Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 256 of 402 (474342)
07-07-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
07-07-2008 5:04 PM


Re: Ahead
quote:
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.
Naughty, naughty! First you said all foolishness aside, then you said something foolish. Tsk tsk tsk.
You seem to think that modifying a theory in light of newly discovered evidence is somehow "propping up" that theory. In fact, just about every theory that any scientist has ever proposed in the history of the world has been modified to some degree. It's one of the hallmarks of science, a part of that whole tentativity deal.

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 253 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 5:04 PM ICANT has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 257 of 402 (474345)
07-07-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 5:06 PM


A fond farewell to John
quote:
"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.
Well, since your learning curve seems to be a flatline, I'm about done with you.
Let me leave you with this idea. You can wallow in ignorance or you can try to learn. If you really want to learn, ask a biologist if the ToE is an important theory. You can even ask a christian biologist. There are plenty of them out there. In fact, I'd be willing to bet any amount you'd be willing to risk that the vast majority of christian biologists working in the field of biology will tell you that the ToE is invaluable to the study of biology.
I'm quite certain that that fact will not impress you in the slightest. You've made your mind up, and you're not going to let the facts get in the way.
You think the ToE hasn't been "proven." I'll set aside for the moment your complete intellectual incapacity to understand the truism that science never proves any theory. Even if it can't be "proven," it's still the single most valuable tool that any biologist has to use in the study of biology. That is a fact. If you disagree, provide evidence. As you said yourself, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Beyond that, I'm frankly weary of banging my head against the brick wall that is your head.

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 255 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 5:06 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:39 PM subbie has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 258 of 402 (474348)
07-07-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 11:49 AM


John You Have Convinced Me of Sod All
No, I'm not impervoius to error...{trails off into religious blather}
You certainly aren't, and you have confirmed it by misspelling 'impervious'.
If you are fallible, then we may assume that everybody else is fallible as well. Thus, all science must contain an element of doubt, that we call tentativity. Thus, nothing can ever be absolutely proven and your absurd "true science" model falls apart.
You wont accept this of course, you'll just post a trite response, consisting of couple of lines, repeating the same wrong-headed nonsense you have been championing throughout this thread. Let me tell you; that is not debate.
What you are doing is answering detailed posts, written by people who are (for the most part) politely trying to help you correct some of the misunderstandings you have about science in general and evolution in particular, with cursory two or three line answers that amount to nothing more than "Nuh-uh!" over and over again, studded with the occasional Bible reference. That is not debate. That is more like a Monty Python sketch, where you counter everything I say with "No it isn't."
You have proven yourself unwilling or unable of engaging in adult debate.
You have proved yourself unwilling or unable of making any attempt to learn anything or address the many mistakes in your thinking, even when many people have earnestly tried to help you, including your fellow Christians.
You have proved yourself unwilling or unable (my guess is unable) to answer my questions about your ridiculous "ERV's + Adam and Eve" theory, preferring instead to ignore them (the debate equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-I'm-not-listening).
Let's face it my friend; you are out of your depth. I suggest that you take a deep breath and go away and actually learn something about science before you attempt to debate it, because right now you are making yourself look really, really dumb.
I can only concur with Subbie;
Subbie writes:
Beyond that, I'm frankly weary of banging my head against the brick wall that is your head.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 11:49 AM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 259 of 402 (474352)
07-07-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 11:56 AM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Theories provide the means whereby things are proven, thereby becoming facts.
That's completely backwards. You start with the facts and work your way toward a theory. The theory will then make predictions by which you discover new facts, but you must then fold those facts back into the theory.
Theories are never proven because theories are based upon observations. Since it is impossible to observe everything, we can never know with certainty if our theories are correct. They might be, but we'll never know.
quote:
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.
That isn't how science works at all. Things either are a fact or they are not. Theories, on the other hand, have degrees of accuracy because they need to explain the facts.
You start with the fact and develop a theory.
That's why evolution is both a fact and a theory: You start with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then you develop the theory to explain them (they change due to mutation and selection).

