|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I have already answered this point, John: applying evolution to the real world yields natural history, in exactly the same manner that applying the 1930's nuclear fission studies to the real world yields the Manhattan Project. Big difference between proving fission in the 1930's and proving evolution has occurred over billion of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
so what did they do before it was all written down?
Im trying to stay on topic here, as far as "intelligence" goes....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
LTA writes: This video is premised on a random chemical process. Which, of course is a false premise.
NosyNed writes: I don't understand the point you are making here. I don't see how it applies to the topic at hand. Perhaps you can elaborate a lot more. The video makes the claim that the viral DNA can attach itself "randomly" anywhere on the host DNA. And then perpetuates this throughout. Surely the DNA can only attach where the chemistry is right for it to do so. Given that the chimps DNA is identical to humans at the specified positions, it's no surprise that the bonds appear at the same spot on the DNA. Therefore it doesn't mean that humans and chimps have the same ancestor at all, it means that humans and chimps were around at the same time this strain of virus was.
Australopithicus afarensis writes: What we see with the Ecoli is inbuilt adaption not evolution.
NosyNed writes: "Inbuilt" in exactly what way? How is this not evolution? Just because the Creator made all kinds with their seed doesn't mean that He can't provide them with the ability to fight infection. Edited by LucyTheApe, : typo Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I'm going to take this statement together with your lack of a response to my request for evidence as a tacit admission that only those who share your religious beliefs will find anything of value in what you say. Naturally, this is of limited use in the arena of science. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
This is a science forum. Do you have any verifiable evidence of the accuracy of anything you have said in this thread? Yes, I have shown how science discovered and proved in the 1930's that uranium atoms are fissioned, splitting into lighter weight elements. Do you have any proven verifiable evidence that the speculations of the evloutionary model actually occurs, producing species after species, starting from single cells to fully developed creatures? If not, then it is you not I that doesn't know what science really is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Theories provide the means whereby things are proven, thereby becoming facts. Once we know the proven facts to a high degree of accuracy, they have meaning and can become useful in all manner of creative endeavours for the good of mankind. Facts are raw data. Raw data in and of itself has no meaning. You need some kind of conceptual model to be able to attach any kind of meaning from raw data. The term for such a conceptual model is "theory". How could you be so willfully ignorant of that? Your entire engineering career, from your first day in class to your retirement, was based totally on theories. Your entire understanding of everything in your career was based on theories. How could you still be so ignorant of what a theory is? Or of what data is? Please, please stop and learn something about science before you do your cause any more damage than you already have. Every creationist's scriptural study should include at least these three verses from the Chinese:
quote:Your enemy is real science (as opposed to your sham "true science", which I first heard fundamentalists hawk back in 1970), but you are ignorant of it. But you are also ignorant of yourself (obviously not knowing the deliberate deceptions of the fundamentalist anti-evolution movement from whom you've gotten a lot of your material; eg, trying to pretend to oppose evolution for purely scientific reasons, which was the primary deliberate deception of "creation science" when it was created in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968, which struck down the "monkey laws" that had held sway since the mid-1920's), so in every battle you will be in peril. You want to make statements about what scientific theories are? Then first learn what theories are! You want to oppose evolution? Then first learn what evolution actually is! What does it serve your cause and your God for you to say nonsensical things about subject matter that is well-known by those whom you have chosen to oppose? Haven't you ever read what Saint Augustine had written on this subject? From my reposting of it at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#AUGUSTINE (abbreviated here):
quote: Even some (though far too few) leading creationists offer the same warning, as did Answers in Genesis with a list of arguments that creationists should not use. As Dr. Sarfati wrote in defense of their having published that list (my reposting is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#AiG; the link back to their site is broken due to their having reorganized their site, but you may provide them the text and the citation and they should verify it) (again, abbreviated here):
quote: Do you want to oppose evolution? Really oppose evolution? Then learn everything you can about it! Not the creationist caricature of it that they use to deceive themselves and to attempt to deceive everybody else. No, the real thing! You're retired now, so go back to school and study science! Real science, not just engineering. Learn what the scientific method is, what theories really are, and how theories are formed. Philosophy of science should be a good subject for you to read up on, since those questions are very much a part of that subject. In short, if you want to make real science and evolution your enemies, then you must learn everything you can about your enemies. Otherwise, you will surely fail and take your God down with you. Or is that what you are really trying to do? To drag your God down?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
so what did they do before it was all written down? Im trying to stay on topic here, as far as "intelligence" goes.... I wasn't responding to you, but since you asked, here goes. The Scriptures simply say certain people "walked with God." To me this means their hearts were open to the God who created them, and the God who created them responded in like measure. If you want to know the details of how these people "walked with God," you will have to wait and ask them in the resurrection, if you get there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: But you haven't explained how you know that this discovery won't be disproven tomorrow by a new discovery.
