Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

That's what this whole debate argument is all about. You feel the ToE model from start-to-finish has been proven to a high degree of accuracy, thereby making it fact, not theory, and I certainly do not!You offer the fossil record, and bits and pieces of life processes that can be currently observed as your proof. This is certainly not the way most other scientific principles are validated.Since we are over the 300 message mark, I think the moderators of this forum will put a caboose shortly on this topic.It's been great chatting with you until they close the topic.Blessings

You've got it completely turned around.Facts are the observations of phenomena in the physical universe, raw data. Theories are the conceptual models used to explain those facts and to predict where and how to look for new facts (this being one way of testing a theory).Theories never become facts, but rather theories explain facts. Your delusion that theories somehow get promoted to the rank of Fact is a blazingly clear indication that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Learn! I've already suggested that reading up on the philosophy of science might be a good place to start.Yet again, I'll cast more pearls before swine. Here's how the scientific methods, very basically:
You observe something happening, a phenomenon.
You try to use current theories to explain it. If the current theories don't explain it or offer a very poor explanation, you investigate further. BTW, please note that even poor theories serve a useful purpose of providing a starting point in your investigation; eg, the caloric theory of heat.
You form hypotheses about the phenomenon, then you test those hypotheses.
Most of those hypotheses will fail -- actually, we should expect that none of them would succeed completely, but some of them should hopefully show some promise. You take those hypotheses that showed promise and you try to correct them, to refine them, and then you test them again.
Part of this iterative process includes coming up with new tests, with new things to look for. All of this builds a collection of evidence.As an engineer, you should have employed this procedure quite often as you would troubleshoot a problem or an odd observation.Out of the process of building and correcting and refining these hypothese, you form an explanation of the phenomenon, a conceptual model of the phenomenon, a theory -- in effect, hypotheses form a theory. It's not usually the case that a single hypothesis gets promoted to the rank of Theory, but rather that multiple bundles of hypotheses form the fabric of a theory, analogous to the threads the form a tapestry.
At first, the theory is still rough, so it undergoes an iterative process of testing, correcting, and refinement. Hypotheses get retested and corrected or replaced by new hypotheses. More scientists get involved in the process, each probing and testing the theory for its weak points, trying to break it, so that those weaknesses can be corrected and the theory improved. If far too many unfixable flaws remain and there's a competing theory that works better, then the theory is rejected in favor the that other better theory (doesn't always happen quite like that, as evidenced by the acceptance of the Copernican theory over the Ptolemic system even though the Copernican model was much less accurate, until Kepler discovered that planetary orbits are elliptical, not circular).
If the fledgling theory survives all that, then the result is an explanation of the phenomenon that has been well-tested and has a sizable body of evidence supporting it (remember that the next time you parrot "it's only a theory!").
Even if the theory still has a lot of weaknesses, if there's no theory that's any better, then it's the best that we have to explain the phenomenon. It will still give us something to work with and provide a starting-point for further research -- note that ID's "goddidit" "explanations" both explain nothing and deprive us of the ability to conduct further research. Its weaknesses will be well-known among scientists and will themselves spur other scientists on to further research trying to resolve those weaknesses or to construct their own theories.There it is in a nutshell. Now you should know better. So now go and learn it.

You must not know that the scientists proved that the fragments resulting from the bombardment of uranium by neutrons were different elements by chemical analysis.Nice try, but no cigar!

Until they do perhaps you could document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."

You are arguing semantics at this point, no matter how you want to twist around what I've said and mean.Theories that are really correct in explaining things as they are result in facts as we can know them within the time frame in which we live.If you can't take a theory such as the ToE and fully prove it because of the time factor, then the ToE can never be used to truly explain life as we know it. All you are left with are speculations.Edited by John 10:10, : added "we"

You seem to want scientific documentation for "kinds" created by our Creator that you are unable to scientifically prove by your ToE.I'm willing to let both stand side by side and let the hearer choose which one they want to believe, but the folk who now rule in our school systems are unwilling to let this happen.Thankfully, our Declaration of Independence started the choice process correctly, and up until about 1900 the New England Reader was the primary textbook in our schools for teaching school children how to read. Try reading it for yourself sometime and see what's there.Blessings

Three paragraphs without answering the question, well done!

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You claimed "kinds" were all there is, so lets see some scientific documentation.So far you have ducked this challenge twice. I think you have no scientific basis for "kinds" and that it is purely a religious term but you are unwilling to admit it.It is like most of what you have posted on this thread; belief without substance, claims without evidence, and nonsense compounded upon nonsense.

---

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

Oh john you missed the point again. The fact that you do not start with your own preconceived notion. You start with the facts and then develop the model which explains the facts as best as possible, test it against what evidence you have and have others look at the same evidence. But that is what everyone in this thread has been saying to you over and over. Meanwhile the replies to which have been nothing but "nuh uh, nuh uh". Between ignorance and discovery it is pretty clear that ignorance is the easier trodden path.

Viral DNA inserts itself into the genome by cleaving the DNA at whichever site it wants with restriction enzymes and then attaching itself in the middle using ligases. The viral DNA could attach itself anywhere. It is truly random. There are no predispositions, even chemically, that the DNA has when attaching to the host genome.So, no, it is absolutely a surprise, and the only good explanation is that chimps and humans have a common ancestor infected by this retrovirus.

I didn't make myself clear. The guppies actually speciated into two new species. They underwent reproductive isolation and, after a number of generations, were not able to breed. This defines speciation, because now, genetic information cannot be shared between the two populations, and evolution can only occur on the population level.Suppose that instead of becoming smaller and changing mating habits, which are not small changes at all, one population was selected for larger fins, so they could swim faster to escape predators. Then suppose one population was selected for a longer jaw, to grab more food. After a number of these selection events, the two species would not look anything like each other, as different as tuna and swordfish. This would be evolution, and as always, people like you would contend that the two species never had a common ancestor.

You completely misunderstood the question. Straggler asked whether specifically creationist science, not science done by christians, has benefited the human race in any way. Has any science, based fundamentally from the view that God created the Earth, ever done anything for humankind? Has any such science ever been done period?

Or chain-species, the special case of which are ring-species (Ring species - Wikipedia). Anywhere on the chain, neighbors are able to interbreed with each other, but the ones on either end of the chain are two different species.Same with two species of gull found in one place on the Arctic Circle. Start going around the region and it's one species of bird, but by the time you return to where you had started, that one species had turned into the other one. That Wikipedia article discusses this classic case.

Sure sure, they were different elements. But does every element fission like this? No? Then by your own logic, you're claim is fishy. What if chemical analysis is Satan's tool to fool scientists? Unless you can make a movie of the atom splitting into two separate atoms, emitting a ton of energy and a few more neutrons, then their claim is not true science, by your argument.

Huh. I hadn't heard of ring species before. I'll have to look into that.But, I still assume that you agree with me that speciation did, in fact, occur.