Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 87 of 402 (473993)
07-04-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
07-03-2008 8:58 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2008 8:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 88 of 402 (473995)
07-04-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Organicmachination
07-03-2008 9:08 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Organicmachination, posted 07-03-2008 9:08 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2008 10:34 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 96 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 12:33 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 1:35 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 91 of 402 (474001)
07-04-2008 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
07-04-2008 8:36 AM


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?
I don't know what school you went to, but as an mechanical engineer I start with a desired project in mind, and then engineer that project from start to completion.
The same process is true for various sciences. One starts with observing things as they are. Then one begins the process of understanding how things became as they are. And finally one proves the process by replicating the process time and time again until one knows with reasonable accuracy that the test results are true. This is what true science is all about. This is why the evolutionary process is shear speculation, I don't care how many Nobel winners jump on this bandwagon.
Edited by John 10:10, : mispelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2008 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by bluegenes, posted 07-04-2008 11:31 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 97 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 12:38 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 1:23 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 99 by Larni, posted 07-04-2008 1:29 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2008 2:34 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 93 of 402 (474004)
07-04-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
07-04-2008 10:34 AM


Re: Eggs and Chickens
Then explain why there is lots of occurrences of eggs long, long, long before we find any occurrences of chickens.
If there are in fact chicken eggs long, long, long before we find any occurrences of chickens, then they were placed there by our Creator "so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning to the end" (Eccles 3:11).
"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our sons forever" (Deut 29:29).
There are many many things we can know of God's creation by scientifically proving cause and effect to a high degree of repeatability/accuracy, but the evolutionary process is certainly not one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2008 10:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Brian, posted 07-04-2008 12:03 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 106 of 402 (474031)
07-04-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by bluegenes
07-04-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
So, in order for a geologist to tell us that the Hawaiian Islands were formed by volcanic activity, he has to recreate them time and time again by volcanic activity? What a strange fantasy world you live in, my little simian friend.
Unless you are blind, one can see the Hawaiian Islands forming before your very eyes, so you don't have to prove that they were and are being formed by volcanic activity. Surely you can come up with a better put down than this, my friend who was created in the image of God, not simian.
Yes, our cells have damage that occurred from our ancestors, Adam & Eve, again not simian. This damage can be reversed for those who choose to come to their Creator and yield their lives to Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by bluegenes, posted 07-04-2008 11:31 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 5:50 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 110 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 6:06 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 145 by Granny Magda, posted 07-05-2008 1:27 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 108 of 402 (474036)
07-04-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Brian
07-04-2008 12:03 PM


Re: Eggs and Chickens
If there are in fact chicken eggs long, long, long before we find any occurrences of chickens, then they were placed there by our Creator
So you worship a liar?
You must have missed the word "if."
No, I worship my Creator, and he can be your Savior, "if" you will open up your heart to Him.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Brian, posted 07-04-2008 12:03 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 6:08 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 113 of 402 (474043)
07-04-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 12:38 PM


And until you can invoke God to create the Earth in 6 days and 7 nights and fill it with creatures time and time again, in front of your eyes, you must also conclude that your creationism is just shear speculation as well. After all, your definitions of "true science" also apply to you, my friend.
I believe the 6 days of creation as revealed in Genesis 1 were ages occurring over many billions of years, starting from the beginning of creation about 14 billion years ago. As galaxies and stars were formed, the earth came into being about 4 billion years ago. About 560 million years ago during the Cambrian age, fully developed animals suddenly appeared on this earth, not having evolved over the millions of years which preceeded this. Since the Cambrian age, the fossil record shows about 5 major extinction periods on this earth, to be followed again by the sudden appearance of fully formed animals. The last sudden extinction period occurred about 60 million years ago when the dinosaurs suddenly disappeared.
The evolutionary model used to be a slow evolution occurring over several billion of years, from simple cell creatures to fully developed man. Now that the major extinctions periods are known, the new model says a few animals survived these major extinctions only to begin again the evolutionary process much faster than previously supposed. The current evolutionary model for man is now squeezed into only a 60 million year time frame.
Yes, I await with great anticipation the next great speculation of the evolutionary model which is called true science by our Nobel winners. In the mean time, I continue to rest in the knowledge that my Creator is still in charge of His universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 12:38 PM Organicmachination has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 114 of 402 (474045)
07-04-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Larni
07-04-2008 1:29 PM


One starts with observing things as ther are. Then one begins the process of understanding how things became as they are. And finally one proves the process by replicating the process time and time again until one knows with reasonable accuracy that the test results are true.
Hi John, I hope you don't mind me butting in:
I think the above paragraph may be in error because there seems to be no role in prediction in depiction of science.
I don't have a problem with prediction in depiction of science, as long as predictions truly result in reality, confirmed by the testing that is done to confirm that one's prediction results in things as they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Larni, posted 07-04-2008 1:29 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Larni, posted 07-05-2008 6:14 AM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 115 of 402 (474047)
07-04-2008 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
07-04-2008 1:52 PM


