out but without actually denying it, which is neither rational, nor, indeed, an argument. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Read my lips! True science is simply the explanation of how things are the way they are ... ... in other words, theories. Your statements are gradually becoming more accurate, one day you may make it through an entire paragraph without making a mistake.
... and how they came be as they are ... Only if they're historical sciences. That description would not, for example, fit chemistry very well, because it is not one of the historical sciences.
... proven by testing results ... ... oh dear, you're back to gibberish again. You don't "test results", you test theories against the results of observations.
... that can be accurately measured and duplicated time and time again. So, for example, we can look time and time again at the rings of Saturn, or the fossil record, or the rocks brought back from the moon. We cannot, of course, duplicate the things --- can you duplicate Saturn for me? --- but we can of course duplicate the observations as often as we please.
When the theory(s) of evolution can do this, then they will have something they can call true science. Let's hear from my 72 Nobel prize-winners again:
The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept. Could I beseech you once more to consider the possibility that they know something that you don't? Such as ... science. If you can demonstrate to the contrary, you too may win a Nobel Prize. Good luck with that. I should warn you that even if you were right, which you aren't, proving your case would at some point require studying science rather than merely bloviating about it and dogmatically asserting your own correctness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
To the IDists/Creationists, this is what science is all about, proving cause and effect in everything between micro to macro space. Well actually this is exactly what science is not. Starting from a philosophically biased conclusion and working your way backwards with no potential for the original conclusion to be wrong is the very antthesis of scientific investigation. What if the conclusion you start with is wrong?You just end up with a heap of misinterpreted evidence and no progress, discovery or anything of ant practical value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Prove it. Well actually the complete inability of creation "science" to predict new physical phenomenon does all the proving that is necessary. Name a single new physical phenomenon ever predicted and then discovered by creationist/ IDist "science"? Are creationist conclusions tested against nature at all?What experiments have been undertaken? Can it really be called science if no experiments at all are conducted? ID is all about interpreting evidence in terms of preconceived conclusions. Biased explanation, not discovery, is the only possible result. The research you speak of exemplifies this in every case I have ever seen. If you know of any new physical phenomenon discovered as a result of ID then please do share this startling information. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
True science for the IDists/Creationists is discovering the wonders of God's creation, learning the cause and effect therein, and applying this to the good of mankind. Honestly is it investigation if you start with the conclusion rather than the evidence?Seriously is it science if your starting point is a conclusion that can only ever be 'proved' right but never wrong? Do you really think the description of science you are proposing as valid when applied to creationist research is a good model for scientific investigation in general? What if we applied this methodology to medicine for example? Or nuclear physics?Do you see why I might think that creationism/ID is a philosophy of ignorance? Creationist/IDist methods of research as you yourself have described them would, if applied to any other area of scientific investigation, result in ignorance at best and disastrously catastrophic consequences at worst. How can you advocate such a methodology as scientific or even useful?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Your definition is not incorrect, it is simply your branding of it as "true science." Evolution fits all of your restrictions, yet you deem it as not "true science." Evolution fits no such definition. Show us where evolution has been tested "with results that can be replicated time and time again." All the sciences that are "true science" do this. Evolution cannot nor ever will be able to do this. Therefore, evolution cannot ever be called true science, and will always be relegated to the realm of speculation, not true science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
So we have two areas of agreement: 1) We all don't know exactly how DNA formed in the first place. 2) We have one very good explanation for the development of life since then. Right? Wrong on both counts! 1) You don't know how DNA formed in the first place. You don't speak for me at all. 2) You have one very bad speculation for the development of life since then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3023 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
DNA didn't figure anything out. It just works that way. Taken any cellular biology yet? So you start with the understanding that DNA/cells know how to replicate themselves, becoming various parts of body creatures, each cell knowing where it is and where each other cell is, yet no one had to figure out (engineer) how the cells could do this in the first place. If you will look at life, most creatures have to start this process of replicating themselves within the confines of fully developed creatures to start with; i.e., which came first, the chicken or the egg. In my view, the chicken came first, designed by our Creator, with the ability to replicate itself, as do most other creatures including man. In my view each creature was created after its own kind, and did not evolve from creature to creature. This viewpoint certainly has as much place, probably more, in biology classrooms as does the "speculation" of the evolutionary process for the explanation of various life forms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
That's one great advantage evolutionists have over creationists, (which goes along with being right) it is in principle possible for us to educate a creationist, though I confess that the occurence is rather rare. But it is not possible for you to make us as ignorant as yourselves without actual surgery. That's probably one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard! Why bother arguing if you're so bigoted and certain that YOU know the truth? It's pointless. Tell me, what are the rules and bounds of the TOE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Are creationist conclusions tested against nature at all? What experiments have been undertaken? Can it really be called science if no experiments at all are conducted? Well, creationists did conduct the RATE Project in an effort to disprove radiometric dating through establishing a changing decay constant. Unfortunately for them they just succeeded in showing that science was right all along.
ID is all about interpreting evidence in terms of preconceived conclusions. Biased explanation, not discovery, is the only possible result. The research you speak of exemplifies this in every case I have ever seen. The authors of the RATE Project refused to believe their own results (thus providing another example of creation "science" at work). Here is an excellent analysis of the RATE Project:
Assessing the RATE Project Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024