Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:37 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, kjsimons, RAZD, Theodoric (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,199 Year: 15,235/19,786 Month: 1,958/3,058 Week: 332/404 Day: 50/96 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
27Next
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 316 of 402 (474476)
07-08-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Coyote
07-08-2008 4:49 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
Yes, it does rule out evolution as you have defined evolution. The Creator we creationists know created every creature after their own kind, and did not step back and seemingly let this process happen by randomness.

This thread is in the Science Forums section.

Document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."

Not creation "science," but real science please. And don't bother quoting scripture or revelation, as that is not science (quite the opposite, in fact).

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2008 4:49 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2008 5:47 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 346 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 4:48 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 317 of 402 (474477)
07-08-2008 5:38 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. 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?

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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:55 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 318 of 402 (474479)
07-08-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Blue Jay
07-08-2008 5:26 PM


I'm saying that, in order for your theory of nuclear fission to be proven true, you must be able to see an atomic nucleus fragment into two pieces.

Since you have never seen an actual nucleus, your theory of atomic fission is off-limits to true scientific research.

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Blue Jay, posted 07-08-2008 5:26 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:23 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 347 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 5:08 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 319 of 402 (474480)
07-08-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:36 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
Yes, it does rule out evolution as you have defined evolution. The Creator we creationists know created every creature after their own kind, and did not step back and seemingly let this process happen by randomness.
This thread is in the Science Forums section.

Document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."

Not creation "science," but real science please. And don't bother quoting scripture or revelation, as that is not science (quite the opposite, in fact).

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:36 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 6:06 PM Coyote has responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 320 of 402 (474481)
07-08-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by dwise1
07-08-2008 5:38 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. 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?

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.

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"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2008 5:38 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2008 11:41 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 348 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 5:10 AM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 321 of 402 (474482)
07-08-2008 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Coyote
07-08-2008 5:47 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
Until they do perhaps you could document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2008 5:47 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by mark24, posted 07-08-2008 6:09 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded
 Message 323 by Coyote, posted 07-08-2008 6:13 PM John 10:10 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3424 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 322 of 402 (474483)
07-08-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 6:06 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 6:06 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 323 of 402 (474484)
07-08-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 6:06 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum; do science
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.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 6:06 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:37 AM Coyote has responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1890 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 324 of 402 (474485)
07-08-2008 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:15 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:15 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 325 of 402 (474492)
07-08-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 1:47 PM


Re: Observations
The video makes the claim that the viral DNA can attach itself "randomly" anywhere on the host DNA. And then perpetuates this throughout. Surely the DNA can only attach where the chemistry is right for it to do so. Given that the chimps DNA is identical to humans at the specified positions, it's no surprise that the bonds appear at the same spot on the DNA.

Therefore it doesn't mean that humans and chimps have the same ancestor at all, it means that humans and chimps were around at the same time this strain of virus was.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 1:47 PM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 326 of 402 (474494)
07-08-2008 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 3:27 PM


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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:27 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2008 9:20 PM Organicmachination has responded
 Message 352 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:45 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 327 of 402 (474497)
07-08-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 3:17 PM


Re: Observations
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?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:17 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:55 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 328 of 402 (474498)
07-08-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 9:07 PM


Or chain-species, the special case of which are ring-species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species). 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:07 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:25 PM dwise1 has responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 329 of 402 (474499)
07-08-2008 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:42 PM


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!

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:42 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 9:59 AM Organicmachination has responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 330 of 402 (474500)
07-08-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by dwise1
07-08-2008 9:20 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2008 9:20 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 07-08-2008 10:19 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded
 Message 334 by dwise1, posted 07-09-2008 2:14 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019