Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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 241 of 402 (474324)
07-07-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by dwise1
07-07-2008 4:00 PM


Re: Observations
In other words, "intelligent design" is nothing more than yet another creationist deception in a long line of deceptions.
Those who believe and know our creator God get to explain what "intelligent design" is, not evolutionists. It is your choice to disbelieve if you so choose, but not your right to define what "intelligent design" is.
Intelligent design is simply the belief/knowledge that our creator God, before anything was created, proceeded to intelligently design the universe and all life therein from the start to the finish.
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"?
It is you who has been blinded by the god (Satan) of this world as to the truth of who Almighty God is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by dwise1, posted 07-07-2008 4:00 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2008 10:58 AM John 10:10 has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 242 of 402 (474325)
07-07-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by subbie
07-07-2008 12:59 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
subbie writes:
From a scientific point of view, nothing will ever positively convince me of that. I've made the point repeatedly that everything in science is tentative.
subbie I agree that all science theories are tentative.
But I am also stupid enough to believe there are many absolute scientific facts. I will name only one and you correct me if I have drawn the wrong conclusion.
Somewhere around 1100 AD an experiment was started using a decapitating machine. This experiment ended in the not to distant past with the French guillotine. I can find no person that ever had their head decapitated by one of those machines that survived and lived to talk about it.
Now I believe it is a scientifically proven absolute fact that if you put your head in one of those machines and it is activated and it decapitates your head that you will not survive.
Then again I may be wrong.
God Bless,

"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 218 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 12:59 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:42 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 243 of 402 (474326)
07-07-2008 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by subbie
07-07-2008 4:19 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
The Yes was a link. Click on it to provide the answer to your question.
Leaving aside how the first cell got here, so the evolutionary model has been proven in a laboratory from start-to-finish to a high degree of accuracy, where single cell creatures have been developed into fully developed creature/species, able to reproduce themselves and mutate to other species?
Only on the National Geographic TV channel have I seen this done, not proven in a laboratory over time.
Edited by John 10:10, : added a few words to the first sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:19 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:37 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 278 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 3:30 AM John 10:10 has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 244 of 402 (474328)
07-07-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 4:33 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
quote:
So the evolutionary model has been proven in a laboratory from start-to-finish to a high degree of accuracy, where single cell creatures have been developed into fully developed creature/species, able to reproduce themselves and mutate to other species?
Nope. That hasn't happened, and never will.
Fortunately, that standard doesn't need to be met in order for the ToE to be a valid and very valuable scientific theory.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:33 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:45 PM subbie has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 245 of 402 (474329)
07-07-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 4:11 PM


Science lesson (continued)
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.
You are wrong again. The decay of uranium, fission, the speed of light and other such observations are facts, not theories.
It seems like all of the things you find "proven to a very high degree of accuracy" are facts, not theories.
Theories organize those facts and explain why they behave the way they do.
There is no such thing as "true science" as dreamed up by creationists. Either you follow the scientific method or you do not. The theory of evolution, the fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology and all the rest follow the scientific method.
Creationism and intelligent design do not. They are beliefs masquerading as science in the hope of fooling someone. Unfortunately their practitioners find it necessary to distort the findings and methods of science, as they seem unable to counter them in any other way.
You have served as a good example of this in this thread with your insistence on your "true science" definition, as if it had any reality outside of creationism, and your repeated lack of understanding of how science really works.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:11 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:59 PM Coyote has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 246 of 402 (474330)
07-07-2008 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ICANT
07-07-2008 4:29 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
quote:
Now I believe it is a scientifically proven absolute fact that if you put your head in one of those machines and it is activated and it decapitates your head that you will not survive.
Today, you are correct.
100 years from now, the state of the art in medicine may have advanced to the point where a severed head can be reattached.
If you understand this point, and understand why this means that all of science is tentative, you are well ahead of John.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 4:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 5:04 PM subbie has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 247 of 402 (474331)
07-07-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by mike the wiz
07-07-2008 9:25 AM