quote: Yes. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
quote: I'm afraid if you are not convinced by the truth of Psalms 19:1, then whatever else I can say would be futile. I'm going to take this statement together with your lack of a response to my request for evidence as a tacit admission that only those who share your religious beliefs will find anything of value in what you say. Naturally, this is of limited use in the arena of science. My religious views have nothing to do with my belief in and the proof offered by true science. The problem lies in your belief that the study of the evolutionary start-to-finish model has resulted in proven true science, rather than speculations of how the start-to-finish model has occurred. Most at this ECV forum don't even believe that science can prove anything to any degree of accuracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
In short, if you want to make real science and evolution your enemies, then you must learn everything you can about your enemies. Otherwise, you will surely fail and take your God down with you. Or is that what you are really trying to do? To drag your God down? Pure and simple, my enemy is the belief that you think the speculations of evolution make for real science. My God can take care of Himself quite well!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Intelligent Design is simply understanding that all creatures, uncluding man, were created fully developed after their own kind, and did not evolve over millions/billions of years from a single spark of life. No, "intelligent design" is just another installment in a long line of deceptions employed by the anti-evolution movement. For a presentation at church, I outlined what "creation science" is and some of its history; I posted that outline at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/EarlyBird.html. Basically, the anti-evolution movement really got going as a popular movement after World War One largely due to the sharp rise in the number of high school students and as their parents' reaction to the science being taught. It culminated with their victory in the Scopes Trial (1925), which also brought them public humilation and the death of their most important leader, William Jennings Bryan. Their opposition to evolution was openly religious and they were able to pass religiously-motivated "monkey laws" in four states to bar the teaching of evolution and to keep pressure on school boards and textbook publishers to suppress and exclude the teaching of evolution. Then when in 1957 Sputnik caught us with a "science gap", our nation responded by strengthening science education, which included having scientists and university professor writing textbooks. Since evolution was the cornerstone of biology (the universities were unaffected by the anti-evolution movement's "monkey laws", etc), the new biology textbooks covered evolution extensively. When Susan Epperson of Little Rock was required to teach with one of these textbooks, she realized that it would place her in violation of their "monkey law" and so she had to challenge the law. From that case, the US Supreme Court struck down the Arkansas "monkey law" finding that a subject could not be barred for purely religious reasons. In response, the anti-evolution movement sought to circumvent the courts with a deliberately designed deception, wherein they removed overtly religious references from their materials, named it "creation science" (also, "scientific creationism") and employed a number of deliberately deceptive arguments and tactics, all of which employed the same fundamental lie that their opposition to evolution "has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, but rather is for purely scientific reasons." That lie and the true nature of "creation science" was exposed in the 1980's, first with the striking down of the 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law and finally with the 1987 US Supreme Court decision against its sister Louisiana law. Also during the 1980's a new movement was starting under the lead of lawyer Phillip Johnson, whose stated opposition to evolution appears to be pure "God of the Gaps" -- in an essay, he stated outright that he opposes evolution because "it leaves God with nothing to do". I admit to not having followed their early development, but after the US Supreme Court decision on the Lousiana law, creationists suddenly started using buzzwords from the ID movement and the two movements formed an alliance. It even went so far that a creationist book, "Of Pandas and People", underwent a global find-and-replace editing where every reference to "creation science" was replaced with a reference to "intelligent design". In other words, where "creation science" had been created as a game of "Hide the Bible", creationist adoption of "intelligent design" was itself a game of "Hide the Creationism". In other words, "intelligent design" is nothing more than yet another creationist deception in a long line of deceptions. Now, what I keep wondering is, why are creationists unable to employ anything but lies and deception to support and serve their religion and their "God of Truth"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: If that's true, then stop dragging them into this thread, fer crying out loud.
quote:My emphasis. Well, those who know the difference between science and religion certainly do. But, those who know what science is and how science works do understand that science allows us to come to reliable conclusions about the world, and that those conclusions include the fact that evolution occurs, and that the ToE explains how evolution takes place quite well. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
dwise1 writes:
Pure and simple, my enemy is the belief that you think the speculations of evolution make for real science. In short, if you want to make real science and evolution your enemies, then you must learn everything you can about your enemies. Otherwise, you will surely fail and take your God down with you. Or is that what you are really trying to do? To drag your God down? My God can take care of Himself quite well! Then by all means do continue working zealously to encourage the growth and spread of atheism. When you've grown tired of shooting yourself and your god in the foot, then re-read my advice that you do something to alleviate your pig-ignorance. And you really need to. My minister cautioned me against casting pearls before swine, but I never seem to learn. But at least it annoys the pigs. Edited by dwise1, : Edited by dwise1, : Edited by dwise1, :
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2995 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, I have shown how science discovered and proved in the 1930's that uranium atoms are fissioned, splitting into lighter weight elements. But you haven't explained how you know that this discovery won't be disproven tomorrow by a new discovery. Even most of your evolutionist friends would have a problem not believing that fission of uranium has been proven to a very high degree of accuracy, and will not be overturned by some new discovery tomorrow. If not, then you would rather live in a world where nothing is real or true.
quote: Do you have any proven verifiable evidence that the speculations of the evloutionary model actually occurs, producing species after species, starting from single cells to fully developed creatures? Yes. I noticed nothing followed the "Yes." In a world where there are some truths and absolutes, one must provide proven verifiable evidence that the speculations of the evloutionary model actually occurs, producing species after species, starting from single cells to fully developed creatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Very high degree of accuracy? Certainly. Impossible that it won't be disproven tomorrow? I'm certain that just about everyone here would agree that this is possible, although quite unlikely. The point is not how likely it is that that will happen, but that it is possible. That's why all of science is tentative, and science never "proves" anything.
quote: The Yes was a link. Click on it to provide the answer to your question. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024