Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The same way man creates and engineers anything man does.
Humans use evolution. The Boeing 777, for example, wasn't designed. It was literally evolved.

---

​

I won't even try to respond to such wisdom as this!

---

Ah, then you agree that your claim was disingenuous, that evolution does actually work, and that humans use evolutionary methods to create things.Are you saying the Boeing 777 didn't use evolutionary techniques to come up with its design?

---

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.

John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork.
Indeed it does. It is by studying the world we live in that we have come to the conclusion that the diversity of life we see on this planet is the result of evolution, not "intelligent design."

---

​

If you really believed this, you would also believe that He intelligently designed this universe and all life therein.

---

Huh? What part of "not 'intelligent design'" means "yes, 'intelligent design'"?If creation tells us how god did it, then if creation says that it happened through evolutionary processes (regarding the diversification of life), then it wasn't "intelligent design."Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? Why are you so insistent on telling god what he can and cannot do?

---

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.

John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with? What part of the molecular phylogenetic tree are you having trouble with?

---

​

The part that actually proves over billions of years that the start-to-finish ToE model works, and did not come about by our Creator creating each species after their own kind.

---

But the fossil record, the molecular phylogenetic tree, the stratigraphy, etc., they all show the start-to-finish of evolution and show that spontaneous generation "after their own kind" is false.The E. coli experiment shows it right in front of your eyes. You started with one "kind" of bacterium and you finished with a new "kind." Start-to-finish, on demand.So we're back to my question since you didn't answer it: Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with? What part of the molecular phylogenetic tree are you having trouble with?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.

John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Oh, by the way: We can even create what you demand from scratch: Self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.

---

​

Maybe you would also like to try creating your own material to do your research with, instead of starting with material that was created by our Creator.

---

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? When you put the quarter in the vending machine, are you saying the vending machine cares if it was made at the Denver mint compared to the Philadelphia mint?You seem to be complaining that biology doesn't answer a question of physics. Biology doesn't tell you where atoms come from. It doesn't even try. Biology doesn't care where the atoms come from. It assumes the existence of atoms because it doesn't matter where they came from. Biology is consistent with every method of genesis you care to name.Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?We're back to the question that never gets answered. It'd be lovely if you would be the first. I've been asking it for well over a decade and have yet to have anybody respond:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

What arrogance!

---

What ignorance! Who are you to tell god what can and cannot be done?

John 10:10 writes:

quote:

---

The Creator we creationists know created every creature after their own kind

---

But the E. coli experiment shows that not to be true. You started with one kind of bacterium and finished with a different kind. Your claim is that you cannot create a new kind and yet the E. coli experiment creates a new kind right in front of your eyes.Have you considered the possibility the problem is not god but rather you? That god does exist but not in the way you think? That you are in no position to tell god what can and cannot be done?

---

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.

John 10:10 writes:

quote:

---

Most scientists who work in valuable scientific research are able to:
(1) prove how gravity works and thereby engineer the force of gravity into other useful results,

---

But we don't know how gravity works. Not really. Oh, we've got the gross effect of gravity, yes, but we have no idea what it is, how it works, or why it even exists. That's why physicists are doing everything they can to come up with a theory of quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics seems to be accurate and relativity seems to be accurate, but they don't play well together because we don't understand how gravity works.This is in contrast to evolution. We know how it works. We have a mechanism. We can manipulate it directly to come up with those "useful results" you seem to have a jones for.So since evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity, why are you picking on evolution? Are you saying you're willing to jump off the Empire State Building since we don't know how gravity works?

quote:

---

determine how germs attack the human body and how to prevent them doing their evil work, and

---

But we don't really know. Not really. It's why we haven't been able to figure out how to cure any virus.Not one.Even our method of curing bacterial infections is only half-assed. The antibiotics you take only inhibit their reproduction enough so that your own immune system can clear the infection.This is in contrast to evolution. We know how it works. We have a mechanism. We can manipulate it directly to come up with those "useful results" you seem to have a jones for.So since evolution is more solidly grounded than the germ theory of disease, why are you picking on evolution? Are you saying you're willing to go without antibiotics since we don't really know how germs infect cells?

quote:

---

take scientific theories that are true and prove them to be ture to a high degree of accuracy, and how to take these proven facts and make them useful.

---

Huh? Theories aren't facts. Theories don't become facts. Theories are never proven. The best we can claim about a theory is that is consistent with all observations made so far.

---

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.

John 10:10 writes:

quote:

---

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!

---

But you have been given the very thing you claim does not exist: A direct example of the evolutionary model from start to finish.So what's the problem? Be specific.

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. It's exactly how other scientific principles are validated.The entire field of astronomy is done off of fossils. When you look up in the sky and view stars, you don't see them as they are. You see them as they were in the past. The light we get from the sun is eight minutes old. The light we get from the nearest star other than the sun is over four years old. The cosmic background radiation is over 13 billion years old.So if astronomy can work as a science despite looking at fossils, why are you picking on evolution?

---

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.

John 10:10 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh? Clearly we see that we had uranium and we wound up with lead, but how on earth do we know what it was the uranium atom splitting apart? We didn't actually see it. How do we know it isn't the devil taking away the uranium and replacing it with lead and a whole bunch of energy? How on earth do we know it's neutrons when we've never seen a neutron?And of course, up until we developed the scanning-tunneling microscope, we had never even seen an atom, so where did we get off saying that they existed? And yet somehow, we managed to come up with an entire morphology of the atom from the nucleus to the electron orbitals.Do you know what a "cloud chamber" is? It's used in particle physics to detect particles. You don't actually see the particles. Instead, you see what are essentially condensation trails as the particles pass through the mist.So if you accept that physics can find out things about the world without direct observation, why are you picking on evolution?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

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.

John 10:10 writes:

quote:

---

Theories that are really correct in explaining things as they are result in facts

---

Incorrect. Theories are not facts. Theories never become facts. Instead, theories are based upon facts. That's why evolution is both a fact and a theory. You start with the fact of evolution and then develop a theory to explain how evolution happens.Theories can change. Facts never can.

---

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.