Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
37 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,364 Year: 22,400/19,786 Month: 963/1,834 Week: 33/430 Day: 33/63 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 331 of 402 (474502)
07-08-2008 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 9:25 PM


asian green warblers
here's one I like:

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/GreenishWarblers.html

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 330 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:25 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 332 of 402 (474504)
07-08-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:34 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
John 10:10 writes:

Answered in message 300.

No, it isn't.

So let me ask you again:

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, John 10:10? Yes or no?

It's a very simple question, and yet I knew you were going to try to evade it.

Yes or no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:34 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 333 of 402 (474506)
07-08-2008 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:55 PM


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.

You're getting closer and closer. If you'd written "predictions" instead of "facts", that sentence would have been completely true.

And, of course, it would describe the theory of evolution perfectly. How else do scientists know that it's true, except that it predicts the facts of nature apparent to us now?

Once more, I would urge you to learn something about the subjects that you wish to discuss.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:55 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 334 of 402 (474510)
07-09-2008 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Organicmachination
07-08-2008 9:25 PM


Oh yes, speciation clearly does occur.

And as I recall, Darwin's observation of several chain species down the coast of South America helped lead him to arrive at evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Organicmachination, posted 07-08-2008 9:25 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 335 of 402 (474512)
07-09-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by ICANT
07-08-2008 2:01 PM


ICANT responds to me:

quote:
Now after rearranging the fossils in proper order there is a lot of sudden appearances.

Why is this a problem? You're not about to say that the only way you can possibly accept the fossil record is to find every single individual from Hyracotherium to Equus, are you?

Do you not understand what a transitional fossil record is? You seem to be about ready to fall for the typical creationist lunacy of insisting that the record is "incomplete" because of a certain "gap" between two transitions...and then when we find a fossil that fits in that "gap," you will then crow that there are now two more "gaps" on either side. That isn't the way it works.

quote:
So it seems the horse evolution is not as solid as it used to be.

Indeed. It's more solid now than it ever was before.

And you can add Whales to that, too. We keep finding new fossils.

quote:
Check out the 2 horses in my avatar.

What about it? Surely you aren't about to say that a species cannot have variations, are you? Now, I would certainly agree that were it not for human breeding programs that keep the gene flow going between the two breeds, the Clydesdale and the Shetland would achieve reproductive isolation and thus experience a speciation event quite rapidly. Similarly in dogs: Chihuahuas and Great Danes aren't going to be members of the same gene pool for long if left to their own devices.

But so what? Your picture is actually a perfect example of evolution in action: Artificial selection is just as much a selection pressure as natural selection. And then there's sexual selection on top of that. As is common among creationists: Selection is always forgotten as the driver of evolution.

It is not random.


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 287 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2008 2:01 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by ICANT, posted 07-09-2008 7:40 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 336 of 402 (474513)
07-09-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 2:57 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:
quote:
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.


Indeed. "Things as they are" are facts, not theories. Facts are observations that we have made such as "When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground" and "When populations of organisms are observed over time, they change."

Because we use lanaguage to describe things, we call the first thing "gravity" and the second thing "evolution."

Those are facts. Those are the way things are.

quote:
You make predictions as to how things came to be as they are.

Those are theories. And notice what you did: You started with the fact and then developed the theory. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. Theories are not facts. Theories do not become facts. Theories change as new facts arise. Facts never change.

Even if today we were to observe the ball not falling from my hand when I dropped it, that would not change any of the other times that it did.

quote:
You PROVE to a high degree of accuracy your predictions were correct.

Not quite. It isn't proof, it's finding consistency. There's a difference. "Proof" implies that there is no other option but that isn't how science works. New theories need to account for all previously made observations, even those observations that were predicted by the previous theory.

Again, take the transition of kinematics. Aristotelian theory predicts that objects in motion come to rest. If I push a book along a table, Aristotelian kinematics predicts that it will come to rest. It makes this prediction because it claims that the "natural state" of all objects is to be at rest.

Newtonian kinematics, on the other hand, directly contradicts that claim. Objects in motion remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. The reason why the book comes to rest isn't because it is the "natural state" of the book to be at rest but rather because the friction between the book and the table bleeds off the kinetic energy until there is none left.