mike the wiz writes:
quote:
logic out-strips science.
Science is predicated on logic. That's the entire point.
quote:
Logically, the facts indicate nothing but the facts.
...
Creationism isn't ignorance, it's just an alternative explanation for those who genuinely believe that history happened according to how the Holy Bible said it did.
So what do you do when the former contradicts the latter? The Bible says that flowering plants came before insects. The facts indicate otherwise.
Why would you have us discard the fact in favor of the "interpretation"?
quote:
You then question Christ himself - and how his miracles could have been naturally explained. Where does it end?
Who knows? But we're back to yet another question that never seems to get answered:
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?
See, you're starting with your conclusion that the Bible is accurate and then try to find evidence that justifies it, all the while denying anything that doesn't fit with your preconception. If you wish to do science, you must be willing to say that everything you thought you knew about everything is wrong.
quote:
As far as I can see, evolution is an explanation which powerfully favours naturalistic origins and the removal of God.
That's the point. We're back to the question that never gets answered:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Of course science removes god. Science removes [I][B]YOU[/i][/b]. That doesn't mean you don't exist. It simply means that science is studying things that happen without your influence. It studies things that happen on their own.
Why is this a problem? If the facts tell us that there are things that happen on their own, then why on earth would we reject that in favor of a preconception?
Unless you're saying that there isn't anything that happens on its own and everything requires god. Are you?
quote:
To me, I have not been shown how evolution certainly happened, logically. Because logically, it is no proven in it's entirety.
What are you missing? We can see evolution happen right in front of our eyes both in small scale and large scale. The fossil record clearly indicates evolution happened on even larger scales.
So what, specifically, are you missing?
quote:
Listen - new developments abound because yu already ASSUME evolution happened! Now pretend that evolution didn't happen - and THEN look at that development.
Huh? The reason why we "assume" evolution happened is because we observed it happening. We can see it happen right before our eyes. The fossil record shows that it's been happening for as long as life has been around. Since we can directly observe it happening, there is no question that it happened. Evolution is a fact.
That's why we have developed a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. The question is not "if" evolution happened. We know that it has. The question is "how."
The experiment that I keep repeating here regarding E. coli and T4 phage simply shows evolution happening. It does not describe how.
quote:
that will not change that evolution is just a theory, unproven, which might be replaced by another theory
You act like that's a bad thing.
Are you gonna jump off the Empire State Building because gravity is "just a theory"? Are you gonna worry about the sun not shining because electromagnetism is "just a theory"? Are you gonna stop taking medication because germs causing disease are "just a theory"?
You don't seem to understand how theories work. Take the development of kinematics. In the beginning, there was Aristotle and things at rest tended to remain at rest and things in motion tended to come to rest.
So when Newton came along and developed the concept of inertia such that things in motion tended to remain in motion, it had to explain the fact that here on earth, things in motion tend to come to rest. The observations do not change. Apples did not suddenly remain suspended in mid-air waiting for us to make up our minds.
Instead, Newtonian physics must explain the motion we already observed: The reason things come to rest here on earth is because of friction. Things in motion remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Friction is such a force that changes the motion of object.
So when Einstein came along and developed the concept of relativity such that velocity is not linear, it had to explain the fact that here on earth, it sure looks like they are. The observations do not change. A falling apple falls at the same acceleration.
Instead, Einsteinian physics must explain the motion we already observed: The reason things seem to accelerate at the same speed here on earth is because our instruments are not sensitive enough to detect the difference. Newtonian physics is wrong at every level and every speed, but for the most common interactions we have, the error term is so small that you'd have to have millions of dollars of equipment to ever notice.
Apples still fall from trees, though.
Evolution is the same way. When we observe populations of organisms over time, they change. We call this change "evolution" just as we call the force that pulls apples down "gravity." It's just a word to describe what it is that we see. The question is how this evolution works.
quote:
Meanwhile, I am not convinced the brilliance of creation came about by itself - and logically it is STILL upon you to prove the extraordinary claim that all this brilliant creation was infact evolution.
Huh? What does evolution have to do with origins? We've been through this before. Evolution is consistent with every method of origins you care to name. Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?
Who are you to tell god what he did? Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mike the wiz, posted 07-07-2008 9:25 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 248 of 402 (474333)
07-07-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by subbie
07-07-2008 4:37 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
Fortunately, that standard doesn't need to be met in order for the ToE to be a valid and very valuable scientific theory.
We finally agree that ToE is a theory, not a fact.
We will just have to disagree as to how "very valuable" it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:37 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:56 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 271 by Kapyong, posted 07-08-2008 2:36 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 286 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2008 1:02 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 249 of 402 (474334)
07-07-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 10:31 AM


LucyTheApe writes:
quote:
This video is premised on a random chemical process. Which, of course is a false premise.
ERV's are not "random" as such. They are the acts of viruses inserting themselves into the genome. Are you saying that this does not actually happen?
Even though we've seen it happen?
quote:
Did you not learn at school that the concept of randomness exists only in the human mind, not in nature.
No.
What I learned in school was that randomness is the very nature of existence. On the physical level, it's called "quantum mechanics."
quote:
If this is the strongest case for evolution, then the theory really is on shaky grounds.
On the contrary, it is the reason why it is pretty much the most solid theory science has. Evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity.
We still don't know what gravity is, where it comes from, or why it even exists. All of those things are known for evolution.
So if evolution is "on shaky grounds" and yet evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity, then that must mean you have no qualms about jumping off a cliff.
Time to put your money where your mouth is.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 10:31 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 250 of 402 (474335)
07-07-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 4:45 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
quote:
We finally agree that ToE is a theory, not a fact.
I've never said it was anything other than a theory. Nor has anyone else at this site. You might have realized that long ago if you took a moment and recalled that it's called the Theory of Evolution.
quote:
We will just have to disagree as to how "very valuable" it is.
Well, you could ask any scientist who works in the field of biology. Then we won't have to disagree anymore. That is unless you think that your ideas about biology are more valuable than those of scientists who work in the field.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:45 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 5:06 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 255 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 5:06 PM subbie has replied