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 207 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 11:56 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM Rrhain has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 260 of 402 (474353)
07-07-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by John 10:10
07-06-2008 8:45 PM


Re: Observations
OK, let's consider the fission of atoms. While investigating uranium, Fermi and his colleagues in 1934 bombarded unranium with neutrons and found interesting results that were not correctly interpreted until several years later by Frisch & Meitner in 1938. Once they discovered/proved that unranium bombarded by neutrons had been transformed into different elements, they knew the uranium atom was splitting into lighter weight elements as result of neutron bombardment.
Surely this is a fine example of a hypothesis that is tested by prediction and then verified by observation?
Exactly the sort of science missing from creationist research.
Can you givean example of creationist research that meet this pattern of investigation and which has led to new physical phenomenon being discovered?
If not, can you really defend creationist science as anything but a barrier to understanding and progress?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by John 10:10, posted 07-06-2008 8:45 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:17 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 261 of 402 (474355)
07-07-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
07-07-2008 5:04 PM


Re: Ahead
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.
We have been here before ICANT.
BBT and evolutionary theory have a host of predictions behind them.
Why should we even begin to consider any alternative theory until it can at least match the predictive and explanatory power of these aforementioned theories? (For BBT - Abbundance of light elements, CMB exact value,consistency with GR, observed red shift of distant galaxie etc. etc. etc.)
Why would we replace a theory successful in these terms, whatever other flaws you may think it has, with one that does not even meet these objective criteria?
Does creationist science offer any new answers in your view? If so how?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 5:04 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 262 of 402 (474356)
07-07-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by ICANT
07-07-2008 11:56 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
What would have to happen to the planet earth for an apple to stay in place when released at a point above the ground or to fly off into space? I have no idea.
You'd have a whole bunch of scientists doing everything they could to reproduce the effect and figure out how it was happening. Their experiments would give results that would generate new questions and the resulting theories generated would be folded into current theory.
After all, just because that apple stayed in the air doesn't change the fact that all the other ones fell. Our new theory is going to have to account for all the other observations we have made.
quote:
As I understand it if one of the astronauts working on the space station was to lose attachment to the station or shuttle they would fall away from them.
No, because they're both going at the same rate. We learned that from Galileo: With no air resistance, the acceleration due to gravity is equal on all objects. Because they are not in atmosphere (of any real significance), then they both are affected by the same acceleration. If you recall your kinematics, acceleration is not dependent upon mass.
It isn't like there is something pushing the astronaut away from the station. The reason why they are tethered together is because if the astronaut were to push away from the station, there would be very little to push back on to get back to the station. There certainly isn't any air friction to stop you and there isn't any other massive object to push against to get you back toward the station. You're tethered not because the universe is conspiring to have you drift away...you're tethered because you, personally, might push yourself away.
That's similar for things like performing mechanical repairs in space. The reason why they put the astronaut on the end of the arm is because there is not enough friction. If you're standing on the ground and are trying to turn a screw, the earth has enough mass to pull you toward it and that causes enough friction between your feet and the ground such that when you turn the screwdriver in your hand, you don't just rotate yourself.
In space, however, there isn't much mass in the station such that there isn't much gravitational pull between you and the station, though there is some. But what there is isn't enough to provide friction between you and what you're standing on to counteract the torque of you turning a screw. Thus, to get over it, they physically attach you to the object you're trying to work on so that you are working against the object, itself.
quote:
quote:
Right. And you surveyed the entire field of literature in less than an hour?
No.
Only the information pertaining to the Foraminifera.
Right. And you have the entire field of literature regarding Foraminifera on your computer and were able to search the entirety of it in less than an hour?
Hint: The problem is not that you are mentioning Foraminifera or even that you have your notes on it (we all have our notes). The problem is that you are claiming that you have made a complete study in less than an hour.
quote:
I made no claims.
Um, have you forgotten that your words are kept here? We can go back and look at what you said.
Message 143:
ICANT writes:
Rrhain there is only one complete fossil record of any length of time that I know of.
"Only one." That's what you said.
quote:
I don't remember mentioning anything other that foraminifera.
That's the point: You're saying that there is "only one." For that to be true, you would have had to have surveyed the entire field of paleobiology so that you could say that there is only one.
Yes, you also said, "that I know of," but let's not play dumb. You were saying "that I know of" as an indicative that there was only one to know of in the first place. Again, that would require you to have surveyed the entire field of literature to conclude that there weren't any others.
Behe made the same mistake: "Nobody has ever studied this," when at the time he made that statement, there were literally hundreds of papers on the very thing he claimed nobody had ever looked at.
quote:
At no point during that unbroken history of 66 million years did the foraminifera transmute into something other than foraminifera.
Why would it? Foraminifera is an entire phylum. Were you expecting a new kingdom to arise? Do you seriously not understand claddistics and taxonomy?

