Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 286 of 402 (474435)
07-08-2008 1:02 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.
Actually, I doubt that ANYONE who accepts the ToE agrees with this statement in the way you meant it. I certainly don't. This is ploughed ground several times over in the Evolution/Creation debate and the fact that you would bring it up at all suggests that you need to review some high school biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:45 PM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 287 of 402 (474440)
07-08-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Rrhain
07-08-2008 3:44 AM


Re-Horses
Rrhain writes:
But, you already know of another one: The Horse fossil record is also complete and runs about 54MY. In the process, the creature grew huge in size, went through various changes to the number of ribs it had (both increasing and decreasing), changing the toes, the teeth, etc.
Well at one time there was a picture that showed horses in a gradual evolution progression.
Now after rearranging the fossils in proper order there is a lot of sudden appearances. There are fossils that were out of place in that slow gradual change.
So it seems the horse evolution is not as solid as it used to be.
But I have no doubt they will make it fit.
Check out the 2 horses in my avatar.
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 280 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 3:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 2:33 AM ICANT has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 288 of 402 (474445)
07-08-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by subbie
07-07-2008 5:23 PM


Re: A fond farewell to John
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.
Science that is valuable does prove things to a high degree of accuracy. That's what facts are. Things that can never be proven, such as the ToE, produces nothing good in the study of biology, and in fact does much harm by convincing many school children and Nobel winners that the ToE is true science, when it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by subbie, posted 07-07-2008 5:23 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2008 2:59 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 292 by mark24, posted 07-08-2008 3:07 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 289 of 402 (474448)
07-08-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Rrhain
07-07-2008 7:35 PM


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.
Let's try again. You start with things as they are. You make predictions as to how things came to be as they are. You PROVE to a high degree of accuracy your predictions were correct. At this point there is no need to fold them back into more theories, and start over again. Your predictions that are proven to a high degree of accuracy are no longer theories but are facts, even laws or absolutes, and can be relied upon by scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. to create many other things for the good of mankind.
Now do you get it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Rrhain, posted 07-07-2008 7:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2008 3:06 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 293 by rueh, posted 07-08-2008 3:12 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2008 3:13 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 295 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2008 3:17 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 317 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2008 5:38 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 336 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 2:53 AM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 290 of 402 (474449)
07-08-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:39 PM


More nonsense
Things that can never be proven, such as the ToE, produces nothing good in the study of biology, and in fact does much harm by convincing many school children and Nobel winners that the ToE is true science, when it is not.
"Things that can never be proven" include the theory of gravity, germ theory, and all other scientific theories.
Your effort to falsely separate the theory of evolution from the rest of science amounts to a falsehood, and has no reality in science.
It may be your religious belief, but then there are some 4,300 extant world religions, most with mutually inconsistent or contradictory beliefs. And they pretty much all believe they and only they are the ones with the TRVTH!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:59 PM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 291 of 402 (474450)
07-08-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:57 PM


Drums Finger Gently Om Desk
John 10:10, I asked you a question:
Dr Adequate writes:
Here's a simple yes-or-no question for you. Please answer it yes or no, rather than with windy creationist rhetoric.
Those 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists I quoted --- do they know what "true science" is?
Yes or no?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM John 10:10 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 292 of 402 (474451)
07-08-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:39 PM


Re: A fond farewell to John
John 10:10,
Science that is valuable does prove things to a high degree of accuracy. That's what facts are.
With you so far, I'd substitute "prove" with "demonstrate", or somesuch, however...
Things that can never be proven, such as the ToE, produces nothing good in the study of biology, and in fact does much harm by convincing many school children and Nobel winners that the ToE is true science, when it is not.
The ToE has been "proven" to a high degree of accuracy, which makes it a "fact" by your own standard. Molecular phylogeny mapping to morphological phylogeny, mapping said phylogenies to the stratigraphic fossil order of appearance, the fossil record, biogeography, & palaeontology off the top of my head all point to evolution. Unless you live in a world of coincidence, in which case we can dismiss every single scientific conclusion as pure luck.
The odds of getting many phylogenies even remotely similar to each other is staggering, yet it happens routinely. It has no business happening unless evolution occurred.
Put it like this, you would be happy to put medicine into your body that has far less statistical support that the ToE does. Why would you do that if evolutionary conclusions were so unreliable?
What is harmful are fuckwit creationists going around holding evolution to a different standard that they hold all other sciences to, pretending it isn't science when it meets the standards that all other science meets, & attemping to influence schoolkids with their colossal ignorance, hypocrisy & outright dishonesty. And all of this because they believe in something that is utterly & completely evidentially vacuous.
Oh, the irony!
Mark
Edited by mark24, : Spelling
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:39 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:02 PM mark24 has replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3660 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 293 of 402 (474452)
07-08-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:57 PM


quote:
You start with things as they are. You make predictions as to how things came to be as they are. You PROVE to a high degree of accuracy your predictions were correct.
You are putting the cart before the horse, again. I'll show you.
I start with the way things are. There is night and day in procession with one another.
I make predictions as how that came to be. The Sun revolves around the Earth. When the sun is overhead it is day. When the sun revolves to the other side it is night.
I prove with a high degree of accuracy that what I predicted was right. Everyone can see the Sun rise in the East travel over them than set in the West. This occurs every day so I must be right.
Now than, have I proven anything by following your model? Do my predictions correspond with my evidence? yes, so there is no need to incorpurate my theory into anyone elses and we are back to a earth cented solar system. Come on now this isn't science. This is at most a method to develop a best guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:15 PM rueh has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 402 (474453)
07-08-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:57 PM