Thus, the new theory needs to account for the predictions of the old.

quote:
At this point there is no need to fold them back into more theories, and start over again.

Incorrect. You always fold them back into the theory and start over again. It's the only way to ensure that what you predicted and what you observed are in agreement. It's a feedback loop that never ends.

quote:
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.

Incorrect. Theories never become facts. They cannot be. Theories are explanations of facts. You start with a fact and develop a theory. Your theory will predict a certain outcome of an experiment, but it does not force the experiment to have a certain outcome. Instead, reality does that all on its own. The result of the experiment is a fact. You must then fold that new fact back into the theory so that it gets more and more refined.

Now, it may be that your theory is perfect. In folding your new observation back into the theory, you may find that nothing needs to be changed. But you never know until you actually fold it back in. There is always the possibility that your new observation will contradict what the theory predicted. Since it is impossible to observe every possible experiment, we can never know for sure if our theory is complete.

It may very well be, but we cannot know it for certain.

That's because theories are not facts. Theories explain facts. Theories change. Facts never change.

quote:
Now do you get it?

Indeed. I get that you have a truly bizarre idea of how science works that is completely backwards from how it actually is carried out.


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 289 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 2:57 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 337 of 402 (474516)
07-09-2008 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 3:48 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:
quote:
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.


Non sequitur. Please try again. What does your misstatement of what evolution is have to do with the experiment that you were shown?

At any rate, you are incorrect: Most of those who work in evolutionary biology consider the theory of evolution to be a theory. It explains the fact of evolution.

You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That's why it is called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. We established the fact of evolution first. Then we developed the theory to explain the fact of evolution.

That's why there were multiple theories for a while, the most classic examples being Lamarckian and Darwinian. We already knew that organisms evolved. The question was finding out how they evolved. Lamarckian evolution claims that traits that are acquired by an organism during its lifetime are passed on to the next generation. The classic example of this is in regard to the giraffe's long neck. As we look at the giraffe fossils, we see that their necks started short and grew longer over time. How did this happen? Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution are two theories to explain this fact:

Lamarckian evolution claims that if a giraffe spends its life actively reaching up into trees for foliage, it's neck will get longer (and such a thing is true...if you actively work a bone during its growth phase, it will be bigger than if it was left alone.) This longer neck of the parent is then passed down to the offspring who repeats the process, generating an even longer neck, and eventually you find giraffes as we currently see them.

Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, says that no, adaptations acquired during the life of an individual organism are not passed on. By this logic, if my hand were to be cut off, then my children would be more likely to be born without a hand than if I had managed to keep it. This clearly isn't true, so something else is going on.

Instead, there is a variation of lengths of a giraffe's neck. The current generation gives rise to the next one and the lengths of neck are not uniform across all individuals within the new generation. No matter how much you work it, it will only grow so long and no more. There is an internal blueprint of morphology for an organism. This blueprint varies from individual to individual. Those blueprints that are more well-adapted to the environment in which they find themselves will be better able to survive to reproduce the next generation. If the better leaves are higher up in the trees, then a giraffe with a longer neck will have an easier time getting at them, which will lead to a healthier giraffe compared to the shorter-necked individuals and thus, the longer-necked giraffes will be more likely to reproduce.

But this is iterative: The longer-necked giraffes produce variations in neck length, some even longer than before. So long as the selective pressure is for longer necks, they'll keep getting longer.

So how do we choose between them? Well, I pretty much gave the answer away: Me losing my hand doesn't make my children more likely to be born without a hand. Since this observation goes against the heart of the explanation that is Lamarckian evolution, it is discarded as inaccurate.

See what happened? We start with a fact (giraffe necks get longer over time), developed theories to explain those facts, performed an experiment that tested a prediction of those theories (Lamarckian and Darwinian), found a new fact (children of parents with severed hands are not more likely to be hand-less), and then folded that new fact back into the theory (Lamarckian evolution is discarded while Darwinian evolution is consistent).

That's how science works.

quote:
Just because you have warehouses full of fossils does not mean the ToE has been proven.

Of course not. Theories are never proven.