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 208 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 11:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2008 9:32 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:00 PM Rrhain has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 402 (474357)
07-07-2008 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rrhain
07-07-2008 8:11 PM


Just a note
quote:
At no point during that unbroken history of 66 million years did the foraminifera transmute into something other than foraminifera.
Why would it? Foraminifera is an entire phylum. Were you expecting a new kingdom to arise? Do you seriously not understand claddistics and taxonomy?
They were also only looking for foraminifera fossils, and not classifying any other fossils in the sediments, which means that the only fossils reported in their study will of necessity only be foraminifera. Do you look for announcements of new births in the pages on deaths?
This, too, has been explained to ICANT, but he has chosen to ignore\forget this detail.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 8:11 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:17 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 264 of 402 (474358)
07-07-2008 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rrhain
07-07-2008 8:11 PM


Re-
Rrhain writes:
Um, have you forgotten that your words are kept here? We can go back and look at what you said.
Message 143:
ICANT writes:
Rrhain there is only one complete fossil record of any length of time that I know of.
"Only one." That's what you said.
quote:
I don't remember mentioning anything other that foraminifera.
That's the point: You're saying that there is "only one." For that to be true, you would have had to have surveyed the entire field of paleobiology so that you could say that there is only one.
Yes, you also said, "that I know of," but let's not play dumb. You were saying "that I know of" as an indicative that there was only one to know of in the first place. Again, that would require you to have surveyed the entire field of literature to conclude that there weren't any others.
I brought all this over so I am not accused of cherry picking, or quote mining.
I want to address this part:
complete fossil record of any length of time
I was talking about a complete fossil record of 66 million years with no missing gaps.
Now if you know of some others out there I would love to read about them.
BTW thanks for the space info.
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 262 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 8:11 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 3:44 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 265 of 402 (474359)
07-07-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by RAZD
07-07-2008 9:32 PM


Re: Just a note
Hi Stranger long time no argue,
RAZD writes:
They were also only looking for foraminifera fossils, and not classifying any other fossils in the sediments, which means that the only fossils reported in their study will of necessity only be foraminifera. Do you look for announcements of new births in the pages on deaths?
This, too, has been explained to ICANT, but he has chosen to ignore\forget this detail.
I didn't like the explanation then and I still am not fond of it.
But basically my point is there are foraminifera fossils that are 500 million years old. We have a 66 million year unbroken record of foraminifera fossils.
My question is if they started out 500 million years ago as foraminifera and they are still foraminifera, Why could not everything else have started at a point in the past and continued until today?
The foraminifera did.
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 263 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2008 9:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2008 10:45 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 267 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2008 10:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 281 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 4:13 AM ICANT has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 402 (474362)
07-07-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
07-07-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Just a note
I didn't like the explanation then and I still am not fond of it.
Curiously reality is completely unaffected by your opinion. Rather than just saying you don't like it, why don't you explore how it could be wrong. Can you tell me how a study done to classify foraminifera shells (tests) would find a species that had evolved to have no shell?
My question is if they started out 500 million years ago as foraminifera and they are still foraminifera,...
PRATT CC150
Why could not everything else have started at a point in the past and continued until today?
We\They did. According to the evidence, we all started with blue-green algae 3.5 billion years ago and we have continued until today.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:17 PM ICANT has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 267 of 402 (474363)
07-07-2008 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
07-07-2008 10:17 PM


Re: Just a note
My question is if they started out 500 million years ago as foraminifera and they are still foraminifera, Why could not everything else have started at a point in the past and continued until today?
Because the evidence shows that some critters changed a great deal while others changed less.
Hominids changed very quickly in relation to, say, sharks. We went from chimp- or ape-like in about six million years, while shark evolved much more slowly.
Sorry, the religious belief in "created kinds" is not supported by the evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:17 PM ICANT has not replied

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 268 of 402 (474368)
07-08-2008 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 10:31 AM