Re: "True science" and other lies
Evolution fits no such definition. Show us where evolution has been tested "with results that can be replicated time and time again."
That has been done by people called "scientists". You may now and then have seen some of these scientist folks while you scrubbed the floors of nuclear power stations, or whatever non-scientific task you performed while hanging around scientists.
I must have missed the part where these Nobel scientists have tested the evolutionary model over billions of years of time with results that can be replicated time and time again. Anyone can say something. The proof is in doing. This they have not done.
Edited by John 10:10, : spelling error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 1:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 116 of 402 (474049)
07-04-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Straggler
07-04-2008 2:34 PM


Re: Projects
The same process is true for various sciences. One starts with observing things as ther are.
Yes
Then one begins the process of understanding how things became as they are.
OK
And finally one proves the process
No.
I don't know what school you went to but science is not in the business of "proving" anything.
science - The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.
Until the evolutionary model can do all of this, which includes testing from start to finish, it will always remain shear speculation, not true science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2008 2:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:55 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 07-04-2008 8:17 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2008 12:28 PM John 10:10 has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 117 of 402 (474051)
07-04-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 5:50 PM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
Again, I must ask you, can you show God creating the Earth over and over again? Can you prove that God did it and show us all over and over again in a laboratory him doing it?
Neither can you show the evolutionary model is true from start to finish. That's why it's not "true science" and does not belong in a science classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 5:50 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:26 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 119 of 402 (474053)
07-04-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
07-04-2008 6:06 PM


Re: Projects
I live about 225 miles from Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant and I don't want any of those guys making reliable conclusions. I want them to know for a fact what they are doing. If that sucker melts down I won't be able to argue with you guys.
I have had the priviledge of working with some of the best nuclear engineers in the world. No, neither they nor I am perfect, but we have built the best energy system this world has ever seen over the last 100 years, with nuclear contributing 20%+ to our electric energy needs. With God's help, we will continue to make our energy system as safe and reliable as we can.
Blessings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2008 6:06 PM ICANT has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 144 of 402 (474111)
07-05-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
You continue to deflect. This is the third time I will ask, and if you don't answer, this entire board will know that you have conceded that your own views are not truly scientific and don't have a place in the classroom just as much as you claim evolution doesn't.
It is you that deflects the truth that the evolutionary model from start to finish has not been proven to be truly scientific by any standard of measure, nor ever will be. By quoting this mantra over and over again, along with the 72 Nobel winners saying so, does not make it so either.
Show us the laboratory where the evolutionary model has been shown to be true from start to finish. If you can't do this, the evolutionary model does not belong in a science classroom.
Until then, the creation model belongs just as much in a science classroom as the speculation evolutionary model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:26 PM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 07-05-2008 1:28 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 148 by Organicmachination, posted 07-05-2008 2:24 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 07-05-2008 5:18 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 147 of 402 (474117)
07-05-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Organicmachination
07-04-2008 7:55 PM


Re: Projects
In no science can people show phenomena on such a large scale as evolution occuring from beginning to end. If you choose to disregard evolution as speculation on these grounds, then you might as well also trash plate tectonics, all of geology, and all of astronomy.
Now you are finally beginning to understand why the evolutionary model is not true science. Plate tectonics, geology, and astronomy are phenomena that we can observe today and prove many aspects of these sciences with reasonable accuracy as God's creation unfolds before us. What has happened in the past with the speculation evolutionary model cannot be observed and proved with any reasonable accuracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 7:55 PM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by subbie, posted 07-05-2008 7:24 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 152 of 402 (474129)
07-05-2008 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ICANT
07-05-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Running Power Plant
Why don't you ask some of the millions of people that were affected by, The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident.
Russia. 60,180 sq. miles affected 5 million people.
Belarus 2,316 sq. miles of land including 1,158 sq. miles of fertile agricultural land, was rendered useless. 3 million people affected.
Ukraine 11.36 million acres of fertile land, 17.2 million people affected.
20 years later the research still goes on. For decades to come the land and peoples will be affected.
This is what happens when science messes up in real life.
If you knew anything about what happened at Chernobyl, you would know it was not an accident cause by science messing up. It was cause by a plant manager deliberately shutting down safety systems in order to run an experiment that he could not run because the safety systems kept overriding his experiment. Yes, people were killed at Chernobyl due to this manager's incompetance.
Three Mile Island was caused the same way, plant operators deliberately shutting down safety systems because they thought they knew better and thought they were doing the right thing. Three Mile Island was an engineering disaster, but no one was injured, utility or public.
When people override the safety systems that are designed to protect the power plant or any other industrial plant, serious problems may result, including loss of life.
Edited by John 10:10, : sentence correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2008 9:11 AM 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