Instead, because we have warehouses full of fossils, that necessarily means that the theory of evolution is the most accurate description we have for why those fossils are the way they are. The theory of evolution makes predictions that we can test that are then verified as being consistent with the theory.

That's how science works.

quote:
Big difference between looking at fossils and proving they evolved from one life form to the first species, and then to millions of species.

Incorrect. That's exactly what it does. It is because of the fossils that we conclude evolution. It's the only explanation that makes sense. That explanation predicts what new kinds of fossils we will find...and then we actually do find them as predicted.

This doesn't "prove" the theory of evolution, but it does make it the most accurate theory we have.

Remember: Theories are not facts. Theories never become facts. Instead, theories are based upon facts.

We started with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then developed a theory to explain it (the change is driven by mutation and selection.)

quote:
By your reasoning, how the first plant came into being and then mutated into millions of different plants must also be known fact?

Incorrect. The known fact is that the first plant did, indeed, mutate into millions of different plants. The fossil record shows that the plants evolved, no ifs, ands, or buts. That's the fact of evolution.

The theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution, however, is what explains how. That's what theories do: They explain facts. We know that evolution happened. We've seen it happen right before our eyes and the fossil record clearly shows it. That's the fact.

But how did that fact happen? Did the organisms modify their own individual morphology and then pass that trait on to their offspring (Lamarckian evolution)? No, as we've seen, Lamarckain evolution doesn't work. Some other method of evolution must be taking place.

Darwinian (or, more accurately, the modern synthesis) is the more accurate description of what happens. But, we cannot say that it has been "proven" since, like Lamarckian evolution, we might come across an observation that is inconsistent with it. We won't know until we actually make that observation, so we never say that it has been "proven."

Instead, all we can say is that it has yet to be shown inconsistent. That might be because it is absolutely true, but it may be because we haven't figured out the right experiment to test it.

That's how Newtonian mechanics fell to Einsteinian. For all of the 18th and 19th centuries, all observations of kinematics were consistent with Newtonian physics which described a linear world. It was only with the advent of modern technology that our instruments finally became sensitive enough to be able to detect the discrepancy between what a linear model predicts and what we actually see.

F'rinstance, if I'm standing on a train which is moving at 100 mph and throw a fastball off the front end that were I standing on the ground would be at 100 mph, then most every observation made of the speed of the ball with respect to the ground would be 200 mph.

That's a linear universe.

But it isn't that way. There's a transformation that must be made. Because I am moving with respect to the ground when I throw the ball, it isn't a simple 100 + 100 = 200 result. The Lorentz transformations take place (if u is the speed of the train and v is the speed of the ball with respect to the train):

u = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c2)

So if u is 100 and v is 100, we have a ball moving with respect to the ground not at 200 mph but rather at 199.999999999996 mph. Notice that the difference between the linear answer and the relativistic answer differ only in one part in less than one-hundred-millionth. You'd never notice such a discrepancy under any normal circumstance.

But change the circumstances such that you're dealing with, say, a GPS satellite. Suddenly we've got huge distance and actual light waves and that discrepancy starts becoming quite noticeable. The only way to get it to work right is to apply a relativistic kinematics.

But notice what had to be done: The age of space travel had to come upon us in order for us to be able to see it. Newtonian physics was accurate. In fact, for everyday purposes it is so accurate that we still teach it in physics classes because it is much simpler to calculate and the error term is so tiny that you can't detect it.

But Einsteinian kinematics is more accurate and that's what is considered the actual theory of motion in physics.

quote:
We will just have to disagree on what you and others believe true science is.

Well, in the sense that I certainly cannot make you give specifics, that's true. But if we are going to be intellectually honest and have integrity, that isn't good enough. Bald assertion that you haven't been shown "start-to-finish evolution" doesn't cut it. You have to explain why.

That means you need to provide details. It is time for you to get specific. The E. coli experiment is the theory of evolution from start to finish: A population of organisms descended from an ancestor and resulted in a morphology that was different from what came before. If there were no evolution, then the lawn would behave as a single unit: They all die or they all live.

Instead, the lawn does not behave as a single unit. Some bacteria in the lawn die while others live.

Mutation. Selection. Right in front of your eyes.

