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.
In my view, the chicken came first, designed by our Creator, with the ability to replicate itself, as do most other creatures including man.
Then explain why there is lots of occurrences of eggs long, long, long before we find any occurrences of chickens.
John, you can believe all you want. But if you choose to believe things which have hard evidence showing them to be false then you make the whole package of your beliefs look utterly foolish.
This is why some of the strongest opponents of creationism are not "evil evolutionists" as you think but rather are devote Christians who hate to be associated with people who tarnish their beliefs with obvious utter nonsense.
You'd do your religion more good if you actually educated yourself just a little.
BTW: you are, I think, right that the video presented does not show the origin of DNA. You have chosen to ignore my comment on the origins of life.
It seems you can't stick to one line of reasoning at a time.
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.
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. This is what true science is all about. This is why the evolutionary process is shear speculation,
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. Presumably you're campaigning to stop murder trials for all cases in which there are no eye-witnesses, on the basis that we can never discover things about the past through observing the present.
Evolution can be observed happening in real time, of course, but I think you're concerned with history.
Therefore, I think it's time for you to overcome your fears. You arrived on the site proclaiming loudly that evolutionary theory has no evidence to back it, so what of our famous claim that humans and chimps descend from a common ancestral species?
Well, in every cell in your body you have the scars of damage that happened to that ancestral species, and even more that happened in species that were ancestral to it. And so do your chimpanzee cousins. This is damage, not design, as you'll see.
This short video explains one of the lines of evidence that shows us for sure, John, that you are an ape.
I'm interested to see if you can still deceive yourself on the subject after watching it.
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.
It's clear from the above statement that you don't know any molecular biology at all, and that you are not at all familiar with the role of DNA in biology. Before you come in with guns a blazing proclaiming these kinds of things, be sure you know your basic science first. But I'm not going to take the time to explain everything you don't understand, as made evident by your response, because most professors take at least a week of lectures to do it, and I wouldn't do them justice.
I'd just end up confusing you more with terms like telomerase and reverse transcriptase.
But do yourself a favor and watch this video on protein synthesis:
The same process is true for various sciences. 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. 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.
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.
The same process is true for various sciences. 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. This is what true science is all about.
Since you are not a scientist, and since the greatest scientists in the world disagree with you, why should we accept your word as to what science is?
Answer: we shouldn't.
If you, a non-scientist, disagree with 72 Nobel Laureates about what "true science" is, then I'm going to go with the proposition that they are right and you are wrong.
Because they, through years of patient study, have learned how the world works, whereas you, through reading a handful of creationist pamphlets, have learned to recite pathetic creationist lies about subjects that you have never studied using words that you don't even understand.
This is why the evolutionary process is shear speculation, I don't care how many Nobel winners jump on this bandwagon.
No, you don't care about what the world's greatest scientists say about science, since you are determined to ignore science.
Meanwhile, the world's greatest scientists will tell me that evolution is science.
And I am going to believe them rather than you. Because they are the world's greatest scientists, whereas you apparently know nothing of science.
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.
Permit me to re write it in another way:
Larni paraphrasing writes:
One starts with observing things as ther are. Then one begins the process of understanding how things became as they are by generating predictions based on a hypothesis (with associate null hypothesis).
And finally one attempts to reject the null hypothesis (or it must be accepted and the hypothesis is then rejected) by comparing the predictions with reality until one knows with reasonable accuracy that the predictions either accurate or not.
What you are describing misses out the formulation of the hypothesis.
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.
That is your opinion. But you know nothing of science.
Let us look instead at the opinion of 72 Nobel-prize winning scientists. Y'know, scientists. The people who actually study science.
Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.
--- Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.
Now, here's a couple of questions for you which you will probaly be afraid to answer.
(1) Do you really know more about science than 72 Nobel Laureates put together?
(2) If that is the case, and you are the greatest scientific genius who has ever lived --- why should we take your word for it? Could you not prove your genius by doing some actual science?
Go on, do something scientific. These Nobel prize winners are the people who have explained to us how the world works. You simply go about saying that they're wrong, but without actually doing any science.
Meanwhile, the world's greatest scientists will tell me that evolution is science.
Ah but Johnny's got that covered!
He knows that God has planted all that evidence so that all the great scientists are fooled in to thinking that evolution is science. The blind fools!!!!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - 3 day suspension because of this message
He knows that God has planted all that evidence so that all the great scientists are fooled in to thinking that evolution is science. The blind fools!!!!
Actually he hasn't yet come up with the "but God is a liar" excuse --- the "Omphalos" blasphemy, as it is technically known.
So far, his falsehoods seem to rest entirely on his personal megalomaina.
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.
Let's quote 72 Nobel prize winning scientists again:
The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - 3 day suspension because of this message
Don't be too hard on Johnboy, Doc. The Eastern Mountain Ape of North America, like the Bonobo of Africa, is known for its long term isolation from other Apes and its incestious behaviour.
Johnboy is currently in shock, because he didn't know he was an Ape yesterday, but now he does. Contact with civilization has traditionally been hard for the tribes of this remote, mountainous area, and strange primitive superstitions linger amongst them.
Information courtesy of EvC Primatology Department.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - 3 day suspension because of this message
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.
I studied physics at Imperial College
but as an mechanical engineer I start with a desired project in mind, and then engineer that project from start to completion.
Well congratulations to you but what has this got to do with scientific investigation and discovery?
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. The correct way to gain understanding and make reliable conclusions is to form a hypothesis and to work out how to test that hypothesis. This will involve determining the logical consequences of your explanation and predicting results whish can then be verified or refuted by experiment or further observation of nature.
by replicating the process time and time again until one knows with reasonable accuracy that the test results are true.
This can be true in the case of experimental results. Where predictions are made regarding natural phenomenon the observations of those predicted phenomenon can be repeated.
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.
Science is about making tested reliable conclusions. The stringent and methodical testing of theories of nature against the realities of nature itself. How exactly this is achieved depends on the nature of the theory in questionan and the evidence available.
The key thing is to test theories against reality. Evolution, Big Bang theory etc. etc. have passed countless such tests.
Your hapless argument against these areas of science basically amounts to 'I don't like the conclusions therefore they are wrong' and little more.
This is hardly surprising given that you are advocating a method of "investigation" (one where the conclusions are known before the evidence is obtained) that makes genuine discovery literally impossible!!!!
™ Version 4.2
(1)