Re: Johnboy the Ape
This video is premised on a random chemical process. Which, of course is a false premise. Did you not learn at school that the concept of randomness exists only in the human mind, not in nature. If this is the strongest case for evolution, then the theory really is on shaky grounds.
Yes, you are right. retroviruses are essentially random in action. But, probability is a mathematical tool, as real as a wrench or a table. You can't escape probability. Have you ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers?
The LLN states that after a sufficient number of sampling events, the probabilities of a certain event occurring as calculated using number theory turn out to be almost exact. If you flip a dice 2 times, you might not get one head and one tails, even though the probability of each happening is 1/2. But if you flip a dice 1000000 times, you will get approximately 500000 heads and 500000 tails. The error margin will become insignificant, as defined in statistical terms. The probability, as calculated by mathematics, turns out to be almost exactly matched by real world observations.
Now, the behavior of ERVs predicts that the probability of all 16 retroviral events having exact homologies in chimps is extremely, extremely low; it is low enough to be essentially 0 in physical terms. Even with all the life forms in the universe, and the entire age of the universe, mathematically, even the law of large numbers would not predict there having to be that 1 case where all 16 incidents happened to be exactly matched in both humans and chimps by chance , and that chimps and humans are not related after all.
This proves that the situation we see today, genomically, could not have occurred by chance, and that it must have occurred by some natural process. Again, God could not have just put it there to fool us because he cannot lie, as stated in the Bible itself (I don't know the exact quote, it's on this thread somewhere). This is why ERV behavior in chimps and humans is one of the strongest cases for evolution we can directly observe.
Randomness does not only exist in the human mind. Unless the provisions of the law of large numbers is met, or not met, in the case of extremely small probabilities as opposed to extremely favorable ones, then the mathematics will predict almost exactly what we see in the real world.

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

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 5709 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 269 of 402 (474369)
07-08-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 12:37 PM


I believe created creatures can and do adapt to their environment over time, but they still remain relatively unchanged within their own species, and do not mutate or evolve into different species. The evolutionary model has never proven this, nor ever will.
Have you heard of the famous guppy incidence? It's given in almost every college level textbook known to man. This is what happened. There was a small lake in a part of Trinidad which contained a population of guppies, all of the same species. One year, there was a massive drought, and the pool was seperated into 2 seperate bodies of water, geographically separated from each other. Over the course of many years, scientists sampling guppies from each of the pools found that the guppies from one pond were considerably smaller and not able to mate or produce viable offspring with those from another pond, due to differences in predation in each of the pond. In an 11 year experiment run at the University of California, Santa Barbara, scientists proved that the guppies had changed morphology and mating behavior as a result of natural selection in the separate pools due to different predators in each pool.
The fact that the two populations were not able to mate indicates that speciation had occurred. There you go, evolution as we all know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 12:37 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:27 PM Organicmachination has replied

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


Message 270 of 402 (474373)
07-08-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 12:05 PM


John 10:10 responds to bluejay:
quote:
quote:
What is the start-to-finish evolutionary model?
It's simply being able to "prove" to a high degree of accuracy that life can evolve over billions of years from the spark that supposedly started the life process to millions of different fully developed life creatures.
And wh do you think this hasn't been accomplished? What is it about the fossil record that you claim is insufficient? What is it about the molecular phylogenetic tree that you claim is insufficient? What is it about our direct observation of evolutionary events such as speciation right in front of our eyes that you claim is insufficient?
Be specific.
quote:
Saying that the start-to-finish evolutionary model has been proven is easy.
Incorrect. It's extremely difficult. That's why we have literally warehouses full of fossils to show us. That's why people spend their lives studying the genetics of organisms in order to determine their relationship with each other...and then compare them to the fossil phylogenetic tree and finding that they match up pretty much exactly, showing that there is an independent check.
quote:
Proving it has not nor ever will be done.
I gave you proof. Your only complaint was that a human being didn't come out at the end.
But since evolution doesn't say that a human being would come out at the end, I'm a bit confused as to why you are finding that to be a problem. You seem to think that evolution says you can convert a bacterium into a human in a week.
Part of the problem is that you haven't established your terms. It would help if you would be specific:
What do you need to see?
quote:
This is why the start-to-finish evolutionary model is not true science.
But you were given start-to-finish evolution. Are you saying it wasn't science? Why not?
Be specific.

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 209 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 12:05 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:48 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024