Let's try again. You start with things as they are. You make predictions as to how things came to be as they are.
No, you make predictions about how things are.
You PROVE to a high degree of accuracy your predictions were correct.
Ah, like the theory of evolution then.
Your predictions that are proven to a high degree of accuracy are no longer theories but are facts, even laws or absolutes, and can be relied upon by scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. to create many other things for the good of mankind.
Unless what you have discovered is that Saturn has rings, in which case your discovery does no good whatsoever for mankind apart from making them better informed.
---
I believe I remember saying that one day you would make it through an entire paragraph without making a single mistake. With our patient tuition, you're getting close. Good luck.
Now do you get it?
Of course we understand what you are saying. We also understand the immense flaws in what you're saying.
This woyld be part of you being the pupil and we being the teachers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM John 10:10 has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 295 of 402 (474454)
07-08-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:57 PM


quote:
No. Let's try again. You start with things as they are. You make predictions as to how things came to be as they are. You PROVE to a high degree of accuracy your predictions were correct. At this point there is no need to fold them back into more theories, and start over again. Your predictions that are proven to a high degree of accuracy are no longer theories but are facts, even laws or absolutes, and can be relied upon by scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. to create many other things for the good of mankind.
Now do you get it?
Actually, you are the one who doesn't "get it," if "it" is understanding the meaning of scientific theories. In fact, scientific theories do not magically turn into laws or absolutes no matter how well they explain the data. So to say as you did that "we finally agree that the ToE is a theory and not a fact" shows that you do not "get it." Sorry, but that is my opinion that I suspect most here would agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:23 PM deerbreh has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 296 of 402 (474455)
07-08-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Straggler
07-07-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Observations
Can you give an 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?
Scientists who believe in their Creator do all manner of scientific research, just like scientists who do not believe in their Creator. The valuable scientists are those who prove their research endeavors to a high degree of accuracy, regardless of their Creator beliefs. Our Creator has given creative abilities to mankind. Many honor their Creator and give Him the glory for their creative abilities, while many do not.
How is this a barrier to understanding and progress?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2008 7:52 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by deerbreh, posted 07-08-2008 4:40 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 327 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:18 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 297 of 402 (474456)
07-08-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 1:24 AM


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.
According to the story, the guppies that changed somewhat were still of the guppy species, and did not mutate into some other species altogether. That may be evolution as you know it, but it does not prove the ToE in any way, shape or form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 1:24 AM Organicmachination has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by DrJones*, posted 07-08-2008 4:10 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 326 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:07 PM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 298 of 402 (474457)
07-08-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Rrhain
07-08-2008 2:35 AM


I gave you proof. Your only complaint was that a human being didn't come out at the end.
Like I said, most evolutionists believe the ToE is now fact, not theory. Just because you have warehouses full of fossils does not mean the ToE has been proven. Big difference between looking at fossils and proving they evolved from one life form to the first species, and then to millions of species.
By your reasoning, how the first plant came into being and then mutated into millions of different plants must also be known fact?
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?
We will just have to disagree on what you and others believe true science is.
You believe providing predictions of a start-to-finish evolutionary model is true science.
I believe proving the predictions of a start-to-finish evolutionary model would be true science, if they could be proven. Since those who believe in the ToE cannot get around the time factor in order to prove the ToE, then the ToE cannot be called true science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 2:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 3:45 AM John 10:10 has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 299 of 402 (474458)
07-08-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Kapyong
07-08-2008 2:36 AM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY
In short -
Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.
EVOLUTION = OPINION & THEORY
You observe by the fossil record what you think happened in the past, not the fact (proof) that it happened that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Kapyong, posted 07-08-2008 2:36 AM Kapyong has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 300 of 402 (474459)
07-08-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Rrhain
07-08-2008 2:46 AM


So you're saying the only evidence you'll accept is a videotape of every single creature that has ever lived so that you can have a grade-school version of a family tree?
I'm saying that in order for the ToE to be proven to be true, you must be able to do this.
Since you can't do this, the start-to-finish ToE predictions/theories are off limits to true scientific research.
Scientific research that is valuable is research that can be done in the time frame in which we live, and can be proven to a high degree of accuracy within the time frame in which we live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 2:46 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Blue Jay, posted 07-08-2008 5:26 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 339 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 4:07 AM John 10:10 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