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


Message 251 of 402 (474336)
07-07-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Coyote
07-07-2008 4:40 PM


Re: Science lesson (continued)
You have served as a good example of this in this thread with your insistence on your "true science" definition, as if it had any reality outside of creationism, and your repeated lack of understanding of how science really works.
True science results in facts that can then used understand life as it is, the universe, and how to take the facts and use them to develop things for the good of mankind. The problem comes in proclaiming the ToE as fact, not theory.
Everyone is entitled to their own set of theories, but not to their own set of facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2008 4:40 PM Coyote has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 252 of 402 (474337)
07-07-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 11:14 AM


LucyTheApe writes:
quote:
Speciation is evolution is speciation; circular reasoning!
Incorrect. There are plenty of ways to make speciation happen. Evolution is just one of them. That speciation happens is not sufficient to justify evolution. Instead, the specific process by which speciation happens (over time, reproductive isolation, mutation events, differential selection) is what justifies evolution.
quote:
If speciation is not evolution then you have two theories in the one sentence.
Incorrect. Speciation is a fact. Evolution is what explains the fact.
quote:
What we see with the Ecoli is inbuilt adaption not evolution.
Incorrect. Did you not read the description? It cannot be adaptation because if it were, then the entire lawn would behave identically. They are all descended from a single ancestor. Therefore if there were an "adaptive" ability within the E. coli to survive T4 phage, then the entire lawn would have it.
But the entire lawn does not have it. Only some do.
Since the entire lawn is a descendant of a single ancestor, how is it that there is a morphological difference if the bacteria did not evolve?
Be specific.
quote:
If organisms were unable to adapt there would be no life left on earth.
Incorrect. Adaptation is the ability for an individual organism to change its own self to adjust to environmental changes. That doesn't help future generations because my ability to figure out how to live doesn't help my children.
Instead, evolution is the only way to achieve long-term success in a changing environment. I have to be able to pass off traits to my offspring and adaptations are not passed on to the next generation.
In most humans, going out in the sun causes an adaptation in the skin: It darkens. In response to the UV radiation in the sun, pigment is released that is capable of absorbing the radiation.
But just because you get a tan doesn't mean your children will be born with a tan. That's Lamarckian evolution and we know it to be false. Instead, evolution happens under the Darwinian model: It is not your actual tan that gets passed on but rather your ability to get a tan in the first place. Not all people have the same ability to get a tan and if getting a tan easily is more successful, then future generations will be more likely to get a tan than current generations.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 11:14 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 253 of 402 (474339)
07-07-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by subbie
07-07-2008 4:42 PM


Re: Ahead
subbie writes:
100 years from now, the state of the art in medicine may have advanced to the point where a severed head can be reattached.
I would be right 100 years from now. You would have been in the grave a long time.
Now as to it being possible to reattach a head I think it will be possible a lot sooner than 100 years. The problem would be keeping both parts alive until reattachment was completed.
All foolishness aside though I believe there are two scientific theories that will never be falsified. They are the BBT and ToE.
They can not be falsified. They only get propped up with another theory.
God Bless,

"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 246 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:42 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 5:11 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 261 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2008 7:58 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 254 of 402 (474340)
07-07-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by subbie
07-07-2008 4:56 PM


subbie responds to John 10:10:
quote:
quote:
We finally agree that ToE is a theory, not a fact.
I've never said it was anything other than a theory. Nor has anyone else at this site.
Incorrect. I have been saying it.
Of course, I've been saying what Stephen Jay Gould has been saying:
Evolution is both a fact [I][B]AND[/i][/b] a theory. That's why it's called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon.
When we observe populations of organisms over time, they change. We call this change "evolution" because we use language and need a word to describe what it is that we see. That is the fact of evolution.
The theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution explains how those changes happens. Changes in morphology happen through mutation and selection (Darwinian), not through the passing on of adaptations (Lamarckian).

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:56 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 255 of 402 (474341)
07-07-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by subbie
07-07-2008 4:56 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
I've never said it was anything other than a theory. Nor has anyone else at this site. You might have realized that long ago if you took a moment and recalled that it's called the Theory of Evolution.
Most evolutionists these days consider it proven fact, not theory.
quote:
We will just have to disagree as to how "very valuable" it is.
Well, you could ask any scientist who works in the field of biology. Then we won't have to disagree anymore. That is unless you think that your ideas about biology are more valuable than those of scientists who work in the field.
"Very valuable scientists" who work in the field of biology deal with theories that result in proven facts, not in theories that can never be proven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 4:56 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 5:23 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 279 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 3:35 AM John 10:10 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