Why is that insufficient? What more do you need?

quote:
I believe proving the predictions of a start-to-finish evolutionary model would be true science, if they could be proven.

Nothing in science is ever proven.

Are you going to jump off the Empire State Building because gravitation theory hasn't been proven? Of course not. While the theory of gravitation may not be proven, gravity itself has. That's why we have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] gravitation. We start with the fact of gravity (when I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground) and then develop a theory to explain it (F = Gm1m2/r2.)

And similarly with biology: We start with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then develop a theory to explain (they change due to mutation and selection.)

quote:
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.

Huh? The "time factor" is part and parcel of evolution. It's why at the end of the E. coli experiment you don't get a human being. Evolution doesn't happen that fast. If you were to get a human being at the end of the E. coli experiment, then pretty much everything that we think we know about how evolution works is going to have to be thrown out the window.

The fossil record is the very "time factor" you claim doesn't exist. We don't need to have been alive 4 billion years ago. The organisms that left the fossils were alive then and they left their fossils for us to examine. Therefore, we can essentially see back in time to observe the evolution of life on this planet right in front of our eyes.

Just what is this "time factor" that you consider to be so problematic?

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 298 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:48 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3540 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 338 of 402 (474517)
07-09-2008 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 5:02 PM


Re: A fond farewell to John
Jogn 10:10,

By your standard, but not by mine.

Really?

You are prepared to put medicine into your body that is less well tested than the ToE?

Mark


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 5:02 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 339 of 402 (474519)
07-09-2008 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:04 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:

quote:
quote:
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.


Congratulations. You just did away with all of forensics. Most crimes don't have eye-witnesses. They can only be examined after the fact by the evidence that was left behind. By your logic, it is impossible to examine a crime scene and determine what happened. The only way to do it is to direcly observe it.

Is that what you're saying? The jails and prisons need to be opened up and most everybody let out?

If you disagree, if you instead claim that you can determine what happened by examining what was left behind, then one has to wonder why you are picking on paleobiology since it is the exact same technique.

Congratulations. You just did away with all of paternity testing. Paternity testing looks at the genomes of two organisms, looks for commonalities between them, and determines if one organism can be descended from the other given the way genes are passed on from one generation to the next. By your logic, that's impossible. The only way to determine if one organism is the parent of the other is to directly watch them reproduce across the entire reproductive cycle.

Is that what you're saying? All the support and custody arrangements that are based upon paternity testing need to be discarded?

If you disagree, if you instead claim that you can determine if one organism is the parent of another, then one has to wonder why you are picking on molecular genetics since it is the exact same technique.

You don't get to have it both ways. If a technique works, then it works even if you don't like the results.

quote:
Scientific research that is valuable is research that can be done in the time frame in which we live

Only direct observation counts? Congratulations. You just did away with Kepler. You know him. He's the one that figured out planetary motion (not circles but ellipses, equal areas in equal times, the period and radius of two planets are related by the squares of the former and the cubes of the latter). But, he didn't make the observations himself. Tycho Brahe did. Kepler didn't get any of the information until after Brahe died.

Is that what you're saying? All the information we have regarding planetary motion should be tossed away because none of us have made the direct observations but instead are relying on the reportings of someone else?

If you disagree, if you instead claim that you can take observations of other people and continue their work, then one has to wonder why you are picking on science since it is the exact same technique.

As Newton said regarding his own work: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Newton built on the work of others.

quote:
and can be proven to a high degree of accuracy within the time frame in which we live.

Indeed. That's why the theory of evolution is the fundamental theorem of all biology. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

If it were so inaccurate, why would the entire biological community depend upon it? Are you saying they are frauds engaged in a conspiracy?


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 300 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:04 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:40 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 340 of 402 (474520)
07-09-2008 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:07 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 341 of 402 (474521)
07-09-2008 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:12 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:12 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:45 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 342 of 402 (474522)
07-09-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:19 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by John 10:10, posted 07-09-2008 10:33 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 343 of 402 (474523)
07-09-2008 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:25 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:25 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 344 of 402 (474524)
07-09-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:43 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 345 of 402 (474525)
07-09-2008 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by John 10:10
07-08-2008 4:59 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:59 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019